I find it fascinating that certain folks tell us

[MannyGoldstein]

that attacking a Democratic candidate from the left is unbelievably dangerous, the work of fools and Rovian agents.

Interestingly, virtually the same group of folks remind of how critical it is to attack Democratic candidates over civil rights issues, in particular that Democratic candidate who has, by miles, the longest and strongest record on supporting civil rights for all.

I guess I'll just add this to the other mysteries of life understood by smarter people than I.

[villager]

1. Cui bono, eh?

[nashville_brook]

32. +1

[cui bono]

84. You rang?

[villager]

90. who benefits when cui bono posts!?

[cui bono]

120. Depends on who you ask.

[villager]

121. Now you have me wondering, "Who Watches the Watchmen?"

[djean111]

2. Oh, it is not a mystery at all!

And no matter how they try to shit on Bernie, there are no other candidates I would vote for.
Did you notice that it is bad for Progressives to state they will not vote, but downright admirable for other groups?

[NOLALady]

3. The Others.

They strike again!

[Hydra]

4. Funny how all the talking points got rolled out so quickly, wasn't it?

It's almost like beltway magic...

[wilsonbooks]

7. No, it almost like the whole thing was planned in advance.

[artislife]

9. Heh beltway magic....I hadn't heard that one

[daleanime]

14. Hey, you get what you pay for.....

[erronis]

15. If you were making several $100s of thousands a year as a beltway consultant

Couldn't you make up a bit of magic too?

This whole election/advertising/$$$ crap is obscene.

[Hydra]

16. Of course, it's why I mentioned it

Citizens United is having far reaching consequences. And money IS magic, both in the having and the taking away.

With ~$3, I can get a starving person lunch a really good lunch. Imagine what you can do with billions?

[sabrina 1]

53. There will be more, and we'll be ready for them also. It's sad how little they

have to say about their own candidate, but spend so much time attacking Bernie. A good sign I suppose, since it shows how much of a threat he is to the status quo.

[Triana]

5. Yep. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

6. Likewise, it would be works of fools and Rovian agents to attack a Democrat candidate who is younger

and still has spent her life supporting Civil Rights issues. Only think which Hillary can be faulted is she is six years younger than Bernie. Still it would be the works of fools and Rovian agents.

[George II]

29. Didn't you mean DemocratIC candidate?

[MannyGoldstein]

42. That was not a Freudian slip, of course. nt

[Thinkingabout]

49. Gotcha

[rhett o rick]

91. So was it really a slip? Or did you intend to say "Democrat candidate"?? nm

[A Simple Game]

39. Can only be faulted for being younger? Better put the thinking cap back on. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

58. Oh, is Hillary and Bernie the same age? Dont think so, Bernie was born in

1941 and Hillary was born in 1947, my brain tells me Bernie is six years older.

[A Simple Game]

96. Maybe I should have helped your brain by emphasizing the word "only." n/t

[Thinkingabout]

97. Perhaps a review of the op claiming one had been involved in civil rights "longer" to understand

When someone was older they could have a longer involvement than a younger person. I don't know where you are going with your "only" reply.

[A Simple Game]

99. I think you know where I was going, but I see your point in wanting to keep the focus narrow. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

109. It was focused on in the op

[A Simple Game]

112. I tried to open it up and you didn't take the bait, good for you. n/t

[eridani]

48. Six years younger and has had a brain operation n/t

[Thinkingabout]

57. What brain operation?

[Scootaloo]

79. She had an operation to clear a blood clot in 2013

remember when she fell, struck her head and suffered a concussion? The clot was probably a result of that.

it's not at all relevant to the campaign, of course.

[eridani]

86. What is relevant is that both of them need a young and healthy VP n/t

[Scootaloo]

88. Both are in very good health and have the best medical care available.

Look, maybe i'm a bit biased, seeing as I worked in an assisted living facility, and currently house-share with a 94 year-old woman who hiked from Cape Town to Cairo three months after a hip replacement... but I don't buy the "old and frail" memes being thrown at either of these candidates.

So long as neither of them taps in Joe Lieberman, I'm not going to sweat about their health in office.

[eridani]

89. Given my own personal history, I'm probably more paranoid than usual about this

Father died at 59, his mother at 53. At 68 I feel very much like I'm living on borrowed time. My husband's younger brother died in his sleep at age 64, and I think playing it safe if you are taking on a big responsibility like the presidency is the best policy.

[Betty Karlson]

92. Lieberman: now there is a warning from the past...

"Democrats for Bush" * shudders*

[Amimnoch]

110. Especially if Boner remains speaker of the house!

Just the prospect of the next President even possibly being Republican is terrifying enough, but the possibility, even remote, that Boehner could ascend to the Presidency through succession is the stuff of nightmares.

I've said before, somewhat tongue in cheek, that President Obama, and VP Biden should never be allowed to reside in the same city, much less the same building as long as Boehner is speaker of the house.

[awoke_in_2003]

78. That sounds like something

a republican would say.

[leveymg]

52. Actually, she hasn't "spent her life supporting Civil Rights issues." Please see, below.

HRC on the 1994 Crime Bill:

"We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The three strikes and you’re out for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets."

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2015/04/30/why-hillary-clinton-lacks-credibility-on-criminal-justice-reform/

HRC on Bill Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform:

Many of the advocates who knew Mrs. Clinton as a champion for the poor and working-class women felt betrayed in 1996 when, as first lady, she supported Mr. Clinton’s overhaul of the welfare system, which gave states more power to remove people from welfare rolls and pledged to cut federal spending on assistance for the poor by nearly $55 billion over six years...

Mrs. Clinton expressed no misgivings about the 1996 legislation, saying that it was a needed — and enormously successful — first step toward making poor families self-sufficient.

“Welfare should have been a temporary way station for people who needed immediate assistance,” she said. “It should not be considered an anti-poverty program. It simply did not work.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/us/politics/11welfare.html?pagewanted=print

However, welfare reform was a resounding failure, especially when mixed with Bill Clinton's War on Drugs. It marginalized single mothers of color who are low-income. Hillary Clinton was defending welfare reform in her 2008 run for POTUS.

Committing a drug crime was supposed to permanently ban a person from food stamps and welfare benefits under a little-discussed provision of the Clinton-Gingrich reforms...

The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty aren’t easily mixed. Making it harder to eat and pay rent won’t help someone busted for pot possession or small-time cocaine sales to recover economically and socially from years in prison. The bans ensure that every discriminatory effect of the drug war gets amplified economically even after the criminal justice system is done with a person. Because women are the primary recipients of both assistance programs, and women of color are more likely to get caught up in the racial disparities of the criminal justice system, the bans have ended up disproportionately affecting women of color and their children — and doing next to nothing to combat either drugs or poverty.

Source: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_A%20Lifetime%20of%20Punishment.pdf

HRC on The War on Drugs:

Hillary Clinton, while a U.S. Senator, opposed addressing the discrepancy in sentencing for using power cocaine vs crack cocaine, one fueling racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine — a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01rosen.html

HRC's "Tough-On-Crime" Policies Through The Years:

1996: In her book, “It Takes a Village,” Clinton again endorses the crime bill, and argues in favor of “zero-tolerance” policies for kids who break the rules at school.

2000: Clinton suggests that the death penalty has her “unenthusiastic support."

(Let's not forget than in application, the death penalty has affected people of color disproportionately.)

2007: Clinton votes “Yes” to reinstate her husband’s COPS initiative, a program for putting hundreds of thousands more police officers on the streets, to full $1.15 billion funding. She also co-sponsors the COPS Improvement Act, which would direct grant money toward the hiring of more anti-terror, anti-gang, and school-based police officers.

2007-2008: Clinton was for medical research into the benefits of marijuana, but not decriminalization.

2008: Clinton's campaign team plays the “soft on crime” card against Barack Obama. Her aides suggest to ABC News that candidate Obama's positions on criminal justice – including his opposition to mandatory-minimum sentences – are too liberal and out-of-touch with mainstream views.

2014: Later in the year, Clinton labeled marijuana a "gateway drug" where there "can't be a total absence of law enforcement."

Source: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/05/01/a-more-or-less-definitive-guide-to-hillary-clinton-s-record-on-law-and-order

with thanks to gobears10: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=460216

[Thinkingabout]

55. Actually this is not correct, she worked on Civil Rights issues while in college and marched just

Like Bernie.

Bernie was already in Congress when Bill Clinton was president, what did Bernie do to halt all these bad things? Bernie I responsible for not blocking the bills, since he was a member of the Congress which sent the bills to Clinton to sign, looks like he needs to step up and take responsibility for failing to convince other members it was wrong.

[leveymg]

59. Here's Bernie from 1991 speaking against the Clinton/Gingrich Imprisonment Bill. He hasn't changed

What happened to Hillary, the Voice of Lock 'em Up and Throw Away the Keys?

[Thinkingabout]

61. How could he be speaking in 1991 on the Clinton/Gingrich imprisonment bill, Bill

Clinton was not inaugurated until 1993?

[Snotcicles]

8. It is picking low hanging fruit. IMO nt.

[DanTex]

10. Some people just don't get it: only white males are allowed to attack from the left.

And if you're attacking from the left, you're only allowed to talk about corporatists and hedge fund managers. Social issues are off limits.

The rules are so simple, why can't people just follow them? It's almost like they want to make up their own minds. The horror!

[jalan48]

12. I would think social and economic issues are intertwined.

[AgingAmerican]

19. Why would anyone attack someone

With things that person agrees with? It defies rationale.

It is exactly what Rove did with the 'Purple heart bandaid' swiftboating.

[msanthrope]

20. I suspect once BLM begins talking about the TTP the OP will be OK with them. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

51. +1 n/t

[GoneFishin]

62. Not if they shout down their own allies when they try to agree with them and support them.

[msanthrope]

65. BLM is going to shout down Manny? Fascinating. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

67. I'm pretty sure that Manny isn't sure of how he feels about yesterday's

BLM action. This post isn't about that, but rather it's about the confusion in Manny's tiny brain caused by those who tell us how to think about those things, and about other things that seem similar but are obviously totally different.

Please be careful, counselor, not to read things into things that really aren't things.

[msanthrope]

74. Does Manny often speak of himself in the third person? Why does Manny see himself

as having a tiny head for things? Manny should perhaps lighten up on himself.

[bettyellen]

24. Only "folks" who have hated ALL the Dem leaders of the last twenty years know what's up.

Double plus good bonus points if they ALSO hated Dems prior to that, while helping vote Reagan into the White House.

[leveymg]

54. You tell 'em, Dan from Texas. An authentic voice from below. n/t

[Number23]

64. I think I love you. Just a little bit.

[SoapBox]

11. Suffice to say...

yup.

[whereisjustice]

13. Hey - I happen to know one Dem candidate who was openly against gay marriage before it became

advantageous to her own political ambitions to support it!

What better way to show your commitment to civil rights than to wait until there's enough money in it for you personally?

That's not being opportunistic, that's simply being prudent!

[Thinkingabout]

33. I know another DNC candidate who votes for gun control, gun violence kills many

Of our young black males.

[whereisjustice]

37. I don't think Sanders is a DNC candidate, but I agree he supports gun control

I'm pretty sure Sanders isn't the candidate the DNC is promoting.

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record: Strongly Opposes topic 10
NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1: Strongly Opposes topic 10
YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse: Strongly Favors topic 10
YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers: Strongly Favors topic 10
YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership: Favors topic 10
YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains: Favors topic 10

http://www.issues2000.org/House/Bernie_Sanders_HouseMatch.htm

[MannyGoldstein]

50. Given that the DNC is fundraising off of Bernie's name

I.e., "send us money so Bernie can win!", I think he's a DNC candidate.

[whereisjustice]

63. lol, DWS aka "Aunti Populist" is jumping on the Bernie bandwagon. I guess when you sign on

to run you agree that DNC can use your image/likeness/etc to solicit money.

I took myself off the DWS/DNC mailing list about the time of the "help save the DWS family dog" emails.

I just hope she isn't going to use the cash to fund her Republican friends.

[Fred Sanders]

17. The list of the mysteries of life is longer for some than others, I get it. Not all that fascinating

[Zorra]

18. The creepy ugliness has caused me to reconsider voting for Ms. Clinton if she

wins the nomination.

The lies clearly illustrate a lack of conscience that is an insult to the Democratic party and Democratic Underground.

Their way is the Third Way, and this way is clearly just as fucking evil as the republican party.

[MoonRiver]

22. Who cares, not me.

[Zorra]

25. Thanks for validating my point so perfectly. nt

[MoonRiver]

26. And thanks for exemplifying the out of control hate around here. n/t

[whereisjustice]

27. "reconsider voting for Ms. Clinton" - exemplifying out of control hate? Clinton isn't a

good Democratic Party candidate for president. She has a lot of economic policy baggage directly responsible for the meltdown of our standard of living.

What you call hate, I call a warning via her evasive policy statements, autocratic, insulated campaign style that she is going to push the party even farther to the right and farther away from working Americans. The fact of her 3rd way and DLC corporate-first economic policy (she was a Walmart director, after all) is something many people find objectionable.

That's not hate. That's perceptive analysis and advocating for a better quality of life for ALL Americans.

No apologies for interfering with the carefully manufactured narrative that Hillary represents rainbows and ponies.

[MoonRiver]

28. Whatever.

[Live and Learn]

41. I just love complex, verbose and momentous comebacks like these.

[MoonRiver]

45. You're pretty well versed too! A hoot really!

[LondonReign2]

115. Yeah, ethics be damned!

Hey, if it takes using racist dog whistles to try defeat your black opponent, so be it!
If it takes making attacks on your opponent's strength, a la Rove, so be it!
If it takes a fake accent to try to match the crowd, so be it!
If it takes made up stories about snipers, so be it!

JUST WIN BABY!

Amiright?

[LondonReign2]

117. I'm in ALIGNMENT with you!

Who cares how unethical a candidate is?!?!?!? I mean, racist dog whistles? As you said, "Who cares, not me."
Silly lies like coming under sniper fire or fake accents? "Who cares, not me."
Only coming to support LBGT right after it is politically expedient? "Who cares, not me."

See, we are in total agreement.

[MoonRiver]

118. Sorry I really did not understand what you were saying. My bad.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Are you for wage increases? Are you for healthcare?

[Live and Learn]

40. Sure, that is why we are rooting for Sanders.

Are you for status quo and doublespeak and militaristic bolstering?

[Thinkingabout]

44. Yes, this is two things to dislike Third Way, dammit, they want to have a plan.

[840high]

113. Yep

[gregcrawford]

21. "... by smarter people than I"?

... I don't imagine there are too many of them, Manny!

[lewebley3]

23. That is all Sanders supporters have been doing is attacking Hillary!

I am a progressive and I don't' support Sanders

[LWolf]

30. That's a crock of shit.

Ass Sanders' supporters have done, here at DU, was point out that Sanders has superior positions and record on almost every issue. That's not an "attack." It's reality.

[Live and Learn]

38. +1 nt

[whereisjustice]

43. But, but, but, Hillary has powerful friends and more money than Bernie, we shouldn't criticize her!

Who cares about the issues, I'm told wealth and power is all that matters.

[Thinkingabout]

46. What's more, we know her record and this is why I am supporting a candidate who has experience and a

Record on many issues.

[LWolf]

87. That's what I'm told every 4 years.

That issues don't matter, record doesn't matter, only a candidate with enough wealth and power to win, who will say vague things that sometimes sound good.

[Tommymac]

104. +1

[sabrina 1]

31. Well, it isn't working too well for them, is it? All I can say is if you spend money

on Rovian talking points, make sure you are not trying to turn the TRUTH into a LIE, it just won't work and it isn't working. But there has been a backlash for them, as you say, not good to use Rovian tactics on the Left, we are all too familiar with them.

[NealK]

35. Happily recced.

[aggiesal]

36. It's taking a strength and ...

trying to turn it into a weakness.
It's been done before, remember Joh Kerry.
It's called "Swiftboating"

Who else has the history and the experience of a Bernie Sanders
on civil rights matters, that is running for President?

Why is everyone only concentrating on Bernie?

Every candidate for president should be answering these questions.

[jeff47]

47. Actually, it's called ratfucking.

At least, that's what Atwater called it when he was the first to heavily use it.

Swiftboating was an instance of ratfucking.

[underthematrix]

56. this statement is FALSE and ILLOGICAL

" in particular that Democratic candidate who has, by miles, the longest and strongest record on supporting civil rights for all." We have civil rights legislation because white people, that's right white people do not play well with others. The point of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was one of President Johnson's signature bills was necessary because WHITES were depriving BLACK folks of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW with Jim Crow. Now when I think of Bernie in relation to civil rights, he clearly is not in the same universe as President Johnson, MLK, John kenndy, Malcom X, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, or Bill DeBlasio. In terms of candidates, HRC is also light years ahead of Bernie. HRC has had RELATIONSHIPS for years with members of the AA both public and private. Bernie doesn't have that. You Bernie continue to miss the point. Ideas that are NOT grounded in relationship with people are meaningless.

[MannyGoldstein]

66. Is that Hillary in the corner?

When Bernie endorsed Jesse Jackson for President?

[kath]

75. That was 1988. Right around the time Bill and Hillary were busy expanding the Koch-funded DLC.

Yeah, HRC and the DLC have been great supporters of civil rights!

[beam me up scottie]

60. Especially since quite a few of the HC supporters told lgbt people to shut up in 2013.

Someone opened my eyes today and now I can see.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. I know of one in particular - were there several?

Ouch.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Oh yes.

And the but that was different excuses have begun to pop up.

Pesky search function.

[Prism]

71. Politics as fandom

Like rooting for a football team. What's cool and totally out of bounds varies on which team it's happening to. DU has a solid cohort of people who treat politics and ideology precisely like that. But they're so damn easily spotted, it's almost impossible not to run around and have a little fun with them.

I must've been on sabbatical for the Lesbian of Ultra Privilege post. Never saw it before. But, man. That one was banworthy.

[beam me up scottie]

72. No double standards here, no sir.

I was away from DU as well when that happened.

No minority should be told to stfu and sit down here.

[Prism]

73. And it creates an internal war

Because, I admit, I would dearly love to go to absolute town on the hypocrites who suddenly care about how an oppressed community expresses itself once they think it helps their candidate after they spent years shouting others down. There's definitely a personal, very petty impulse to take the other side just because those posters "deserve it" given the misery they've spread. I'd love to fight that fight, if only for shits and giggles.

But I can't.

Because BLM is too important, what is happening to the African American community is too egregious. They need a nation's attention and a nation's will to be raised up to an equal place in our society. So, I can't get on board and join the purely political battle. I don't want any single word I say against people who have it coming to be construed that I am against in even the slightest fashion BLM and what they stand for.

(I think the only words I've said against it were the destruction in Berkeley where I live and work, and the shutting of the expressway, which I thought dangerous).

It doesn't matter if I personally thought what happened at NN was good or bad, helpful or harmful, good for my candidate or damaging. What matters is what those at the heart of BLM thought. If that's what they felt they needed to do, so be it. Go to town.

Edit: Oh! I apparently did see that post, because I responded in the thread. LOL. Buh. I can't even remember what I posted last week.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Nailed it as usual, Prism.

I understand the anger, frustration and fear that compels minorities to act out.

It's not up to me to tell them they're doing it wrong.

[Prism]

80. This, yes.

Kind of. I have so many addendum and contingencies that I can't go 100% in on that sentiment. (i.e. claiming "whore" is a gendered slur against Clinton when we've been calling male politicians that forever). But, you know, the basic idea is right =)

[beam me up scottie]

81. There's that context thingy again.

[Prism]

83. How dare you!

Never speak that word on this message board again!

[m-lekktor]

98. exactly. nt

[Prism]

70. Situational ethics go both ways

There's no denying some Clinton supporters are suddenly all about heckling and attacks from the Left.

And.

There's no denying that some Sanders supporters are suddenly very unhappy that their candidate came in for a little of the treatment they were hoping for Hillary.

This whole kerfuffle is somewhat demoralizing. My wish is that all of the candidates come together and stomp out this racial division early on, by speaking individually and as a group about the need for justice for African Americans in America. Think of something along the lines of President Obama's race speech. A cooperative effort. For the good of the party and the country.

Now, I know politics are cynical and it won't happen. But it is so damn early for all this. We're already turned all the way up to 11. Another year of this damage, and we might as well hand the White House and the Supreme Court to the GoP.

[99Forever]

82. Bloody stupifying, it is.

These are some reeeeeally way smart superbeings.

[TM99]

85. Hypocrisy at its finest?

Or is it do as I say and not as I do?

Wait, may it is what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

Ah, hell, I can't figure it out either.

[BainsBane]

93. I don't see attacks from the left, quite the opposite

I see people who oppose social activism, who insist the Black Lives Matters protesters owe members of the elite an apology. What some claim is leftism is reverence to the political elite and open opposition to the subaltern. I see a movement of people who want the white upper-middle and middle class to regain what they see as their birthright atop the capitalist world order. Concern for the white middle and upper-middle class to the exclusion of the majority is not leftism. Fretting that Ivy Leagers don't automatically walk into 6 figure jobs as they once did--because they have to compete on somewhat less uneven playing field--isn't leftism. Rather, it is a lament for the decline of class and race privilege.


The hostility expressed on this site toward the black lives matters made clear precisely what some here value, and it isn't leftist activism. Leftism doesn't involve telling black people to be quiet, to insist they owe members of the political elite an apology because those black folk didn't stay in their place. Such an ideology is as far removed from leftism as can possibly be.
.
Saying the word leftist doesn't make one a leftist. Holding one member of the political elite above the citizenry is anything but leftism. That people like to repeatedly refer to themselves as leftist doesn't make it so. Leftist ideology is determined through the extent to which one champion's the subaltern and equality in all of its manifestations. How many here would be willing to relinquish their 6 figure incomes to bring about a truly equitable society? How many would be willing to live close to the global or even national median? Would you be willingly to live on 1/10 of what you now so that others might not go hungry, without medical care, and housing?

We know now too many here think Black Lives Matters need to be reverential. We know they oppose that social movement to address the epidemic of violence and murder of African Americans, and we know people are far more concerned that their chosen candidate came off looking badly--through no one's fault but his own--than with the activists who seek justice for lives of the deceased and to stop the epidemic of state sanctioned murder of people of color. We have seen that for some, those lives pale in comparison to the political fortunes of one member of the political elite. Insisting black protesters need to stay in their place, keep quiet and be reverential to great men is far removed from leftism. Repeating the term leftist over and over again means nothing. What matters is action, and people here have demonstrated that they oppose leftist activism and instead advance a narrow agenda that benefits them to the exclusion of the majority. .

I see an increasing turn to the right, as is evidenced the the use of NRA tropes like "using a tragedy." Those are conservative positions, as it the condemnation of black lives matter. Repeating the word leftist over and over against means nothing compared to opposition toward social activism, compared to placing the political fortunes of a politician above the lives those activists champion.

[nc4bo]

95. +1 nt

[raouldukelives]

103. I too see that turn to the right.

"Saying the word leftist doesn't make one a leftist. Holding one member of the political elite above the citizenry is anything but leftism. That people like to repeatedly refer to themselves as leftist doesn't make it so. Leftist ideology is determined through the extent to which one champion's the subaltern and equality in all of its manifestations. How many here would be willing to relinquish their 6 figure incomes to bring about a truly equitable society? How many would be willing to live close to the global or even national median? Would you be willingly to live on 1/10 of what you now so that others might not go hungry, without medical care, and housing?"

I have and will continue to do so. There are those that invest in and labor for Wall St, corporate media and corporate politicians like Mike Huckabee and there are those who wish other voices to be heard.

Thanks to Citizens United, it is abundantly clear we have as loud a voice as shareholders will allow us to have.

[SunSeeker]

94. Speaking of mysteries, why did Bernie vote to enable racist Minuteman militias?

I knew about his pro gun votes, but was floored to read here tonight about him voting for that vile GOP amendment to the Homeland Security Bill that banned informing Mexico about America civilian border vigilantes (the racist Minuteman groups).

In 2006, the then-Republican majority in Congress wrote into law protections for anti-immigrant, racist vigilante groups. Even though the militia groups are involved in unsanctioned, armed activity along the Mexican-American border, the Republicans barred the US government from notifying the Mexican authorities about potential dangers to their citizens living or traveling near the US-Mexico border.

The amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill reads:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”

(I bolded for emphasis) The Congressional Record shows the Dems were livid. Dem rep. Loretta Sanchez from California demanded a recorded vote, not a mere anonymous voice vote. Here's the Congressional Record link to Sanchez' comments and that Amendment language
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971

The language prohibited notifications of activity only in the states of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona - all states on the Mexican border. No such prohibition applied, of course, to groups operating in the border states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Maine or Sen. Sanders' home state, Vermont. But then again, these militias are not trying to keep out white Canadians. They are only concerned with our brown southern neighbor, Mexico.

Republicans in Congress were protecting their base: the anti-immigrant racists and gun nuts, both of which were personified in the "Minuteman" groups, the members of which arm themselves and play illegitimate border patrol. But why did Bernie vote YES?
Thanks to Loretta Sanchez, here's the link to the recorded vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml

The amendment passed with 293 votes, including those of 69 Democrats. Some of those Democrats were too afraid to vote otherwise given Bush's victory in 2004, and others were too conservative. But none of them claims to be progressive. Except Bernie Sanders.

Thanks to this amendment that Sanders voted for, leaders of the vigilante border militia groups are going around openly talking about putting bullets between the eyes of Mexicans and Latin Americans along the border, and gunning down American citizens in their homes and murdering them. These are no idle threats. One Minuteman militia group murdered two latino American citizens, a father and his 9 year old daughter, in 2009. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

[Enthusiast]

100. Manny, it is one of the great mysteries, like the tides, which we cannot explain.

Tides go in, tides go out. It's all a big mystery.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL] [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[marym625]

101. Bingo!

[NealK]

102. Kick!

[randome]

105. Yet another thread about other threads.

It's not the first time you've referenced 'smarter' people. Sounds like a self-esteem issue.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

106. There are no people smarter than you, Manny.

This is most certainly true. (Thanks to Martin Luther)

[ananda]

111. So ... are there no other ways to draw attention..

.. to civil rights issues than to attack your allies?

Of course there are.

I get that Black people are upset at all the racism among the horrible police officers
who do so much harm to Blacks. I'm upset too.

But I don't see how Blacks ambushing their allies is going to do anything but hurt.

The perfectly pure candidate does not exist among the Dems. But any Reep alternative
will be so much worse it hardly bears thinking about.

[Kurovski]

114. I just hope Mr. Sanders refrains from screaming.

(Please note avatar provided.)

Bernie's not related to the Colonel, is he?

[MoonRiver]

119. Hahaha!