Hillary Clinton supporters can't attack Bernie Sanders on policy

[gobears10]

So they try to smear him with personal attacks, calling him a racist and/or sexist. Or pointing how he said "I'm not a Democrat." They're derailing the conversation, and diverting attention away from the actual policy issues that matter, where on pretty much every single major issue besides gun control, Sanders has been far more consistently progressive than Clinton.

And even on guns, he's not horrible or anything, he has a D- from the NRA. Vermont's Howard Dean got endorsed by the NRA several times when he was governor, and Vermont's current congressman, Peter Welch, a Democrat, has an A rating from the NRA.

But this campaign has gotten way too personal, and it's all because of the Clinton camp, because they don't really care about substance and actual policy that much. If you want to criticize him, stick to actual policy and the issues that matter. Don't resort to irrelevant personal attacks.

[upaloopa]

1. We are winning there is no need to attack Sanders.

We have a 30 point lead with 3 months to the first primary.
Bernie can't make that uo with the narrow range of Dem support he has.

[rhett o rick]

7. Exactly. So why are you attacking him? Why do you call him a racist or sexist if you don't need to

You have the billionaires on your side so you'd think that'd be enough. Buy no, just continue with the attacks to distract from her horrible stands on issues?

The billionaires may buy this round but the People will sooner or later prevail.

[Live and Learn]

105. It is not a friggen football game. If you 'win', the country loses.

Nothing to cheer about.

[senz]

109. It's too bad they can't understand that.

If she wins (and they think "they" win), their children and grandchildren will lose in the long run.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

151. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

153. Well said.

[bravenak]

2. He has no foreign policy experience.

He has built no coalitions broad enough to appeal to the party demographic. No superdelegates. Few endorsements. Small number of black voters, very important in southern states and swing states. Lack of leadership ability, peter principle comes to mind. Pessimistic worldview. Repetitive. No solutions to the issues he brings up. Inability to direct his grassroots in a positive direction. Much more.

[gobears10]

3. you're proving my point

you're focusing on red herrings than the actual policy issues that matter. i don't care if clinton is "experienced" or "qualified" if her political skills and jujitsu will lead us further down the road to oligarchy and militarism

[bravenak]

25. He plans on using drones. What else will he decide to use?

[bobbobbins01]

119. Common Sense

[Skidmore]

122. It seems to me that

Bravenak pointed to a big concern for me: "No solutions to the issues he brings up." And the ones he does have, he appears to be unable to present in a manner which rises above the grousing.

[rhett o rick]

8. I welcome "no foreign policy experience" to killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Do you simply write them off as collateral damage or a mistake as HRC does?

Super delegates etc. are tools of a non-Democratic system. The People want change from the corruption of the status quo of big money controlling our government.

[bravenak]

23. No. He plans on using drones.

[rhett o rick]

43. So are you being critical because he supports our President? nm

[bravenak]

44. No. I just want us to all have the same facts. No halos. Just people with flaws,all of them and us.

[NorthCarolina]

131. So, Hillary would use other peoples kids as Meat Shields in foreign wars

So no, I'm not so worried about Bernie and "drones". Nice try though.

[bravenak]

169. Bernie has not ruled out boots on the ground. Where did he say never?

[NorthCarolina]

194. He didn't, but I think it's safe to say he would be far FAR more hesitant than Hillary. eom

[Cal33]

211. Bernie has said he would not use war as a first resort, but only as the last. Telling the whole

world what he exactly would and would not do would be highly foolish, indeed. This would
let all dictators know how far they can go. He has to keep dictators guessing, there is no
other choice for him. This is common sense.

[eridani]

75. Well, I am. I expect to be on the streets against some of his foreign policy initiatives

But that will still mean much less work than also having to defend Social Security from Clinton and her buddy Pete Peterson, fighting TPP and Keystone XL, etc.

[eridani]

10. Yes he does. He voted against the Iraq War

If red states pass minimum wage increases and and the same time defeat candidates from the party advocating such increases, there is something wrong with the messaging. Timidly tiptoeing around stuff that Repubs might let us have instead of saying where we would like to go.

Some solutions--
$15/hr
Medicare for All
Free public university paid for by financial transactions tax
Scrap the cap and increase Social Security benefits.
End the War on Some Drugs
Scrap TPP and similar deals

Clinton--no vision whatsoever of where she would like us to go except what she has borrowed from Sanders.

[bravenak]

28. My state IS that RED state.

We legalized cannibis. Raised the minimum and tied it to inflation. Stopped some progress on pebble mine and it's ever so lovely pollution. Things are getting done on the state level. The tea party congress will do nothing with him and he has no coattails to help Dem races down ticket. And he rarely campains for Dems so we cannot count on him boosting our numbers in the house or the state races.

[eridani]

68. It's Clinton that has no coattails. Show me where the alienated 63% are organizing--

--on her behalf. BTW, isn't CO purple? Sanders could get a few TP folks to vote for him--provided they decide they hate banksters more than immigrants. Not a chance of that happening with Clinton.

[bravenak]

86. Sanders has no support as far as coalitions.

If anybody thinks for a second that the Obama coalition is excited enough to show for Sanders over Clinton I have some lovely farm land round near the mudflats to sell them.
Will black folks brave long lines in swing states for Sanders or for Clinton?
Who will the older demographic show up in force for? They ALWAYS vote.
Young millennials are not reliable voters, but older ones like myself show up.
Who will black women show for? We vote in record numbers and we know Bernie said that it would be good to primary Obama.
Who do the Democratic voters know the best?
You think telling me that tea partiers would vote for Bernie makes him more palatable? NOOOO. I find the idea of bringing right wing votes scary as hell.

[eridani]

93. Nobody right now in my state is interested in self-organizing for Clinton

The young ones organizing for Sanders are the first alienated ones I've ever seen organizing and not in the context of doorbelling (where they tell you where you can put your sample ballot, sideways.) . As far as black voters showing up for Clinton, she was the candidate of "hardworking people, white people." Sanders has never used a racist dogwhistle in his life.

[bravenak]

100. I go to school with 'the young ones' right now.

Only about ten percent give a damn about voting. Regardless of Clinton's past statements, how does bernie do better? We should just go to him because she said that? Why? Who is he that he is so much better with the black populace?
Does he hire blacks alot?
Spend any time with black groups, groups of voters, community organizations, youth committees? Anything?
What has he accomplished with us as a group? How much attention does he give directly to our community?
How often does he show up to black areas and speak with us without us having to battle through the white areas and Rand Paul brand new liberals to see him?
What has he done on gun violence?
Drug violence? Drug courts?

People can say he is our best friend but best friends have issues and spend time together. Our relationship with Clinton is not perfect but they have one with us. He does not.

[eridani]

114. You prefer Clinton on the War on Some Drugs? Jezus H Keerist on a raft!

Sanders has come out for legalization of MJ at the state level. Heard that he had been considering national, but can't find a reference. Clinton was a cheerleader for the mass incarceration of the 90s. She has not even committed to moving MJ from schedule 1. The War on Some Drugs is a war on minorities and poor people. Drug violence is mostly due to the huge profits available when it is illegal, and Clinton seems to want to keep it that way.

Taking time from his campaign to visit Arkansas for the execution of mentally disabled Ricky Ray Rector was pretty vile when Bill did it. This is supposed to be connecting with the black community? Though I suspect that Hillary probably tried to overrule him on that and failed. (At least I hope she did.)

Sanders has a black press secretary. I have little contact with Sanders staff due to living in a late caucus state, one in which Clinton operatives in 2008 threatened the chair of my local Dem organization with no political career unless she backed the inevitable nominee. Sanders has met with BLM activists in Portland that I know of.

On gun violence, he has a D minus from the NRA, as opposed to the A rating of the current Vermont Representative, and Howard Dean in 2004. What has anyone accomplished to end gun violence? We couldn't even get anywhere with stricter background checks after Sandy Hook, which is discouraging. Larger population centers have tougher laws already, necessary because of urban anonymity.

Are you saying that $15/hr minimum wage, public college tuition paid for by a financial transaction tax, Medicare for All are of no concern to the black community? Or helping foreclosure victims instead of banks, when so many black families were pushed into subprime loans instead of regular loans that they were actually qualified to get? Black families are fine with deindustrialization due to "free" "trade"?

[bravenak]

171. You do realize that Sanders voted for mass incarceration a part of 'the war on drugs'.

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

He voted for manditory minimums, so please stop with this fantasy that he and only he has always done the perfect thing. He has not. So Hillary may of cheered, but Bernie helped bring it to fruition. I know exactly what the drug war is and who it hurts. I am living it right now. When people lecture me in particular I laugh because I know I am probably the only one here who lived that life.
You can quote numbers, I can tell their stories, my stories, and actually bring real life experience of living in this shit to the table. You guys are mere observers.
I know exactly about drug violence. Hell, I was born during the gang war and have cousins who are OG's and started their own crews. If you wanna know ANYTHING about drug war, gang wars, being jumped into gangs, being shot at, burying friends, family, finding bodies? Ask me. Boy do I have stories. Nothing you can say can pump fear into my heart and my cynicism prevents me from thinking Bernie will get it any better than her.

So knowing I have been shot at, in gangs, drug war, why the hell would I ignore his vote on guns? Do you know how many funerals I have gone to? Friends dead? Family? I remember my cousin being shot in the chest three times with a sawed off shotgun. Lived. Illegal gun, private purchase, bought across state lines. Please think about that.


As far as minimum wage and his plans for college? Bullshit. He can get nothing passed this congress and won't even tell how he plans to do it. I think he is blowing smoke. But number one. Our schools, the black ones do not get our kids up to the level of college and administrators and teacher are racist. Period. Look at how many black kids get arrested at school.

[eridani]

208. So, you think Hillary can get gun control passed?

The Repubs hate her more than Sanders, so she'd have a much harder time dealing with a Republican congress. Is Sanders taking money from private prisons? Clinton is.

[pinebox]

14. Same shit different year

[bravenak]

31. So is Bernie. Did you see him at the debate? What WAS he TALKING about?!?!

[pinebox]

144. What was he talking about? Simple.

Us. The American people. People are sick and tired of worrying about shit over seas which we have no business involved in and it's time WE are thought about.

If Hillary is so schooled in foreign policy, why did she vote for Iraq and why is she threatening Iran with war? Hmmm?
Your argument however isn't really one and is pretty weak. It didn't matter with Obama and it won't matter with Bernie. Guess what? It didn't matter with Bush or Clinton either.

When it comes to foreign policy, Bernie is the Democrat and Hillary is the Republican.

Hillary Clinton will pull the Democrats — and the country — in a hawkish direction
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8395917/hillary-clinton-hawk

If Hillary Clinton wins her party's nomination, she'll be the most hawkish Democratic nominee since the Iraq War began.

Democrats have grown deeply skeptical of foreign wars since Iraq — a fact reflected in Barack Obama's more restrained foreign policy.

If Clinton skates to victory, she will take a more aggressive approach to world politics, pulling the party in a new direction without much of a debate. And if she were to win the presidency, both the party and American foreign policy itself could change in a big way.

Clinton has been out of step with Democrats on foreign policy for a long time

Nobody has time for that.

[bravenak]

170. I meant what was he talking about on Foreign policy. He answered questions not asked.

[Thinkingabout]

34. Is this before ar after she was Secretary of State? Even in 2007-2008 Clinton was better than

Sanders on foreign affairs. I don't know why one of his supporters would even bring up foreign when comparing to Hillary Clinton.

[JonLeibowitz]

60. Yet she voted for the Iraq War. More experienced? maybe (arguable). Poor Judgement? definitely n/t

[Thinkingabout]

67. I was responding to post #14

[JonLeibowitz]

69. In 2007 she was weak on foreign policy because of a screwup on such a big vote.

Maybe I am confused about what you were originally trying to say. If that's the case, I apologize.

[Thinkingabout]

72. I was responding to post #14 was the information supplied in 2007-2008 before she became

Secretary of State.

[JonLeibowitz]

74. I'm sorry, I don't follow at all, since the vote on Iraq had already occurred. But have a nice night

[ohheckyeah]

94. And he voted for the war in Afghanistan,

so his judgment is flawed.

[beam me up scottie]

104. You're really equating Afghanistan and Iraq?

[ohheckyeah]

117. It's a war, isn't it?

Still going on and for what? Wars in Afghanistan don't usually go well for the attackers,something that was ignored. Yes, Iraq was unnecessary, Afghanistan was just plain STUPID and unnecessary. But, heh, ra rah ree, we got bin Laden in PAKISTAN.

[beam me up scottie]

120. Oh the irony. A HC supporter complaining about Bernie's war votes!

Let me know when Bernie starts giggling with glee at the thought of war, until then you really should check that hypocrisy because your candidate never met a war she didn't like.

[riversedge]

134. The poster made a valid point about Sanders voting for Afgan war and you digress. Rove would be

proud of you.

[beam me up scottie]

136. No the poster broke my irony meter.

Good thing I bought stock in the company before discussing war with HC supporters.

[riversedge]

139. Just more snark-nothing of substance.

[beam me up scottie]

142. Just pointing out the absurdity.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were completely different and if they're anti war why are they voting for the hawk?

Makes no sense.

Bernie voted to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he attacked us. Saddam not only didn't attack us he wasn't even a threat.

[reddread]

159. we saw. he died. she came.

[ohheckyeah]

179. I don't own

any candidates.

The irony of a Bernie supporter complaining about Clinton's war votes when he voted for the incredibly stupid Afghanistan war. And, I wasn't complaining, merely pointing out the hypocrisy. I don't support any of the votes for war and that includes Bernie's vote.

How's that Afghanistan war thing working out for us? How did it work out for Russia?

[pinebox]

146. Do you understand why Bernie for Afghanistan?

I'm thinking you perhaps don't.

Please have a read here http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-afghanistan/
Are you aware that Bernie voted against the Defense Authorization Bill in 2008 as example which authorized over $600 Billion in military spending? In 2009, Bernie opposed the 40,000 troop surge. When Obama announced the timetable for withdraw in 2011, Bernie said this;

“This country has a $14.5 trillion national debt, in part owing to two wars that have not been paid for. We have been at war in Afghanistan for the last 10 years and paid a high price both in terms of casualties and national treasure. This year alone, we will spend about $100 billion on that war. In my view, it is time for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for waging the war against the Taliban. While we cannot withdraw all of our troops immediately, we must bring them home as soon as possible. I appreciate the president’s announcement, but I believe that the withdrawal should occur at significantly faster speed and greater scope.”

Your candidate, Hillary voted YES for this bill.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/47/military-personnel

[ohheckyeah]

177. My candidate? I don't

own any, thanks. I don't care about anybody's bullshit reason for voting for a war in Afghanistan - it was stupid. Ask the Russians how it worked out for them. Did everyone who voted for or supports that war develop amnesia?

I wouldn't click a link that starts with the juvenile "feelthebern" if you paid me.

[pinebox]

184. truth hurts

doesn't it. You can whine all you want but your candidate is a war hawk.

[ohheckyeah]

187. LOL

I don't whine. Can't address the actual context of the post, can you?

[eridani]

71. Because she's for endless war and he isn't

Because Iranians are not our enemies. Ayatollahs, maybe, but not Iranians. Not that I'm actually holding any hope that merely electing Sanders would by itself do anything about the MIC.

[Thinkingabout]

78. He said he would take military action and use drones, doesn't sound like

He would not use military action.

[eridani]

82. Starting more wars is something to expect from Clinton

Supporting the Iraq invasion and the Libya debacle are not good recommendations. "We came. We saw. He died." is morally disgusting. I'm sure that the women of libya are enjoying the resulting war of each against all. Certainly Sanders could use military action, but he has expressed doubt about every recent new front opened in the Middle East. He is capable of learning from the fact that toppling dictators there has always resulted in chaotic failed states. Maybe Clinton can. Or not.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/28/sanders-questions-war-in-libya/

This country has a $14 trillion dollar national debt. We are currently fighting a...neverending war in Afghanistan. We are still in Iraq, and I think a lot of people are worried about how long we are going to be in this war in Libya," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. "I hope the president tells us essentially we are going to get out as soon as we possibly can."

And there is no doubt in this senator's mind that the U.S. is at war with Libya, despite Administration officials' denials and the president's promise that no U.S. ground forces will be committed to the struggle against Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi.

"I think when somebody drops bombs on other people, usually I think we refer to that as a war," Sanders said, adding that Congress could very well have a role to play in the current situation. The senator, who has in the past supporting a defunding of the U.S. war in Iraq, said, "I think one of the things many people are upset about is this war took place without consultation of the Congress, without debate within the Congress. Look, everybody understands Qaddafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but i think in the midst of two wars, I'm not quite sure we need a third war, and I hope the president tells us that our troops will be leaving there, that our military action in Libya will be ending very, very shortly."

[Thinkingabout]

149. Yes I see many post about Clinton starting wars and then I hear Sanders say he will,

I believe Sanders would also start a war, what is the difference, he says he will also use drones and he votes for their production on regular basis. You can't call one a war hawk and not the other.

[pinebox]

147. Meanwhile

Bernie voted against the National Defense Authorization bill in 2008, your candidate voted for it https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/47/military-personnel
Sorry but Hillary is a hawk and this is one argument you aren't going to win.

[840high]

20. Better than killing people -

[bravenak]

21. Like with the drones Bernie plans on continuing?

[Thinkingabout]

37. His voting on the Brady Bill amd reluctance to move away fron the NRA and we have had more

Americans to die from gun violence than Iraq. Killing is killing, more are still dying because we have congressional members who are too tied to the NRA to vote the people's wishes.

[jfern]

26. "No foreign policy experience" is a lot better than being the ultimate hawk like Hillary

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/30/1442802/-Make-no-mistake-A-vote-for-Hillary-is-a-vote-for-war

[polly7]

30. Great article. nt.

[bravenak]

32. They both approve of drones, giving bombs to Netanyahu...

Neither is better to me.

[jfern]

33. You really don't see a difference?

Bernie voted against the Iraq war, Kyl-Lieberman, opposes ground troops in Syria, voted against cluster bombs, didn't support the coup against the democratically elected President of the Honduras and so on.

Only 2% of congress voted against military aid to Israel.

[bravenak]

39. I am pro palestinian.

All of the candidates are opposed to my positions. After Gaza, I knew that nobody was my type on war and peace issues.

[jfern]

47. Well, yes almost every politician takes the side of Israel

But Hillary promised she'll be more pro-Israel than Obama.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-jewish-donors-israel-119705

While Bernie is more pro-Israel than you'd like, he's certainly not as pro-Israel as Hillary.

This relative silence on Israel-related issues, however, seems to have broken during and after the 2014 Gaza conflict, during which 72 Israelis and over 2,100 Palestinians were killed, the majority of them civilians. In an undated statement on his Senate website, Sanders decried “the Israeli attacks that killed hundreds of innocent people – including many women and children,” calling the bombings “disproportionate” and “completely unacceptable.”

In mid-July 2014, Sanders was one of just 21 Senators not to co-sponsor a resolution expressing support for Israel in the conflict with Hamas. The resolution passed on July 17 by unanimous consent, meaning that no roll call vote was taken on the measure.

http://forward.com/news/national/310087/is-bernie-sanders-a-lefty-except-for-israel

[bravenak]

48. I watched Bernie yell at a constituent over it. Samesies.

[jfern]

49. No, it's not samsies

Hillary is more pro Israel than either Bernie or Obama. That's a fact.

[bravenak]

52. Barely.

[jfern]

212. No, not at all barely. See this post and the corresponding OP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251767791#post16

[Scuba]

132. I think voting against the Iraw War Resolution is excellent foreign policy experience. How about ..

... your candidate? How did she vote?

[bravenak]

174. Well he voted for war before. Nothing preventing him from it again.

People died in there too. The IWR does not decide my vote. I remember the panic.

[Qutzupalotl]

188. Sanders did not let that panic cloud his judgement.

[bravenak]

189. How so? He voted for Afganistan. Nobody can win that. Ask Russia. Not thinking clearly obviously.nt

[Qutzupalotl]

193. He saw through Rumsfeld's lies on Iraq and did his homework. Clinton didn't.

[Martin Eden]

172. Hillary's "foreign policy experience" is the biggest reason she lost my vote

Her vote to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq is inexcusable, and rather than learn from that catastrophe she is still very much a hawk.

[bravenak]

173. Ok.

[Martin Eden]

175. I'll take that as an agreement with my post ...

... that Hillary's vote for the IWR is inexcusable and she is still very much a hawk.

Excellent reasons why HRC should not be POTUS.

[bravenak]

182. She has that vote. He had his vote for mass incarceration.

She will use drones. He will use drones. She hasn't ruled out boots on the ground. He hsn't ruled out boots on the ground. She plans to fund the IDF and Netanyahu. He plans to fund the IDF and Netanyahu. He has voted for war. She has voted for war. Different times but both voted for war all the same. I really do not see why folks think he is this sweet dove while she is this deadly hawk. She voted for the same war he voted to pump a trillion bucks into.

[Martin Eden]

190. Specifically, which "mass incarceration" vote are you referring to?

Also, there is no equivalency in your other statements, especially:

He has voted for war. She has voted for war.

[bravenak]

192. Omnibus crime bill. Look it up. Good and bad in it. A compromise.

She voted for war like Iraq. He voted for war like afganistan. I think Kosovo too. Did nothing for the Hutus and the Tutsis. No urging intervention. See? I would have sent troops to Kosovo and Africa. Not the Middle East. I'd still consider sending a BUNCH of troops after those Boko Haram monsters. A war vote does not make or break my vote. Isis? Bomb them. See? I wanna bomb Isis to smithereens. I hate them. I know we have fault for creating them. But that evil woman kidnapping raping head chopping off crazy warlord insane religious freak stuff? Bomb them. Get as many woman and children out, fly over with leaflets warning of the bomb and hope you don't get too much collateral. I was thinking about it last night and decided that maybe I'M the WAR HAWK TOO.

[Martin Eden]

195. Omnibus Crime Bill does not remotely compare with the IWR vote.

Nor do Kosovo or Afghanistan. One was a legitimate mission to stop ethnic cleansing, and the other was to go after the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Both had the full backing of our NATO allies.

I supported those actions as well. I am not automatically against all military intervention.

I think you would agree that each has to be judged on its own merits -- not only whether it's justified, but also whether military action can actually achieve the objective and will do more good than harm.

The case for war in Iraq was built on a foundation of lies. This was increasingly obvious by October 2002. It was a key part of the neocon PNAC agenda, and once given the authority Bush would invade no matter what. These circumstances have no equivalency with Kosovo or Afghanistan. Some senators & reps stood up in Congress to speak out against the rush to invade Iraq. More than half the Democrats in congress voted against the IWR. Several of our key European allies who supported us in the other conflicts were against it.

There really is no comparison in terms of justification and the kind of judgment that is critically important in a Commander In Chief.

In terms of horrible consequences, the differences are orders of magnitude -- not only for the Middle East, but for our country as well.

You have not made a credible case to justify Hillary's vote for the IWR. Instead, you're trying to lump together a bunch of other things that really don't compare.

Hillary Clinton lost my vote that day, as did John Kerry and Joe Biden. There was no excuse for it. The consequences are even worse than many of us predicted at the time.

Hillary Clinton has done nothing since then to convince me she won't show such abysimally poor judgment going forward in matters of war and peace. Everything we hope to accomplish for the American people at home -- universal health care, education, rebuilding our infrastructure, gearing up for sustainable energy -- has taken a back seat to the $trillions spent on the disastrous war of choice in Iraq.

We need fundamental change to this militaristic foreign policy, or very little progress can be made.

There is an enormous difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in this matter, and Bernie is the clear choice.

[bravenak]

196. For black folks it DOES COMPARE. Millions of us in jail. For bullshit. It compares.

[Martin Eden]

199. Promoted by and signed into law by Bill Clinton

If Hillary held elective office at the time, do you seriously doubt she would have signed it?

And, like you said, it was a huge funding bill with lots of stuff (good & bad) in it; a compromise.

Overall, Sanders has a very good (progressive) record on crime & punishment:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Crime.htm

In terms of what might be expected going forward in achieving justice -- if there is any difference between Clinton & Sanders, and if this issue is high on your priority list -- I believe Sanders is your candidate.

In terms of senseless wars and our citizens in uniform being needlessly killed & maimed and our treasury being drained of funds that should be put to better use, there is no comparison:
Bernie Sanders is your candidate.

[bravenak]

200. Not voting for Bill. But I know Bernie would have signed it. He voted for it.

Bernie probably is better on it. But he is too depressing.

[Martin Eden]

201. "Bernie probably is better on it. But he is too depressing."

You admit Bernie is "probably better" on the issue that is critically important to you, but you think he is "too depressing?"

For the life of me, I don't know what that means and can't make any sense of why you support Hillary Clinton.

Before you respond, please read my entire reply to you with the subject title Omnibus Crime Bill does not remotely compare with the IWR vote. You responded so quickly last time, I think you merely replied to the subject title of my post.

There is so much at stake here.

We can't afford more extremely costly counterproductive wars of choice.

Everything else we hope to accomplish for the poor, the working class, the middle class, and future generations, is being sacrificed to paying for the military industrial complex.

[bravenak]

202. He is pessimistic and yells too much.

[Martin Eden]

203. Seriously?

Seriously, that's your reply after you read and thought about the post I asked you to read?

[bravenak]

204. I have done the IWR to death.

I'm sorry. I think I'm a war hawk.

[Martin Eden]

205. In your opinion then, the invasion of Iraq was a wise move.

If so, we have nothing more to talk about.

[bravenak]

206. It was a mistake. As was the invasion of Afganistan. One of which Bernie voted for. See?

[Martin Eden]

207. No comparison, as I previously explained in detail.

Iraq wasn't a "mistake" -- it was a predetermined war based on the neocon agenda that was spelled out before 9/11. The case for war was a systematic campaign of deception, and if Hillary didn't know that she's not nearly as smart as she appears.

On 9/11 we were attacked by al Qaeda terrorists. The headquarters of al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. We were entirely justified in going after them.

The "mistakes" in Afghanistan were threefold:
1) Not committing enough force to get the job done, which allowed bin laden to slip away into Pakistan
2) Sticking around in that graveyard of empires in an ill-conceived nation-building operation
3) Diverting focus and resources to Iraq, which had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks and did not pose any significant threat to the United States.

Let's get back to the critically important issues at hand:
a) The overriding need to avoid the next costly war that hurts our national security.
b) Stop draining our treasury to pay for the above
c) Which candidate is more likely to accomplish a & b.

The evidence is clear:
Hillary Clinton showed abysmal judgment in jumping on the bandwagon to invade Iraq, and is much more likely to pull the trigger on the next costly war.

[frylock]

180. He has no foreign policy experience. Same thing was said about Obama..

and let me save EVERYONE the trouble by just posting the inevitable "Sanders is no Obama."

[bravenak]

181. No picture of police beating blacks for me today? That was so kind of you last time.

[frylock]

185. I made my point.

[bravenak]

186. There was no point. Only an attempt to assault a black woman with horrible images of HER HISTORY.

By a nice white progressive man. I felt sad for him. I almost felt like it was a threat at first. Then I saw through it. Sad.

[Cal33]

210. He has been some 20+ years in both the House and the Senate. How can he help but know

something about foreign policy?

[PatrickforO]

4. While a certain poster may ask, "Why attack Sanders, Hillary is winning?"

The reality is that this poster and many others have been in the forefront of attacks on Sanders for months, as well as the defense of Clinton.

I support Sanders because he represents where I stand on healthcare, Social Security, affordable college, corporate tax policy, the importance of aggressively addressing global warming, imposing stricter regulations on Wall Street, and overturning Citizens United in favor of short, government financed elections.

I do not support Clinton because she is too poll-driven, like a weather vane - pointing at wherever she thinks the majority opinion is rather than formulating her own opinions and sticking by them. She is too much a hawk, too friendly with the Wall Street banking lizards, and not friendly enough on the environment.

I do not think Sanders is sexist. I do not think Clinton is shrill or any of those other sexist names that have been applied to her. I do not think either are racist or are ignoring the BLM movement. I think both genuinely care about this nation. I just like Sanders better, and I have chosen to support him.

[Thinkingabout]

40. Sanders has voted more than once for military action and has stated recently

He would take military action and use drones. Yes if Clinton is a war hawk so is Sanders.

[jfern]

77. Hillary is for every war.

Bernie is no peacenik, but is only for war as a last resort.

[Marr]

137. What an absurd argument.

So there are only two possible categories in your world: pro-any war Hawk, and total pacifist/isolationist. So anyone who would support any military action at all is instantly just like Hillary.

lol.

[MisterP]

5. another day, another alert

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I am a Sanders supporter but this is an unnecessary attack and broad brush of all Clinton supporters "they don't really care about substance and actual policy". Please everyone just stop it. Please Hide and everyone try to get along.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 1, 2015, 07:22 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: well, then argue on policy and substance--and start by posting examples instead of alert trolling
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No one is "getting along" in this forum. Get over it or stay out. This is the lamest alert I have seen since the jury system was set up.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This crap tossing is really getting tiresome and unproductive. If the two sides can't come up with something new in the way of complaints, then can it.

(and I'd add that if he was a rootin'-tootin' gunhumper, his aggressive moves against corporate liberum veto over Congress would alone break the NRAILA goosesteppers' hold on total inaction since Sandy Hook, or whatever the last massacre was)

[rhett o rick]

11. "I am a Sanders supporter, really I am, but I hate his supporterstherefore I will vote for HRC." LOL

[jfern]

27. Man, they really are alerting everything these days

[SoapBox]

38. Ain't that the truth.

Bizzaro World.

[HereSince1628]

127. More of the JOD approach to reality construction

JOD, being 'Jurist and Opponent Disenfranchisement'

That global approach seems to be preferred to the more personal use of 'trash' and 'ignore'.

[frylock]

183. 3 hides in 3 days here.

I'm certain I'll be on timeout within the week.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

6. Why would we?

Most Clinton supporters don't hate Bernie. No need to attack anyone.

[Hydra]

9. One of the new and interesting lines of attack is that Bernie is now a pure socialist

...And I'm Milton Friedman.

So not only do they attempt to smear, they make up policy for him to attack him over.

[BlueCaliDem]

112. He self-identifies as a Democratic Socialist. Look up what that means.

Democrats, like President Obama and Hillary Clinton, are Social Democrats. Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat are not the same thing. They're not synonyms.

The Democratic Party is in line with the social democracy of Denmark that Sanders wrongfully uses as an example to explain what he is. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist but says he wants America to be more like Denmark??

For his information, Denmark is a social democracy, not a democratic socialist society. Democratic Socialists, like Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists of America who support his candidacy, want to eradicate capitalism and replace it with socialism. That makes him a pure socialist. That's not a smear. That's a fact.

[Hydra]

143. Lol

Thank you for coming in with this. As I told Vanilla, I would be ecstatic if that's what he was offering, but Sanders is an FDR style capitalist who will try to save the system yet again.

I'm the one who wants to eradicate capitalism. If Sanders wants to do that, let's get moving on that right away!

[BlueCaliDem]

162. Well, America overwhelmingly rejects socialism. By vast numbers.

Me? I'm not enamored by pure socialism, and Socialists have failed to convince me to be otherwise. Having lived half of my life in the Netherlands - a social democracy - I'm a Social Democrat. I believe in a system that balances capitalism and socialism. The United States is a social democracy - although, I'll admit, we need to make some serious improvements on the socialism side of the scale, which is, compared to European social democracy standards, pretty weak.

Bernie is an FDR-style capitalist?? Uh, no. Not by a long shot.

The Social Security Act was signed on August 14, 1935 as part of Roosevelt’s “New Deal”.

President F.D. Roosevelt said during his 1935 State of the Union (Jan. 4, 1935) message:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is a violation of the traditions of America."

Does that sound like something Bernie would use in one of his campaign speeches? I don't think it does.

[Dawgs]

167. America overwhelmingly rejects Clinton. "That's a fact."

Difference is that people's minds can be changed on socialism - once they learn what it means.

That's not the case with Clinton.

[BlueCaliDem]

168. Yeah, right. That's why Clinton crushes Sanders in Georgia - 73% to his 18% in the latest

poll. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251757361

Difference is that people's minds can be changed on socialism - once they learn what it means.

The American people love the idea of pure socialism, but they reject it as a governing principle. We still believe capitalism should be part of our system of government, albeit reined-in and well-regulated. We also like the idea that we'll have the option of maybe one day starting our own business and becoming successful at it. That's capitalism.

Socialism would replace capitalism since the opposite of capitalism is socialism.

The oft-mentioned Denmark, but also Germany, Sweden, Holland, Finland, France, Greenland, Iceland, etc., has a balanced mix of capitalism and socialism, making those countries social democracies. But that's too much for most Americans to want to hear about before they roll their eyes up back in their heads, and all they'll pick up is socialism, and they reject it.

[JaneyVee]

12. I have plenty of issues with Bernie's policy...

Most notably, his lack of any policy.

[pinebox]

15. oh

[Thinkingabout]

41. After she brought out voter suppression thrn he started talking aboit it.

[pinebox]

141. You may wish to re-think that

And this is why.

[Thinkingabout]

145. I do not wish to rethink my statement. In this campaign, Clinton brought it up and then Sanders add

it to his speeches.

[pinebox]

148. Sanders

has been talking about it long before Hillary entered the race.

[Thinkingabout]

150. He must not have thought it was important until after Clinton presented it on

the campaign trail. It has been a subject long talked about by Democrats, like talking about Florida purging their voting records many years ago. John Lewis gave a passionate speech in congress years ago, voter suppression has been happening for a long time, Clinton has put this in her speeches because it is important.

In fact women wasn't allowed to vote, blacks was not allowed to vote until they passed the Voter's Rights law, until SC ruled against having states having to have a review and then the laws in different states started to rise.

[pinebox]

155. What?

I just linked you to a video of him talking about from 2012 saying exactly otherwise. Sorry but I think I proved my point quite well.
You're correct in what you say as far as it's been a problem for a long time but to say "Bernie didn't think it was important" is pretty much outright junk and you are well aware of it.

I don't know where you're getting this train of thought that Hillary was talking about this stuff first because as SOS she wasn't really allowed to comment on stuff at home very much.

This is from May this year from Bernie.

http://www.alternet.org/watch-bernie-sanders-explain-30-seconds-why-elites-love-voter-apathy

[Thinkingabout]

156. I did not post #141, it was after Clinton brougth this out in a speech then Sanders added it to his

speeches. Voter suppression discussions has gone on for a long time, Sanders is not the inventor of voter suppression.

[pinebox]

157. Nobody is claiming he is

however you're claiming that Hillary spoke about it before him. I debunked you. Let's stop the spin please.

[Thinkingabout]

160. Let me try this one more time, Clinton brought out voter suppression in a

Campaign speech then Sanders added it to his speeches. I pointed out voter suppression was happening and finally women got the opportunity to vote, this was before Sanders was born, he did not start the first conversation on voter suppression.

[JonLeibowitz]

158. No, and neither is Hillary Clinton

But she sure took advantage of it in the 2008 North Carolina primary. Seems to me we shouldn't vote for those who use voter suppression against the AA community.

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine who John Podesta works for now (Hint: It is not Bernie)

The North Carolina state board of elections reported that misleading robocalls were made to African-american voters in the days leading up to the primary in late April 2008, which essentially told registered voters that they were not registered. According to NPR and Facing South, these calls were made by the organization "Women's Voices Women Vote."

"Women's Voices Women Vote" included members such as former White House chief of staff John Podesta, Maggie Williams, and Page Gardner, all of whom have close ties to the Clintons. Voters and watchdog groups complained that it was a turnout-suppression effort, and the state Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered them to stop making the calls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Democratic_primary,_2008#Robocalls

[Thinkingabout]

161. If you want to start running on every group, supporter, etc which may be connect to, have ever

Uttered the name of a candidate then the witch hunts such as the sham Benghazi will never end and if a candidate even has a position then witch hunts will over power the candidates voices. Is this campaign about policies or some group out trying to make hay in a rain storm.

[JonLeibowitz]

163. Interesting

You completely failed to address the point.

I consider an organization well known for engaging in voter suppression to be a deep black mark against any staffer's resume. But that's just me. Perhaps Hillary Clinton sees it as an asset.

[Thinkingabout]

164. Do you care anything about policies a candidate may have on their agenda? Yes I answered the point,

lets say spending time talking about issues is more important to me than some group you may have found which did whatever and you tied Clinton's name to it.

[JonLeibowitz]

166. I do care about policies

That is why I am voting for Bernie Sanders. His record is consistent and clearly for middle class Americans. Hillary Clinton is for NAFTA which lost American workers 700k jobs and lowered wages. She helped draft the TPP too, and considered it the gold standard of trade agreements, until it was no longer politically expedient to do so.

The fact she hired as her campaign manager someone who practice voter suppression against the AA community is just icing on top of the never-vote-for-Hillary-Clinton cake.

[yuiyoshida]

55. Results of Jury selection

On Sun Nov 1, 2015, 10:08 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

oh
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=755909

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This image is photoshopped to make it appear someone is handing Hillary a wad of cash, this image does not belong on democratic underground. When we start using photoshopped images/memes of our candidates we have gone too far. Please hide this post it is disruptive, inaccurate, and not appropriate. Thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Nov 1, 2015, 10:17 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Tired of these soft ball complaints against the candidates
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh.....
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: lol. No dice.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post has a tinge of sexism in it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The meme is idiotic and I'm tired of seeing this crap all the time. Instead of dividing we all need to agree on voting for the damn Dem candidate. Hillary and Bernie aren't attacking each other, why are their supporters?

Still, leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Are you f'ing kidding me? Leave it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[TheKentuckian]

110. Raiders might really be turning the corner, finally some wise picks the last few years and

it is showing.

Joke of an alert.

[yuiyoshida]

111. true dat

on both!

[Marr]

138. They really need to start suspending people for making X number of failed alerts in

a certain amount of time.

This alert spamming is getting ridiculous.

[pinebox]

140. LOL

Thanks XD That is too funny. "OMG he posted a pic about the Queen! get him!" lol

[MrMickeysMom]

35. I suppose to ask you if you're blind or something won't make any sense...

So, I guess I'll have to assume you typed all the words without sense out of the usual refusal to read enough.

[Doctor_J]

13. If you look at the greatest page, most of the Sanders posts start with

"I am for Bernie because..." yes, many of these contain harsh criticism of Clinton's policies and record. most of the Clinton posts are either poll results, or bizarre ravings about how Sanders is a racist or his supporters are all sexist. It's a weird dynamic and is probably why the party is hemorrhaging seats.

ETA - the one right before this is an excellent example. Bernie has no policies? How can you take anything seriously from a poster suffering such a disconnect with reality?

[postatomic]

16. Pointing out inconsistencies and obvious diluted/distorted propaganada

Isn't an attack. Though I'd imagine that some would feel anything said that might paint Senator Sanders in a poor light is an attack.

Vermont has a horrible Gun Control record. When a 14 year old can 'pack heat' if mummy and daddy give them permission is pretty fucked up. I know. I know. He's not the Governor.

If you think that the Clinton Camp cares little about substance you are wearing blinders. With the exception of the reference made in my subject line most of the posts I see on Hillary are very positive and over-flowing with substance. They just get buried in a snark barrage or the 'Hit Squad' tries to get the positive post hidden through the jury system.

It was Sanders' 11 Year Old Campaign Manager that made that incredibly stupid snark about Hillary.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Really? How about these attacks, recognize any of them?

According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies and thinks that orgasms prevent cancer.


And then there was the poll where HC supporters agreed that Bernie is a racist:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552162


Looks like Bernie Derangement Syndrome to me.

[postatomic]

22. You are certainly persistent, I'll give you that

I have.... what's that called?.... oh yea.... a life. If I wasn't completely and excitedly involved in a particular real world project I could spend a few hours and easily go tit for tat. A recent favorite was one that said Jeb Bush was more honest than Hillary. I did something I've never done before when I saw that. I hit Alert. The vote? 2-5 to Leave It.

So, are you like 'The Keeper of the Sacred Scrolls' or sumtin? Don't get me wrong. I'm impressed. Even doing a setup for an easy copy and paste would take some time. I hope you're this good when it comes time to go after an Un-Named Republican in the General.

Just keep on doing what you're doing. We all love you for it.

[beam me up scottie]

29. "Just keep on doing what you're doing. We all love you for it."

Oh I know all about that, trust me, from the alert stalking to desperately trying to find my facebook page I definitely feel the "love" coming from certain members.

[polly7]

36. No worries ........ you've got a lot more who admire you for your

persistence and patience in getting to the truth and not backing down. That 'love' is just desperation and being pissed off they can't score any points with actual facts.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Thanks, polly!

Right back atcha!

[postatomic]

61. Not from me

I don't 'do' facebook, twitter, or any of that stuff. Only time I see you is whenever I post something.

Still love ya'.

[bravenak]

42. I approve this message!

[polly7]

54. Such depth. nt.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Indeed. When presented with proof of bigoted posts they high five each other.

Of course considering what they posted at the other site those are mild.

[polly7]

57. Yeah .......... they're pretty transparent.

I've noticed the dramatic change in posting styles between the two sites. Must be too afraid to say what they're really wanting to - that's gotta be frustrating! lol.

[beam me up scottie]

62. The bigotry usually gets hidden here.

But they know they can get away with whatever they want to at other websites.

You saw the posts about Stormfront there, who cites a neo-Nazi website whose members are guilty of over 100 murders?

[polly7]

64. I sure did. Also a LOT of other horrible, ugly things said which were quickly hidden ...

I assume in the 'Grumble', the gossipy really mean-stuff go-to place, apparently.

[eridani]

73. We don't need separate websites to organize attacks on other DU members

And we don't post hashtags like #hillarysoblack.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Or use # fuckthebern in a sig line.

They sure do know how to keep things classy.

[Thinkingabout]

45. You say this and then I read post #19 calling Clinton a shitty candidate.

[beam me up scottie]

50. And that compares to what I posted how?

Perhaps anti-Semitism isn't a big deal to you but I think bigotry is much worse than describing someone's actions as "shitty".

[Thinkingabout]

58. You listed several names Sanders has been called and in post #19 Clinton was called a name.

[beam me up scottie]

66. And? How does that negate the despicable things said about Bernie?

[luvspeas]

63. The pedophile post you linked to is by pa28...

His favorite forum is the bernie group and is an obvious bernie supporter. Quit saying hillary supporters said this please.

[beam me up scottie]

65. What are you talking about??? The author of the op is a Hillary supporter:

Last edited Mon Nov 2, 2015, 01:14 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251549982

[rbrnmw]

80. You must not have seen posters profile

Poster is a Sanders supporter and it was a nasty joke post but a joke perhaps you should address the poster. Tell them how upset you are over it

[beam me up scottie]

81. Are you for real? The author was a Hillary supporter. Check their journal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~SonderWoman

[rbrnmw]

84. OK nobody should post that video

I stand corrected but the video wasn't about pedophiles and poster did not call him a pedophile or say he was protecting them.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Yes he did, I'm from Vermont and I remember the Republican ads.

And the person who posted it here later doubled down and asked why Bernie protected pedophiles.

It's a meme that's making its way around the internet again.

And thanks for saying it shouldn't be posted here, I feel the same way about Republican smears against Hillary - we can criticise the candidates without resorting to freeper tactics.

If we stick to discussing the issues we'll all be better off next year when we have to come together.

[rbrnmw]

96. Ok I apologize but I doubt that thing was even a democrat

[beam me up scottie]

97. She could have been a troll from the cave.

This is my first time MIRTing and we ban them every day.

[rbrnmw]

99. I know I was MIRT 2 terms

The cave I couldn't remember the name. They are trying to divide us for entertainment.

[Autumn]

85. No, Sonderwoman was not a Sanders supporter, it hated Sanders and his supporters

And she was finally banned by EarlG. Here's what the admin posted when he banned her.

Created sock-puppet accounts to circumvent temporary automatic suspension after getting five posts hidden by Jury (SonderWoman, BlueWaveDem, ForwardMotion)

Creating sock puppets seems to be a habit for some.

[rbrnmw]

87. I apologize I said it was inappropriate

[Autumn]

88. Just clearing up that that troll and it's socks were not Sanders supporters.

[rbrnmw]

91. I doubt it supports any democrat

It was probably a freeper or that other place that trolls DU

[Autumn]

92. Yeah I'm sure it posts there, and is probably back here by now.

[rbrnmw]

95. They just start shit between the 2 camps

Just to laugh at us. I think they are pathetic. They know their party is falling apart at the seams. They want to divide us the same way they are.

[senz]

101. It's a Hillary supporter in all its incarnations.

Vehemently so.

[rbrnmw]

102. Maybe but they don't speak for me

I don't think what they did is nice at all.

[luvspeas]

123. troll? hillary supporter? sock? joke? make up your mind...

When I click on your link I see a video I'm not gonna take the time to open and a post by pa28 that says Bernie is a card carrying member of NAMBLA. Joke? I have no idea. See that's the problem with accusing a mass group of people with doing hideous things. So please stop saying Hillary supporters have been promoting such an awful notion. It makes you look worse than the group you accuse.

[beam me up scottie]

124. The people who posted those things are Hillary supporters.

Trying to pretend otherwise is absurd.

And I linked to a thread that was posted by a Hillary supporter, not a post by pa28 or whomever.

I have no idea why you think I linked to another post.

So please stop saying Hillary supporters have been promoting such an awful notion. It makes you look worse than the group you accuse.

Who do you think posted those despicable things?

Who should I blame, Bernie supporters?

I have never ever posted anything even remotely like that about Hillary so it's impossible for me to look worse than they do.

[luvspeas]

129. ok

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSzVvhMBnf4NvrKNeq8vj9hXMa9AgKckEMajeKtLx_-I6hJviyU

[beam me up scottie]

130. I'm an atheist, I require evidence to believe.

Post some evidence that those posts weren't made by Hillary supporters and I'll consider it.

[luvspeas]

133. If by Hillary supporter you mean assholes that only want to destroy the democratic nominee...

no matter who that might be. Or by Hillary supporter you mean people who will say anything to make everyone here hate one another so that neither candidate stands a chance in november. wait a minute...those definitions might make you a hillary supporter.

[beam me up scottie]

135. So posting links to what others said about my candidate will doom us all next November?

How about you wag your finger at the posters who are actually swift boating the candidates instead of me for calling them out?

If you're going to lecture people on behaviour you should take it up with them because I really don't want to hear from another hypocrite.

You can start with the poster I originally responded to.

[sabrina 1]

18. Exactly!

[whereisjustice]

19. Clinton is a shitty Democratic candidate - it's her ability to push past ethics and moral boundaries

that makes her attractive to conservatives who want her to win. They want her to win because they have the most to gain by keeping the billionaire Wall Street class fucking over the working class.

No one who is struggling in this fucked up, upside down economy should vote for Clinton or a Republican. But they will because they think she can "win" even if it means the middle class will be fucked over as usual.

Clinton looks at India and rest of Asia, sees the poverty and despair and says to the US middle class- "See? You have it too good. I'm going to give what you have to people in Asia because working Americans have it too good. Oh, and Wall Street gets a cut because, after all, they are the people who matter most in the US".

She'll send millions of new jobs to Asia, reward big oil and phrama, and commit more lives to stupid wars.

But, hey - I'm told she can win.

Nonsense, we lose.

[840high]

24. We lose - our grandchildren lose. America will lose.

[PatrickforO]

59. Awesome post.

Unfortunately, you are right.

That's why I'm for Bernie.

[senz]

103. Absolutely. Excellent post.

[luvspeas]

128. Conservatives love Hillary?

[bravenak]

191. This is getting positively ridiculous.

[Ron Green]

198. Conservative mouth-breathers HATE Hillary. Their bosses, though, the ones George Carlin talks about

in his famous "it's a Big Club" routine, are just fine with her.

Really.

[Kang Colby]

51. You can't attack Bernie on substance. He hasn't offered any specifics.

His website has a collection of high level talking points and wishlist items, but I don't see specific policy proposals that explain to us how we will go from where we are now, to where he claims he can take the country. He also advocates for Tobin taxes which I think will do more harm than good. I imagine (or hope) he will release a more detailed document explaining his policy proposals.

Hillary's positions are far from perfect, but she at least seems to be more grounded in reality.

Just my .02.

[bravenak]

53. Ding Ding Ding!!!

Seriously.

[eridani]

79. How do you get more specific than scrap the cap and $15/hr? n/t

[senz]

107. All he does is talk specifics.

In his speeches he says what he will do and how he will pay for it. He is totally grounded in reality -- he has dealt with real issues for real people for over a quarter of a century.

Hillary isn't interested in issues until Bernie talks about them. Then she pays her staff to write something up for her -- which she reads haltingly, because she's not familiar with it. She's not "grounded in reality." She's grounded in politics. She'll change her mind as the wind blows. No sincerity whatsoever.

On Bernie's website he has well thought-out, detailed policy proposals -- and has had them up there for months. I've tried to get Hillary supporters interested in them to no avail. Because they are not interested in facts.

Here, read up: https://berniesanders.com/issues/

And stop making false accusations.

[NanceGreggs]

70. If Sanders supporters ...

... truly believed in his candidacy, they would be flooding DU with OPs about his positives, instead of flooding it with posts about how evil HRC is.

[eridani]

83. Most posts about Sanders are about his policies.

Most posts about Clinton are about polls and endorsements.

"We came. We saw. He died." is evil, period. I'm talking about a quote here, not trying to psychoanalyze.

[NanceGreggs]

89. I beg to differ.

Last night alone, there were several OPs about how "Hillary is in this for herself not the people", "No one trusts HRC", etc. That doesn't sound like a discussion of Bernie's policies to me.

From the outset of Bernie's campaign, his supporters here have posted every anti-Hillary article they can find - many from RW sources. Now the site is flooded with "fear tactics", e.g. Bernie is the country's last hope - if he is not elected, the "oligarchs and billionaires" will be running the country, and we will be in a constant state of war.

If my candidate-of-choice was stagnating in the polls for two months with no signs of gaining any further traction, I wouldn't think that constantly predicting doom if she's not elected wouldn't be of any help to her campaign whatsoever.

To each his own. I think there are people here who honestly believe that the way to get BS elected is to tear down HRC as much as possible.

Not a winning strategy.

[eridani]

98. Because war, banksters, and politics as usual are so inspiring.

I don't click on pyschoanalysis or polls, myself. The lack of trust thing (as a general emotional thing, anyway) is bogus because it is the net result of 20 years of vast right wing conspiracy attacks on both Clintons. I don't like her positions on the Iraq war, Iran, Libya, cutting Social Security, getting big bucks from the idiots who crashed our economy, TPP, Keystone XL, fracking, DOMA, welfare deform and the War on Some Drugs. I know she's changed on some of those things, but will she stay changed?

As a Democrat, I will work to elect her if she is the nominee, but all that effort plus the thought of then immediately having to fight her and Pete Peterson on cutting Social Security, saber-rattling re Iran, etc. makes me rally, really tired. Getting way too old for this.

[NanceGreggs]

106. You have your opinion of HRC ...

... and I have mine. That's as it should be in a primary race.

However, it doesn't change what I said - that the attacks on HRC do not advance Bernie's chances one iota. It makes one wonder if the people who post nothing but negative things about Hillary actually are interested in furthering his chances at all, or if they are simply posing as BS supporters in order to attack the Democratic front-runner on what holds itself out as a Democratic website.

Some posters who are allegedly BS supporters posted every article they could find (regardless of source) about how bad HRC's "email scandal" was, and even how it was likely she'd be indicted for her "crimes". And yet those same posters never posted anything positive about BS's career achievements, or his policies.

Things that make you go hmmmmm ...

[eridani]

115. Why do people persist in confusing attacking individuals with attacking policy?

Sanders supporters never ever talk about ending the War on Some Drugs, Medicare for All, $15/hr baseline minimum wage, public college tuition paid for by a financial transaction tax, expanding Social Security benefits by scrapping the cap? On what planet is that?

The Sanders supporters watching the debate at my Drinking Liberally venue were 100% behind him on the American people not caring about her damned emails. Though I see much larger security issues with government IT in general, of which Clinton's emails were a trivial part.

[senz]

108. Precisely.

Bernie is all about issues and policies.

Hillary is all about Hillary and politics.

[Betty Karlson]

113. Well said! eom

[Maedhros]

116. Oh, come on!

If we only responded to legitimate criticisms, this place would be as quiet as a cemetery.

[RBInMaine]

118. The extreme majority of Clinton supporters are NOT attacking Bernie. If anything it is the opposite.

And, most Bernie supporters are not attacking Clinton. However, MORE of them are than are Clinton supporters attacking Bernie. For the most part, it has actually been a pretty congenial campaign. It is the die hards doing the attacking. If you look around DU, the smears and attacks against Hillary have been numerous and disgusting. It is really shitty stuff.

As a Hillary supporter I have always said great things about Bernie, but I just know a confirmed socialist has no hope of winning a general election in the US.

Also, on policy, while I agree with most of Bernie's ideas, he says little to nothing about growing the private economy where most jobs are created, particularly in small and medium businesses. Government programs and spending alone can not win an election. He is very short on HOW to raise wages, and it can't just be raising the minimum wage. Most people aren't on the minimum wage. Bernie needs to talk more to the middle, not just to the bottom where too many of those people do not even bother to vote.

[eridani]

121. Here are two threads with hundreds of responses on health care policy and not a single--

--personal attack.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027307942

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027306302

Most of the responses don't have candidate logos, but the ones which do feature Sanders or O'Malley. What does that tell you?

[NCTraveler]

125. I have seen policy discussion on all sides.

This is one of the more strange claims. Interesting.

[stillwaiting]

126. The Clinton camp injected the personal nastiness in to the dialog, and some of her supporters

dutifully picked it up.

No respect for anyone that's engaged this way during this primary.

None.

[Thinkingabout]

152. Sanders policies will prevent him from being nominated.

[NurseJackie]

154. If he's having such a difficult time now …

… it's seems very likely that he'd have an even rougher go of it in the general election when facing a very well-funded GOP candidate. He even wants to cripple his campaign with by refusing contributions, disavowing PACs, and limiting himself to being merely a crowd-sourced grass-roots candidate. All this, and how he self-identifies as a democratic socialist, is a very heavy anchor that's going to drag his campaign to the bottom of a very deep ocean trench.

(I assume it's okay to "attack" how he's running his campaign, and to point out how ineffective his current strategy will be in a national election.)

[L0oniX]

165. The more Hillary adopts Bernie's policies the less they can attack him. See how that works?

[taught_me_patience]

176. I don't really dig his policies

I don't think he is honest about the costs, nor able to adapt to get something through congress. His platform seems to be "I'm going to offer a lot of stuff... and you don't even have to pay for it!"

[HassleCat]

178. Well, our supporters do it, too.

I see many posts proposing Clinton is guilty of criminal activity for her handling of emails, posts theorizing she only wants to be president for personal gain or ego gratification, posts accusing her of selling favors, and so on. Are these about issues? You could fool me, but I think they're personal attacks.

[BootinUp]

197. I don't think we want Vermont to set national gun laws

There are a ton of reasons, in my humble opinion, that Hillary is way out ahead of Bernie. But I don't need to make that case, Bernie needs to make the case why voters shouldn't vote for her.

[BainsBane]

209. Well, people have tried to post articles to his policy positions

and votes in the Senate, but they end up being ridiculed, met with personal attacks, or hidden by juries. That certainly doesn't given the impression that Sanders supporters here want to talk about their candidate's policies. They are very keen on rhetoric and slogans--policy, not so much.

Seems to me the corrective to an absence of discussion of policy is to actual post about policies, yet you don't choose to do that. Of course to discuss policy, one has to familiarize themselves with the positions of the various candidates. Yet we have here people who refuse pointedly to look at any of Clinton's policy, largely because it doesn't confirm to the caricature they are invested in, just as Sanders record as a legislator doesn't confirm to the image they project of him.

I posted about Sanders positions on gun policy, only to see multiple threads created calling me despicable, equating me to a Nazi, and demanding I take down a Washington Post article that offended the delicate sensibilities of those determined not to discuss their candidate's policies. Don't pretend you want to talk about policy when someone just had a thread hidden for posting about Sanders reaction to residents from West Texas to objected to VT using their community as a toxic, nuclear waste dump. Don't pretend you want to talk about policy when references to Sanders votes for the Minutemen, against immigration reform, and for and hundreds of billions of dollars to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 have been hidden by juries. And God forbid we raise his foreign policy views toward the Middle East because daring to discuss that is met with charges of antisemitism. I for one would like to know if or how the major candidates differ on their views toward Israel or Palestine, but we are not allowed to have that discussion without being called antisemitic.

Don't pretend you want to talk about policy when discussions of black lives are met with false claims that people have called Sanders racist, when that charge is itself a strawman created by Sanders supporters to avoid discussion the very real issues concerning lethal racism in America. Don't pretend you want to talk about policy when people pointedly and repeatedly refuse to as much as read Clinton's policy proposals.

Campaign rhetoric and sloganeering is not policy. Policy is a substantive discussion of proposals by the candidates. You yourself could do that at any time, but that of course would require caring about something other than your outrage that some Americans actually believe they have the right to make their own voting choices.