Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumIt's not Monday yet.
So I think I'll cross post this here from someplace else. Given the totally positive post of Jillan's I saw hidden this morning, I think I'll just say that I don't find anything in this essay to disagree with. Foggy bottom indeed.
http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/06/01/the-foggy-bottom-of-clintons-muddy-waters/
snot
(10,481 posts)In broad brush, it matches my own thinking, but spells it out well and adds a lot of interesting detail.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)If it is true she never activated her secure DC e-mail account, it shows intent to remain secretive, which is her obsession, and clearly any classified e-mail would automatically have been sent to her personal server.
If.........
This is not an impossibility and Obama risks his legacy via a cover-up larger than missing tapes. I do not see Obama being loyal to a woman who delighted in undercutting him deliberately since 2007. I think it more likely as things leak, he will sit back and enjoy justice.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)And I found nothing in it at all to violate TOS or anything else.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512196217
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Lars39
(26,093 posts)we won't be able to see hidden posts.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)A few will decide what the many can read.
I think there's a word for that.
Lars39
(26,093 posts)Sad train wreck a comin'.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)And since the vast majority of participants left here will be Hillary supporters, the handwriting is on the wall
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)multiple hides so that they won't be able to participate in future juries.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hides. The non-progressive minority here controls MIRT and the Host Forum. If you get one hide you are out of the Host Forum as I well know, my first hide was very suspicious being 7 to 0 over a very minor post with zero comments by the jurors. It was clear while I was a host that, even though the non-progressives were a clear minority they wielded a lot of power. MIRT members are chosen by the Admins. Outspoken progressives aren't allowed back. It's clear we aren't wanted here.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)and it's not a great one.
Response to Autumn (Reply #8)
CorkySt.Clair This message was self-deleted by its author.
senz
(11,945 posts)If anything demonstrates darkness of soul, it is the hide of that totally positive, innocuous OP.
If anyone ever wondered what's wrong, that should be a big ol' cluestick.
Thanks for this thread, LWolf.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pushing a particular agenda, but here to side with the power and self-righteously bully others. It's a power thing.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #36)
senz This message was self-deleted by its author.
senz
(11,945 posts)snot
(10,481 posts)"In a recent Facebook post by Loretta Lynch. QUOTE:
HILLARY WILL NOT BE INDICTED OR PROSECUTED.
Your Attorney General and your president had a closed meeting today. You can be sure Hillarys run for president will not be marred by any indictment or prosecution."
This is what I've been afraid of. (Much more at the link, including an excellent interview w/ Assange, who has interesting things to say about Brexit as well as other issues.)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)My first reaction to the quotation was that it was inconceivable to me that Lynch would actually say that. If you go to Facebook, it's obvious that some right-winger simply opened an account as "Loretta Lynch, Attorney General". The posts by that account rely on such sources as The Weekly Standard and Breitbart.
As you'd expect, major obsessions are transphobia and Islamophobia. As an example of the former, on May 11 there was a post linking to an article on "redflagnews.com" about the North Carolina bathroom fracas, in response to which this supposed "Loretta Lynch" posted:
Come on, "Democrat Party"? and the old anti-ERA standby of unisex bathrooms? They're not even being very creative.
Incidentally, I'd never before heard of redflagnews.com, but feel free to go there if you want to read how "Obama Imports 1 Million Muslims During Presidency" and "FBI Says No One Killed at Sandy Hook". I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the real Loretta Lynch doesn't rely on or even read this site.
The particular post supposedly assuring all that Clinton won't be indicted links to this article in The Weekly Standard, but even that right-wing rag says no such thing. It merely notes an upcoming meeting between the President and the Attorney General (imagine that), and says, "The topic of Obama's closed door meeting with Lynch has not been made public." In fact, the article reports the administration's position as being pretty much the opposite of what this post claims:
I'm not familiar with Sourceplanet but they got played big-time.
NJCher
(35,434 posts)That is very fishy. I went to Facebook and looked for Loretta Lynch's original post, and I can't find it. Here's what you get when you put in "Loretta Lynch:"
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=loretta%20lynch%20attorney%20general
I don't think Loretta Lynch has a Facebook page, and furthermore, I think it would be considered highly unprofessional for her to say any such thing on a Facebook page. So I think this is bogus.
I will be the first to admit I know nothing about Facebook or how to research it, though, so any of you Facebook-savvy people, please feel free to check this out.
All you get is sourceplanet's post about this, which is seen above.
Cher
niyad
(112,435 posts)LWolf
(46,179 posts)I did read this, and respond, when it was posted on Wednesday. But thanks for trying again.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512187684
niyad
(112,435 posts)I am glad to see that others also saw that article, and thought it worthy of posting.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Autumn
(44,762 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Yes, yes it is...
And who is it that pays the bills of the FBI, you might ask...
Autumn
(44,762 posts)After all it works well for special people.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Can't be too careful in this environment, can we?
Autumn
(44,762 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Thanks Autumn, to repeat:
----------------------------
Note to Jury: This is a verbatim copy of the title and an excerpt of a source we use all the time at DU. This is not the opinion of the op.
--------------------------------
Tagged in my Journal so I can remember this!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and the Progressive Group (Populist Reform). The only reason to post in GD is to fight with those that have the advantage of having the Admns and the system on their side. They alert, lock, hide and gang up on anyone that doesn't show the proper level of fealty to their exalted leader. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can convince them of anything. They are not interested in fair and honest discussions. Those that wish to discuss what is happening in politics need to stay away from GD. This lecture is aimed at myself more than anyone else.
Autumn
(44,762 posts)Ops and posts are hidden in here for factual and unfavorable discussion of what is happening in politics. Just posting in protected groups is no protection at all.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that." I've already seen it. This is supposedly a "politically liberal" message board but doesn't come close to meeting the definition of liberal.
Liberal: "Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded."
It's not liberal to alert stalk, lock, hide and ban those one doesn't agree with. Also liberals don't use CT as a tool to shut down discussion.
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)And in fact I have, as with president Obama.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)tactic to shut down conversations one does like in lieu of trying to refute.
Those that use sexism to bash others are most likely not honest people fighting for women's rights but just people looking to self-righteously bully others. Honest people fighting for women's rights would recognize the irony of those trying to use sexism to fight sexism. It is ironic when people say that Clinton is tough then turn around and whine at the least criticism using sexism to shut down the criticism. I am not a Clinton fan, but I agree she is tough and don't think she needs people defending her with sexist arguments.
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)A delicate flower to deflect from her horrendous record is not going to cut it. This site will go down like the titanic if zero policy discussions arent going to be allowed.
senz
(11,945 posts)It's too bad her supporters cannot comprehend how profoundly they insult their candidate by confining her national and global significance into a single tiny airless box labeled "gender."
I partially analyzed it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=366513
If the atmosphere were more open and inquisitive, I'd rewrite and expand on it. And yes your views on authoritarianism should be more strongly figured in.
jillan
(39,451 posts)A few people asked why it was hidden.
They just didn't get it! Because telling people to vote & stay involved is soooooo divisive
As for that one graphic, well, we did pay for our candidate with pleasure!
I think Juror #3 says it all.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The second graphic from the bottom asks "Who are the real FREELOADERS? We Berniecrats paid for our candidate. Who paid for yours?" Never mind that all six are all divisive but calling Democrats planning to participate in the November election "freeloaders" is insulting and inappropriate.
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:42 AM, and voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Berners/losers say all kinds of junk, but there is no reason to Alert on this post.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The primary is over, Sanders lost very substantially. Deal with it or leave!
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 HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with the alerter. This is divisive.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I still don't agree with that one, but okay. The comments from the jury are instructive. There seems to be a real disconnect about what is "divisive."
jillan
(39,451 posts)Obviously those that voted to hide it don't understand what Bernie supporters are fighting for.
They think it's all about her, when she is just a bump in the road.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)don't show the level of fealty that's expected and we ask too many pointed questions like, "Do you support fracking." It's easier to just run us off.
Those that stay will have to hide in the Sanders Group or the Populist Reform Group although even those groups aren't safe from alert stalking.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)associated with her email fiasco? Will the FBI and Obama hold off on actions until after the election. Maybe we need to worry about who Clinton chooses as her vice president.
Also, who are the fighting factions? Democrats vs. Republicons is too loose a breakdown. Who is in Obama's corner? Who is in Clintons corner? Who is in the FBI's corner? etc.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I have no answer for. I guess, at this point, I could predict that there will be no indictment to disturb the coronation, so the VP pick might be more important than I thought.
senz
(11,945 posts)The email server problems are serious, but the CF, imo, dwarfs them. Massive corruption on a global scale.
I too would love to know the inner workings of the Washington Democratic elite as they grapple with the mess created by their candidate. I hope some enterprising would-be journalist is taking notes so we can learn about it someday if said journalist has the courage.
Response to LWolf (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
I'm a Democrat, and based on your particular writing style, I've probably been a Democrat since before you were born.
This whole group has been dedicated to getting out the vote for Sanders; we voted for him ourselves, which means that, in most cases, we HAD to be Democrats to do so.
But thanks for making your 14th post at DU be about what belongs on DU or not.
The Blue Flower
(5,420 posts)When the powers that be feel the need to suppress information and silence dissension, the one and only reason is they're afraid. Historically, the more they act on their fears, the faster things slide downhill. Because fear never wins. Because the truth will out. Because in truth is power. I wish you all a very thoughtful June 20.