?1445028881

I've never seen supporters of any political candidate attacked like this in my life. It's bizarre and it reeks, like any dishonest tactic.

The effort to discredit Bernie's supporters began early. It was blatant, bold and ugly and it has escalated since. It seems quite concerted and highly fishy. I am not buying it. I recommend that no one else buy it either.

From what I've seen from Hillary supporters here, at some other sites formed by people here, on social media, I am not buying it.

Here, we've been being told how awful we are if we so much as post a news story that Hillary likely would rather had not been written. The same thing happens if we dare defend Bernie from some scurrilous attack. Those are not awful things to do on a political message board. Those are standard operating procedure for a political message board. In fact, if you really want to see some low attacks, look at (1) what they've posted about Bernie and us here and elsewhere on the net and (2) what some of them posted here about Hillary eight years ago.

As far as other venues, some months I praised a politician on facebook. I included a single brief, polite sentence expressing regret that he or she had endorsed Hillary, rather than Bernie because I thought Bernie was the better candidate for a majority of people. The vile attacks I got from Hillary supporters in response were unreal--maybe literally. All nasty ad homs--and these people had no idea who I was. I didn't bother to respond. But I was the bad one? Posters, please.

The idea seems to be to make being a Bernie supporter something to be ashamed of, something no one wants to be, something we are ashamed to talk about to others. And of course the people we want to talk to about Bernie are not going to want to hear from us if they've heard this nonsense about us. So, it could interfere with the ground game.

As far as people in public life, be they politicians, television commentators, celebrities, or whatever give me a damn break. They've been getting criticism and complaints from all kinds of people all the time. It goes with putting yourself out in public, whether you're Justin Beiber or Miley Cyrus, or Klein or Krugman. It's part of being a public figure.

Those people put up with criticism (and praise) from the public because they like the fame, money and other perqs that come with being a public figure. But, now, we're going to pretend that Bernie supporters are so much worse than the rest of the population that has been criticizing them all along? Please. Moreover, given how media, pundits, etc. have treated Bernie since he announced, why are they surprised they're getting complaints from his supporters? Rather than do a more fair job, they attack us for pointing out they are being unfair? Please.

And, of course, pushing back against it is a Catch 22 of the kind I see on this board almost daily. Someone claims you're vile in some way other. If you ignore the comment, they post you're showing it must be true. If you disagree, they also post you are showing it must be true. Well, fsck Catch 22.

I am calling bs on this nonsense. It's concerted. It's unprecedented. It's bizarre. It's dishonest. It's fake. Whether it's here or elsewhere on the net or in real life, don't let the trolling get to you or bait you. However, don't get silenced, shamed or discouraged, either. You chose a good candidate for the right reasons. Hold your head up high and keep working for Bernie, the best and most honorable candidate to run in decades.

During the 2008 primary, it was that Obama might be a Muslim--and an African Muslim at that.



Failing that, Obama was most definitely (sarcasm) the acolyte (figuratively) of Black Liberation theologist Jeremiah Wright, who was portrayed as hating America.

Oh, and, btw, have you noticed Obama is not white? And hates the bible and guns?

Really, my fellow Ammurricans, he's nothing like you and me, nothing to which us WASPs can relate.

Another primary, another batch of scurrilous attacks.

Democratic primary voters, don't be fooled by that WASP sounding surname and his perfectly Anglo Saxon features (sarcasm): Bernie is (whispering) a Jew.

Yes, dear readers, a man whose family members died in the Holocaust has to face anti-Semitism as he runs for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

And, oh, gee, is he really, truly completely sure he isn't a citizen of Israel? It was, after all, posted on somewhere on the Internet, yet the so and so denies it! Typical!

And now, my dear fellow Democrats, a man who said that he believes in God is being falsely portrayed as an atheist because polling indicates that a number of Americans do not want an atheist as President and his belief in God does not match the concept of God in the Middle Ages. Oh, and his concept of religion is not one that several dictionaries label archaic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1081297

News flash: many Americans don't want to see Hillary Clinton as President, and for reasons that are considerably less slimy than her genetic make up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777603

*ETA: For the easily confused: Including Senator Sanders' name in the subject line indicates that this post is about him, not that he is the author of this post or anything said in this post. That would be me and only me. I hope that clears it up.

they are proliferating. Hillary's surrogates have been on TV with this stuff



Having religion = being religious


Some definitions of religion:

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj′ən) n.

1.

a. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe: respect for religion.

b. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice: the world's many religions.

c. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order: a widow who went into religion and became a nun.

3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion: a person for whom art became a religion.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən)
n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion.

3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers

4. (Roman Catholic Church) chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion.

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion.

6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances

b. sacred rites and ceremonies
[C12: via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind]
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014


re•li•gion (rɪˈlɪdʒ ən) n.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.


5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something a person believes in and follows devotedly.

7. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

While I am all in for Bernie Sanders, I interpret that passage very differently. I reach my conclusion based on my own reading of the Bible and not on the conclusion of any Biblical scholars.

My recollection (too late on the East Coast to be be googling for exact wording, y'all) of the wording in the King James Version is:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's."

I do not read that as merely an endorsement of paying taxes. The sentence is imperative, meaning it is a a direct command . For those who believe in the divinity of Christ, this is God in human form, commanding people. To do what? Commanding them to pay to government the taxes one owes government and to tender to God, or to give God, what belongs to God.

It's not either government or God, but government and God. You owe each one different things. For me, there is also an undertone of separation of government and state. I think my interpretation is right in line with, not only the actual wording, but with Democratic Party principles.

Probably also relevant: Tiberius, who was emperor at this time, had refused to be worshipped as a god. However, Augustus Caesar had declared his father, Julius Caesar, a god and himself the son of God. Even Tiberius had allowed one temple to be built for him. So, Jesus (or whomever) may have been saying, in effect, pay your taxes to Caesar, but worship only the God of the Jews, not any Caesar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_%28ancient_Rome%29

dominated MSNBC, except for the Flint tragedy.


This is inexcusable and as undemocratic as it gets. MSNBC earned low ratings. Now, it's earning no ratings. Watch Tom Hartman, Ed Schultz and Cenk.

Andrea Mitchell Greenspan and Chris Matthews just had a sit down throwing shade at Bernie and now Hillary's campaign secretary is on with Andrea Mitchell attacking Bernie, including claiming he has a PAC (the PAC associated with the nurse's union, presumably). This is what passes for journalism and fair political commentary on MSNBC anymore.

MSNBC is the media arm of the Hillary campaign. Bernie has Bernie2016TV making videos of Bernie's rallies for YouTube and Hillary has MSNBC. And don't get me started on Tyndall Report or the NYT or the New Yorker.

ETA: Oh, and, according to Chris Matthews, the reason that young women are supporting Bernie rather than Hillary is that they don't understand everything Hillary had to go through to get where she is or how hard it was for a college "girl" to get an abortion before Roe v. Wade. (Apparently, Hillary was somehow connected to legalizing abortion?)

Hayes shows a Republican purchased commercial that is anti-Hillary, . The ad focuses on Wall Street money, something that both Sanders and O'Malley and their respective supporters have been stressing as one of her most vulnerable points. Hayes explained that the anti-Hillary commercial means Republicans are afraid of Hillary and don't want her to win

Then, Hayes showed a commercial purchased by the same Republican group that is anti-Sanders. This ad stresses the things that Hillary and her supporters have been saying about Bernie-free this and that, and all paid for by increasing your taxes. So, how does Hayes explain this. The Republicans mentioned issues that will only help Sanders in the Iowa primary (?????). So the anti-Sanders ad also shows that Republicans are afraid of Hillary!!!!

judge a homosexual priest and a gay secularist criticizes the Pope for homophobic policies, they are both gay secularists, or something of that kind, because they criticized the same person for very different reasons.

That logic is mind boggling.

I guess, if rightists dislike Hillary, and leftists dislike Hillary, and enough people dislike Hillary to make it a 2008 debate issue, and even Obama caustically says "you're likeable enough, Hillary," none of it can possibly have anything to do with Hillary's own words and deeds. It must be that everyone who dislikes Hillary is a Teapublican.

Every politician will tell you that the ground game really, truly makes a difference, often THE difference.

One of the many reasons we love Bernie is that his campaign is paid for by us, not the by the billionaires. (Gives Michael Boomberg the fish eye.)

The corollary of that sea change in modern U.S. politics is that we do have to pay for Bernie's campaign. In so doing, you are not only helping Bernie, but also thumbing your nose at Citizens United and proving wrong everyone who claims politicians cannot run unless they are rich or they sell out.

Again, the minimum donation is only $1. I now donate through the Act Blue link for the JackpineRadicals.org board, but the important thing is that the money get to Bernie's campaign chest, so I will give both Act Blue donation links.

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie

Do it, now, before you forget.

You know you want to!

Socialist, atheist, etc.



As if neo liberal attender of The Family's prayer breakfasts is a winning combo.