merrily
merrily's JournalDonation Links for Democratic Campaigns
These are my favorite donation links so far.
Bernie
DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/duforbernie
JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jackpineradicals4bernie
Tim Canova
DU link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/du4timcanova
JPR link https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4timcanova
David Sparks (DUer: votesparks; AFAIK, no DU link for a DUer!) https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/jpr4sparks
If you know of any others you recommend, please post them on this thread. THANK YOU!
Enough already of the anti-Bernie conspiracy theories from the moonbat Bernie Bros!
http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?1706-Conspiracy-theories-Give-Ockham-s-Razor*-a-rest-now-and-again-will-yaSo, last night, U. S. Senator Bernie Sanders handily won an important victory over U.S. Secretary Hillary "Inevitable Since 2006" Rodham Clinton. The next big primary state is New York, where Hillary recently started campaigning against Bernie's gun record.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2016/04/8595700/clinton-new-york-criminals-get-guns-vermont
So, naturally, the front page of this morning's Daily News covered the most important story from yesterday's national news thus:
But, have establishment politicians and establishment media actually been working against Sanders? Of course not, you Sillies! Stop whining, ffs!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trevor-noah-dnc-blocking-bernie-sanders_us_5703a6cee4b0daf53af0c599
http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-vs-democratic-national-committee-senator-launches-petition-targeting-2306999
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/06/democrats_protect_hillary_plan_how_the_dncs_thin_debate_schedule_hands_clinton_the_advantage/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2016/02/03/editorial-something-smells-democratic-party/79777580/
http://tyndallreport.com/
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/why-the-bernie-blackout-on-corporate-network-news/
Coordinated campaign against Bernie's supporters:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=104497 and http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?3326-IGNORANT-Bernie-Bros-must-END-their-name-calling!!!&highlight=Boston+Globe
And, Oh! so many, many more.
Not to mention all the stories about who might/would enter the race to save America and the world from Bernie Damn Sanders.* Will our super hero be Biden? Kerry? Bloomberg.
For the love of God, won't someone please save the world from another New Deals/Fair Deal Democrat!
*
Cross post at Jackpine Radicals http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?8269-Enough-already-of-the-anti-Bernie-conspiracy-theories-from-the-moonbat-Bernie-Bros!&p=48154#post48154
Alerting in groups.
The only way to alert group hosts, and only group hosts, to someone posting on a thread is to: (1) alert on an OP, no matter how wonderful or how old, and then add remarks that tell the hosts that the OP is just fine, but please look at these Reply ##s on this thread.
If I am getting trolled on a thread I start in the Bernie Group, I get a notice saying the alert will go directly to the administrators because I seem to be alerting on my own OP, even though I am not doing that in reality. Same if the OP I seem to be alerting on (because I have no other choice) is a day or two old, but the posts on the that thread that I want the hosts to look at are not.
I don't have any problem whatever with admins seeing my alert: I assume they are always able to see whatever they want to see on their own board, anyway. My question is, does that alert go only to the administrators, or will the group hosts also receive the alert? And, if the group hosts don't also receive the alert, why don't they? If someone is abusing the host alert function, the group hosts can deal with it by blocking. By the same token, all the group hosts are not always around, so using DU mail to alert group hosts is cumbersome.
Thanks for whatever info you can give.
Let's establish what is and is not a personal attack.
Hillary's claiming that Bernie has been lying about her (or anything) repeatedly is a personal attack.
Hillary's surrogates bringing up Bernie's religion on TV and radio over and over is a very low kind of personal attack (and, oh so, pre-JFK) and against the values set forth in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and many SCOTUS cases. http://jackpineradicals.org/entry.php?209-Democratic-Primary-2016-Will-religious-bigotry-work-this-time
Commenting on Hillary's age or appearance as has been done countless times to Sanders (though not by Hillary), would be a personal attack.
Hillary's saying that Bernie's proposals are unrealistic and unattainable is not a personal attack. It's false and requires nuanced rebuttal, but it's not a personal attack.
Bernie's saying that Hillary has received lots of money from the Rich and they just may expect some consideration in return is not a personal attack, again, true or not. That plutocrats have bought and sold Washington, D.C. and other countries so that society is not just to everyone is at the core of Sanders' campaign. if the Clintons exemplify that, American voters should know.
Please feel free to add your own examples.
Which do you care about most:
1. The full tax return of a Senator earning $174,000 a year and commuting between Washington D.C. and Vermont
2 The connections between the Clinton Foundation and donations from foreign nations when Hillary was Secretary of State
3. The transcripts of Hillary's $200,000 a pop speeches to the likes of Goldman Sachs?
You may choose more than one. You may also add your own categories. I invite you to elaborate, if you wish.
You missed the point. It's about party unity, not about who is getting called names.
The objective is party unity, which, let's not be coy, is a nicer way of Hillary supporters saying "Vote for Hillary in 2016, no matter what" because they have assumed for years that she will be the 2016 nominee. I hope with all my being that the fix that has been in since 2008 will fail, but that is another story.
For party unity, no one needs to win over the Bernie supporters who are already resigned to biting a bullet or holding their respective noses or whatever they have to do to vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee. The Bernie supporters they need to win over for "party unity" ARE the "Bernie or Bust" supporters and only the "Bernie or Bust" supporters ("Bernie or Bust" being imprecise shorthand for those who will not vote for Hillary no matter what, whether they go Green or other party or stay home or leave the top of the ticket blank or write in Bernie).
I do understand the distinction between "You are bonkers" and "Your decision is bonkers." Still, neither is likely to be useful in achieving party unity. Quite the opposite, in fact. IOW, though phrases like that are red meat to Hillary supporters, like those at DU, it's dumb, IMO, because it is likely to be nearly 100% counter-productive to the stated goal of party unity.
Then again, counter-productive shaming the opposition has been true of almost all Third Way attempts at party unity that I know of, Rahm being one of the more famous examples.
Let's hear it for victim cards!
The gender bias Bernie has had to fight all his life: People trust women more. Just a few sample excerpts:
Study: Why We Think Women Are More Trustworthy Than Men
By Katy Steinmetz @katysteinmetzDec. 13, 2010
......
In this month’s Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Marilyn Boltz and colleagues delve into the intersection of gender, speech patterns and deception. “We found that people perceive women to lie less than men and that they perceive men and women to tell different kinds of lies,” says Boltz, a professor of psychology at Haverford College. “And we found some effects of response timing.”
more at http://healthland.time.com/2010/12/13/study-why-we-think-women-are-more-trustworthy-than-men/
Why Women Are More Trusted Than Men, and How to Use Trust to Our Advantage
Vanessa HallBy Vanessa Hall “The Trust Lady” and author of The Truth About Trust in Business
In a recent survey by Management Today and the Institute of Leadership and Management, female CEOs were found to be more trusted than their male counterparts. In a number of sales training sessions I’ve attended over the years, women have been lauded as more trustworthy sales people than their male colleagues.
At the same time, women are more sensitive to trust and mistrust. In a survey I conducted through an independent researcher we found that only 1 in 20 women will deal with someone they like but do not trust, as opposed to 1 out of 5 men.
So what does this all mean for women in leadership?
more at http://theglasshammer.com/2011/03/11/why-women-are-more-trusted-than-men-and-how-to-use-trust-to-our-advantage/
Makeup Makes Women More Trusted
by Big Think Editors
What's the Latest Development?
Makeup not only enhances a woman's looks, it also increases people's perceptions of her likability, competence and trustworthiness, according to a new Harvard study. When 149 adults were shown pictures of females wearing varying degrees of makeup, they "judged women made up in varying intensities of luminance contrast (fancy words for how much eyes and lips stand out compared with skin) as more competent than barefaced women, whether they had a quick glance or a longer inspection."
more at http://theglasshammer.com/2011/03/11/why-women-are-more-trusted-than-men-and-how-to-use-trust-to-our-advantage/
Of course, results of studies of this kind often vary, so google for the study that best fits the card you want to play at the moment in question.
BTW, I am not excited about electing a victim the most powerful person in the world. You?
Not only embarrassing, but damaging. I've sat on hiring committees. Trust me, it doesn't take
much to make them skittish, especially if a high paying, high responsibility job is at stake.
Failure to hire is a much harder case to prove than discrimination on the job. It's much easier to turn away on woman on the ground that no one wants to hire a lawyer and shlep to the EEOC because someone said something, even positive, about her hair.
I hasten to add that the committees on which I served were striving for diversity. Still...they were skittish. I also know how skittish companies are when someone hired because of striving for fairness and diversity performs at less than expected levels. The whole discussion is about how to go about easing out that person uber fairly and, if fairness doesn't fix the problem, then in a way that he or she has no grounds to sue. We went through no such drills when white males under performed or were a poor fit.
All you have to do is add on top of that an even higher likelihood that a woman might play the gender card over almost anything; and it could be a real problem for women seeking work, especially high paying work. Easing someone out in an uber fair and lawsuit proof (one hopes) way gets pretty expensive at $200K a year or more, plus nice benefits.
She wasn't such a kid, then or when she was President of College Republicans.
Here's the chrono (Her birthday is October 26, shortly before election day. )
Canvassed for Nixon at 13
Goldwater Girl at 17 (I knew better by 17-18, didn't you?)
President of College Republicans at Wellesley, ages18-21--probably would have been hard to find a more liberal school in the country, then, too.
Now here is where I begin to question/doubt her version.
Went to the Republican convention at age 21 (1968) and supposedly supported Rockefeller, probably the most liberal Republican running (or imaginable). He had tried for the nom in 1960, 1964, too. but she had supported the considerably more conservative candidates those years. So I tend to question whether she supported Rockefeller in 1968, or one of the more conservative candidates, like Nixon, for whom she had canvassed at 13, or Reagan. But, o.k, let's give her Rockefeller, just for grins and giggles.
Next, she was shocked, shocked, I tell you, to hear racist comments at the Republican convention and immediately turned Democrat, supporting Eugene McCarthy (Which means she was already a Democrat and a relatively liberal one, to boot, before she met Bubba in law school--I don't buy that at all.) This means she had never heard racist comments from Republicans while working for Nixon or Jim Crow defender, er I mean, states rights defender, Goldwater. That seems so implausible to me. It also seems implausible to me that she immediately decided that Democrats must not be racist. After all, in 1968, there were plenty of racists in both parties and Johnson had certainly needed Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while those who had filibustered it were Democrats. For me, her story, while full of drama and sympathetic principles simply does not seem plausible.
The following year, she made a graduation speech. I had read that he speech dissed Republican Massachusetts Senator Brooke, the invited graduation speaker. I've read the speech. At most, it compared her generation, just starting out, with his. No dissing of him personally in any way, no dissing him over his being a Republican and no dissing of Republicans. She was,after all, the outgoing President of College Republicans at the time.
The next school year, she met Bubba in law school. IMO, that is when she became a Democrat, not when she was at the 1968 Republican National Convention. In 1985, they, together with people like Warner, Gore, Lieberman, etc. founded the DLC. She accompanied Al From to Europe, to spread the DLC gospel to European politicians. Blair was probably their biggest success.
In recent years, at various points she has said (1) her politics are rooted in the conservatism (read, Republican conservatism) in which she was raised; (2) she is a moderate; and (3) she is a progressive. However, recently, she bristled and corrected Matthews when he called her a liberal. I see that as her trying to be (almost) all things to all people. Others may find that all three of those descriptions apply truthfully to her.
The more obviously emotionally disturbed are, well, disturbing.
However, I know of no way to help them anyway.
I was once babysitting--for a psychiatrist, btw--whose mother in law was in the home with the kids. He told me she was not well, but he had given her enough medication for horse and she would be asleep soon. A saner, less gullible twenty year old would have left on the spot. Didn't even leave me an emergency number to call and I forgot to ask for one.
Yep, you guessed it. The mother in law never went to sleep. Acted out all night. The youngest of the three kids eventually fell asleep. The other two did not. I was too busy never taking my eyes off the mother in law and trying to make everything seem normal and under my control to get any of the kids bathed and in bed.
When he and his wife got home from their party at around 4:30 am, I was as exhausted and wrung out as any 20 year old can be. However, he took me to the ER with him and her to get her admitted, so I could describe the mother in law's behavior to the admitting doc. He told me that it was a miracle that I, too, was not in a psychotic break because that is what happens to people, even professionals, who spend many hours with someone who is in a psychotic break. That came as close to telling me that "crazy is contagious" as anyone has ever come--and he being the admitting doc for people in the midst psychotic breaks. And insulating oneself from potentially contagious craziness may be the best reason to use ignore.
Now that I look back on it, I don't think I even got paid for that night! Fsck that pyschiatrist and his wife twice. The mother in law (who never did try to hurt herself or any of us, just behaved bizarrely) was apparently the best adult in that family.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
