Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Haveadream's Journal
Haveadream's Journal
April 21, 2016

Reich Urges Unity:"Either is a 1000X Better President than Republicans"- Berniacs Post More Hate

Yesterday notable Sander's supporter Robert Reich asked his facebook followers to "tone it down" and to agree that either candidate would be "a thousand times better than any of the Republican candidates". He was motivated to post his message based on the urgent need to unify against the GOP and his FB comment section being filled with anti Hillary rants.

What was the reaction of the Berniacs?? An uninterrupted stream of more Hillary Hate posted to Reich's facebook feed.

Where is the bus?


Reading through many of your comments about today's New York primary, I want to urge that Bernie supporters tone down negative characterizations of Hillary, and Hillary supporters do the same with regard to Bernie. I know both candidates personally. Both are thoughtful and dedicated people who care deeply about this nation. Either of them would be a thousand times better president than any of the Republican candidates. But we will need to join together to ensure one of them becomes president. It's important we not jeopardize that future joint effort through excessive divisiveness now.
What do you think?
April 20, 2016

There Has Always Been Inequality

There has always been inequality. Before the top 1% was an issue, before the banks and the corporations began to monopolize the marketplace, millions of people in the United States experienced what white, middle class men are just starting to. The disparity of wealth and opportunity was not created by today's 1%. The 1% has simply brought it to the attention of a group who had not previously been affected. Thus, the wistfulness for the "good old days" is one that many Democrats do not share.

For the first time, the white, middle class male is experiencing just some of what minorities and women have for centuries. For them, it is primarily an emerging economic injustice. But, for many Democrats, it has always been about that and so much more. That is why many don't hold the 1% exclusively accountable for the systemic oppression they have always faced. The 1% did not create it; it has ALWAYS been there. And it comes from a place deep within the 99% where discrimination and inequality are just part of everyday life.

April 16, 2016

Hillary Paid 35% Taxes and Gave 11% to Charity -- Bernie? Not so Much

Last year, we paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.7 percent and a combined federal, state, and local effective rate of 45.8 percent. We contributed 10.8 percent of our income to charity. In 2013, the numbers were similar. We paid an effective federal tax rate of 35.4 percent and a combined rate of 44.6 percent, and donated 11.4 percent of our income to charity.


Sanders return shows federal tax rate of 13.5 percent in 2014

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, and his wife, Jane, had income of $205,271, according to the tax return. They made charitable contributions totaling $8,350.

April 14, 2016

Women Under the Gun - Guns are a Women's Issue

What are the Dem candidates doing about this?

How Gun Violence Affects Women and 4 Policy Solutions to Better Protect Them

Weak gun laws at the federal and state levels leave far too many women facing a fatal end to domestic abuse. Violence against women looks very different than violence against men. Whether in the context of sexual assault on college campuses or in the military, violence by an intimate partner, or other types of violent victimization, women’s experiences of violence in this country are unique from those of men. One key difference in the violence committed against women in the United States is who commits it: Women are much more likely to be victimized by people they know, while men are more likely to be victims of violent crime at the hands of strangers.

Between 2003 and 2012, 65 percent of female violent crime victims were targeted by someone they knew; only 34 percent of male violent crime victims knew their attackers. Intimate partners make up the majority of known assailants: During the same time period, 34 percent of all women murdered were killed by a male intimate partner, compared to the only 2.5 percent of male murder victims killed by a female intimate partner.

A staggering portion of violence against women is fatal, and a key driver of these homicides is access to guns. From 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Guns are used in fatal intimate partner violence more than any other weapon: Of all the women killed by intimate partners during this period, 55 percent were killed with guns. Women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than are women in other high income countries.

This report provides an overview of the data regarding the intersection of intimate partner violence and gun violence, describing four policies that states and the federal government should enact to reduce dangerous abusers’ access to guns and prevent murders of women:

Bar all convicted abusers, stalkers, and people subject to related restraining orders from possessing guns.

Provide all records of prohibited abusers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

Require a background check for all gun sales.

Ensure that abusers surrender any firearms they own once they become prohibited.

April 6, 2016

Bernie Sanders Wins Wisconsin Democratic Primary But...

it doesn't look good for Sanders going forward.

While Sanders has now outraised Clinton in each of the last three months and won six of the last seven contests between the two candidates, Clinton’s delegate cushion has proven difficult to cut into. This disparity is a result of the types of states each is winning: Clinton swept every state in the South and has won more delegate-heavy states like Texas, Florida and Ohio, while the majority of Sanders’ wins have come in caucus states that carry fewer delegates.

As Politico noted, one problem for Sanders is that he doesn’t perform well in closed primaries, and 16 of the states remaining in the contest between him and Clinton are closed — just two are open with no restrictions on who can vote in the Democratic contest.

Some of the the delegate-rich states he’d need win to stay close to Clinton with pledged delegates hold closed primaries, including New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and New Jersey. Sanders’ wins have come in caucuses and in three primaries where independents aren’t barred from participating.

April 6, 2016

Wisconsin Latest from Nate Silver - Bad Luck for Bernie


Democrats award most of their delegates by congressional district in Wisconsin and in other states. Usually that doesn’t matter much because the share of delegates each candidate gets in a state winds up closely matching their statewide share of the vote anyway. Sometimes, however, a candidate gets lucky or unlucky because of rounding.

Right now, Sanders looks to be getting a bit unlucky in Wisconsin. There are six delegates available in each of the 1st, 6th, 7th and 8th congressional districts. He leads Clinton in each one, but is splitting those delegates 3-3 with her in each case because his lead isn’t quite large enough for a 4-2 split. That could change as more votes are reported, of course.

April 5, 2016

Think You're Not Biased Against Women Leaders? Take the Test

Hey Hillary Group! My post in GDP could use some love. Of course they are having a fit.


Thanks everyone!

April 5, 2016

Think You're Not Biased Against Women Leaders? Take the Test

Biases, and the stereotypes on which they are based, are a powerful obstacle for women seeking leadership positions. Researchers have found that stereotypes about leadership are decidedly masculine. Although people are less likely to have explicit biases today than in the past, implicit or unconscious bias remains powerful.

Most people have some implicit bias about gender and gender roles. Even people who strongly value gender equity and would prefer to see more women in leadership positions may find that their implicit biases work against their intentions.

If asked, most of us would say that discrimination against women in the workplace is wrong and unacceptable. Unfortunately, research shows that treating women and men equally in hiring decisions, job evaluations, and leadership positions is more of an ideal than a reality. So if we agree that sex discrimination is wrong, why is it still happening? One answer is that many of us harbor unconscious biases that can affect our judgment, even though we may be unaware of them. Uncovering these unconscious, or implicit, biases can be the first step to eliminating them.

So how do we uncover them? AAUW has collaborated with Project Implicit and Harvard University researchers to create a test that looks at the mental associations we make between gender and a variety of concepts, many of which affect our beliefs about women in positions of leadership.

Take the test here:


April 4, 2016

Prediction: Bernie will be a Footnote in History

and Hillary will make history.

I don't know how other people feel but after last week's accusations, like Hillary and Dean, I am so done with this.

I actually liked BS at one time. No more. Even with his supporters behaving like fools I tried to overlook it. For me, it really started to unravel when he blew out of North Carolina and wouldn't even acknowledge the contest there other than to say the people in Minnesota were "smarter". From that point on, he pivoted from his banks and the 1% to focusing his corruption charges on Hillary and the Dem party. He intimated "cheating" at every turn even when he was clearly the person who stood to gain.

I really wanted him to stay in the race and use his platform to advance Dem causes. In the last month he has admitted to using the party for media attention and been completely outspoken in his intent to tear Hillary and the party apart. What makes it all the more petty is that he only started to do that when it became obvious he was going to lose.

I'm done and I think most Dems are, too. He has overstayed his welcome by a lot. It is time to go back to Vermont because I seriously doubt many people in the Senate really want to see him again. Maybe he can go on a highly paid speaking circuit --the irony! and spout his inspired message to his followers while the rest of the party works on actually getting things accomplished. He will be a barely mentioned footnote in history. Hillary Clinton will go down in history as a groundbreaking trailblazer and the first woman President.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Feb 27, 2016, 08:41 PM
Number of posts: 1,630
Latest Discussions»Haveadream's Journal