General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFor second year, Sanders earns more than $1M
https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/22/second-year-sanders-earns-1m/A recent financial disclosure report shows the junior Vermont senator made nearly $1.06 million in 2017. Most of his income $885,767 came from advances and royalties, according to the report filed in May.
Sanders earned $174,000 for his service in the Senate.
The senator hit the $1 million mark for the first time in 2016. Most of his income came from a book deal Our Revolution, which came out after his failed bid for the Democratic nomination for president.
Sanders, an independent, historically has been among the least wealthy members of Congress. In 2014, for example, he earned little more than his congressional salary and had $330,000 in assets.
The 2016 presidential bid catapulted him to national prominence and paved the way for lucrative public speaking and publishing opportunities.
Sid
Squinch
(50,955 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)...this falls under the Bernie Exception, so all is well.
NB: I have always maintained that Democratic politicians are just as entitled to speaking fees and royalties as anyone else, and have the DU battle-scars to prove it. Some here really seem to believe that "True Dems" should wear sackcloth, go barefoot, and walk from state to state rather than taking Business Class on an airplane. But I'm not going to call out anyone for hypocrisy until I see what kind of responses the OP is getting regarding this particular politician's good fortune.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)I am not going to bash Hillary about anything, nope, I'm not. Just not gonna do it. I thank her for her continuing service to our nation. Won't start any veiled threads against her either. Nope. I wish she or Bernie were President now.
brush
(53,787 posts)household income went down. I mean what with his wife's ...er, ah...problems with the college and all.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)And insisting she should donate the proceeds. Bit of a double standard, no?
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)mcar
(42,334 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)you dont do yourself is a double standard. Not everything is tit for tat. Bernie was never FLOTUS, either.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)not donating her book royalties. Did he do that?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)profiting from being an office holder? General vagaries implying corruption at every turn. The whole gambit. When you put yourself up as a moral authority, then walk the walk yourself.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)your claim.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)I've been clear this is about double standards and hypocrisy. Have you read the link in the OP? It looks like you are just trying to whittle everything away to make it look like any comparison of Bernie is not valid.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Attacking Clinton over things
you dont do yourself is a double standard.
When did Sanders attack Clinton over book royalties?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)no broader message he had except for book royalties, but we know differently. Do you think his whole campaign was about book royalties? Please provide a link that shows his rallies were about book royalties, thanks.
My post 66 from yesterday:
"If you paint one person as corrupt because you imply she is profiting from holding office, but you don't hold another person accountable for the same thing--especially after the whole ethos of someone's popularity is implying others are corrupt, then that is a double standard. This is not hard. Like the Republican's "family values" ruse. Gingrich types cheating on their wives but claiming only they have family values. This is not hard."
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Was his campaign about book royalties? Describe what you remember about Bernie's message.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)the exact words, I hereby condemn Clinton's book royalties, then nothing about his message matters. But that wasn't his message, was it. Explain in detail how you view Bernie's message. It is about book royalties?
BTW, you can Google for the info and it is readily available. I just did. You can too. Google Chicago Tribune Clinton discloses book royalties and you'll see an article. You can Google all day, for that matter. Post your findings here...
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Sanders hypocrisy made sense was if he had made a statement specifically against her book royalties. But if you were just making vague allegations of hypocrisy then indeed no specific claim need be substantiated.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)of corruption and his specific attacks on Clinton were only about book royalties. You can Google that article I described above. You can see what he is attacking her for. That would be the best thing since this distraction you are trying only shows you are trying to pretend that it is not hypocritical for him to profit from his popularity in office while holding others to a different standard.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)of all the millionaires in Congress, especially those who are ramping up 2020 presidential runs. Any idea where I can find that information?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)the charity info! They are also a requirement for those who demand transparency from other candidates, no excuses.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)the charity info! They are also a requirement for those who demand transparency from other candidates, no excuses.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I suppose I would too were the OP not validating my narratives, as well.
I'd also pretend I'm merely attempting to clarify an earlier vagary as I continue to hijack the thread... all in the name of truth, accuracy and righteousness, of course.
Of course, we'll rationalize our course with all the pretense of sincerity we can assume.
George II
(67,782 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Attacking Clinton over things
you dont do yourself is a double standard.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)In fact, I dont recall anyone having a problem with her earning book royalties.
Grasping at straws.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)know them well. Talk about grasping at straws.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I can't believe this shit is still going on.
Anyway, Bin Sober, if I keep on drinking this mint julep I made with mint from out back and Bulleit 10 year Bourbon, I ain;t going to be so sober tonight..
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)progressoid
(49,991 posts)She wrote a book called Frankenstein.
It was also made into a movie.
There's more.
Try the google machine.
George II
(67,782 posts)kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2018, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)
And they are PLAYING, as they've just thrown a bunch of flower petals in the lake. ... the little girl is one of the only people that doesn't treat him like a monster.
Seriously... try Google... it's your friend.
George II
(67,782 posts)kdmorris
(5,649 posts)Do you see the entire world in such a negative, horrible light or just things on this board that upset you because you don't like the person you've responded to?
For a child, play is necessary to grow brain cells, learn and grow. It's how young children learn best. I'm not sure why playing with a little girl makes it "even worse".
Maybe this will help: http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=240
George II
(67,782 posts)...(posted below for your review)
As Frankenstein picks up the little girl she screams "no, you're hurting me...NO!"
And then she drowned.
Sorry, my idea of "playing" doesn't include hurting little girls and drowning them. That some are defending the use of that sadistic scene is very disappointing and disturbing.
This is a very unkind accusation you are hurling at George. You said that his response is only because he does not like the poster. Really? How do you know this? And from the clip George posted below, he threw her in and she died.
You should watch the clip George posted. Others here that "said they watched the movie and she did not drown" you are making things up. Georges post of the video shows she did and this is not playing. She died and cried "you are hurting me" before he threw her in.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)You know Frankenstein is a fictional character, yes?
Its from a film you probably saw in the theater as a kid.
These arent real either
?itemid=5488863
George II
(67,782 posts)It may not bother you, but I'm sure it's disturbing to many of the members of DU.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)your position here is based on ignorance. You have been provided a literary explanation yet you cling to your ugly interpretation. Do not read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn the language will shock you.
George II
(67,782 posts)....of posting a graphic of Hannibal Lechter or any other violent person or incident unless it was to prove a specific point and I EXPLAINED that point.
We're still waiting for that explanation, which hasn't been forthcoming.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)and Mary Shelley's monster bears little resemblance to the character as portrayed in this movie.
Anyone eager to posit "literary explanations" should probably base them on actual literature.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 24, 2018, 05:55 PM - Edit history (1)
The film is quite different. The scene of the Monster hurling the child into the water is one of the most haunting and horrifying in the 1931 film. Why anyone would want it on a continuous loop is bewildering at best.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)Pictorial and cinematic violence might not be real, but that doesn't mean it's not disturbing.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)a little girl into a lake does not occur in the novel.
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Im still trying to find out if it was wrong to attack Clinton for not donating her book royalties.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and write books that others want to read?
George II
(67,782 posts)...
Me.
(35,454 posts)without tax returns?
George II
(67,782 posts)Or the DNC or State/Local Democratic Party Committees.
mcar
(42,334 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)For His Hypocrisy thread. Never mind.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)It is about hypocrisy.
George II
(67,782 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Tavarious Jackson
(1,595 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)from holding office, but you don't hold another person accountable for the same thing--especially after the whole ethos of someone's popularity is implying others are corrupt, then that is a double standard. This is not hard. Like the Republican's "family values" ruse. Gingrich types cheating on their wives but claiming only they have family values. This is not hard.
Cha
(297,299 posts)to them, RB.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)He has income from books. Thanks, Cha.
Of course, it shouldn't have been necessary to explain this, but still...
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)it will be that none of this ever happened or it was all a big misunderstanding...lol.
The goalposts are quite movable. Too bad they weren't so for Iceland earlier today.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)by asking a ton of clarifying and deflective questions that have nothing to do with the point.
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And when they bashed the talks that the Clinton's gave.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)I agree, book income bashing is silly.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)hypocrisy of double standards that have turned many off. And it wasn't just book income bashing. C'mon now. This is not fooling anyone.
George II
(67,782 posts)...you can google it.
But this is a discussion about Sanders' book royalties, surely you're not trying to "refight the primaries", are you?
George II
(67,782 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)are sought after for speeches, books and other personal appearances. It is shameful to fabricate baseless attacks on others that imply otherwise. Glad you attribute it now to plain ol popularity instead of some nefarious underhanded dealings.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)and what the people seeking the politician for those speeches, books and other personal appearances may want in return for the favor of seeking the politician and giving the politician time from the politician.
Popularity out of context is what makes politics work.
Popularity is only nefarious when it suggests nefarious underhanded dealings -- and it sometimes does depending on the politician and the people seeking out the politician.
There is a huge difference between being sought after by the crowds on Amazon or at your local book store and being sought after by Wall Street. A big difference.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)As we all know by now, none of those Wall Street attacks were proven. None of them. It was all a fabricated attack meant to benefit himself by drawing a contrast with other politicians about transparency. Tax returns are also a big indicator of transparency. That whole "Wall Street" canard was fabricated and used for his own personal gain. So "Wall Street" was indeed beneficial to one candidate, just not the one you are inferring. Most people saw that. That is probably why you are seeing double standards and incorrect assumptions about other politicians being called out.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)Hillary's books are also very popular. I was just talking about that with a friend on Saturday. I've read and own some of her books.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)gotchas are not facts. In fact, no facts were provided, which is the point.
We also should have learned a lesson about phony attacks on Democrats and how much they hurt our party. Contrived assumptions are not facts. They only help the GOP.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Well at least he was blunt & truthful when asked why he joined the Dem Party as a candidate in 2016.
Here ya go.
Thanks for posting.
I read where he condemned 'billionaires', in a recent statement.
No mention of millionaires anymore, tho.
Hmm.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 23, 2018, 03:23 AM - Edit history (1)
or billionaires, but go ahead and keep constructing those strawmen. He condemns the unfairness of the system that benefits them so completely and the money that they put into the game. Iis it millionaires and billionaires who have been buying his book fostering even the semblance of impropriety regarding the potential to buy or to have bought political favors? No? No shit.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Hmm hmm hmm ..
"He condemns the unfairness of the system that benefits them so completely"
Until he is one too.
From Dark Money Pac, to hiding taxes
That's the real bull shit .
No wonder he's now only condemning billionaires.
Until he becomes one, that is.
Cha ching.."money & media"..bernie's own words. He told us.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)sticking to the stupidest argument imaginable, that because now that he is a millionaire he won't say that millionaires and billionaires are getting unfair advantages. He's not now nor has he ever been calling to round up millionaires and billionaires just for being rich. He is still calling for a fair tax system and infrastructure etc. which would presumably tax him more today under his rhetoric the same as it would have before. That shit you guys spout here is just thin.
Yeah, I wish he hadn't supported a pac that allows for dark money...like every other super-pac out there that benefits just about every mainstream politician in the nation. Of course that part is forgotten when people go at him for this, but yes, I wish it hadn't been done. I think it was a horrible decision. You get one point for sanders endorsing a pac that can take dark money for progressive endeavors, I guess, presumably, siince he actually bothers to make this situation we have with money in politics a talking point. I'm not clear on the reasons for it and propbably won't accept that those reasons are good enough. Do you really give a shit about anybody elses' dark money?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)"Do you really give a shit about anybody elses' dark money?"
Apparently it is *you* who doesn't really give a crap about anybody elses dark money, as long as it benefits the politicians you most favor. The hypocrisy and double standards are truly stunning.
And most politicians running for office talk about money in politics. The subject matter does not belong to Sanders.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and don't like it. And if I were given an opportunity to ask Sanders about it directly I would. Yes, other politicians have mentioned money in politics. I can't think of any who have run on it as a campaign issue. And, I'm not a purist. I'll take the best candidate I can get. Put up somebody else talking about the issues I think are most dire (and at the heart of so many of the other toxic symptoms) who did not endorse a PAC that takes dark money, and that person gets my vote over Sanders.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Look at the contradictions from the first paragraph to the second.
Then look at the never-ending irony. The Vermont Digger discloses Sanders' dark money and you are talking about "issues" as if all that matters is what someone says on the stump and not what their actions are. The hypocrisy and double standards are stunning.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)fact that it was structured the way it was did come up and was spoken to, but not adequately to me. And if you want to dig through any post I've ever made on the subject of that pacs ability to take dark money, you will find a consistent note of distaste. It does undermine the position. I don't care what the benefits are, I don't know how they could outweigh that. But that hardly puts sanders on par with the most of the field.
No, all that matters is not the rhetoric. I thought that I'd made that clear. Give me a better candidate who hasn't put up any question marks and I will choose that candidate over Sanders. That is hardly what Washington politics tends to offer. And this is an issue I would want us to hold Sanders feet to the fire for. I don't mind that, if at least being honest enough in that endeavor to take him in context of the field.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)noted his dark money. It's in the OP link. That's the point -- the hypocrisy. Why dig through anything, especially your posts. What is written on the internet is not the same as what a newspaper like Vermont Digger discloses about their hometown Senator.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)mean they don't report any facts, but their slant is hilariously transparent.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)out as a moral authority but does not apply the same standards to himself, that is hypocrisy. Vermont Digger is his hometown newspaper. It is hardly a hit job to expect one politician to uphold transparency standards he set for others.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)Neither is it true that Our Revolution is a PAC of any kind.
Our Revolution, launched this week to continue the movement that his campaign started by raising and spending money to support candidates in lockstep with Sanders ideals. But its disappointing many who agreed with Sanders call for getting money out of politics because as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, the group would not be required to disclose its donors.
snip========================================================
501(c)(4): Also known as dark money groups, these make up some of the most relevant political nonprofits today. Technically deemed social welfare organizations, these groups cant have political activity such as making ads advocating for or against candidates as their primary purpose; this has unofficially been interpreted to mean they must spend less than 50 percent of their activities on politics or elections. But they can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and organizations alike without having to disclose who contributed that money.
snip========================================================
Dark money: Dark money is money spent on political activity that comes from undisclosed donors. A huge source of dark money is 501(c)(4)s, which dont have to disclose their donors but often engage in political activity, but it can also come from 501(c)(6)s and shell LLCs. (An important point to note is that super PACs do disclose their donors, and are not considered to be dark money because of this.)
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/08/26/bernie-sanderss-new-political-group-wont-have-to-disclose-its-donors/
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/02/17/a-glossary-of-campaign-finance-in-the-u-s/#501(c)(4)
https://sunlightfoundation.com/2016/02/17/a-glossary-of-campaign-finance-in-the-u-s/#d
JCanete
(5,272 posts)dark money, since, according to this quick google search that came up with an NBC story,
super PACs do benefit from some loopholes in disclosure.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/how-democrats-use-dark-money-win-elections-n849391
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)"Sanders, an independent, historically has been among the least wealthy members of Congress".
For a man in his 70's I think he's adequately paid his dues.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You think this is a lot, wait until he retires. It will make this look like chump change.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)just wait until he's out of office, and can collect speaking fees.
Sid
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Pretty sure a nurse in California will pay him a giant salary.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)a lobby position in DC for Golman Sacs or getting a million dollar speaking fee from one of those companies. Totally not apples and oranges.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Well done.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I never said what you claimed which would be a requirement to make your charge accurate.
Nothing I wrote can be defined as apples and oranges useless one does what you did, pull oranges out of the air.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the door, as if that is really what is happening here. He didn't decide to get popular with the American public because he was on his way out. He hasn't rebranded or attempted to make himself more marketable or corporate friendly for that lobby job when he retires, etc. What moves has he made that would suggest that he's been gearing up to cash in? How do you envision him doing that when he retires?
Me.
(35,454 posts)His main focus is/has been economics
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Much more at the link too.
Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)Apparently three of those net about a million.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Uh, well, that is to say, he must release the transcripts of those secret speeches if he actually made any such speeches.
Maven
(10,533 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)We know he was never really serious about that anyway.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)May I call you Jim? You as a lawyer knows a sitting candidate can not receive speaking fees.
15. BERNIE MUST RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS SECRET GOLDMAN SACHS SPEECHES!!
Uh, well, that is to say, he must release the transcripts of those secret speeches if he actually made any such speeches.
Your point is silly and indeed pointless.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As to forms of address, my friends call me Jim. Feel free to do so.
As to my point: This thread is awash in accusations of hypocrisy. There are many of us who have no problem with book royalties, be they Bernie's or Hillary's, but who do have a problem with large speaking fees from companies with a stake in government actions. Even if you disagree with that position, it's not a double standard.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)some, lol.
This thread is also about double standards and his own demands for transparency, especially from Hillary. Not to mention the entire arc of his message which we all know by now, one of them implying corruption if profiting from holding office. Think about what he includes in all of that -- we all know them by now, as well. Like accusing people of nefarious actions because they are popular and sought after for speeches-- the same reason people buy his book -- they like him and he is sought after. Double standards galore.
Transparency for some but not for him is most certainly hypocrisy and double standards.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)on book royalties a "lie" about Sanders' overall message? You are now parsing to get a desired result -- the result that even Sanders own words still on the internet don't match about book revenues. What do I get to call that?
Look up Chicago Tribune Clinton reveals book revenue and see what Sanders words were. This is hilarious that you think book revenues are the magic ticket out of the whole Clinton message.
George II
(67,782 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Until he became one.
Now its just 'billionaires'...
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)He never campaigned against millionaires and billionaires - thats malarkey.
Hes campaigned against millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share and tilting the playing field completely in their favor.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)He will be a multimillionaire by that time. Many states have laws requiring this to get on the ballot.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)But he's dropped the millionaire part -- interesting.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-slams-billionaires-gets-reminded-he-owns-3-houses
Twitter was not friendly
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)how he dwells on the cliché and superficial trappings of billionaires as being the evil bad things, yet ignores the Russian billionaires/oligarchs who are infiltrating our government, influencing our policies, positioning to raid our coffers with the help of the GOP, have pending indictments over actual and provably criminal methods of attacking our elections......ETC.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....millionaires and billionaires. That's not malarkey, that's truth.
Why do you you have a signature seemlingly advocating violence against women?
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)For any woman that has been through domestic violence/ any physical violence. I gotta say images like that are both disturbing and triggering. I remember their last one as well.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)You have a picture Frankenstein tossing a child/woman into the water and drowning her. I know you are trying to make this about something else, yet with all that is going on at the border it is not funny. You depict violence against women and children and that is never something to be joked about. I ask you to please remove it. It hurts all of us that have suffered violence.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)But, hey, you understood it was silly to go after that gif when when you said "not at all surprised at any effort like this to twist things around and make it about someone else" or something else.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Probably don't want to trigger anyone with a problem with staplers, though.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)I mean, I didn't know that off the top of my head--I had to Google it.
But since I don't know what you're talking about, I guess you are smarter than I.
Though it seems to this not-so-smart person that less time spent making sure people on the same side as you do exactly what you want and more time figuring out a way to make sure Republicans actually lose power might be a better tactic. But, hey, you're the smart one.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)you are mistaken.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Isolating that image as a gif depicts violence of a female child and that is disturbing.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)Or that your arms will fall off.
Or that you will eat a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch and contract leprosy.
In fact, in spite of the fact that Hassin Bin Sober, someone who has been a member here FOUR YEARS LONGER THAN YOU HAVE, has as a sig line pic a one half second .gif of a scene from one of the most famous monster movies of all time, released all the way back in 1937, ........
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO YOU.
You'll be fine.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)248. I'm betting you won't wake up with malaria in the morning.
Or that your arms will fall off.
Or that you will eat a grilled cheese sandwich for lunch and contract leprosy.
good bet. I am sure you are making some profound point here, yet it alludes me.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL HAPPEN TO YOU.
You'll be fine.
Hmmm all caps screaming at me that they have been here 4 years longer than I have. I assume you have a point here since you yelled at me, so what does it matter how long I have been here compared to them? What is your point?
The clip has been explained to me many times. Some say google it.She did not die. She did. One said he was just playing.He was not. The point. An isolated gif depicting violence against women is disturbing. The poster has been called out here with people telling them that the violence is disturbing , yet keeps that image. You call it a classic monster movie where children die from violence. It is far to close for what is happening to women and girls daily. There should be no place for it here. A considerate poster that has been here 4 yars longer than I should understand where posters are coming from and how the gif disturbs many woman would remove what many find offensive
PS. Your entire post is offensive.Screaming at me in caps and defending an indefensible sig. that women here found offensive and you are condescending about our concerns,
A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)Ballet is offensive to me. Your pics glorify an activity that is dangerous and is a serious risk to young women as well as more experienced dancers.
It is an ancient patriarchal art form that makes objects out of women, demeans their individuality and is harmful to their physique. Many thousands of ballet dancers over the last tens of decades are permanently crippled due to the strenuous and dangerous requirements of ballet.
Ballet is an affront to all those who care about women and their health.
Your pics demean women and promote this cruelty.
Every single post you put up that includes those pictures is offensive.
Please delete them.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)betsuni
(25,537 posts)Response to betsuni (Reply #261)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)It is contemporary dance. But you would know because were a dancer, right? You think the little girl in the Frankenstein movie wasn't killed by the monster even though in the movie she was. Suddenly nitpicking is bad?
By the way, according to your ballet-other link, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, sneakers, shoes and "other" are ballet.
Response to betsuni (Reply #264)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)betsuni
(25,537 posts)American ballet students learn five positions.
Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #266)
A HERETIC I AM This message was self-deleted by its author.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)I merely raised my voice for effect.
George II
(67,782 posts)...4200 seconds. That means, if your estimate is correct, there are 4199.5 other seconds that could have been used, yet that half second was chosen - a scene of a girl being thrown to her death. Sweet!
This is why violence against women and children is treated so nonchalantly these days. It's beyond belief that some have no qualms about it and seemingly joke about it.
Inexcusable.
PS - the movie was released in 1931.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)Or was it the bourbon?
Anyway.....
This is why violence against women and children is treated so nonchalantly these days. It's beyond belief that some have no qualms about it and seemingly joke about it.
Being thrown to her death?!? Seriously?
The Monster threw her 2 feet from the fucking shore of the lake!!!
Frankly I think there are entirely too many people on this board who simply can not fucking wait to find the next stupid ass, innocuous, banal thing to be offended by and that gives them yet another chance to wag their school marm fingers at the offending party.
Jesus Hortensis Christ on a lakefront throwing daisy's. Fuck me sideways, but this board is getting tedious.
Response to A HERETIC I AM (Reply #254)
betsuni This message was self-deleted by its author.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,370 posts)Which said and asked;
"The little girl dies. Didn't you know that?"
I don't give a shit
The whole point of this sub-thread is that exception was taken to a tiny, obscure little flash of a looped .gif image from a monster movie that is over eighty fucking years old! The little girl in the film didn't die! It's a fantasy! A MOVIE! The movie doesn't center on the monster and his wanton desire to kill women, by any possible stretch of the imagination! It is about the hubris of a scientist who thinks he can cheat death. The scene from which the .gif is taken demonstrates the unreliability of a cobbled together being, such that it is missing compassion and/or understanding. To make a huge deal out of such a tiny portion of a classic film that has a totally different message, such that it misses the larger point of the thing is the height of inanity.
This sort of bullshit sidetracking is what makes DU suck these days. It is in part why we have lost so many great writers, thinkers, posters and just decent liberals from this site over the last few years. This sort of platitudinous crap is everything people hate about the liberal side of the political spectrum. The mere fact that a prolific poster can not get past such a banal fucking half second .gif and chooses to call out a poster with a ten year membership completely defies credulity (Edit. Credulity is the wrong word. It should read "Reason, logic and any semblance of perspective". That's better).
I'll take the good humor and give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has been here ten years and averages 5 posts a day over someone who has been here 6 years and averages over 23, every single day of the fucking week.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Did anyway and won! The reason why DU has lost so many great writers, thinkers, posters and just decent liberals over the last few years is because of disruptors who hate Democrats/liberals. Everybody knows this. The excuse that they were driven away by politically correct liberals is ....
No, the monster is not missing compassion and/or understanding. The monster is all too human. Read the novel.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)The monster says, "A considerable period elapsed before I discovered one of the causes of the uneasiness of this amiable family: it was poverty, and they suffered that evil in a very distressing degree. Their nourishment consisted entirely of the vegetables of their garden and the milk of one cow, which gave very little during the winter, when its masters could scarcely procure food to support it. They often, I believe, suffered the pangs of hunger very poignantly, especially the two younger cottagers, for several times they placed food before the two old men when they reserved none for themselves. This trait of kindness moved me sensibly. I had been accustomed, during the night, to steal a part of their store for my own consumption, but when I found that in doing this I inflicted pain on the cottagers, I abstained, and satisfied myself with berries, nuts, and roots, which I gathered from a neighboring wood."
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)"fire bad." So it's a different literary work.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)The monster in the novel is extremely intelligent, can speak, etc but looks like a monster. The monster in the movie is lacking a lot of what the novel offers. This scene in the movie is about the innocence of the monster not the overwhelming humanity of him.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Specifically, you were applying the themes from the novel to the movie and that just isn't correct.
So either be more clear about what you know or realize maybe you aren't correct in what you are typing.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)Feel free to use it in the future. It's a great word.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,921 posts)It's gaining traction!
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)From the TCM synopsis of the plot:
As the wedding of Elizabeth and Henry is celebrated, the monster drowns Little Maria, a village child who plays with him, then menaces Elizabeth. Ludwig, Maria's father, carries his daughter's body into town, and an angry search party is formed.
http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/75587/Frankenstein/full-synopsis.html
Of course, in Mary Shelley's book no drowning of a little girl occurs because the entire episode itself never occurs. That's why "literary explanations" are irrelevant at best.
Anyone interested in old movies should check out TCM. It's a treasure trove.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)nicely done
aikoaiko
(34,171 posts)What is he hiding?
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Well, his taxes?
aikoaiko
(34,171 posts)I guess some people are.
I'm more interested in the transcripts of his book. Where are the transcripts, Bernie?!
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)aikoaiko
(34,171 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)I have.
They were enlightening so to speak.
aikoaiko
(34,171 posts)I read the essay. I cant say it was enlightening.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)It speaks volumes to women. Tells us what we need to know.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)It's a Vermont paper. You should read Jeff Weaver's sidestep, lol. It is similar to some responses in this thread.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)Response to SidDithers (Original post)
AlexSFCA This message was self-deleted by its author.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)popular politicians who write books that people want to read due to their popularity, but not for others. I'm wondering who took bribes, too.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)They almost never come out and bare knuckle it with you over ideas, when their catchphrases are being blown apart, they vanish into the forest. Three of them will fight it out, but most don't remotely put up any fight when their BS is called.
I like this. Shoot and Scoot. Perfect, Blue.
Crickets.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Hm
Who are you talking about?
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)yardwork
(61,650 posts)Speaking fees were lucrative for Hillary Clinton. She turned over that income to the Clinton Foundation, as shown in the years of tax returns she released to the public.
Where are Bernie's tax returns?
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)questions about hypocrisy. This is a Vermont paper, WOW. Very interesting link.
Thanks for posting this, Sid. This kind of vetting is long past due.
edit: this is a paragraph from the Vermont paper, VTDigger (see link)
Sanders formed his own dark money group at the same time he railed against 501(c)4s, which are not required to publicly disclose financial information, and have been effectively used by conservatives to influence elections and policymaking.
Link from the OP:
https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/22/second-year-sanders-earns-1m/
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)swag
(26,487 posts)Still no "thank you" note from her.
*sigh*
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Oh, wait...
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)More than a month ago, The Hill reported on Bernie's response to Trump's actions: "Bernie Sanders: Separating immigrant families is heartless". So whoever told you that Bernie would ignore the issue because it was "identity politics" was lying to you.
Speaking of lying, one of the lies Trump tells is that he's just continuing an Obama policy. Although that assertion is false, there is a nugget of truth in it -- namely, that there were valid grounds for criticizing the government's actions before the November 2016 catastrophe. Even back then, Bernie was addressing this "identity politics" issue. See "Sanders: Stop the Separation of Immigrant Children and Families".
Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)In addition to what Jim Lane noted, this is linked to elsewhere in DU:
Sen. Sanders: 'Hypocrite' Trump rants against undocumented immigrants, but hires them at his properties
By Justin Wise - 06/22/18 04:16 PM EDT
http://thehill.com/latino/393708-sanders-hypocrite-trump-rants-against-undocumented-immigrants-but-hires-them-at-his
In part: "What a hypocrite! @realDonaldTrump makes hateful and racist rants every day about how immigrants are bad for the country, but he had no problem hiring undocumented immigrants to help him build the Trump Hotel in DC or Trump Tower in New York City."
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)convictions, whatever they are these days, are fungible.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)rally with the Disneyland workers, but I havent seen him travel to McAllen Tx with the other politicians over the immigration issue.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Not saying he does not care, yet they just don't fit for him. To personal to talk a Juan or a Maria (identity politics/social justice) he only rails at the abstracts, Wall Street, whatever that means, billionaires (having left out millionaires) as he has done for 30 years. The only thing he stands for is economic justice sadly he has no understanding what social justice means to a majority.
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)am I the only one who finds a gif of a monster hurling a child into a lake disturbing?
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)it is not a depiction of an act of violence. The scene is Frankenstein's Monster playing with the only person who doesn't recoil from him. If a man throwing a child in the river disturbs you regardless of context I am very glad you never saw me throwing my daughters into lakes, rivers, and even swimming pools when they were young.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)He did. She died.
To play her dying on an endless gif is heartless.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)when everything is measured in terms of rally talking points.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)to have it both ways. He wants to claim to be doing something, just not in front of those who might call out his hypocrisy for his former statements about "identity politics". Slick move, if you can get away with it.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)for disliking identity politics, so keeping on the right side of their issues may explain some of it, which may be about immigrants taking their jobs. I recall Sanders talking to Lou Dobbs, where they were concerned about that very issue. Cant link from my phone now, but the video is easily findable. Agreed about your last sentence!
Tipperary
(6,930 posts)Great work if you can get it.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,234 posts)Response to Tipperary (Reply #53)
Post removed
mac56
(17,569 posts)You're making a fool of yourself.
Cha
(297,299 posts)attack.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)public service. Do you think that being mayor of a small, but wonderful city is not a real job? Do you really think that being a Congressman or Senator is not a real job?
Your avatar is supporting Hillary Clinton, was she out of the workforce from 1992 through 2013? In the decades John Kerry ran for reelection to his Senate seat and his 2004 race, were his crediendials that he started a small cookie business with a friend or his two years as a private lawyer worth more than his work as Senator, Lt Governor, deputy DA, and his military service? Was Hillary Clinton more qualified in 1992 than Bill Clinton because being a lawyer was a real job - unlike being the Governor of Arkansas? Was Trump better because he "ran a company (into bankrupcy several times) while Clinton was a hard working First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State?
For most people, though obviously not all, with the qualities needed to be elected to Congress actually could use those same skills to get jobs paying far more than their Congressional salaries. I have never seen a Democratic opponent use this argument against a long term Republican office holder. I assume that is because we recognize the value of public service.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)as you are trying to distract about it. The hypocrisy is unique to Bernie because of the image he has crafted for himself for attacking others about profiting from office, yet he is doing the same thing.
Other politicians are popular and sought after, too. People want to see a former President and First Lady speak and read their books, Bernie has his followers who seek him out and want to hear from him. It is not corruption as he often implies about others, It is a pleasant experience to enjoy meeting public figures that share your views and motivate you, It is a shame that was reduced to attacks on other candidates. It is hypocrisy and double standards. Fabricated attacks from which he stood to benefit, so thats why the hypocrisy is being called out.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Looks like people will be wanting some more accountability.
Cha
(297,299 posts)couldn't find the comments.. darn!
Thanks for telling us about them, RB
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)One wanted to know if he was going to represent Vermont if reelected or keep traveling around. One from someone called "Gary... .." is especially to the point. I left out the last name so as not to post it too obvious here.
Cha
(297,299 posts)past all the other news stories at the bottom? I want to see them.
Mahalo!
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)about "New Users" and signing up for commenting.
Cha
(297,299 posts)knows him.
RB, Mahalo!
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Yes, Gary really nailed it.
kacekwl
(7,017 posts)PatSeg
(47,501 posts)Is this meant to be scandalous or something?
George II
(67,782 posts).....all the while he was railing against the rich.
Now he appears to be worth ~ $2M or much more. That's curious.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Some might say that he earned his pay. I would not be among them.
'nough said.
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)i seem to remember other folks who are dems did pretty well too......
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)crimes and character flaws for doing the same things described here. Wow, this is such a coincidence.
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Autumn
(45,106 posts)him by buying his book. I'll buy any book he wants to write.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)of character flaws or other wrongdoings for writing a book, so the analogy falls flat.
Autumn
(45,106 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)given Bernie the same treatment. So no it doesn't. It falls completely flat -- double standards and all.
Autumn
(45,106 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Autumn
(45,106 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)else's mouth but his. He is the only one to impose those standards. But when he makes a million, well...different story.
Double standards. Hypocrisy.
This is from a Vermont newspaper. They are the ones who took the conversation.
Autumn
(45,106 posts)or when you give speeches. That's how it works .
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)others have character flaws by profiting from holding office, and then you profit from the same thing, that is a double standard.
No one imposed Bernie's own standards on him, so your analogy that others do it falls flat. You can't ignore his past words and standards without being a hypocrite. That's how it works.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Cool!
What is the status of the 45 left behind?
dubyadiprecession
(5,714 posts)KG
(28,751 posts)Oh, the guy that used the Democratic party and who's campaign said he will do so again and then throw the party under the bus again. I don't care what that dude says or does and cant wait till he fades away from our party. That's the only news about him that I wait to hear.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(297,299 posts)it would be higher. But then what do I know about such matters.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)Response to SidDithers (Original post)
Post removed
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)I hope the royalties and advances double and triple for him next year. It means more and more people are interested in what he has to say. He deserves every penny. One of the last of the true FDR Democrats. A fighter for true democratic principles.
So sick of the haters on this board who attack Democrats and people who caucus and vote with Democrats.
[link:
Stop letting the work of Trump and his Russian bots continue to divide us.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)I would like some fresh ideas not stagnant ones from years gone by. The world has changed immensely we need to as well.
Hmm
Cleverly said.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)sheshe2
(83,789 posts)would like to see social justice front and forward and not a forgotten shadow of economic justice.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Democratic candidates serious about economic justice are usually progressives who tend to lean further left and would probably fall into the FDR Democrat category. Maybe a more modern oriented title like Social Democrat would be preferred but they are much in the same realm.
sheshe2
(83,789 posts)250. Social and economic justice go hand in hand.
At least they should. Some only believe economic justice is the answer and it is not.
I want younger ones running. It is time.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)intertwined. Social Justice is justice in opportunity and privilege as well as distribution of wealth. We cannot have social equality for all without the economic/financial liberation of all people.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... too see those axes Bernie! Otherwise you are stone cold hypocrite.
ms liberty
(8,580 posts)Funny how certain people only show up when there's a Bash Bernie thread. Bless their hearts.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)ms liberty
(8,580 posts)But it's totally unsurprising that you say it.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... so it's not as you claim.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)And then we have this thread.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Yes there are urgent issues today.
I'm sending this pic to everyon on MSM.
They all failed to protect this country, these immigrants, our allies, us.
I hope their stepping headfirst into the border crises now will help salvage America in the coming midterm election because it is over if we fail to give full power to the Dems.
Its the minimum they can do for their blatant incompetance of 2016.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)but the problem is Bernie made 1m last year. Got it. That should carry us to victory in November. Good work.
Umm. Ok. Don't say negs about bernie.
E.V.E.R.
Dang.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)It is in fact aimed at keeping us divided.
Here was the original post I responded to. It was completely rewritten on edit:
167. You're saying bernie's new millionaire status gave us the Nazi?
Umm. Ok.
Dang.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)This thread isn't dividing anyone. It's pointing out a fact about politicians.
Yes, With a Nazi in the WH there should be no one campaigning against anyone but the Republicans this fall.
NO ONE.
As I see it anyway.
You may view the thread differently however.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Infighting and obsessing over 2016 is just the ticket we need to get back in power.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)See?
Bye
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Anyone else is for the Red Wave coming from Russia.
Nothing left to argue.
Bye
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and acknowledge mistakes made. Right?
lapucelle
(18,270 posts)I'd like to see those who are in any way responsible for Trump being in office to do just that, starting with the press.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Nobody is "obsessively attacking" Bernie. Nobody is "smearing" Bernie.
All I'm saying is that it's completely fair to talk about him and criticize and point out any inconsistencies and hypocritical statements (or word games) for ANY politician. Besides, the thread is still here. If it's still active after all this time, it's not what you claim it is.
Here's the thing: and I see it here all the time... some of our most ardent and steadfast and loyal Democratic leaders are brutally attacked, and our party is smeared by so-called "allies" who say it's "feeble" and "corrupt" and "ideologically bankrupt". I see honorable Democrats like Harris, Franken, Feinstein, Pelosi being raked over the hot coals. Why is it, then, that gentle criticism or probing questions about Bernie are met with such howls of outrage? Why should any politician get special treatment?
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)are being called out. No more double standards. No more hypocrisy.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)Amazing what you can read into one word.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and then don't know what you lulzd about. That is truly amazing.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)What is now cracking me up is what you have magnanimously decreed makes me laugh.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)That's funny.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Interesting.
Voltaire2
(13,061 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Double standards are not going to fly going forward. No more hypocrisy and no more badmouthing Democrats. That just plays into the GOP's hand.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)Owl
(3,642 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Glad he's successful.
Response to SidDithers (Original post)
Post removed
Blues Heron
(5,938 posts)whatever you say Ivan
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Members of Congress can not accept payment for speeches. It was forbidden since 1991. http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/112_20120104_Salary.pdf Go to page 5 of the pdf (page 1 of the document.)
ProfessorGAC
(65,071 posts)This is tedious.
jcgoldie
(11,631 posts)Kids interned at the border and shipped all over the USA, whats to talk about? I know how about Bernie vs. Hillary taking book profits!
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)and she actually won. The hypocritical and superficial attacks on her from the Sarandonites, the FBI, the RWers, and a foreign attack from Russia will all be on notice this time.
Yippee Hillary 2020 !!!!l!!
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)return the fave..
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)If anything, shell be calling out how the Russians attacked our election. And the FBI, the Sarandinites AND the GOP.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)TexasTowelie
(112,238 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)My personal favorite.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)get out of my rearview mirror and my front view too. We have some serious work ahead and he's not the one to contribute to a group effort.