Start with the Magnitsky NO vote.

That was a disgraceful break with the D party.
And don't whitewash it with the but but but ..IRAN !

This is not from some nefarious source. It is from Bill Browder,the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act.

In 2009, after the death of an imprisoned Russian lawyer, American hedge fund manager Bill Browder began pushing Congress to sanction Moscow for alleged human rights violations. Lawmakers from both parties quickly signed onto the legislation. But it faced strong opposition from an unexpected source: the Obama administration.

"The administration, starting with Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry, did everything they could do to stop the Magnitsky act," Browder said in an interview.

[link:https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/15/the-magnitsky-flip-flop/|

President Obama and Secretary Clinton felt that it would jeopardize the efforts they were making to reset relations with Russia.In order to do that,President Obama would need to repeal the Jackson-Vanik Amendment which prohibited normal trade relations with Russia.

Powerful lawmakers signaled they’d only support the repeal if the Magnitsky Act was signed into law. The two provisions were lumped together and approved by the House and the Senate in December 2012. Obama signed them into law almost immediately.

President Obama and his administration were not in support of the bill but he was willing to compromise in order to get Jackson-Vanik repealed.

To be fair, Bernie Sanders agreed with the reasoning and positions of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's position and voted no. Sanders agreed with the President that he already had significant leverage against Russia to enforce sanctions if needed in the future.

There clearly was a shift in the administration's position in 2012

President Obama and HRC were not against the Magnitsky Act when it passed Congress.

being in agreement with Sanders is not only not true -- they supported the Magnitsky act and he voted against -- but, importantly, it does not make Sanders's vote more defensible. It just tries to pretend-normalize it. "Oh, they did it too." But they did not.

So instead of this argument, perhaps you could argue the reasons for and virtues of Sanders' anti-Magnitsky vote, and leave Obama and Hillary out of it.

failed to do so.

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.)
Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

I believe they were all good Democrats. They,along with Sanders, all believed the Senate bill was much better

"Levin said Wednesday that he would have preferred that the Senate vote on its version of the bill, which included the sanctions worldwide, rather than just affecting Russia.

“I don’t understand why we’re not taking up the Senate version and applying these standards universally,” Levin said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “The only answer I can get is that the House might not pass the Senate version. Well, we should do what we think is right.”

As I explained in my previous post, the politics of this bill was much more complicated and nuanced.

He is in the extreme minority on that position and it doesn’t matter that you are trying to diminish that fact by whitewashing it by hiding behind a couple Democrats.

Since context is suddenly a Thing when discussing Bernie’s positions, the context of this Magnitsky vote is in context to what the Mueller probe uncovered about Russian’s helping Trump, Sanders, and Stein to harm the Democratic candidate. It’s all over the news. That is the context. The other couple Democrats don’t have that distinction.

Sens. Carl Levin, Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse are also involved in this conspiracy?

Seems like an odd thing to be saying on DU.

Trying to tie him to a couple others is just a diversion. If the “conspiracy” are the facts exposed by the Mueller investigation, then that is not odd to be saying on a site for Democrats. The Russian’s helped Trump, Sanders, and Stein to harm our candidate, so of course Democrats will be discussing that. Your diversion failed. LOL

But you can't have it both ways. Either they're all in on this imagined conspiracy, or the vote is not actually sinister at all.

Which is it?

You should read them. You are the one trying to have it both ways.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/94/False-Dilemma

No it's not.

lol

with context except in support of one person. The Mueller investigations have shed a lot of light on context, though. Manafort and Devine type context...

If Bernie Sanders or Tad Devine are indicted as co-conspirators you'll be proven correct. If not then I guess you'll have to reevaluate your position.

years they worked together and the fact that both worked the opposition campaigns against our candidate. That’s what Democrats should be focused on, as long as we are keeping things in “context”. Who is working against us and why.

changed who worked together on previous campaigns and who they both actively worked against. I think a lot of it is still on the internet, too.

Good to see you understanding now that Bernie’s votes in favor of going easy on Russia are still the minority, which was the main point after trying to pull a couple other Democrats in to distract.

Have a great night!

Manafort’s first trial. Context is not that important after all, as you were trying to pretend that Bernie is not in the minority on his Russia votes.

Nothing has erased the Manafort/Devine connection. It is still there. Lots of info is still there on the internet...

snip===============================================


snip========================================

In 2011-2012, Secretary Clinton was working to advance the administration's policy goals. (That's what Secretaries of State do.) It should be noted, however, that


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-bill-clinton-russia-sanctions-speech/

Furthermore,



https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/26/enemy-of-the-state-putin-russia-magnitsky-sanctions-veselnitskaya/

No such nuance existed in 2017 when BS voted against the bill's renewal.

with the truth".

The truth is that Bernie does not believe in the targeting of one or two countries in the bill.

The Senate version of the bill in 2012 did not exclusively target Russia.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/271455-senate-passes-russia-trade-bill

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the trade bill.

Levin said Wednesday that he would have preferred that the Senate vote on its version of the bill, which included the sanctions worldwide, rather than just affecting Russia.

“I don’t understand why we’re not taking up the Senate version and applying these standards universally,” Levin said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “The only answer I can get is that the House might not pass the Senate version. Well, we should do what we think is right.”


The 2017 version targeted Russia and Iran. Bernie objected to the negative impact on the Iran deal. I'm sure that if the bill had applied to all nations, Bernie would have been fine with it this time as well.

with my "whitewashed" viewpoint.

helping Bernie, Trump, and Stein to harm our candidate in 2016. Since context is a Thing when evaluating Bernie’s decisions, it is also a Thing to ensure we keep the broader context of why his votes to protect Russia’s interests are subject to scrutiny. Edit: see Mueller investigation/ Manafort et al

Different people each have their own pet person to attack, but attacking people who vote with us and attack Trump is foolish.

we have Trump. Yahoo! headlines picked up Sanders comments about Democratic protesters and that is what people will see. That is the context that is put out there so what is foolish is to ignore the damage it does. We are living with the damage.

Edit: QUOTE of Yahoo headline
“Bernie Sanders is not a fan of ‘rude and distuptive’ Democratic protestors”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11279413

and would have linked it, but can’t link on this phone. I see that some are trying to deflect from the results of his words, but this is the reality — headlines that diminish Democrats. That is the context they are presented.

Exactly, RB!

should republicans be disrupted while eating dinner out with

Nancy Pelosi ,among other Dems, isn't a fan of Republicans being disrupted while dining out either. I disagree with them, I think Republicans should never have a moments peace in public.

There's a video that the posted quote was taken from if anyone wants to watch it but it didn't fit in the OP I guess.

whereby you attribute me with being some kind of Yahoo media mogul.

Looks like you missed the context of the post and instead just want to throw Pelosi’s name in the mix hoping to mitigate the damage. That was Yahoo’s headline, so obviously context or your spin was not a concern to them, which was pretty much the point.

Looks like that is being ignored.

Here's the link to Pelosi and other Dems not being a fan of it either. I didn't throw her name in "the mix to mitigate the damage" as you call it. I posted facts, not a lie.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/democrats-maxine-waters-red-hen/index.html

said and it’s notable that the damage to Democrats doesn’t bother you; your main concern is Bernie’s image, which you have no problem tying him to “Establishment” Democrats like Pelosi when cleaning up another misstep. The point is that what he said is interpreted as a diminishment of Democrats and that is how Yahoo took it. Did Pelosi call Democrats “rude”? Who do we get to call rude?

Edit: he said “rude and disrupting activities”, so he expanded on Tapper’s scenarios to include “activities”

Tapper asked him "should republicans be disrupted while eating dinner out" Bernie answered him. End of story. I posted the video, I posted the proof that Bernie is on the same page with some of the Dems. The facts stand on their own, with video to prove it. Say and spin whatever you wish, you can't spin that away.

That’s what he said, obviously expanding on Tapper’s scenario. Rude and disrupting activities could be lots of things, and that’s how it was taken by those who listened to him and reported on it.

A very specific question . "how aggressive should republican officials be protested
when they're eating a meal at a restaurant? " It don't get more specific than that. His answer, while not using the exact words of other Dems is right in line with theirs.

"I am not a great fan of being rude or disrupting activities." Bernie Sanders on Republicans being disrupted while dining.

“Trump’s daily lack of civility has provoked responses that are predictable but unacceptable,” Nancy Pelosi on Republicans being disrupted while dining.

“It’s totally counterproductive,” said David Axelrod, on Republicans being disrupted while dining.

"There's too much anger and too much hostility between the parties, and we need to start working with each other more and treat each other more civilly," said Rep. Tom Suozzi on Republicans being disrupted while dining

"I think we have to struggle to remain above that cesspool that we have sunk into," said Rep. Hank Johnson on Republicans being disrupted while dining.

"I don't agree with that, frankly," said Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas of California. "I think anyone should be able to go and eat at any restaurant and be able to do it in peace." on Republicans being disrupted while dining

it, then you are the one selectively editing. You can see how his words were used against Democrats, a problem that seems to be unique to Bernie.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9421699

Bernie could see that the Republicans and Trump wanted to blow up the Iran deal, and they did.

Of course, that'll never be good enough for some people who would rather divide us.

He's got a few more months until he changes it to a (D)

Suppose they referred Harris, Booker, BETO, Gillibrand, Or any Repubs like Trump, Ryan, McConnell, Cotten, an Independent because....well....

MSM just can't seem to stop their message manipulating.

The "Naa, its no big deal" response is bullshit.
It is a big damned deal & its not a simple error.

https://abc.go.com/feedback

complaining on DU do? ABC is the one that needs to hear it...

The fact that some here still support him, still want him as our candidate is hard to understand,

He has never been a Democrat, has actively campaigned against Democratic candidates including wishing for someone to primary challenge Obama in 2012. And, his “youthful” suggestion that some woman wished to be raped (yes, you can google it, or go directly to Snopes).

We know that many who supported him in 2008 could not - poor souls - bring themselves to vote for Hillary. Thus, many stayed home and some actually voted for Trump. After all during the campaign both used similar language to cater to the “disenfranchised.”

If any Democrat actively wants him as our candidate, then I will have to question him/her what they mean by being a Democrat.

Yayyy
Another fight amongst ourselves!
Just what the doctor oooops republicans ordered!
Awesome!
And just in time for the midterms

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2018, 12:39 AM - Edit history (1)

on Nov 16, 2016.. and has continued throughout.

There's are reasons he is not that well liked in the Democratic Party.

is “fight among ourselves?”