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

Bluerome

(129 posts)
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:14 PM Apr 2016

Does it matter that some Sanders supporters believe there's no difference between Dem and Repub now?

Last edited Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I know that latching on to a candidate is sort of like latching on to a football team, and you can see the obvious similarities in the way football fans make excuses for their team, blame the refs, and believe every bad thing they hear about their rival (Dallas and Philly?). But I don't think that the people who start to dislike players on their own team, as some Sanders supporters have done, are that great in number (and the polls show that, compared to 08). Those people are a sub-category that were already opposed to Hillary, and were very willing to absorb any competitor's attacks against her, and transform, in their minds, political talking points into what they now consider concrete, undeniable fact. I know they believe, wholeheartedly, that Hillary is bought and paid for, a corporate shill who has taken money from big companies for no other reason than to do their bidding. They cannot consider that she's smart enough to take an idiot corporation's money and still regulate them when she has the power. I remember the artist Moby, who got famous by allowing his songs to be used in car commercials, defending this by saying that his strategy was to use that "sellout" money to fight against those same companies that paid him. He's very liberal and no one at the time questioned his strategy. The important thing to remember about the Moby comparison is that most people never even knew about the controversy surrounding Moby's decision; they just liked his music and bought his albums. Similarly, most dems don't even know that a famous liberal like Hillary is having her liberal credentials questioned by a minority within the party. They'll show up and vote for her.

So Hillary doesn't really need to counter the claims that she's no different than a republican. When the general election heats up, most people who have forgotten will remember it very quickly. And those who still harbor that grudge against her, still hanging on to this far-fetched idea that a liberal icon like Hillary somehow has always been a corporation-bot, they'll remain a minority not large enough to affect the outcome of the election.

I will say this, however, in defense of Sanders' supporters: I think his vision is the future of America. (And one that Hillary shares, she just, skillfully, doesn't shout it from the rooftops). Hillary supporters just disagreed with his supporters over whether he was the right candidate to take us there, whether he had the skills, and whether it was even possible to make such sweeping changes overnight. We can see that Obama's strategy works - look at the state of our country compared to when Bush left office. We ARE climbing that hill, and we are doing it intelligently, working the system the only way it can be worked. You don't walk into government and dictate to the other parties. You don't tell the millions of republican voters that your socialist vision is now going to be implemented and to get out of the way. You boil that frog by turning up the heat slowly, until Reaganomics is dead in the pan, never having realized it was dying. Turn the heat up too fast and it jumps out.

And this doesn't mean that Hillary isn't going to turn up the heat at a good pace. Don't forget what the Republicans have always known - Hillary is a liberal. But she's a clever one. She's going to get it done similar to the way Obama has. Are we better off now than 8 years ago? You bet your ass. I remember the long lines of the jobless. That's progress. And he's so good at it, even many Sanders' supporters don't even realize the progress we've made. That's smart change. You don't come out and say you're going to change everything. You just do it, quietly.

I see Hillary's Wall Street strategy this way -

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

55 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does it matter that some Sanders supporters believe there's no difference between Dem and Repub now? (Original Post) Bluerome Apr 2016 OP
it matters a great deal-remember Nader? Gothmog Apr 2016 #1
Look at the data from 08 Bluerome Apr 2016 #5
Agree, most Sanders supporters (and all the Sanders supporters I know) will vote for Hillary SharonClark Apr 2016 #11
most people don't even follow the election at all right now Bluerome Apr 2016 #14
Naming Sarah Palin to the ticket got a number of PUMAs to agree to support President Obama Gothmog Apr 2016 #25
Nader's so full of shite, too. Mahalo for his record of history, Goth. Cha Apr 2016 #43
I don't see Sanders vision as the future of the Democratic Party. Hillary is a progressive who gets Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #2
We dems know there's a huge difference, and of course we always reiterate that Bluerome Apr 2016 #8
He puts Medicare for All, Sanders is not on Medicare, it is not free and has restrictions, co-pays, Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #16
totally agree that there are differences b/t Hillary and Bernie's plans Bluerome Apr 2016 #18
Hillary wants to improve on ACA, she is not against a single payer or national health plan Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #26
Medicare Part B is NOT optional. Once you turn 65 Pathwalker Apr 2016 #20
You don't have to take Part B, Part A is what is free. If a person is still working and has Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #23
OK. They (SS) told me otherwise. I love my Medicare Pathwalker Apr 2016 #28
My point was it is not free, currently I pay the Part B and have part D insurance Thinkingabout Apr 2016 #34
I edited my post to reflect what you said - Hillary has the same vision, just a better strategy Bluerome Apr 2016 #15
Vanity. "Our candidate is so pure!" NurseJackie Apr 2016 #3
right on Bluerome Apr 2016 #6
Hahahaha! ismnotwasm Apr 2016 #42
Except BS is more pure coming in @ 100% Cha Apr 2016 #44
The analog did in 2000 whatthehey Apr 2016 #4
totally agree. Bluerome Apr 2016 #10
45 state have sore loser laws, though only two - including TX - specifically apply to presidential stopbush Apr 2016 #17
well put! Bluerome Apr 2016 #19
We heard that tripe in 2000 and we soon learned WhiteTara Apr 2016 #7
This year is very different than 2000. We're running against Trump, not Bush Bluerome Apr 2016 #9
Until there is another Democrat in the White House WhiteTara Apr 2016 #21
+1 Cha Apr 2016 #45
I think some see it as the most hurtful thing you can sling HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #12
It's the anger stage, they'll get to depression and acceptance, or they won't and will self-destruct Bluerome Apr 2016 #13
Ironically, Hillary's approach to Wall St is more like FDR's than Sanders' Rose Siding Apr 2016 #22
Good read, and a reminder that Bluerome Apr 2016 #24
It really interested me Rose Siding Apr 2016 #29
Go for it Bluerome Apr 2016 #38
Great Post Rose... Walk away Apr 2016 #50
I think it matters. apcalc Apr 2016 #27
It's the same old Chomsky/Nader anti corporation bromide that leads nowhere. The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #30
Those guys defeat their own agenda with their extremism Bluerome Apr 2016 #37
Unless one plans on living in a cave or up a tree one must The_Casual_Observer Apr 2016 #39
It matters JSup Apr 2016 #31
And we should continue to refute them Bluerome Apr 2016 #32
The only fretting I do anymore... JSup Apr 2016 #33
It's always been that way Bluerome Apr 2016 #35
Good article. creon Apr 2016 #36
Nader + voter suppression. Yes, it matters. Hekate Apr 2016 #40
I used to believe that ismnotwasm Apr 2016 #41
It's the quiet non Rock Star Rallies Revolution.. Cha Apr 2016 #46
"Not always easy to get a 2nd Democratic Presidency after the 1st one has had 8 years in Office." BlueCaliDem Apr 2016 #47
Yeah, pre President Obama it wasn't.. and then along comes Hillary.. Perfect Storm! Cha Apr 2016 #48
Thanks to President Obama, the revolution BS always talks about, has already happened. BlueCaliDem Apr 2016 #49
You are a little Cha Apr 2016 #51
Guilty as charged! BlueCaliDem Apr 2016 #52
Wow! That's so gorgeous, BCD! Mahalo for creativity! Cha Apr 2016 #53
Thanks, Cha. :-) eom BlueCaliDem Apr 2016 #54
I like to circle back to the words of one of their heroes HillareeeHillaraah Apr 2016 #55

Gothmog

(145,312 posts)
1. it matters a great deal-remember Nader?
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:22 PM
Apr 2016

Sanders and the traitor Nader share a love of stating that there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and have even used the same sad terminology. Sanders first used the same terminology of stating that there are no differences between the Democratic Party and the Republican party when he ran as a spoiler for governor. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/04/when-bernie-sanders-ran-against-vermont/kNP6xUupbQ3Qbg9UUelvVM/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”[/div
After Sanders used this termination, Nader joined in first http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/ralph-nader/nader-almost-said-gore-bush-but-not-quite/

Again and again throughout the campaign, Nader implied that he thought Bush and Gore equally objectionable. "It doesn't matter who is in the White House, Gore or Bush, for the vast majority of government departments and agencies," Nader said in a news conference in September 2000.

"The only difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door," he told supporters in California a month later.

"It's a Tweedle Dee, Tweedle Dum vote," Nader said in Philadelphia four days before the election, repeating a favorite refrain of his. "Both parties are selling our government to big business paymasters. ...That's a pretty serious similarity."

Nader also failed to challenge Sam Donaldson on ABC's This Week when Donaldson said, "You don't think it matters. You've said it doesn't matter to you who is the president of the United States, Bush or Gore."

Nader replied, "Because it's the permanent corporate government that's running the show here ... you can see they're morphing more and more on more and more issues into one corporate party."

Sanders needs to back down from this crap if he wants to speak at the national convention

Bluerome

(129 posts)
5. Look at the data from 08
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:38 PM
Apr 2016

Hillary's supporters this time 8 years ago - 30% against party unity. Sanders supporters right now - 18%. Obama still demolished the GOP. In 2000 the race was much closer. Bush and Trump are vastly different. The race won't be close enough to be tilted by a small number of Hillary haters. That's what I think, just by looking at the data.

Bluerome

(129 posts)
14. most people don't even follow the election at all right now
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:03 PM
Apr 2016

The turnout will be fine, especially when they are mobilized against the Trump monster

Cha

(297,295 posts)
43. Nader's so full of shite, too. Mahalo for his record of history, Goth.
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:05 AM
Apr 2016

It just shows they're dangerously unobservant.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. I don't see Sanders vision as the future of the Democratic Party. Hillary is a progressive who gets
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

Sanders has not displayed the ability to get things done, his message is with his tunnel vision of a few subjects. We need a complete Democratic Party, one which can handle many issues at a time. The next time you hear Hillary is no different from a republican, tell those who says this they do not know what a Democrats stand, point out the difference.

Bluerome

(129 posts)
8. We dems know there's a huge difference, and of course we always reiterate that
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:42 PM
Apr 2016

I'm just saying you won't convince them all, and it doesn't matter. The data shows it won't be a problem.

When I say Sanders' vision, I mean the free education and single payer system, in addition to a few other things. His vision more closely resembles what European countries have. I think Hillary agrees 100%, she's just not dumb enough to say it outright. She wants to get us there in a smart, quieter way.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
16. He puts Medicare for All, Sanders is not on Medicare, it is not free and has restrictions, co-pays,
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:09 PM
Apr 2016

deductibles and a monthly premium. The premium for Part B is around $104.50 a month. Many of those on Medicare purchase a Medi-Gap policy to help with their needs which can be cost from $100 to $300 monthly with the lower policies requiring co-pays and deductibles. As you see, not free for sure. Free college, Hillary's plan of tuition assistance and some requiring some community service in repayment of tuition cost would be okay, it will be giving back to the communities which gave to them. In fact Obama has already tried to get free community college and more technical schools. There are different methods but when I hear the high cost in ten years of Sanders plan, it is not free.

Bluerome

(129 posts)
18. totally agree that there are differences b/t Hillary and Bernie's plans
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:13 PM
Apr 2016

And I don't think anyone would say Bernie's plan is to make things free. He was talking about closing loopholes and such to generate money to pay for the programs. Something Hillary also supports. When I mentioned his vision, I meant the full on socialist one that the really smart European countries have. Hillary, I think, wants that too, she just has a better strategy.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
26. Hillary wants to improve on ACA, she is not against a single payer or national health plan
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:30 PM
Apr 2016

as some try to indicate. It would be good to get the cost of health care down, get drug cost down, so we can have things to work to correct.

Pathwalker

(6,598 posts)
20. Medicare Part B is NOT optional. Once you turn 65
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:17 PM
Apr 2016

the premium is deducted right off the top of your monthly payment. He's on Medicare, because he's over 65, and no doubt collecting Social Security.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
23. You don't have to take Part B, Part A is what is free. If a person is still working and has
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:24 PM
Apr 2016

insurance you do not have to sign up for Medicare. If you are 65 and do not sign up for Part B then you can be penalized so much for every month you are not signed up and this penalty will be monthly forever. Also the same with Part D. Part A pays 80% of hospital cost, Part B pays for Doctors, Part D pays on prescriptions.

Pathwalker

(6,598 posts)
28. OK. They (SS) told me otherwise. I love my Medicare
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:31 PM
Apr 2016

enough to pay for the extra coverage. It was worth every penny when I had my heart attack last year; without it we would have been financially destroyed.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
34. My point was it is not free, currently I pay the Part B and have part D insurance
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:21 PM
Apr 2016

Plus a Medigap insurance, all with cost monthly.

whatthehey

(3,660 posts)
4. The analog did in 2000
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:28 PM
Apr 2016

But the morons who believe this need a known patsy to vote for instead of "Tweedledum or Tweedledee" for a start. Jill Stein ain't hip enough to do that kind of damage. They also are fighting against demographic changes that means we have fewer places where privileged armchair radicals can tip the EV balance.

But yes we should thank Vishnu that Sanders has both the sense to know he'd be an enabling spoiler if he went 3rd party and the integrity (I firmly believe, if not I want my donations back) to keep his promise that he wouldn't do so. In the absence of that catastrophic possibility, I don't see a Nader-like quisling on the horizon who could inspire enough idiots who can't tell the difference between a pragmatic center-left Dem and a howling fascist Rep to do any real damage. I suppose some celebrity hipster could tempt away the disaffected young, but since they hardly bother to vote any way, the loss of votes will be fairly insignificant.

Bluerome

(129 posts)
10. totally agree.
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:46 PM
Apr 2016

And if Sanders runs 3rd party, he destroys his "movement." Democrats will never forgive him or his supporters for the betrayal. It could lead to the destruction of the democratic party, a failed new party that he would try to create, and about 30 years of republican dominance.

stopbush

(24,396 posts)
17. 45 state have sore loser laws, though only two - including TX - specifically apply to presidential
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:10 PM
Apr 2016

elections.

Were Sanders or Trump to go third party this year, I'm sure there would be court cases filed in those other 43 states to test their laws.

After this year, Sanders will be too old to lead any viable third party. Trump will go back to TV where's he'll make even more $.

And Hillary will get on with doing the business of the people for the next 8 years.

WhiteTara

(29,718 posts)
7. We heard that tripe in 2000 and we soon learned
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:41 PM
Apr 2016

there is a great deal of difference between Democrats and Repulicons. The first day in office, * ended women's health care around the world. Eight months later, they let the towers be blown up and soon we were in the middle of shock and awe and war without end. People who spew that sh*t make me

Bluerome

(129 posts)
9. This year is very different than 2000. We're running against Trump, not Bush
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:44 PM
Apr 2016

We should continue to point out the differences, I'm just saying don't worry about it. I have a thread pointing out the data on this subject. Don't fret!

WhiteTara

(29,718 posts)
21. Until there is another Democrat in the White House
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:18 PM
Apr 2016

I will remain concerned. That meme of no difference is poison.

 

HillareeeHillaraah

(685 posts)
12. I think some see it as the most hurtful thing you can sling
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 12:56 PM
Apr 2016

Call me any name in the book....

Call me an A word,
Or the B word,
The C word,
Hell, an L like me even gets the D word flung from time to time

but DON'T call me an (R)

THAT crosses the line!

Rose Siding

(32,623 posts)
22. Ironically, Hillary's approach to Wall St is more like FDR's than Sanders'
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:21 PM
Apr 2016

It's impossible to work with someone while you're growling at them. I remember a concept that was used a lot in the 90s about how we needed corps to be "corporate citizens" -It's outdated and unappealing now -thanks Mitt and CU- but the principle is valid. It's just what got Sen Warren elected. They have to give back. People and business have to be of mutual benefit, and recognize the value of one another.

This really surprised me about FDR. He sort of ended up doing it the same way...

Weinberg became a Goldman Sachs partner in 1927 and helped run the investment trusts, including Goldman Sachs Trading Corp. He co-ran the division with Waddill Catchings, who shriveled the market value of Goldman Sachs Trading Corp. from $500 million to less than $10 million. At this point, Weinberg took over the division, and became a senior partner in 1930. He became head of the firm in 1930, saving it from bankruptcy, and held that position until his death in 1969.
.......
Weinberg befriended Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 while working as a member of the Democratic Party’s National Campaign Finance Committee, and successfully raised more funds than any other member.[6] Since many on Wall Street had opposed Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election, Weinberg stood out as a prime candidate for the new president’s liaison to Wall Street. Indeed, in 1933, Roosevelt assigned Weinberg the task of organizing a group of corporate executives- called the Business Advisory and Planning Council – to serve as a bridge between the government and the private sector during the economic upheaval of the New Deal. Weinberg handpicked executives with whom he wanted to develop business relationships, and deliberately invited no other investment bankers to join the Council, putting himself in the perfect position to network. Roosevelt admired Weinberg’s work greatly, nicknaming him “The Politician” and offering him numerous federal appointments, all of which Weinberg refused.[7]

When the United States entered World War II in 1941, Weinberg played an active role in engaging America’s private sector to overcome the nation’s considerable financial, industrial, and organizational challenges. Weinberg repeatedly proclaimed, “government service is the highest form of citizenship,” and, “I’ll never take a job in government in peacetime, but I’ll take any job in time of war.” Following Weinberg’s success recruiting corporate talent for the Business Advisory and Planning Council, President Roosevelt entrusted Weinberg with an even more important mandate: forming the Industry Advisory Committee under the War Production Board’s Chairman, Donald M. Nelson.[6]

Weinberg personally met with the CEOs of America’s top corporations and told them:

“Our nation is in grave danger. America needs an enormous number of talented executive leaders to organize a massive war production effort. The President has sent me here to get your help in identifying your very best young men. We need the smartest young stars you’ve got. And don’t even think of passing off older men or second-raters. I’m asking the same thing of every major company in the country, and I’ll be watching very closely how well your men do compared to the best young men from all the other corporation. God forbid the people you pick are less than the best because God, President Roosevelt, and I would never, ever forgive you.”[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Weinberg

Bluerome

(129 posts)
24. Good read, and a reminder that
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:27 PM
Apr 2016

Corporations don't need to be destroyed, they need to play by the rules, and help out. A smart candidate knows that

 

The_Casual_Observer

(27,742 posts)
30. It's the same old Chomsky/Nader anti corporation bromide that leads nowhere.
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 01:43 PM
Apr 2016

I'm not willing to try an experiment where republicans run both the congress and the executive branch, and I doubt that
Chomsky and Nader would either.

 

The_Casual_Observer

(27,742 posts)
39. Unless one plans on living in a cave or up a tree one must
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:11 PM
Apr 2016

rely on corporate structure for just about everything for better or worse in daily life. That's why they have the power and influence. I don't know what sort of alternative they have to offer, we never find out because it never gets past the gripe about the fact that corporations have too much power.

JSup

(740 posts)
31. It matters
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:00 PM
Apr 2016

I used to think it didn't matter that people believed those stupid lies about Hillary but those lies are stronger than ever now.

Bluerome

(129 posts)
35. It's always been that way
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 02:54 PM
Apr 2016

I think it's just the way the world is. It would sure suck though to see the dem party collapse the way the republicans are right now. Bernie or busters should pay close attention to the GOP race and what happens when a party devours itself. The other side wins.

ismnotwasm

(41,989 posts)
41. I used to believe that
Fri Apr 22, 2016, 04:21 PM
Apr 2016

I evolved politically, into a Democrat. At one time I supported Socialist ideology, still do in areas --although I would have seen Sanders as just another politician--I voted that way until George W. Bush, when I realized the precise cost of sloppy thinking was that the rights of women worldwide were lessened, especially in empoverished areas, the gates to challenging reproductive rights were opened. I was done. I've been a Democrat ever since.

Electing Hillary *is* a revolution.

Cha

(297,295 posts)
46. It's the quiet non Rock Star Rallies Revolution..
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 06:18 AM
Apr 2016

that many didn't see coming.

We had our Revolution in 2008, too.. that needed to be done for President Obama to help right the shipwreck of the bush-cheney years..

Now, we're having a different kind with Hillary in charge that will build on that.

Not always easy to get a 2nd Democratic Presidency after the 1st one has had 8 years in Office.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
47. "Not always easy to get a 2nd Democratic Presidency after the 1st one has had 8 years in Office."
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 10:59 AM
Apr 2016

Only before the advent of Barack Obama, Cha. I firmly believe that.

Now that he's been the president and with help from social media, that old rule doesn't apply to the Democratic Party anymore. Thanks to President Obama strengthening the Party, the change in demographics, and social media playing a huge role in getting information across with the help of millions of bloggers, tweets, and FB posts, I don't see how the Democratic Party can lose - unless we put a weak candidate up for the G.E. a la Sanders.

Let's not forget that Republicans had NO PROBLEM having another Republican follow-up a Repub in the White House (Reagan and G.H.W. Bush). How? They were helped enormously by the GOP-owned U.S. media who polished a turd like Reagan into a god, and all Democrats into weak-kneed leaders. I remember the 80's and how they promoted and praised Republicans, and even their ideology of fearing Big Gubmit seeped into the movies, brainwashing the masses that Big Gubmit is satan's own.

To be honest, I don't see the White House going to the Republicans any time soon. Now, if we can do the same for State legislatures and governors mansions, maybe we can even render the Republican Party to permanent minority status in the U.S. Congress. But we have to inform the American voter that there are important elections every TWO years, not every four.

Cha

(297,295 posts)
48. Yeah, pre President Obama it wasn't.. and then along comes Hillary.. Perfect Storm!
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:06 PM
Apr 2016

Thank you for reminding us of all the solid infrastructure work Obama for America has done in changing the way Presidential elections are won .. I can't wait until they come together to take on the republican.

President Obama's says.. "..we need a smart Gov.." "not a big Gov or a small one, but a smart one." Thinking outside that box.

Obama also found ways to get around the big M$Media that carries water for the gop.. by going to alternative media sources in so many ways. He was determined to get his message out one way or another. He had the press corp and the "media" whining about it relentlessly.

I've kept up with him and his Admin all these years through The Obama Diary.. I go there every day.. I feel I know these last 7 1/2 years so well through their magnificent photo-journalistic endeavors.

Thank you, BlueCali~

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
49. Thanks to President Obama, the revolution BS always talks about, has already happened.
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 12:41 PM
Apr 2016

It annoys me to no end that he and his supporters don't see that. That's not to say that we shouldn't build on it, because we should, but as Hillary keeps telling us, he doesn't get the credit he deserves.

Thanks to President Obama, social media has become the go-to place for M$M to get their narratives and news. Thanks to President Obama, M$M has been brought to heel and their propagandizing for Republicans is coming to an end - slowly but surely.

People don't turn to M$M for their news anymore. They go online, read blogs, read tweets, read FB posts, and get their info there. It was the major reason, I believe, that AOL bought HuffPoo. That site had more traffic than a single newspaper can boast.

AOL being "conservative" wanted to control the information HuffPoo's more liberal bloggers were putting out there. Now the 'switch' in the M$M's 'bait 'n' switch' strategy is complete. Now there are more negative articles on President Obama and Hillary Clinton than on any idiotic Republican. There are also a lot of "conservative" writers there. The fix is in.

But because I understand their strategy, I use HuffPo as a barometer to tell me which candidate they feel is more of a threat to the GOP. The more negative they are, the more of a threat they are to the GOP. That's my take anyway.

You're welcome, Cha, and thank you for reading and responding to my post. Always nice to know you have my back.

Cha

(297,295 posts)
51. You are a little
Sat Apr 23, 2016, 01:00 PM
Apr 2016

political junkie, BlueCali!

Thank you for all you insights.. Got yur back, yes!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Hillary Clinton»Does it matter that some ...