There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

the super rich have no rules.

n/t

1.



The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles

Hillary would melt just by saying the word.

I noticed there has been an increase in rancor in what has already been a rancorous board since the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the Des Moines Register. Since empathy is part and parcel of liberalism and I am a liberal I want to share with you my favorite song from my favorite movie to make you feel better:

Each time, they've picked Losers. Now we don't know if this will break the record, but I'm not feeling it.

Thanks for the encouraging info libdem!!

Because you have designed your little push-poll question in such a way that you will argue about any answer I give.

Buh-bye!

If any of it is factually incorrect I would welcome your correction.

If it is not factually incorrect then I simply ask whether you're comfortable with it. I don't see how this is a loaded question.

anywhere near as sleazy as this thread.

as to the level of deceptive theater promoted by Hillary's circle if she were president? Her vast disinformation & misinformation machinery would make KGB tactics look like amateurs at best.

The check wasn't labeled as being for a super PAC when she sent it.

I haven't heard of it, I just googled it and nothing came up. It is your charge so you need to supply the link, especially since I have made an effort.

what I am contesting is that Hillary gave money to that super pac. I am asking for a link backing that up.

Brock and Hillary directly coordinate between the campaign and his superpac.

You know the rest.

Just as sleazy.

Link is in the op.

classified as "Judicial Hellholes". They call each paper"The ____ Record" and write propaganda about various kinds of "frivolous lawsuits." The one here is called Www.southeasttexasrecord.com. They have one in New Orleans and West Virginia and some others. They used to put it out for free outside of the jury assembly room to give bored potential jurors something to read while waiting. The front page stories and editorials were geared to types of litigation set for trial that these jurors might sit on, such as medical malpractice. The paper knows what cases are set for trial and then tailers hit pieces about doctors leaving the state due to high malpractice insurance premiums etc. the prospective jurors read this outside of the courtroom and then find out they are to hear a medical malpractice lawsuit. The first 6 months of our paper they didn't even sell ads, but they found that it is more believable if it appears that it's a normal newspaper. There is no identification that the paper is owned by the US Chamber to let people know their bias.

If this is what Hillary's paper will do then it is sneaky and underhanded.

Top donors to Correct the Record:

1) HILLARY FOR AMERICA, BROOKLYN, NY 11201 06/01/15 $275,615

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00578997&cycle=2016

"True Blue Media, a newly formed company incorporated by Brock, has acquired progressive news website Blue Nation Review. BNR's previous owner, MOKO Social Media Limited, will retain a 20 percent stake in the new entity while Brock will hold the remaining 80 percent equity balance. The sale was finalized Monday night.

Peter Daou, digital media strategist for Clinton's 2008 campaign, will serve as the new CEO of True Blue Media."

*Thanks to Qutzupalotl for finding that*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

Article in Blue Nation Review, January 23rd By Peter Daou

Tagline: "Hillary Clinton is one of the most ethical and most lied-about political leaders in America"

http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-clinton-is-one-of-the-most-ethical-and-most-lied-about-political-leaders-in-america/

I am asking for a link saying her campaign contributed to his super pac

Top donors to Correct the Record:

1) HILLARY FOR AMERICA, BROOKLYN, NY 11201 06/01/15 $275,615

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00578997&cycle=2016

I don't particularly like it but if it is legal then it is legal.

Should she do the right thing and not just because it is legal? Another reason I do not support her.

to almost exclusively use RW talking points against Hillary?

presented here, is from the left.

Totally binary, RW constitutes all that is not PH. Every person may only belong to one state or the other... Right Wing, or Pro-Hillary.

conservative is not a RW talking point.

That's my main problem with her, but it happens to spill into just about everything wrong that she does. Whether or not the RWrs have a problem with her corruption is irrelevant to me. She is the Big Money candidate who dwarfs into whatever her consultants advise her each week and despite all those million$ & which ever persona she adapts, she cannot hide her conservative, big money ties. She will sneak in all kinds of perks for them in the same trickledown way her husband did in the name of centrism(repubs in the dem party.)

Ours are attacks from the LEFT. People who support her might as well be rethugs.

is a caricature created 30 yrs ago by the Arkansas Project?

The simple fact is: everything Berniestas claim to know about Clinton, which cause them to hate her, evolved directly from lies crafted her extremist RW political enemies.

That you can't recognize it shows a certain lack of self-awareness in the public consciousness that the RW media has so carefully cultivated over the last 30 yrs. And when you get a small glimmer of that manipulation it causes you to attack an ally, it's just icing on the cake for them.

And working only for Big Money, that shows your lack of awareness in current events. You want to excuse private email server as our Secretary of State! In her home! When she made her state employees follow protocol and use the govt email & server only? Of course she did it to hide things. Then she ERASED 30K of them. But you want to believe she erased only emails from Kohl's, that's fine. Keep your blinders on & ignore the shady deals made with shady govts after they donated to the Clinton Foundation while she was serving as our SoS...

I mean really. And this is just one example. I'm fairly sure I could details 50 others.

But you say I'm falling ofr RW tactics? What a freekin joke. The Clintons hand them things on a silver platter, and then the Clintons act as though they're the victims.....all the way to the bank, on our backs.

We shouldn't have such a crocked person in so much power within our party. She's snake oil & she is republican in nature, and she just go to that side of the aisle. For once, she would be authentic.

To say that your opinion of Hillary as an uncaring, corrupt, manipulative gold-digger has absolutely nothing to do at all with Richard Mellon Scaiffe's opinion of her as an uncaring, corrupt, manipulative gold-digger is absurd on it's face - especially when the RW has spent decades and millions of dollars to establish that very precise opinion in the public's consciousness.

As progressives, we're supposed to be smarter than that.

govt.

And she has pushed fracking and trade deals that steal American jobs. She's has been pro-GMO, pro-war, pro-deregulation, pro-privitization...

These are all facts I can draw my own conclusion from. I don't watch msm, I don't go to RW sites, I don't expose myself to their propaganda.

What I know, is that she has done things & is doing things which lead me to believe these third wayer, neoliberals are pulling the long con on people like you & its not just hurting Democrats. Its hurting our country. And you want MORE of the SAME.

Its quite sad.

I guess you've never met a RW liar that you didn't like, huh?

Her last presidential primary shitshow. That argument is particularly nonsensical on this board, where many of us were major Hillary supporters and watched her disintegrate in 2008. Hell - some of us even live in a state where we got to help elect her to the senate. She was my senator and she voted for war. Considering that vote makes her partially responsible for 100s of thousands of Iraqi lives and American lives I think she's just a fucking evil person. I'm sure that's just a right wing talking point though. Enjoy repping hilldawg the Muslim slayer - some of us will have to hold our noses to pull the lever for her though. It's just that the stench of death that covers her is only slightly less repulsive than the republican candidates.

From "bernistas" to the candidate. But yes, if you don't think that the right wing criticisms were coming out of obamas camp along with his own middle-of-the-road criticisms you are reimagining history to fit your interpretation of current events.

See what the Republicans do is use tactics that are for one purpose only and that is to attack their opponent.
We've seen this many times by the TeaBaggers too.
So they attack their opponent and then immediately accuse their opponent of attacking.
In your case you are accusing Bernie of using Republican talking point But
Do you remember what
David Brock said
What Chelsea said
What Clara McCasshill said


Hillary is losing and this is the reason..She attacks,her supporters attack and she wont discuss issues because she
will lose the argument.

Hillary is using the Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, playbook and its backfiring.

to accept the support of 1%ers such as Art Garfunkel, Ben and Jerry, Seth McFairlane, and Danny DeVito?

Woke up feeling great. Very positive and optimistic.

Then good luck to you.

But if luck seem to find its way in as I work hard positioning myself moving forward, I'll take it.

Happy Sunday morning.

nt

Against Hillary, if one is sleazy the other is also.

I haven't seen any superpac ads against Hillary.

Cheating is Job 1.

I doubt her supporters and tacticians set out to undermine democracy. They never said, let's find the most vile tactics we can stomach to create lies about a fellow Democrat. No one raised his or her hand to say, "Who is the nastiest campaigner we can find from the Republicans to help us destroy the will of the people? Is David Brock available?" Most of her surrogates probably didn't gather on some website somewhere and decide they would dissemble, lie, browbeat, and conspire to engage in a campaign of cyber bullying.

Her few remaining supporters on this site probably do not feel sleazy. They have buried themselves deep in a grave of self delusion, crumbled ethics, and wounded pride. The fear of the ridicule they would face if they actually decided to practice the values they claim as their own keeps them from seeing the first thing they should do when you are digging yourself a hole is to stop digging.

Nastiness like the nasty coming from the Clinton campaign hardly ever comes from the desire to be an awful person.

It's the reason why I'd prefer to just bring up things like this, and give them a fair opportunity to step away from association with it, without any hurt pride or unnecessary injured dignity. I want the Hillary supporters with us, they're Democrats and almost all decent, kind-hearted people.

Isn't that common practice in an Oligarchy?

"The US is an Oilgarchy with unlimited political bribery"
-President Jimmy Carter..

like E. Warren, in a future Democratic Primary if Hillary Clinton wins this one. I believe that is why Senator Warren chose not to run for President, this time.

About Brock having written a book that he admitted was "character assisination" on a woman who was victim of sexual abuse? This is an sincere question...

Yes, this deserves more attention...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511044407

Which I'm still feeling quite nauseous about.

He also wrote a column three years ago complaining about gay marriage & last year, he wrote one blaming poor people for being poor & how much better affluent parents are at raising their kids....

He IS a wolf not hiding very well in sheep's clothing. Its just so insulting Clinton is our party leaders' choice for coronation...

Most likely they get all warm and fuzzy and wonder what took so long...

Who are you to judge me? Go away

I'm not judging you, I'm asking for your opinion. The only judgement being given is on the sequence of provable events described in the op.

Probably bought in with their campaign contributions anyway...

And if it isn't it ought to be.

But hey, banging your own head against the brick wall because someone knows how to play within campaign rules for their advantage will certainly give you a headache. Take two aspirin, go to bed and sleep it off until after the Primaries. You'll fell better.

What I do find sleazy are the vile, unsubstantiated, and juvenile attacks ( not you in particular ) on Hillary Clinton right here at DU. What's even more disheartening are the number of recs or silence given to those attacks by supposedly even handed people.

It's legal. Perhaps it shouldn't be. Definitely, it shouldn't be. But it is.

Stop the Dem circular firing squad and be prepared to vote for the Dem winner regardless of who wins.

Except employing him.

No matter how many years ago, and how many apologies for it - that statement shows exactly who he is. That he was capable of such disgusting treatment of her should make anyone run, not use them for gain.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

First, your post is wrong as to how super pacs work. The campaigns do not make donations to super pacs. Donors make donations to super pacs often when they have given the full amount of allowed donations to a candidate. The campaigns prefer that money be given to the campaign for a host of reasons including that the campaign can buy TV ads at a lower rate than a super pac.

Second, President Obama used a super pac in 2012. Was that sleazy?

as far as I know.

These endless attacks of Hillary, 10 for each one in the reverse, are seeping into the mainstream and if we are not careful and if we dont grow up and insist on BIG PICTURE thinking, all may be lost.

So you are mistaken in this case.

The biggest contributor to Correct the Record is Hillary for America 2016. The link to OpenSecrets showing this is posted in the op.

SuperPACs are undemocratic and sleazy anyway, but for a campaign to donate to one so it can buy a media organization to run puff pieces for that candidate is frankly despicable.

This goes to the very hard of what Bernie has been saying about the need for campaign finance reform.

It's one thing to support Bernie and promote his message. It's another to go on the offensive against other DU members because their candidate supposedly did something you didn't like even though it is perfectly legal. Be outraged at Clinton all you want. Just don't lash out at other DUers because of it.

Legal indeed! So having a surrogate go across the media telling blatent lies would also be absolutely fine would it, because it isn't illegal? Or running attack ads that complete distort a Democratic candidate, because again it isn't illegal?

and that of her supporters?

Probably not, as that would imply that they have enough self-awareness to realize that the only thing these types of posts do is antagonize a sector of the Democratic party that Sanders will sorely need in the unlikely event that he were to become the party's nominee.

Yet you have nothing to say about that, you just fall back on crap about 'assassinating her character'? Well if holding someone accountable for things they've actually done is character assassination, then sure count me in.