2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy won't Hillary supporters discuss the actual issues of the campaign?
We have a very real problem with the general population's lack of control over government policy. That is a demonstrable fact and it impacts every facet of our lives.
Why won't you address problem in an honest and forthright manner? If you approve of the way the system is currently structured, explain why it's good.
If you think Hillary is going to change it, explain how she does that in light of her funding sources.
This is what Bernie's Campaign is all about, so if there is any part of you that wants unity it is an issue that will have to be dealt with.
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
The original study:
From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
ABSTRACT
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.
The last paragraph of their findings:
"...Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)Impedimentus
(898 posts)Money and power trump issues to the Clinton campaign.
FEEL THE BERN - 2016
mythology
(9,527 posts)to give Sanders the nomination even in the event that Clinton has the most delegates and popular vote, you probably shouldn't try to claim that it's just Clinton supporters who are looking to win.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)SEE THIS FOR MORE HYPOCRISY! http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511605823
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Why should we discuss anything about Hillary here when the threads just get shit on. We can discuss all issues privately without the crap.
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)Plain and simple.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Hillary must be talking about issues that real Democrats care about.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and yes they have been effective
Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)was right on Issues? You can win votes when you use rat-fucking and have a Husband as Ex-President. So Hillary is just rideing on coat tails of Bill. Great first women POTUS our country is going to have. Someone who picked right man to marry and latch onto even after he was a complete ass hole to her. Man I would so rather see Senator Warren in her place.
obamneycare
(40 posts)...On the other hand, unscientific social experiments like these, indicate that Hillary Clinton receives support that is wholly divorced from her stances on issues:
kristopher
(29,798 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)when Hillary flip-flops on Sharia Law ... whatever that is
monicaangela
(1,508 posts)and showing facts that disprove statements is tantamount to shitting on something these days.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)given up posting anything related to issue out here or even in LBN.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)The Olive Branch is out
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)winks and nodd...TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA/Wall Street/"Cut it out"/ A-OK and all.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on fracking? On the TPP? When this all started I would post OP after OP picking different issues. Never got one Clinton supporter to participate. As far as getting shit on, what projection. You have control of the Admin, MIRT, the host forum, you do 80% of the alerting, locking and hiding. Your bullies have never been dealt. It's only progressive that get banned and bullied out of here.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,560 posts)Exactly, I've noticed that too, they can't defend her policies, record at el...
Even Freeps were able to defend their points.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Someone there even told me to discuss it here--not there.
But you say y'all don't discuss it here either.
So....where to discuss of this discussion board?
HerbChestnut
(3,649 posts)None of it has anything to do with ending institutional racism, combating poverty, reforming outrageous trade deals, closing the gender pay gap, providing free public college tuition, major healthcare reform, etc...etc...etc...
Nope, their issues deal with identity politics, snark, and a whole lot of condescension.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)/thread.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,523 posts)If you discuss the issues (really discuss them) with an eye to facts and hard data, then there shouldn't be any problem.
But if the discussion descends into snark and rudeness, then people will alert and that has consequences.
We should not be hiding the truth.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that it's always the bullies that play the victim card.
senz
(11,945 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)to talk about the issues, only to get snark, deflection, attacks or simply they get ignored, just to ask again, why don't they discuss the issues?
I think this OP by BB deserved way more attention and respect than it received.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511508859
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)That gives a view of the discussion which followed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511508859
Do you see any difference between what BB and you considered to an issue and what I've raised in this thread as issues?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)or the Oligarchy as their top issue to vote on.
Do you think the average American really discusses WS and oligarchies at the dinner table?
Most of us have other priorities
kristopher
(29,798 posts)In many places they actually do talk about the economic issues that are what elections are all about.
Do you think the French Revolution was about social issues or economic issues?
Do you have any sense that the American Revolution was about personal slights and hating on your neighbor or was it about economic independence?
Was the reason FDR was elected 4 times because he was male, or because he fought for the same agenda that Bernie is fighting for?
What do you believe in?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Do you think the Sandy Hook parents should take economic issues before violence? What about the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner? Gabby Giffords?
Do you think if they put gun violence and the oligarchy on a balance, what will weigh more?
Millions of parents see themselves in these mothers eyes, they see their choices, and see Hillary closer to their issues.
She has addressed autism and Alzheimer disease as a priority? Do you think families affected by these conditions should care about WS more?
People who are waiting for Immigration reform to be addressed by the next POUS on their first 100 days have only one candidate who has promised to do so. Should they care more about the oligarchs?
And those who have told the Sander's camp over, and over again that economic justice does NOT bring racial justice, just to be told, for months, that they need to be educated about their own lives? Should WS be their priority?
No, it shouldn't be. And voters are showing that WS is not their top priority by the millions
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Why did MLK turn his focus so strongly to that front just before he was assassinated?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Millions of voters are showing that they have other priorities. That's just the way it is.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Look, the root of why the kinds of problems you point to - the ones that are so damned persistent and apparently not solvable - is that we are fractured as a voting block, not because we disagree all that much on what needs to be done.
Please take a look at and think about the significance of following study:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532267
It describes how much we actually agree on the economic front. It also confirms how little we understand the basic facts of that pretty simple issue, and, how that confusion translates into inaction.
If you look at that example where there exists agreement but nothing can get done, and consider it in light of the study in the OP that documents where control of policy is located, you might be inclined to ask yourself whether the other issues are intractable because they are intended to be.
I think it is demonstrably true that they are deliberately crafted wedges to divide us and prevent action to put the body politic back in control of making policy.
For another example look at the subject of abortion. Why is it such a time bomb when actually less than 20% of the people are zealots that oppose it?
Divide and conquer is more than an old saying, it is a strategy being actively employed against both of us even as we have this exchange.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)There are middle and upper class black people who are still victims of racial profiling. Income inequality is not the issue as far as that goes.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Dr. King stated clearly and unequivocally that he also saw it differently. I've arrived at my conclusions through a different path than Dr. King, but our views are almost identical. It's a place where the balance of evidence leads most who embrace the world with empathy, compassion, and hope.
Maybe you'll find yourself there one day.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)And did you know Dr. King?
Let me give you a real world situation.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2858505/kam-chancellor-wanted-to-buy-a-gym-but-they-called-the-cops-on-him-instead/
Sanders supporters wonder why POC support Hillary.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)What are the specific policy proposals you want to see Hillary enact into law?
Why not share a specific plan of action to address any of the social justice issues you claim to care about.
She not only doesn't walk the solutions walk, she doesn't even talk the solutions talk.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)to pay the exhorbitant costs of corporate insurance and nursing homes...those thiungs do affect you very directly.
If you have to bleed your family's resources dry to qualify for Medicaid, those issues affect you.
Just one example of why it matters.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)When we try to discuss issues Sanders supporters try to change the subject. Just like their hero did when interviewed in Arizona. He got mad and walked off because it wasn't going his way.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I see the core question from lunamagica's (Lm) post above as being:
"Do you think families affected by these conditions should care about WS more?"
The rest basically frames the question as one where our needs are an either/or choice.
I see that as presupposing people are incapable of seeing the intertwined nature of the events around us; whereas in actuality, humans look for and find the patterns that events fit into. It is those patterns that tell us how best to address the challenges life throws our way.
The either/or dichotomy is simply a false construct. It is not how humans problem-solve at any level except in the most stark circumstances. And institutionalized racism isn't not such a case. The violence, poverty and economic picture are completely intertwined and cannot by unwoven.
Lm can say that "the Sander's camp (has been told) over, and over again that economic justice does NOT bring racial justice". To a degree that is correct, economic justice does not automatically bring racial justice, but the economic system is the Gordian's knot that must be either untangled (Establishment incrementalism) or hewn in half by following the goals laid down by Martin Luther King. Only then will the healing begin.
And let me repeat that this isn't conjecture or guesswork. We have vast amounts of experience and study demonstrating a consistent picture where a strong middle class - built on a social justice platform as FDR and MLK envisioned - is one where social injustice and hate find trouble flourishing.
I didn't explicitly say all of that to Lm earlier, but the same message is there to be found if one is looking.
Hope that helps.
Matt_R
(456 posts)school shooting, rather than on shooting that happen in your neighborhood.
In fact last night we heard gunfire in spurts, didn't see blue lights though, so there is a good chance it was a street over. Either that or no one passed on.
If I had a better job I would be able to move to a better neighborhood. I'm sure most would like to have a better education, to get that better job, to get that better neighborhood.
I don't see Sanders as a single issue politician focusing on wallstreet. I see Sanders as a supporter of a better minimum wage, less expensive education, less expensive health care, stronger social security, etc. I look at minimum wage, education, healthcare and social security as social issues, not as economic issues but I guess the case may be made for both.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)The post you are replying to said:
"Do you think the Sandy Hook parents should take economic issues before violence? What about the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner? Gabby Giffords?"
I see you conveniently picked and chose the Sandy Hook parents and omitted the rest...conveniently trying to drive a wedge between them...But guess what? All these parents, (the Sandy Hook parents, the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, and Gaby Giffords, who is childless? ALL OF THEM are UNITED, regardless of income, race and social status, they are all united and standing behind, supporting and endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Their number on issue is GUN CONTROL. They would NEVER support a guy who voted against the Brady Bill five times.
And how would you ever know where I live? I don't owe you an explanation, but FYI, I don't live in a gated community, and I don't have children, but I can empathize with all of these parents. All of them.
Matt_R
(456 posts)you now say "Their number on issue is GUN CONTROL. They would NEVER support a guy who voted against the Brady Bill five times."
My reply still states, I'm glad you are well off enough. Your bills are paid and live in a nice neighborhood so that you can afford to focus on only "GUN CONTROL". The rest of us living in America will focus on economic issues. Getting food on the table, a safer neighborhood, and affordable healthcare. So that we can take care of our families.
I'm also glad you have never heard a gunshot in your neighborhood and thought "are my kids ok."
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)is worse that I thought. What part of "I don't have children" didn't you get?
So Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner's mother all live in nice neighborhoods? You have no idea where I live. Do you usually judge people without having any facts to base your judgement on?
This is really pointless. I'm done with you
Matt_R
(456 posts)"I'm also glad you have never heard a gunshot in your neighborhood and thought "are my kids ok.""
Armstead
(47,803 posts)They don't because the media and the political parties don't provide the information.
It's a vicious circle.
Sanders -- and those who support him -- are trying to open up the discussion and shed some light on what has been glossded over and covered up over the years.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)It's just that I respect you, and I know you won't reply with insults and snark.
On this thread alone, we have been called liars, sociopaths, the "vagina voter" insult is here... I don't know what else, because I couldn't read anymore.
How do you think that makes us feel? Why would we want to participate in such a "debate".
At least the amnesty has given us some relief. But we have endured months and moths of being targets of people that wanted us to leave. Bogus hides, attacks. Hillary supporters left in droves.
I replied to this thread, and I'm already sorry I did.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,523 posts)You're not piling on me. You're talking to me, and I get it.
The funny thing is that we Bernie supporters feel as though we've been targeted too, just as you stated you felt. Isn't that weird?
And I sure as hell don't want to participate in such a "debate" either. It only hurts all of us.
I keep hoping things will get better. For ALL of us.
We ARE Democrats, after all.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)And it has been made by me a number of times before.
How about it, break the mold and discuss the issue of our having a sham democracy? Again, this isn't a speculative statement, but one supported by strong empirical evidence. Surely you must be worried about our future enough to at least talk about the things that matter.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Your Team has this habit of doing the same thing you don't like in the other team. You and a couple of other straight Hillary supporters have been drumming at those posts ever since she put Reagan's foot in her mouth the other day. It's transparent. At the same time Your Team runs around accusing Bernie supporters of explaining to minorities about minority issues and choices. Which is what you are doing here. And several of your esteemed team mates have been doing with gusto. It's insulting in the same way that Stockholm Syndrome thread was insulting. And you folks should really cut it the fuck out.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)dchill
(38,442 posts)Because it makes their heads hurt.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)I see them as a Margaret Thatcher type crowd, unfortunately.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)or on her voting record (including Bill's programs she supported as First Lady) or on her tenure as Secretary of State.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Was Bush the one with the best ideas in 2004?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)JudyM
(29,192 posts)Lorien
(31,935 posts)as a "Democrat" simply because you don't want anyone to call you a Republican. Then Hillary's hawkish anti-environmental/ anti-Wall Street regulation stances on the issues might seem appealing, though completely suicidal.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)on DU as "Republican"
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)ladjf
(17,320 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Sleight of hand.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)to a certain part of the electorate that he knows he couldn't keep-but they get him voted
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)All impossible things --
BUT WAIT!
From Zero to Hero. Not perfect yet, but a GREAT START on the impossible dreams.
Because they WERE possible, thanks to GREAT LEADERSHIP.
And then we have Hillary. She dreams of ... ?
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Probably one of the culprits who caused the crash. If she gets to pick, I'd put a heavy bet on it.
Definitely she would fill the cabinet and executive agencies with those types. It would be what we have now, on steroids.
Stopping that after it's done is too late, we have to prevent it NOW.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Oooops.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)+326 is insurmountable.
Sid
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)and they have chosen her over him. It's that simple.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)never, repeat, never get implemented unless the monied special interest groups allow it?
Never.
Do you realize that an impartial evaluation of the state of the worlds democracies show us to be the endangered as a full democracy? They rank the US 20th out of 20 in their set of "full democracy" nations.
Democracy in an age of anxiety
The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territoriesthis covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the worlds states (micro-states are excluded). The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Based on their scores on a range of indicators within these categories, each country is then itself categorised as one of four types of regime: full democracies; flawed democracies; hybrid regimes; and authoritarian regimes.
This is the eighth edition of the Democracy Index. It reflects the situation in 2015, a year in which democracy was tested in the face of war, terrorism, mass migration and other crises, and, in some cases, suffered serious setbacks. The title of this years report reflects the threat to democracy emanating from the fearful mood of our times, which informs the reactions of ordinary people and political elites alike. An increased sense of personal and societal anxiety and insecurity in the face of diverse perceived risks and threatseconomic, political, social and securityis undermining democracy, which depends on a steadfast commitment to upholding enlightenment values (liberty, equality, fraternity, reason, tolerance and free expression) and fostering democratic institutions and a democratic political culture.
In many democracies, political elites worry about their inability to relate to the electorate and fear the challenge that populist parties pose. In some cases, established parties have colluded to exclude or marginalise the populists. In the face of terrorist threats, democratic governments have reacted in anti-democratic ways, calling into question freedom of speech or adopting draconian laws. In non-democratic countries, authoritarian political elites fear the threat from the masses and seek to bolster their rule by imprisoning opponents, restricting the media, limiting popular freedoms and repressing protest. Meanwhile, electorates are ever more anxiousabout economic insecurity, about their personal safety, about the consequences of immigration, about the threat of terrorismand angry that their concerns are not being represented by the established parties. This mood of fear and insecurity represents one of the main threats to democracy today.
Almost one-half of the worlds countries can be considered to be democracies, but, in our index, the number of full democracies is low, at only 20 countries; 59 countries are rated as "flawed democracies. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 51 are authoritarian and 37 are considered to be hybrid regimes. As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate among full democracies; there are two Asian countries, one Latin American country (Uruguay) and one African country (Mauritius), which suggests that level of development is not a binding constraint, but is a constraint, nevertheless. Slightly less than one-half (48.4%) of the worlds population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 8.9% reside in full democracies. Around 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the worlds population, still live under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
Flawed democracies are concentrated in Latin America, eastern Europe and Asia...
http://64.37.52.189/~parsifal/EIU2015.pdf
Tarc
(10,472 posts)But thanks.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'd tell you to Google the title of the article and look at the number of years that they've been doing this evaluation but it's clear you have some strong cognitive dissonance issues to deal with so here is the direct link to The Economists website where you can do a search. I've also included The Economist's branch website directly to their "Economics Intelligence Unit" which is the /eiu/ you see in the second link.
http://www.economist.com
http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2015
SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Your link in the post was this ...
http://64.37.52.189 ......
Do you know that's the Economist website by just looking at the numbers?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Dealing with cognitive dissonance can be a debilitating condition. But treatment is as easy as deciding to open your mind and setting a course to self honesty.
Good luck. We are all in need of it because whether you know it or not; whether you acknowledge it or not, we and our descendants are all in this together.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)know her position on fracking. Doesn't matter does it. She represents the Big Money and that's all you care about.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)That's what we call a realistic and honest response, as opposed to Sanders who just gives a simplistic "no", because he knows it's what you want to hear.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that they don't contaminate the ground water. Also, they use a tremendous amount of the ground water for their process. Contaminating it permanently. Where do they put the contaminated water?
Her position is typical. She supports it if done responsibly. When have you ever known a corporation to put the people before profits.
Profits over people. Ask the people who have had their drinking water destroyed.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)in the real world, there are other factors to consider, for example, the impact on jobs.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)profits. You think profits are more important than lives. It's just peons that die.
The wealthy don't wish the poor to die, they just don't care.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Response to kristopher (Original post)
Post removed
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Quotable
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)and they don't care about anything except for corporate profit.
Hillary supporters on this forum are nothing but liars for the corporate power structure.
Anybody informed about politics and supports Clinton - is an easy person to figure out.
-messiah
Sociopaths are people who lack empathy. In fact a paucity of empathy or its total absence is the sine qua non of sociopathy. Who else but a sociopath would attribute the most base motivations to strangers ? A sociopath, of course.
Broward
(1,976 posts)Response to kristopher (Original post)
Post removed
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Nice to be told we are sociopaths who only support her because she has an innie and not an outie. And they wonder why their outreach is failing.
SMH
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Have fun in purgatory, bro!!
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Explanation: The alerter is a fucking asshole
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)I put my name on most of my votes
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)Are you defending those disgusting sexist remarks about Mrs Clinton?
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,741 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)We literally have been inundated with calls to side with Hillary because she's female and that there's something wrong with us women who don't choose her (think of Albright and Stinem). I think the post was a bit more blunt and certainly less nuanced, but I do feel as though there are a great many of her supporters who only want her in office because of her gender - and for NO OTHER REASON.
I find being told that I'm going to hell if I don't support her or am just hanging out where the boys are (which is funny since I'm 46 and am the mother of a boy) far more sexist than that remark.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I hate to be the one to break it to you, but women don't have the same genitalia inside as men have on the outside.
riversedge
(70,084 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Because all they care about is making someone with a vagina president.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1532588
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
sexist disgusting post
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:41 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with alerter.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Crude in its intent, but doesn't rise to a TOS violation in my estimation.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough of the sexist posts.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Bernie supporter here. Post is sexist. I care about getting the best possible person into the White House. I think it's Bernie, but no reason to disparage Hillary in the mean time. If it's her, it's her. Infinitely better than trump.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
comradebillyboy
(10,128 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,708 posts)Short term victory with long term consequences.
Yeah-
The suggestion a woman who:
- was a National Honor Society member
-was a Merit Scholar finalist
- graduated from Wellesley and Yale Law School
- was a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state
- was Secretary of State
isn't more qualified to be president than some former House Representative, small town mayor, , and small state senator because she has a vagina instead of a penis is patently absurd.
djean111
(14,255 posts)sending kids home to die to make a point, is all I can think. Those things are okay if Hillary does them!
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)It will likely remain that way should she win the WH.
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)riversedge
(70,084 posts)here in gd-p.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)riversedge
(70,084 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)in full force today. What a burden to be so superior to anyone who thinks HRC would be a better President than Bernie. There's not much positive about Bernie today-just a lot of hate directed toward HRC and her supporters. Getting a lot of converts with that negativity I'll bet.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)If you ever bothered to listen to Hillary at the town halls and speaking events you would soon find out who is really substantively talking about the issues.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)And why. Sanders fails so bad with voters over 50....
dsc
(52,152 posts)I get next to no responses and then OP's like you post dishonest OP's stating we don't talk about issues.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Or the one in post 30 about the declining state of democracy in the US?
The Economist Intelligence Units Democracy Index 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532343#post30
Here is another opportunity where hard evidence about how we-the-people's agreement on wealth inequality is being twisted in the public debate in order to pit us against each other?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532267
When do we stop making excuses and actually start to talk and act like we're responsible citizens in a functioning democracy?
book_worm
(15,951 posts)or pictures of one of Bernie's "massive rallies"--which certainly hasn't helped him win.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)...
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)It's like discussing issues with Christians and people who believe in homeopathy and other woo.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)babbling wreck when she tries to address Sanders himself ("you're on the side of the Minutemen and Fidel Castro!"
all they can do is keep her position as the default candidate, keep Sanders out of the news, and hope they can run out the clock
problem is she may poll above Trump NOW, but he's not just gonna throw bluster at her but she'll have to attack him on something (besides his creepy mummified-baby hands): she'll light out with "the Republicans are the party of war, deportation, Social-Security destruction, attacks on healthcare, outsourcing, loan sharking, locking up a third of black youth, and border fences!"
now, for half of that she's the only one in the room who's spent trillions on them, and for the other half her record, ties, and rhetoric are to his right
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)If she is the D nominee, and the GOP fields Kasich, as looks likely, it's liable to be "Mourning in America"* all over again.
* http://www.ushistory.org/us/59a.asp
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)and after it is over it is going to leave behind a stinky slimy pile of goo and bunch of people standing around it thinking "oops".
Response to kristopher (Original post)
PonyUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)But Americans are too preoccupied with propaganda, emotions, loyalty and celebrity to understand how important the vote really is. So, we end up with an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatism. Lots of ways to say it but the only way there is a certain kind of ignorance. As that smart jack-of-all-trades Benjamin said, a republic, if you can keep it.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Bottom Line:
"...our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.
if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then Americas claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)What are they going to discuss? Even they are not sure where she stands on anything.
Zira
(1,054 posts)pick an issue!
Rebkeh
(2,450 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Trump.
Supreme Court.
Bernie's lack of support among minority voters.
You expected more than that?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)her $250,000 speaking fees from banks and her disdain for the unwashed masses asking for "free stuff" is not all that great for winning votes. Focusing on the implication that anyone who isn't voting for her is a sexist or a racist probably works better, at least in the short run.