2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Pervasive Dishonesty of Bernie Sanders
https://medium.com/@DmitriMehlhorn/the-pervasive-dishonesty-of-the-sanders-campaign-ec6eff57f22fBernie suggests that if powerful interest groups approached him, he would turn down their help or, at a minimum, never use his political power to protect them. The truth is the opposite. In major cases when Bernie has faced a choice, he has taken the politically expedient path rather than standing up for what is right.
Exhibit A: Taking money from the NRA and then doing their bidding. In the largely rural and white state of Vermont, the lefts bête noire is the National Rifle Association. Did Bernie accept money, endorsements, and support from the NRA? Yes. Bernie had previously lost statewide office six times before the NRA decided to invest tens of thousands to elect him. Upon his election, Bernie did the NRAs bidding, reversing the positions of his predecessor and voting against the common sense Brady Bill five times.
Red Oak
(697 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Red Oak
(697 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Red Oak
(697 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)
Sanders sees that he could conceivably win, and the bern has turned derty. I hoped he would be the man he said he was, but for a far-left radical to pursue his goals ruthlessly and dishonestly is not only natural but to be expected IF he turned out to an extremist. The righteousness that characterizes extremists on both the left and right allows them to justify, under the wrong conditions, just about any behavior...
Of course, it is still possible that Sanders is only a bit radical and that his dirty tricks and lies are merely a combination of that and the typical behavior of amoral politicians in his position.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)a whole series of lies that accused HRC of selling out to oil companies. It's scarcely his only "series of" lies, either.
I call on Sanders' supporters to drop their holier-than-thou attitude. Sanders abandoned the top of hill almost before he occupied it -- for the far better returns he could get by fighting from the gutters. You know, what works better to take down a frontrunner -- GOP tactics.
George II
(67,782 posts)Red Oak
(697 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I presume that anyone who wants to be president of the united states of america has some flaws, like all of us here and anyone I've ever met.
Both Sanders and Clinton are a million times better than any of the republican candidates. We need more like both of them as president, in congress, in state legislatures, on local school boards and as mayors etc.
I think it's foolish to presume that between Clinton and Sanders one is perfect and the other some constant lying warmongering corporate sellout. I think both would fight very hard for reducing inequality but I don't think either can do it without a tremendous upsurge in voting among all progressives, particularly in mid-term elections and in every damn local state and congressional election.
Among the remaining candidates in both parties, Clinton has actually been the most honest. I'm sorry I don't have a link but I did read that last week. To me it doesn't require a link because she is talking about what can and cannot be done. Sanders is just running to her left, and therefore making tons of promises even he knows he cannot keep.
Just my two cents.
jfern
(5,204 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)and we may agree to disagree slightly. I still like you! To me, Bernie has gone very negative against Hillary lately and her campaign has been calling her a liar at every opportunity. For about the past two or three weeks. I find that disappointing. Hillary is focusing more on the absolutely incompetency, racism, venal economic policies and outrageous shortsightedness of the republicans. I happen to agree with that more than getting into pissing matches between democrats and the left who (at least in November) will need one another to defeat the enemies.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Why it is disappointing that he responds but not that she has been running a negative lying campaign?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)I think campaigns get into some crazy stuff. I think both candidates themselves are pretty darn good. I think this democratic primary campaign has actually been much more issues oriented than many in the past. In their debates they've both done very well at presenting their cases to the American people. Unlike the republicans who to me look like a WWF fake freak. Maybe great for entertainment but not in the least sincere or real. As I've said, I'd vote for Sanders or Clinton in November, gladly.
jfern
(5,204 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)to those of us on the left. I respect & appreciate that and hope it continue invigorating the left and the democratic party.
uponit7771
(90,348 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)hollysmom
(5,946 posts)uponit7771
(90,348 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)He sits on that board while you all proudly stand with him!!!!
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Listen to Sarandon...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Also don't waste my time on people who brag about not voting. That's some of the most ignorant shit I've ever seen. Also, it's like talking to a fundamentalist. You just can't persuade them of anything. Eventually they just bore you to tears. 'Wanna go shoot hoops?' 'Not with the corporate blah blah blah blah.'
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Plus infinity.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)oasis
(49,395 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)If you have a rebuttal, type it.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)dchill
(38,512 posts)The link doesn't go to anything of the kind, but someone recced this turd?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But Medium links tend to break on BBcode sites like DU. Try this one:
https://medium.com/%40DmitriMehlhorn/the-pervasive-dishonesty-of-the-sanders-campaign-ec6eff57f22f
Response to Recursion (Reply #9)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)No, Bernie didn't take money from the NRA and he made good on a promise to vote to ban assault weapons earning him a F grade five years in a row.
Who is this idiot?
Let's look at his pro-gun control record:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Q: For a decade, you said that holding gun manufacturers legally responsible for mass shootings is a bad idea. Do you want to shield gun companies from lawsuits?
SANDERS: Of course not. This was a large and complicated bill. There were provisions in it that I think made sense. For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't. On the other hand, where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.
Source: 2015 CNN Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas , Oct 13, 2015
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
WASHINGTON, April 17 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities, Sanders said. There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others, Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories, Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales up to 40 percent of all gun transfers at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between family, friends, and neighbors.
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just dont think the state itself, whether its the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun industry shill why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, "the NRA spent a lot of money to get Sanders elected" would be a bit more accurate.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And they did. To help him win.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)First off the NRA isn't legally allowed to donate to campaigns because it's a 501(c)(4). They do have a connected PAC, the NRA-ILA, which legally could donate directly to campaigns, but since they could only donate $2700 to a candidate they don't bother because they can have a bigger impact just by running ads.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The National Rifle Association uses campaign expenditures and a rating system based on members' voting histories to exert influence over members of Congress. Use this graphic to see who gets the most -- and least -- support.
...
About NRA ratings
The NRA grades candidates based on their voting record on gun issues or on a questionnaire.
A+ "Excellent voting record" and "vigorous effort" on gun rights.
A "Solidly pro-gun," backed NRA on key votes or has positive record on gun rights.
AQ Pro-gun rating based solely on a questionnaire and without a voting record.
B May have opposed "pro-gun reform" or backed some gun restrictions.
C "Not necessarily a passing grade." Mixed record" on gun votes.
D "Anti-gun" supporter of "gun control legislation" who "can usually be counted on to vote wrong on key issues."
F "True enemy of gun owners' rights."
NOTE: Career donations are totals since 1990.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/nra-congress/
Bernie never received money from them, the blogger lied.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The NRA spent $20,000 running ads telling people to vote for Bernie Sanders. If you don't count that as "getting money", then nobody has ever "gotten money" from the NRA.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Among Federal Candidates, 1990 Cycle
Total: $1,722,096
Total Contributions
Green, Gene ( - ) $16,900
Kopetski, Mike (D-OR) House $14,850
Taylor, Charles H (R-NC) House $14,850
Young, Don (R-AK) House $14,850
Sarpalius, William Clarence (D-TX) House $12,900
LaRocco, Larry (D-ID) House $10,950
Unsoeld, Jolene (D-WA) House $10,900
Rahall, Nick (D-WV) House $10,150
Hilliard, Earl F ( - ) $9,950
Allard, Wayne (R-CO) House $9,900
Bennett, Robert F ( - ) $9,900
Bond, Christopher "Kit" (R-MO) Senate $9,900
Breaux, John (D-LA) Senate $9,900
Brooks, Jack Bascom (D-TX) House $9,900
Bubba, Joseph L ( - ) $9,900
Burton, Dan (R-IN) House $9,900
Carr, Bob (D-MI) House $9,900
Coats, Dan (R-IN) Senate $9,900
Coleman, Ronald D (D-TX) House $9,900
Coverdell, Paul ( - ) $9,900
Cunningham, Randy (Duke) (R-CA) House $9,900
D'Amato, Alfonse M (R-NY) Senate $9,900
Danner, Pat ( - ) $9,900
Edmondson, W A Drew ( - ) $9,900
Erdreich, Ben (D-AL) House $9,900
Espy, Mike (D-MS) House $9,900
Faircloth, Lauch ( - ) $9,900
Foley, Thomas S (D-WA) House $9,900
Fox, Andrew H (Andy) (D-VA) House $9,900
Franks, Gary A (R-CT) House $9,900
Gallegly, Elton (R-CA) House $9,900
Gingrich, Newt (R-GA) House $9,900
Grant, Bill (R-FL) House $9,900
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) Senate $9,900
Haar, Charlene K ( - ) $9,900
Hatcher, Charles Floyd (D-GA) House $9,900
Hogan, Lawrence J Jr (R-MD) House $9,900
Jontz, James (D-IN) House $9,900
Kasten, Bob (R-WI) Senate $9,900
Kyrillos, Joe ( - ) $9,900
Lightfoot, Jim (R-IA) House $9,900
Manzullo, Don (R-IL) House $9,900
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $9,900
McClintock, Tom (R-CA) House $9,900
McCuen, William James ( - ) $9,900
McEwen, Bob (R-OH) House $9,900
McHugh, John M ( - ) $9,900
McInnis, Scott ( - ) $9,900
McSlarrow, Kyle Eugene ( - ) $9,900
Meeker, Anthony ( - ) $9,900
Mollohan, Alan B (D-WV) House $9,900
Murkowski, Frank H (R-AK) Senate $9,900
Murphy, Austin J (D-PA) House $9,900
Nickles, Don (R-OK) Senate $9,900
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) House $9,900
Paxon, Bill (R-NY) House $9,900
Peterson, Collin (D-MN) House $9,900
Quillen, James H (R-TN) House $9,900
Ray, Richard (D-GA) House $9,900
Rhodes, John Jacob III (R-AZ) House $9,900
Richardson, Hubert L ( - ) $9,900
Roma, Patrick J ( - ) $9,900
Roth, Toby (R-WI) House $9,900
Royce, Ed (R-CA) House $9,900
Rutan, Richard G (Dick) ( - ) $9,900
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) House $9,900
Solomon, Gerald B H (R-NY) House $9,900
Solomon, Lee A ( - ) $9,900
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Senate $9,900
Stump, Bob (R-AZ) House $9,900
Thornburgh, Dick ( - ) $9,900
Thurman, Karen L ( - ) $9,900
Volkmer, Harold L (D-MO) House $9,900
Vucanovich, Barbara F (R-NV) House $9,900
Wilson, Charles (D-TX) House $9,900
Zeliff, Bill (R-NH) House $9,900
Herschensohn, Bruce (U-CA) Senate $9,540
Doolittle, John T (R-CA) House $9,500
Hollings, Fritz (D-SC) Senate $8,900
Bean, Linda ( - ) $8,450
Brewster, Bill (D-OK) House $8,450
Inhofe, James M (R-OK) House $7,450
Murtha, John P (D-PA) House $7,450
Petri, Tom (R-WI) House $7,450
Wise, Bob (D-WV) House $7,450
Stokley, Richard Matthew ( - ) $7,400
Taylor, Gene (D-MS) House $7,350
Keyes, Alan (R-MD) Senate $7,306
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) House $6,950
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) House $6,950
Dornan, Robert K (R-CA) House $6,950
Emerson, Bill (R-MO) House $6,950
Hancock, Mel (R-MO) House $6,950
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA) House $6,950
Orton, Bill (D-UT) House $6,950
Peterson, Pete (D-FL) House $6,950
Barrett, Bill (R-NE) House $6,850
Hansen, James V (R-UT) House $6,450
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) House $6,450
Thomas, Craig (R-WY) House $6,450
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000082&type=P&state=&sort=A&cycle=1990
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hell, I've seen a couple of them.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)OMG this is getting absurd.
No, you need to own up to this. The NRA spent a lot of money to get him elected in 1990. You can't seriously pretend otherwise.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. Its important.
Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than Peter Smith, wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was and still is a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)My claim is that he never received money from the NRA which you said didn't donate to legislators.
Not a donation.
Try again, so far you're 0 for 2.
Remember what you have to refute is open secrets' info proving Bernie never received money from the NRA.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hell, you can tell in your own link those aren't campaign donations, because they exceed the maximum allowable contributions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Like, for example, mailers saying "vote for Bernie Sanders".
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)beedle
(1,235 posts)Hillary is lying about her oil money contributions?
I'll see your "NRA wrote a letter" and raise you "4.5 Million in Big Oil contributions".
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Candidates can't control outside groups. The charges against Clinton and Sanders are equally dishonest here.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)Kentonio (1,596 posts)
37. Apologies, for some reason I thought it had been posted as a reply to you.
"...But Clintons campaign chairman was not pleased by the news that Correct the Record was about to unleash an attack on Sanders health. Chill out, campaign chairman John Podesta tweeted at Brock. We're fighting on who would make a better president, not on who has a better physical fitness test.
..."
Here's the Washington Post talking about the SuperPACs decision to split off and coordinate directly with the campaign via the loophole in the rules by the way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/
A clear conscience is a sign of a bad memory..
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink
Response to Kentonio (Reply #37)Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:09 AM
Star Member Recursion (47,324 posts)
39. That's a violation of law
I hope the FEC fines the Clinton campaign for it
Finalement quand on voit ce qui peut être fait au nom de Dieu, on se demande ce qu'il reste au diable comme activité
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)aaaaaand who served as COO at Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst.
Gotta be brave and fight online for the marginalized, donchaknow?!
Welcome to the new and improved DU!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The blogs I've seen linked to lately are from some nasty bigots. People should be careful what they link to here.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Wonder why that is?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He was a rabid homophobe too.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I have another one pegged, too.
I guess the rationale is that the latest offending comments weren't actually made at DU. If such comments were made here, a PPR would be in order. IF the site owners are consistent...
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But remember what Orwell wrote:
"Four legs good, two legs better!" *
*Note to jury: no one is being called an animal in this post even though it is a quote from Animal Farm, see explanation here. Thank you for serving.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)"some animals are more equal than others" but decided against it, what with are sure to be itchy alert fingers in this thread.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They alerted in me at least 5 times last night.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)But I guess that's not enough.
Yep... itchy alert fingers.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)It takes the admins far too long to contend with the blatant bigots. A year after her first vile rant is a year too long.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)People who are more outraged by uncovering and pointing out bigotry than by the bigotry itself have some messed up priorities.
Docreed2003
(16,869 posts)You've done the yeoman's work around here defending Bernie and you do so in even the most absurd posts. My mother used to say "Patience is a virtue", and as a teenager I'd retort "One I don't have". Well if patience is a virtue you're a damn saint, cause I couldn't put up with half the crap you do. You're amazing, keep up the great work!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Dad taught us how to debate at the supper table, lose your temper, lose the debate.
It helps to keep in mind that no one pays any attention to what people post in here. Most of the time my opponent ignores my points so I do it for the sport and for the benefit of other Bernistas.
When all else fails there's always turtle bombing.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)He seems to not be above admitting fault, unlike some people who think they are perfect
jfern
(5,204 posts)But he doesn't have the 67% not honest and trustworthy rating that Hillary has.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Wouldn't have thought it at the outset, though his cowardly stance on guns always had me wondering. But now it's clear, he is a straight up and rather dangerous demagogue. I'd be scared of his people if he took power. He's attracted a lot of fanatics of the "liquidate those who don't agree" variety. It would make the world better, after all, you see.
Scary.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I cannot believe I believed him at first
dchill
(38,512 posts)Some of this shit is too ugly. What's the real reason?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)some are and some aren't. I hate fanning flames where none exist. Are you trying to fan more flames or was there another point you're making that I'm missing here?
dchill
(38,512 posts)Um, ethnicity, which I believe informs her opinions. I have no such issues. I'm just protesting here.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Now look at my last comment on this thread and tell me you agree with that vote. EX IM BANK
Number23
(24,544 posts)"He's attracted a lot of fanatics"
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Maybe that's your perception. My perception is that Hillary has attracted a lot of anti-Semites. Which is worse?
Anti-semites:
-Hate Jews
"Bernie fanatics":
-Hate Millitary/Prison/Pharma indistrial complexes
-Hate endless Drug warss against all socio-economic classes
-Hate endless wars and "regeime change" in the middle east
-Hate Money in politics
-Hate Classroom to Prison pipeline
-Hate Fracking
-Hate Corruption
-Hate Large corporations which deport hundreds of thousands of jobs
-Hate Racist Dog whistles and demonizing minorities
-May have a Distaste for pant-suites and fake accents
You can count me in the later category, plus a damn million.
Number23
(24,544 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Very useful in his way.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)at least this one is not that bad..
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)I love these types of threads.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but as far as the usual crap, it is not that bad.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)but never from this OP.
Yeah, guess you're right... it's not up there with well-known anti-Semitic rants.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)LexVegas
(6,080 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Hillary. Must. Not. Lose. Twice.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)And even to the point of saying Sanders supporters are like the Nazis and want to exterminate their opponents...Unbelievable...never thought I would hear it on DU.
But I guess going over to the dark side is justified by the end.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)He's also on the board of American Prison Data Systems. Ooh! Lookie here under Select Investors and Advisors:
Andrew Kessel
CFO, Clinton Foundation
Dmitri Mehlhorn
Partner, Vidinovo
http://apdscorporate.com/#about
Chief Operating Officer of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg L.P.
Anti-union and profiting from the school-to-prison pipeline... not very Social Justice Warrior-y. Tsk.
It's good to know the players.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)It's amusing that her former COO is introduced to DU as someone whose opinion we're supposed to value. Some may fall for it, but the rest of us won't. And that's what really pisses off Camp Weathervane.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)That last one is priceless, considering the OP's never-ending lectures about social justice. I mean, seriously, PRICELESS.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Have looked it up. Urk. Brave, really....?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)and no one should be surprised.
You're welcome.
cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)To cite just one point in the column, bernie's promise about college applies to PUBLIC colleges, whose student bodies are not on the whole made up of the richest Americans. True, rich people are much more likely to send their kids to college, but they are particularly more likely to send their kids to much-more-expensive private colleges than poorer families are. Making public colleges tuition free would make them less onerous a financial burden on less well-heeled families, and be a major boon to those of limited means
It is also at the more general level false to suggest that bernie does not support the full range of policies for those of limited income. but intimate knowledge of his platform on these issues (he has over the years consistently supported the proposed budget of the Progressive Caucus in Congress which does precisely that) in his platform may be more extensive on the part of others at DU
Obviously folk can post a broad range of stuff, but should hillary get the nomination, these kinds of posts back and forth would only make the task of bernie supporters who do NOT embrace a bernie-or-bust position (which he himself has consistently eschewed) that much more difficult
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The only thing he voted their way on was corporate liability, and that's trivial compared to everything he voted against them on.
No court anywhere would ever have ruled gun manufacturers liable anyway.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)but it's not coming from Bernie Sanders.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Gothmog
(145,433 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)WaPost also pulled out some 50 year old protest photos and claimed they did not show Bernie Sanders but they got fact checked on that as well. WaPost has falsely attacked both Democratic candidates with bogus lies this cycle. Why anyone would promote them as a trusted source is beyond me. Both candidates they subjected to gossipy rumors and cheap accusations made by their rivals.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)Bernie's elections that was linked in the article. Much appreciated!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)You sure make your name (and us) proud!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He started by bashing Obama for the TPP and asking for fast track authority and went dumpster diving on day 1 by openly insinuating that the Clinton Foundation is corrupt in every interview. Basically it's the only tune he knows.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)vanishing, and the truth emerges.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)you'd know exactly who Bernie Sanders is.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I know exactly who he is.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)That you make light of it is disgusting.
Some of us were paying attention, and know exactly who Bernie Sanders is.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)they will LUUUUVE Him"
That's one of the Sanders camp favorite memes
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Keep digging.
I ask that voters get to know all they can about each candidate and make informed decisions.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)He voted to stop genocides and go after Bin Laden but knew better than to give Bush what he wanted:
Too bad your candidate didn't listen.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)In 2001, Sanders did not support the vote in Congress to oppose the war in Afghanistan. Congresswoman Barbara Lee stood alone! This vote was followed by his support for appropriations to support both the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In 2003 he supported the resolution that gave support to George W. Bush in both Iraq and in the larger war against terrorism, although Sanders has been a critic of the Iraq War.
Then Sanders supported only a gradual withdrawal from Iraq. When impeachment was on the so-called table against George W. Bush in 2006, he said that impeachment was impractical.
Sanders, like his Democratic allies, has supported Israels aggressive Middle East policies against Palestinian statehood. He supported HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which was similar to the resolutions leading to the Iraq War. Indeed, it appears that Sanders is even to the political Right of many liberal Democrats!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/27/bernie-sanders-savior-or-seducer-of-the-anti-war-left/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The KLA, formed in 1991,[58] initiated its first campaign in 1995 when it launched attacks targeting Serbian law enforcement in Kosovo, and in June 1996 the group claimed responsibility for acts of sabotage targeting Kosovo police stations. In 1997, the organisation acquired a large amount of arms through weapons smuggling from Albania, following a rebellion which saw large numbers of weapons looted from the country's police and army posts. In 1998, KLA attacks targeting Yugoslav authorities in Kosovo resulted in an increased presence of Serb paramilitaries and regular forces who subsequently began pursuing a campaign of retribution targeting KLA sympathisers and political opponents[59] in a drive which killed 1,500 to 2,000 civilians and KLA combatants.[60][61] After attempts at a diplomatic solution failed, NATO intervened, justifying the campaign in Kosovo as a "humanitarian war".[62] This precipitated a mass expulsion of Kosovar Albanians as the Yugoslav forces continued to fight during the aerial bombardment of Yugoslavia (MarchJune 1999).[63][64] By 2000, investigations had recovered the remains of almost three thousand victims of all ethnicities,[65] and in 2001 a United Nations administered Supreme Court, based in Kosovo, found that there had been "a systematic campaign of terror, including murders, rapes, arsons and severe maltreatments", but that Serb troops had tried to remove rather than eradicate the Albanian population.[66]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
Hillary voted to illegally invade a sovereign nation, Bernie voted to prevent genocide.
Not all military actions are equal.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/15/a-socialist-in-the-senate/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)and those idiots who protested wanted to allow the slaughter of Muslims to continue.
The majority of Vermonters supported intervention.
Bernie was right.
The author of that piece is an anti-Semitic bigot who faults Bernie's position even though he supports a two-state solution and has been an outspoken critic of Israel.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is a Jew so according to her he's automatically a hard liner when it comes to Israel.
At the same time, when a Jewish person who recognizes these things is automatically assumed to be pro-Israel simply because of their background, that is anti-Semitic. It may not be chic to say as much (I am certain, if nothing else, that I will receive considerable backlash for being a Zionist for making this point, despite my own views on Israeli policy) but its true nevertheless. Whether they realize it or not, the people who can look at the record of a Jewish critic of Israel be it Bernie Sanders or anyone else and only see evidence that theyre too pro-Israel is operating from a bigoted assumption.
This kind of prejudice needs to be called out. The time to start is now.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/bernie-sanders-plight-jews-criticize-israel-mrzs/#sthash.1mIt07VG.dpuf
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I cited an article that highlights that kind of bigotry, if you have proof to the contrary cite it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This kind of prejudice needs to be called out. The time to start is now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1634702
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)or retract it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This kind of prejudice needs to be called out. The time to start is now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1634702
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Please support your claim that Ashley Smith is an "anti-Semitic bigot" or retract it. Thanks.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)or retract it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bookmarking.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Seriously, do you read your posts?
You're going to keep a post of mine because I criticized a writer for the Socialist Worker? Who do you think is going to care?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)...
During the Second World War, Roosevelt supported "the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, and, despite the setbacks caused by the disorders there during the last few years, I have been heartened by the progress which has been made and by the remarkable accomplishments of the Jewish settlers in that country."
Since its establishment, each Democratic President has backed the Zionist state. Truman famously boasted, "I am proud of my part in the creation of this new state. Our Government was the first to recognize the State of Israel." John Kennedy declared, "Let us make it clear that we will never turn our backs on our steadfast friends in Israel."
...
SUCH PROCLAMATIONS aren't restricted to just Democratic Party presidents and leaders. The self-proclaimed progressives or liberals of the party have almost universally either joined in the cheerleading of Israel, or kept their heads down, agreeing not to raise questions about Palestine solidarity. Thus, liberal Democrats at best betray Palestine when it matters--or advocated for Israel outright at worst. Their party's commitment to U.S. imperialism requires such behavior.
The behavior of liberal Democrats during Operation Protective Edge has proved the rule. The darlings of progressive activists, from Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (a nominal independent who campaigns for Democrats and caucuses with them in the Senate), have made their commitment to Zionism clear. In the Senate vote on the pro-Israel resolution, none of the liberal stalwarts like Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders, made a peep in opposition. The same was true in the House.
...
Not a single member of the CBC, despite their much heralded brand of standing for civil rights and against apartheid here and around the world, bothered to publicly question the racist ethnocracy that is the Israeli state. After signing the blank check with the rest of their colleagues, CBC members Conyers (MI), Lee (CA), Johnson (GA) and Ellison (MN) tried to cover their shame with a letter to Secretary of State Kerry urging a cease-fire, something which Kerry claims to have been doing anyway.
...
The PEPs can't be consistent opponents of U.S. imperialism, since they support Israel, a key bulwark of the empire. They compromise their anti-racism since they back Israel as Jewish homeland--where Palestinians are deprived of most or all basic human rights. Unsurprisingly, PEPs are frequently prone to promulgating anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia--the ideological means for the Israel and the U.S. to justify the continuing oppression of Palestinians and Arabs.
...
THE SECOND conclusion to take away from this analysis of the Democratic and its support for Israel's war machine is that anyone who wants to see justice in Palestine--anyone who support the BDS campaign and Palestine's liberation from occupation--should not support nor vote any member of the Democratic Party.
...
The Democrats have shown which side they're on when it comes to Palestine. We need to concentrate on using every means to mobilize the other side to stand up for justice for Palestine.
http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Sure, go ahead, bookmark my post and then drag it out the next time you want to defend this anti-Democratic left wing loon.
To make it even easier for you I'll repeat myself: in MY opinion, anyone who hates Israel this much is anti-Semitic.
Bookmark it.
I can hardly wait to see you defend her.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)You still haven't supported your claim which in any case had nothing to do with the fact that Sanders had anti-war protesters arrested in 1999. To sum up, the OP has been amply demonstrated.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The blogger is a lying shill, see his claims about Bernie taking money from the NRA.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Oh, I better be careful, lest you bookmark me too..
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)He has no record of accomplishment, so he by default must try and create the impression that the only accomplishment Hillary has even achieved has been on the wrong side of history. He and Weaver etc have written the narrative and perpetuate the meme with embellishments, half truths and outright lies. The sign of a campaign with absolutley nothing to offer. Clearly there are those previous Sanders supporters that are seeing through the freebies, finally, so the only thing left to present to his constituency are the reasons not to defect to Hillary camp.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Aside from the TPP being bad, which most agree on, could you provide links to support your statements about Bernie saying anything about the Clinton Foundation please?
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 10:24 AM - Edit history (1)
http://danielskatz.net/2014/08/28/anti-tenure-union-busting-first-students-second/I find I have no interest in the author's opinion.
MattP
(3,304 posts)F is the only acceptable grade from the NRA, sorry and yes he did vote 5 times against the Brady bill there is no excuse
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bernie Sanders was the ONLY left person who Voted Against Ex-Im Bank. Very puzzling since this is not a vote any democrat would ever make. Well it is a vote that benefits the KOCH BROTHERS who in turn gave money to Sanders Campaign. http://www.rollcall.com/politics/sanders-unique-among-senate-democrats-opposing-export-import-bank/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783 http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-against-ex-im-bank
Also, the NRA.. Supporters excuses are weak. #VettBernie
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2016, 05:01 AM - Edit history (1)
In 1990, the NRA sent out a mailer promoting him without his permission.
They never did that before or since. His most recent rating from the NRA is D-.
He won the 1990 election by 16.5 percentage points. I doubt he felt that a last minute NRA mailer, after most people had made up their minds, gave him the election.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. Its important.
....
The gun vote brought us down, said Judy Shailor, Smiths 1990 campaign manager. She said she had warned gun groups that, in the long run, Sanders would prove too liberal for them.
The gun groups would say to me, We are going to put him in office for one term and teach Peter Smith a lesson. Then were going to vote [Sanders] out, Shailor said. I said, You wont get him out. .?.?. Hes one of the best master politicians Ive ever come across.
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/nra-helped-bernie-sanders-get-elected
How perfect -- as I'm typing this, Beck is on Austin City Limits. (Some will get that...)
SixString
(1,057 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)In this environment, that means absolutely nothing.
Y'all keep bringing that up as if it's some kind of AHA moment.
You've got it backwards, of course, people have been alert stalked into multiple hides. Admin FINALLY reconnized this and did something about it.
You guys need some new material.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)Remember Sierra Blanca?
"Three West Texan protestors went to Vermont to plead with then Representative Sanders that the dump site shouldn't be located in this poor minority community, Mr. Sanders told the three activists, "My position is unchanged and youre not going to like it. When asked if he would at least visit the proposed site in Sierra Blanca, he said: Absolutely not. I'm gonna to be running for re-election in the state of Vermont."
He didn't listen, Curry said. He had his mind made up."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/8/1481494/-Sierra-Blanca-Bernie-Sanders-Paul-Wellstone-a-Poor-Minority-Community-and-a-Nuclear-Waste-Dump
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)In the meanwhile, we have a problem about where to put the waste.
Governor Ann Richards and President Bill Clinton also thought that Sierra Blanca was a better place for the waste.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I believe they did, there was a NYT article posted here about it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)acres at Sierra Blanca. New York started dumping sewage there when the Federal Government ordered then to stop dumping it in the Atlantic as they had previously done, those elegant and sophisticated NYers'....
New York's Sewage Was a Texas Town's Gold
It is hard to imagine places more different than New York and Sierra Blanca, and the contrast has always underscored the mercenary marriage between the nation's largest city and the small town where it has dumped its sewage since 1992. That year, after Congress had prohibited the city from dumping its sludge in the Atlantic Ocean, New York signed contracts with several companies to treat and transport its sewage. One of them was a Long Island joint venture, which began shipping up to 250 tons every day on the 2,065-mile journey to West Texas. The Texas Observer, the political journal, recently called it ''the poo-poo choo-choo.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/us/new-york-s-sewage-was-a-texas-town-s-gold.html
Details and photos at Toxic Texas:
Sierra Blanca, the Nation's
Largest Sewage Dump
http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/merco.html
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Post after post here on DU says the Clinton campaign does not get money from corporations because that's illegal. I guess the same applies to the Sanders campaign, and he does not get money from the NRA. Works both ways.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bernie Sanders was the ONLY left person who Voted Against Ex-Im Bank. Very puzzling since this is not a vote any democrat would ever make. Well it is a vote that benefits the KOCH BROTHERS who in turn gave money to Sanders Campaign. http://www.rollcall.com/politics/sanders-unique-among-senate-democrats-opposing-export-import-bank/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783 http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-against-ex-im-bank
Also, the NRA.. Supporters excuses are weak. #VettBernie
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)pantsonfire
(1,306 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)About Fact 1:
a) I don't care about the NRA, though I am annoyed by how they changed the definition of the 2A, but I'll discuss that in another thread.
b) I absolutely love the idea of single-payer college. Why wouldn't I want to live in a more highly educated society? The benefits seem obvious to me.
c) Yeah...that seems to be the case.
About Fact 2:
I call bullshit here. We have endless money when it comes to war. HRC voted for the Iraq war, and we all know war isn't cheap. This isn't about money, it's about priorities.
About Fact 3:
Maybe. I would want to review Politifact's breakdown of what was honest and what wasn't before spouting my mouth off on this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Bernie Sanders was the ONLY left person who Voted Against Ex-Im Bank. Very puzzling since this is not a vote any democrat would ever make. Well it is a vote that benefits the KOCH BROTHERS who in turn gave money to Sanders Campaign. http://www.rollcall.com/politics/sanders-unique-among-senate-democrats-opposing-export-import-bank/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783 http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-against-ex-im-bank
Also, the NRA.. Supporters excuses are weak. #VettBernie
TheDormouse
(1,168 posts)Dmitri Mehlhorn describes self as a "seed investor."
Sounds very 1%-ish to me. Either someone who is part of the 1%, or carries their water.
I would not expect such a person to even try to offer an objective assessment of any of Bernie's proposals or to comment fairly on Bernie's character and history.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Changing Corrections, for Good
Delivering technology that makes prisons safer, cheaper, and more effective
http://apdscorporate.com/#problem
Cha
(297,446 posts)Fact #2: Bernies Budgets are Full of Falsehoods
Jared Bernstein, who is friendly to Sanders and leads the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cited several assumptions as wishful thinking in a conversation with the New York Times.
Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanderss Plans
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0
And, that's just the tip of the freaking iceberg with BS.
Thank you, brave~
murielm99
(30,754 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gothmog
(145,433 posts)From the Boston Globe https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/01/dark-turn-for-sanders-campaign/iQXKhLKcLadSzNhbxo2WOI/story.html
Sanders is increasingly embracing the tactics he once decried. Rather than trying to unify the Democratic Party behind its almost certain nominee, Hillary Clinton, he is ramping up the attacks against her. While once Sanders refused even to mention Clintons name, now he doesnt go a day without hitting her.
And the focus of his attacks is always the same that she is too close to Wall Street, that she has flip-flopped on trade, and that she was wrong on the Iraq War. In Ohio last month, he said, I proudly stood with the workers! Secretary Clinton stood with the big money interests!....
Theres also the much bigger question of why he is doing this. Sanders likes to tell his supporters that he has the momentum to win the Democratic nomination. But the simple fact is that it would take a miracle for Sanders to overtake Clintons wide delegate lead. As campaign stat guru Nate Silver pointed out recently, even in the most optimistic scenario for Sanders, he would still likely fall short.
While I understand the need to maintain a brave face for his supporters, Sanders is doing them and the party he wants to represent no favors not just by misleading them about his chances, but by increasing their dislike of Clinton. Sanders has said on more than one occasion that he thinks Clinton on her worst day would be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day. I have no doubt that he believes this. Perhaps he should start acting like it.
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Response to bravenak (Original post)
Post removed
riversedge
(70,267 posts)turns up the news reports.
Also try:
bernie sanders and new york times
News NRA Sanders and New York News
Clinton Shines Spotlight on Gun Control Against Sanders in New York
Swampland3 days ago
Editorials from around New England
WKRG News 5 Mobile22 hours ago
Republicans' gun-free zone
Jackson Hole News & Guide1 day ago
More News NRA Sanders and New York Headlines
NRA praises Bernie Sanders over gun comments ... - NY Daily News
www.nydailynews.com/news/.../nra-praises-bernie-sanders...
NRA praises Bernie Sanders for stance on not ... Bernie Sanders has an unwelcome new friend: The NRA. ... View Gallery New York Daily News front pages on ...
Bernie Sanders gets praise from the NRA | New York...
nypost.com/2016/03/07/nra-praises-sanders-for-opposing...
Mar 06, 2016 · ... the National Rifle Association posted on Twitter. ... Clintons team delighted in the NRAs support for Sanders. ... New York Post. Share this ...
NRA-ILA | Bernie Sanders Wins Big in New Hampshire
www.nraila.org/articles/20160212/bernie-sanders...
Bernie Sanders Wins Big in New Hampshire. ... and how big a win it was for Sanders. New York Times: ... is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of ...
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Changing Corrections, for Good
Delivering technology that makes prisons safer, cheaper, and more effective
How do we deliver cost savings?
"eliminate cost centers such as libraries"
http://apdscorporate.com/#about
He is part of the Prison For Profit Industry.....making his citation here extremely ironic. Also disgusting. But very, very ironic.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I find I have no interest is Dmitry Mehlhorn's opinions.
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)(a) NRA ties. This is a form of attack that all legislative members are open to. A vote is a blunt instrument: yes/no/abstain. However, a bill is extremely complex and often has an equally complex development process. So the attack is made by overly simplifying the history of a bill and then using the final vote to derive some meaning.
OP is simultaneously attacking Sanders for getting a pitch from the NRA during one of his election bids. Here's a relevant article that explains the actual history of that whole event.
Short version: NRA tried to use Sanders as a foil to knock out a politician that didn't play ball with them. Although they planned to replace Sanders at the next election they just couldn't. In every race since they have opposed Sanders. So if he really did do their bidding, they sure have been ungrateful. It's awfully hard to believe that he would continue to do their bidding.
To tie this into what I said about bill complexity, the process behind the waiting period legislation and the later Brady bill shows no evidence that Sanders voted as a result of NRA influence. He appears to have voted in-line with his stated beliefs, even when unpopular. FWIW I disagree with Sanders on guns, but mischaracterization is mischaracterization.
(b) Characterizing free college as a handout to the rich is just a stupid argument. You could just as easily argue that reigning in drug prices is a mendacious handout to the ill.
(c) Going negative? The author does not substantiate this argument aside from linking to an OP-ed from Krugman. OP-eds are not a compelling argument to any but those who already agree. But beyond that, the linked Op-ed doesn't even try to prove that claim either--Krugman just asserts it as well. So absolutely no evidence provided by the author or sources.
None of that demonstrates that Sanders is dishonest.
Fact 2, budget reality argument: (No (a), (b), etc. breakdown this time. So much for parallelism.)
The author starts off with a strawman argument: Other people undeserving peoplewill pay for it. Take the college tuition idea, for starters. We used to have free tuition and it wasn't by taxing the undeserving, it was by taxing across society. People who formerly benefited from that system later paid back into it. Th fact of the matter is that college graduates are supposed to be a powerful driving force in the economy: they're joining the workforce, they're making investments in homes and finance, and they're starting the next generation of families. However, our current model front-loads their lives with burdensome payments plus excessive interest. The result has been further economic slowdown and people putting their lives on hold--childbirth is later, marriage is later or not at all, renters are on the rise, home owners are falling, and retirement accounts are simply vanishing. Spreading the costs of school throughout the economy and disposing of the interest costs would unshackle an important piece of the economy without dragging anyone else down.
The author then pits opinions from economists against one another with no analysis--it's just a matter of who's credentials you like better. He really, really lays the credentials on thick because he has nothing else to present.
Further, the articles he linked are (excluding the MJ opinion piece) all part of a cluster of articles that came out at the same time, largely making the identical argument that Friedman's analysis is wrong. Let's assume that's true. It does not show that Sanders' plan is unrealistic or even bad--it only shows that one economist is wrong. Repeating the same argument multiple times through a series of links to similar articles does not make a claim "more true" or make the claim say anything beyond what it actually says. It's only an attempt to add weight to a non-point.
Now, the MJ article tried to make the connections that the Sanders campaign is somehow responsible for that analysis, but all it actually shows is that the campaign quoted it. He fails to mention, however, that the campaign stopped quoting it once the analysis was debunked. That's a good example of the campaign being wrong, but not of being dishonest.
Once again, the author fails to show the campaign being dishonest.
Fact 3, Clinton's trustworthiness argument:
The author begins with an actual lie this time, but told by the author: "Bernies final lie is that Clinton is not trustworthy."
The author makes no attempt at all to support that statement. No quotes from Sanders, no quotes from the campaign, not even quotes from third-party supporters. Instead he offers up some evidence that Clinton is actually trustworthy, and he takes a shot at Sanders: "Bernies former colleagues in the House and Senate describe a self-promoting grump with narcissistic tendencies." He also provides nothing to support this claim.
Once again, the author fails to show the campaign being dishonest.
Summary:
The author then wraps things up with a nice non-sequitur: "The bottom line is that those who fund his campaign are now doing Donald Trumps dirty work with false attacks on Hillarys character." They typical "you're with us or you're with the monster" knock against anyone that finds the author's lousy writing unconvincing.
bravenak, why do you always post such trash?
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)I don't really see how any smear they promote about a Jewish politician can be taken seriously.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)wish people would shun her.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Much of the regular posse is conspicuous by its absence here and about.
Response to Marr (Reply #197)
Post removed
Marr
(20,317 posts)they don't actually give a shit about bigotry, so long as it's in service to Hillary.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)Same list of usual suspects we see here day after day defending the undefendable. No surprise they'd stand by the OP(at best, an admitted troll who believes in nothing, at worst, an anti-semite), or the author of this self-serving anti-Sanders hit piece.
I suspect at least some of them are just trying to keep their paychecks coming in, and will rationalize anything they do in pursuit of that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Countless threads smearing Bernie using questionable sources and no sign of slowing down yet.
Rob H.
(5,352 posts)and she hates him and them. At this point everything she posts about him can be ignored completely, imo.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Talmbout revolution. Pathetic. Look at them. Angry and vituperative losers. Running around screamin revolution from their ivory towers, knowing damn well they aint never even had a fist fight.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)In fact, much of the energy is spent talking about other people. If you could see half of this thread it would look a lot like this...
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I figured that is what was going on here. I bet they think I care what they think.
That's sad too. I dont care.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I guess my own personal TMZ is still following me around thinking I give a damn what they talmbout.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)I can understand why you don't want to see what people are saying about you after all the nastiness you've shown us, but you have no one to blame for that but yourself.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)to come at me in person have to say? I dont. None of you matter. At all.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Repeatedly posting nasty bigoted shit just to provoke people and start fights.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I must be damn important they way people folow me the fuck around.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)Frankly, you remind me of Donald Trump - endlessly spewing the most offensive, bigoted bullshit you think you can get away with just to attract the attention you can never get enough of.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)I just can't stand them, but I've learned from experience that once someone stands up to them they always turn out to be cowards underneath.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Want to stand up to bullies? Leave your house.
Fozzledick
(3,860 posts)That would be terribly hypocritical after all the complaining you've been doing about alleged contacts.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Vinca
(50,299 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And having a wife investigated for fraud. And put all his stuff in her name. And lies. And promises the moon to idiots too dumb to realize they buying woof tickets. And and and.
Vinca
(50,299 posts)Hillary says she feels sorry for them. You call them "idiots." And you call that running a positive campaign.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not give a fuck who anybody votes for. They can figure that out for themselves.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Feels good to be winning!!