2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Codeine
(25,586 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
GoldenThunder
(300 posts)...The New Republican Party.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Once the FBI report is out -- she violated her signed classified information nondisclosure agreement -- HRC will no longer be the presumed Democratic candidate. No sense in calling anything other than her favorite lawyers.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)I am amused by the Sanders people relying on this silly hope.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)likely will run out the clock, and she will be pardoned after the GE. That's precisely what happened with CIA Director John Deutch. But, when the Comey Report comes out, it will find she violated her signed classified nondisclose agreement. Here it is.
It is entirely unlikely she will and can be allowed to be the candidate of the Democratic Party.
Note the bolded sections of the First and Seventh paragraphs, and the repeated references to 18 USC 793, a felony that carries a potential 10 years:
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement. classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
7. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)I love it when laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. Your attempt at analysis is simply wrong, First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf
Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924
This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.
Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf
18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....
In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.
The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Merely that classified materials were mishandled, lost, revealed, removed from a secure system, destroyed, or not returned, or the official failed to report any of these things. The record establishes the elements of the crime under Sec. 793. Here's the statute, again:
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Any criminal violation or charge requires mens rea or intent. I enjoy it when laypersons attempt and fail to understand simple legal concepts.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)and accurate refutation, counter-argument, or citation that is relevant, I will conclude that is the extent of your available input on this subject.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Your analysis is simply what one would expect from a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts. The filing in the Petraeus had several sections dealing with the finding that Petraeus had the mens rea or specific intent to violate the laws in question. Your claim that you can violate a law without having the intent to violate the law would be laughed at if you were in a law school. The existence of NDA does not relieve the government of the requirement to prove intent. Intent is an element of all crimes and your amusing analysis is simply wrong.
There are good reasons why it is illegal for laypersons to attempt to practice law. Your analysis is simply wrong and shows what happens when a layperson attempts to be make a legal conclusion.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)nor proof of actual harm done. The only prerequisite to conviction under (e) is a showing that classified information was mishandled in such a way that a reasonable person would know it could do harm, or in the case of (f) classified information was (1) willfully mishandled by negligence or (2) she failed to report the apparent mishandling of classified information by others.
Given the known facts, Hillary Clinton is clearly chargeable under either of these subsections. If you refuse to acknowledge that, you have a problem.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)There are reasons why it is illegal for laypersons to practice law without passing the bar. Your analysis is simply wrong. Knowledge and intent is required and no DOJ attorney would be stupid enough to bring an indictment based on the amusing attempts of a layperson to understand the law.
Again, laypersons are amusing when they attempt to understand legal concepts and your attempt shows why the laws against unauthorized practice of the law by layperson are necessary http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
Story Continued Below
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.
“They always involve some ‘plus’ factor. Sometimes that ‘plus’ factor may reach its way into the public record, but more likely it won’t,” one former federal prosecutor said.
A former senior FBI official told POLITICO that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases.
“If you look at the history of what they pursued, you really had to have a slam-bam case that met all the elements,” said the ex-official, who asked not to be named.
Statistics support the view that prosecutions in the area are sparing.....
Several experts told POLITICO that in light of the legal obstacles to a case and the Justice Department’s track record in such prosecutions they are confident Clinton won’t face charges.
“Based on everything I’ve seen in the public media, not only don’t I see the basis for criminal prosecution, I don’t even see the basis for administrative action such as revoking a clearance or suspending it,” said Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office.
“Looked at as a potential criminal case, this would be laughed out of court,” said William Jeffress, a Washington attorney on the defense team for former Bush White House aide Scooter Libby during his trial for lying in a leak investigation. “There hasn’t been any case remotely approaching a situation where someone received emails that were not marked classified, who simply receives them and maybe replies to them and a criminal prosecution is brought,” Jeffress said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744#ixzz45Z1lby70
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Any attempt at a prosecution based on the attempt at analysis presented on this board would be laughed out of court.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If not for the sake of your own understanding, but for others. You have to read the plain-language of the statute:
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
. . .
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Response to Ned_Devine (Reply #2)
Post removed
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You who fight against inequality against women, now approve inequality against anyone who is not for Hillary?
I've tried so hard to not get involved with your posts, because I like you, but this was disgusting.
sheshe2
(83,791 posts)I have no clue where I stated anything you accuse me of.
You who fight against inequality against women, now approve inequality against anyone who is not for Hillary?
I approve of inequality now? WTF? I approved ronnys message because I am sick and tired of being called shillery. a shill...We shill for Hill. Shill. That is WHAT WE ARE CALLED HERE DAILEY! Oh. And far worse far worse, you want some links? I will be happy to supply the filth that is directed at Hill supporters and our candidate. All left to stand on the new and improved DU.
shill.
NOUN
1.an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.
Verb.1.act or work as a shill.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=shill&form=PRHPR1&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_HRTS
I have tried to post very passive Ops. When you get an OP hidden in the Hill Group for posting an appreciation thread for Cha after she was beaten up and ridiculed by a newbie....thread KNR to the top of the page,you know something is broken here. Ha! They were banned a short time later, yet my hide stands for supporting Cha.
So please, do not lecture me.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Here's a lecture for you (take notes if you need):
Grow up. You're embarrassing yourself.
riversedge
(70,242 posts)Hide. I did not see it.. Yes, most of know something is broken here on DU. Besides the Hides, which are bad in and of themselves--the crap that gets posted on DU--so much is just fodder for the Republicans. Damn!
...
It's a hard fact: Hillary Clinton gets the most negative stories and the fewest positive stories.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,321 posts)One poster threw a few insults at DUers and said they'll leave the site. Ronny said 'bye', sheshe2 just posted a 'love you' emoticon to ronny, and you fly off the handle about 'inequality? Huh? How is posting an emoticon on DU 'sick' or 'disgusting'?
yardwork
(61,650 posts)
Eko
(7,318 posts)and you are just a jerk.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Happy to do it.
Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)
PERFECT!
rock
(13,218 posts)I won't mind a bit your not coming back.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)....where the Good Lord split ya. 
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)If all Bernie supporters walked out right now?
It might make you feel good for the moment, but it would put a serious dent in the functioning of this forum and probably not be good news for Skinner.
But go on, why don't you?
Hekate
(90,714 posts)Be accused of criminal conduct? I could go on. And on. And on.
Kumbayah, baby. Kumbayah.
You planning to vote for the "criminal"? Is that guy? How many of you stalwarts, especially the newbies, are actually Democrats? I sense no loyalty, or very little, coming from the most active Sanders posters here.
Personally I welcomed Sanders' entry into the race; I wanted him to have a chance to have his ideas heard, and I wanted Hillary to be pushed a bit more to the left.
Well, all those things have happened, but the venom here at my online home since 2002 has been beyond belief, and it has come 80% from one direction. There seems to be a rumor that the predominant numbers of BS supporters here is some natural phenomenon -- and it has been expressed many times by BS supporters that they can hardly wait for us to go away and leave the board to them (you) the rightful owners.
Izzat so?
mahina
(17,668 posts)Congratulations on the NY win.
Hekate
(90,714 posts)...and I'm glad he's been saying them.
I hope this community can heal itself, and I hope the country can too.
Me ka aloha, Mahina
mahina
(17,668 posts)Aloha no Hekate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)meaning we have had two viable candidates all along. Good thing. The dragon awaits.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)Then we wouldn't need to be worried about it.
yardwork
(61,650 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I don't agree with the language the poster used (and they got a well deserved hide), but I understood the anger, because the OP hit me the same way. I'm sick of this "vote them off the island" mentality...if someone says something you don't like, you want not just timed out, but banned. The Hillary supporters have been trying to "call" Bernie out of the game from day one, even though his momentum keeps growing. Now you want to "call it" so nobody can talk about Bernie any more? Even though he's still in the race? That is inequality...pushing your agenda on the majority of the forum who is still backing Bernie while he's still in the race.
He still has some more big states to challenge her, and I would personally like a chance to vote for him before anyone "calls it" for Hillary.
Again, I didn't care for the language (and you all know I often speak out against that sort of thing), but I don't think you have any idea what if feels like to be fighting so hard and have someone try to shut you down when the game isn't over yet. I know you think it is.
I will say congratulations on your win. I admit it is looking more like a Hillary win, but please cool it with trying to shut us down. Bernie isn't ready to give up and We are not ready to give up yet. Don't try to silence us.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)committed to defeating the extreme right threat to our nation, to leave. With just a little difference I might have been a Bernie supporter myself.
That doesn't go for the anti-Democrats and illiberals who attack us on the left far more than they bother with the right.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)We will be soon, and then the anger and comments will be aimed at them.
Did you think the stuff the Hillary campaign threw at Obama was nice? Hillary has not changed from those days, as much as some of you want to believe she has.
I think Hillary has done more to divide this party than any candidate we've ever run. You have no idea how many people will always despise her, even if they have to vote for her.
I will vote for whomever wins the primary, but at least wait until someone concedes before this attempt to shut down voices here.
I know you think you've been attacked unfairly, but that feeling is on both sides. I don't know why you think it's only you.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)take over our nation and restructure on anti-democratic lines and have been for decades. That strikes meas a shocking statement. How can you not know?
Btw, I don't care how many self-made fools will "always despise" Hillary Clinton, while not knowing and/or dismissing what their own mayor, state legislators, and U.S. congressmen are up to. Such people will always be with us, as will many other bizarre political phenomena.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)against either one of our candidates.
I know there is a contingency here that thinks they can beat Hillary, and there is one that thinks they can beat Bernie.
IF you are going by polls, it's Hillary who is the weakest against them, so pragmatists probably should have switched to Bernie.
I say Hillary can beat them, because dems will vote for her in the GE, even if they don't like her.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)organization does NOT go to filling elective office with their people. They're very, very busy subverting democracy in every possible realm and have literally managed to change the way most Americans think about government, the law, economics, morality, etc. That's how they have achieved such giant gains. They literally couldn't do it without our help, and in the end it is possible that almost as many Americans are going to rally behind the eventual GOP nominee (Ryan?) as they did Romney last time.
But maybe not. I so hope you are exactly right, PassivePorcupine.
Except about Dems -- if 70-80% of people who voted for Bernie in Iowa and Vermont, just for instance, said they liked Hillary well enough to be glad they have her as a second choice (and they did), what percentage of all democrats "don't like her?" The notion that the bizarre hill-hate on the right is mirrored on the left is very mistaken. DU's hill-haters are rare birds.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Why are they deemed such a threat to Hill supporters?
Cause it seems the Hill group is under attack all the time, and it's just not fair, according to them. They can't even post here any more from the attacks. That's what I keep hearing.
Why are there so many Bernie supporters here compared to Hillary supporters? Do you really think most of them are OK with a Hillary win? That's really not what I've been seeing. I've seen a lot of us saying we will vote for Hillary, but not happily. Maybe it's just the silent majority...we don't see them, only the vocal ones?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Well, out in the real world a large majority of Bernie voters, well over 3/4, are liberals or moderate conservatives, and some unspecified number of the remainder are radical left.
Here, Bernie's supporters outnumber Hillary's liberals several times over. Why his liberals are here is obvious. Most were already Democrats and this is Democratic Underground. Why did radicals who despise and resent Democrats, to the point of being known as "anti-Democrats" to political science professionals, come here instead of forming or staying at a forum for radicals? I don't know, but it's very possible that there weren't enough initially to form a "critical mass" for a successful forum.
It is clear that many DU liberals left long ago because of the toxic atmosphere, but very interesting revelations to me were a couple of long old-timers' threads this winter showing that several dozen dropped by before each of the threads addressed to them dropped away; but normally, they obviously read and move on without commenting.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Because I think you've really gotten it wrong.
I personally am very offended by being called a radical. I'm not, nor ever have I been a radical. I am a progressive liberal, and I think we are just as much democrats as those who stick to the party no matter what.
Right now the party is in a pretty messed up place, and I'm not advocating leaving it, but I do advocate fighting to change it back to the liberal values it used to espouse.
I'm an FDR democrat.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)one referred to when liberals are discussed and not one referred to when radicals are being discussed. If you are a Democrat then you're not one referred to when non-Democrats are being discussed.
However (and I don't remember, much less memorize, names so there's nothing personal behind this), those empowering by agreeing with and even joining in with anti-Democrats busy smearing Democrats, should not be offended if they are assumed by behavior and association to be anti-Democrat/anti-liberal and/or radical also. They're having their fun, but there's cost to everything and this would be such a little one.
As for liberal values it "used to espouse," the Party is more liberal now than in most eras of its 225 year history. Political scientists analyzing votes and statements by members of the U.S. Congress say the gulf between them and their colleagues across the aisle is actually wider than that out in the populace, and the congressional Dems' bulge graphs even farther to the left than Dem voters -- who had also already moved left even before Bernie came along. Makes sense since congressmen all think about this stuff constantly, whereas a third of the electorate has no idea which party has majorities in Congress.
As for being an FDR Democrat, that's a good-enough description of me too, but I recognize the considerable mismatch between that and signing on for Bernie's "revolution." The Bernies of FDR's day pretty much loathed him as the quintessential Democratic aristocrat determined to protect his privileged class (the cream of the "establishment"
, which he in fact did. As an establishment moderate liberal, he was a major -- fatal as it turned out -- obstruction to the "real" change whose time they believed had come, and they tried desperately to defeat him on reelection.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Socially maybe. Not economically. We've moved to the right a lot since Clinton took office. That was the point of the New Democrats.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Yes, there was a temporary move right in policy during the Bill Clinton presidency during the height of national conservative fervor. Stealing nationally popular GOP issues that were sure to result in legislation anyway and succeeding in passing them in usually but not always milder form -- then claiming credit for them so that voters would re-elect them -- was a common tactic in that era.
It didn't make me happy, I felt they should been screaming in front of the cameras and let the voters through them out of office first in many cases, but I understood what they were doing. They were trying to prevent what happened in 2010.
But, in any case, that era not only ended 15 years ago, but the Democratic Party hadn't actually shifted as far as you imagine even then.
This argument that the Democratic Party is too conservative is, IMO, a facile excuse to attack it by people who are unhappy with what happened to our nation since 1980 but too irresponsible to sit down and learn who they should really be blaming even more than our yes,-not-entirely-innocent-Dem-legislators. I'll give you 2 clues, very pertinent IMO. One involves a mirror. The other involves right-wing media, like Fox News, and the very dangerous people secretly funding and manipulating its messages. Do you know they've even produced adventure and other TV and video series designed to secretly encourage anti-government dissatisfaction?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You think I am to blame for the direction our country is going (the never-ending wars...yes Obama has tried t keep us out of them), and the ratcheting up of money in politics. Me, I'm to blame because I watch too much Fox TV? I don't even have a TV.
We will have to agree to disagree on this.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)This isn't all about you. But, yes, we all should look in the mirror. No one who made any of the bad choices, including skipping voting, that brought us to this stage is really innocent. No one who won't take a class, read a few books, in order to understand how we got here, and thus how we get out, is innocent.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Maybe you are projecting your own failures onto others? The biggest failure I see in the democratic party is failure to GOTV, especially down ticket races... and the people you find on a site like this probably don't tend to fall into that category.
The bad choices have been the Iraq war and continuing legacy from that, and I haven't seen too many here who stood up for it, at least not since I joined. What other bad choices do you think dems have been making?
Are you for all the trade agreements that have helped suppress and lower wages here, and break up unions? Are you for fracking? Are you for the high costs of health care and college? Were you for the drug war and for profit prisons?
I haven't seen a lot of dems here who have been supporting those mistakes.
I've never liked either of the Clintons, and I don't think that was a mistake.
I'd be interested in your recommendations of reading material on what this country is doing right or wrong.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)If we're not part of them, we can have no say in them. Plus, world trade is vital to a healthy planet and healthy U.S.. Do I approve of business dictating the terms of international agreements to funnel planetary wealth into the pockets of a few? Absolutely not! We have to get business OUT of government and put the leash back on business and on the very wealthy which the American people so foolishly agreed to remove. This is truly a matter of survival of our democracy.
I don't know how old you are, but everyone who's been around for a few decades remembers a couple decades of of the mantra quoted at virtually every social meeting by conservatives and moderates, "We have to get off the backs of business." They acted like it was delivered to America on a tablet by by a biblical prophet, a basic frame to which all voting decisions conformed.
The sorry fact is, the American people chose to unchain the wolf instead of conducting regular examinations to make sure it was strong and secure and arranging to control the growing and very dangerous threat posed by international business.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
I'm no spring chicken. But politically I am...I didn't really become politically active until 9/11 and Bush's campaign to attack Iraq. So, as far as I can tell you are referring to the direction this party has gone since Reagan? I agree, but I was hoping Obama was going to point us in a new direction. I certainly don't see that coming from Clinton.
I agree we need to be involved in trade deals, but some of the things we've been allowing in our trade deals are hurting us.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)things, PassivePorcupine. Including absolutely eliminating the power of business and the wealthy to infiltrate and control our government. We also need to destroy our new uber-wealthy class even faster than it was created. “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” - Louis Brandeis
We seem to differ most in how we see our current condition and what is possible. What I see is that we are pretty much pointing in the right direction and have been for a while. What we haven't done is achieve the kind of wonderful progress Bernie promises.
Instead, by electing the current Democratic president and others working with him, we have achieved smaller victories and smaller gains against the extremely organized and highly funded opposition of not just the GOP, but other enormously powerful wealth-based groups bent on stopping us.
The group Charles Koch organized when Obama was first elected, with an initial membership of over 700 alarmed billionaires and mega-millionaires, is estimated by some to be as powerful as the GOP. This group's purpose is to keep us from reversing the transfer of wealth and power from us to them. And there are many other right wing individuals and groups fighting all attempts to restore power to the people, often by buying influence in governments at all levels.
Even with the GOP trying to block all progress, and mostly succeeding, we have had victories. For instance, Obama restored personal tax rates on the very wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. Not exactly a crippling blow to the locusts by any means, but it stole away years of progress on personal tax rates and scared them good. Who knows better than they that what getting a law passed can endow passing another one can take away?
One of the most frustrating things to me, PassivePorcupine, is the shocking failure of so many on the left to recognize that we do already have some good elected people fighting to move us in the right direction and to take encouragement from what has accomplished so far. The dismissive contempt accorded our own Democrats who are also committed to democratic principles and want the same things, and thus to ourselves as a political force, is to put it mildly, a self-defeating attitude.
It is also not entirely home grown. Right-wing psychological warfare deserves an awards ceremony. They've encouraged our tendencies to blame ourselves and to attack ourselves instead of corrupt Republican operatives and businessmen, and as we can see this has worked on millions who now believe we can only fix this nation by getting rid of the Democrats we currently have in government.
Oh, babbling on again as usual. Back to work.
George II
(67,782 posts)
FarPoint
(12,409 posts)I like it....you make me smile.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)They want the admins to start purging those unwilling to support Hillary yet.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)What's to debunk. The actual goal is to take some of the pressure off of Hillary here. Let the MSM do the heavy work and we can all come out on the same page in a week or two. We can hold hands and sing songs. It sounds like a fun time.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 20, 2016, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)
In my view, if Hillary gets anything less than 60% in the state in which she was elected senator not so long ago, it's a victory for Bernie. Bernie won his state by 86% of the vote.
Hillary mostly won in New York City and maybe two other counties, also Westchester.
Bernie won the rural and the rest of the state. Hillary won the areas that are more densely populated.
Hillary did not do as well in New York as Bernie did in New Hampshire. (Sanders 60.4)
Hillary is only at 57.3 although some areas on NYC are still out, and Hillary may add some votes there.
Land Shark
(6,346 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)sentiments and actions is getting to be immense.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But better late than never
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)You really think Skinner wants to do that?
And how does that help you gain votes for HRC?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)In fact, a large percentage of the actively hostile attackers of what DU was meant to be, a place to support Democrats and democratic ideals, don't pay at all. I went counting on a few very long, nasty threads one rainy day...
Should be no surprise. By history, they are not the sort to be habitually discontented enough to get themselves pushed out, or to walk.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)And I know many old time DUers who have been driven out rather than made to feel welcome in the big tent.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)primaries before. We'd be partisan enough on our own, of course, but there are unquestionably agitators here, coming with different agendas but all working to increase hostility, division, and demoralization. They keep getting identified and kicked off, only to come back under new names. Did DU get better when the forum moved from the primary to the GE in 2008?
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)I never looked in GDP 2008 because I knew I'd have to back the winner. At the time, I thought both candidates had strengths and weaknesses. I wanted to be happy at the choice we made.
This time, I was in here too much. And I backed Bernie. Still do. All the way to the convention. My state went for Bernie by 70%. We are solid blue and still count.
I have problems with HRC that may be insurmountable for me to get past. I hated GWB's wars, the Goldman Sachs shenanigans, the Monica years, voter disenfranchisement, etc. The feelings of deja vu and endless regression make me break into hives. The fear of the drubbing we may take in the general make me lose sleep at night. The way fellow Democrats treat each other makes me question my place here and in the party itself.
I have thought we needed to let Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Sanders and Clinton do a head-to-head run-off or simply face the entire electorate in November come what may. Let real democracy happen. None of this voter suppression, superdelegates, electoral college gatekeeper crap.
I don't think that makes me a bad Democrat. Apparently a lot of DUers disagree and would gladly dance around my tombstone and piss on my grave.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)primary candidates.
I definitely envy you living in a solid blue state. There are many "virtuous" Southern Christians around here who are extremely hostile and aggressive toward any liberals they identify and will be abusive and discriminatory if given any chance at all. We're not talking cyberland here or usually even in your face, but definitely behind your back. Fortunately, behavior gives some humongous clues to character, of course, so in short order it's been easy to pick out good people from those social conservatives who love to make trouble for a long list of "others."
In any case, today's exceptional level of hostility is just the tenor of the times, right? I promise that aggressively hostile and bigoted, and often outright vicious, strong social conservative and other far right types make even their aggressively combative counterparts on the left look principled and decent in comparison.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Or maybe it's just bad character that likes to stack the decks do all the behind the scenes stuff that HONORABLE people don't do.
Yes, we have three more months of primary whether the deck-stackers like it or not.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Too bad, so sad.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
woodsprite
(11,916 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I know some are, but they have alway been the wrong place.
Corporate666
(587 posts)Hillary is already going to be the nominee before the convention even happens.
She only needs 430 or so more delegates to clinch, and there are 1400 pledged delegates left. She only needs 31% of them to get the nomination.
That doesn't even count the additional super delegates she will pick up between now and a week from now.
bvf
(6,604 posts)She's not the nominee (if she even makes it that far) until the convention makes it official. You should pay attention to your own posts.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)58.0% to 42.0%.
16% so far from the Guardian live results. 71.3% in.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and I am guessing Bernie is going to adjust his tone after taking a day off tomorrow.
I think some of his supporters here are just going to be angry and bitter and spiteful.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)what it will take for me to garner any enthusiasm for Hillary if she gets the nom. and I'm not asking for much. It would also be nice to see Marijuana legalized so I could grow it and take it with Turmeric to help prevent neurological degeneration when I get older.
What I see with Bernie, for me is a pathway towards going green, seeing people being healthier, affordable Organic/non-GMO, making it easier, getting off-grid, etc. It would just be faster with Bernie. I'll fight for all of these things, come hell or high water. Democracy isn't easy and Thom reminded us of this when he talked about what happened to some who signed the Declaration of Independence. I see an Age that is coming, shining beyond the Romans, Greeks, etc.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)So your vote is based on the ability to smoke pot with Turmeric, for whatever reason. Live organically and GMO free and live off the grid? Got news for you...most Americans, like 99.999 percent do not share those goals. But, I've got some really good news for you! You can do that now! Move to Colorado. And if you have a shit ton of money you can do all the above while living in a home most Americans consider decent for the rest of your life. If you do not have a shit ton of money you can do what you want living in a home like the Unabomber lived in. You know, a 12x12 shack with an outhouse. Sounds great. Oh, and if you think any President, Bernie included, is going to pay for your desired lifestyle, then I suggest you lay off the Turmeric and go more heavy on the pot.
Good Lord. I like Bernie, but post like this make me wonder.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)Did I say smoke? I'm talking eating a small amount raw. I oppose TPP but I've posted that enough that I think I've made it clear and we all want to break up the banks.
If I ushered my whole ideas on how to shift this economy in a positive direction it would turn out to be probably 10 pages or more and be so full of policy talk you'd want to run away screaming even if you agreed with most of my ideas. They're sensible, not sexy.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)You think it's stupid that someone who has serious medical issues considers pot legalization a make or break issue? Many have come to my state from red states for just that very thing, to get the help they need. Sorry but most of America supports legalization now. The person is voting for their own self interests and Hillary isn't pro-legalization.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)organic pot for him. WOW.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)And your post is disgusting, why are you demeaning someone who has medical issues?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And re-reading the post I responded to does not lead me to think he has a medical issue. I guess his comment about pot or turmeric preventing mental degeneration when he gets older could refer to a condition he currently has. If so, he has my apologies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I am honored to have you welcome me. I have reading your posts for several years. Do not always agree with you but I love a sharp, take no prisoner mind.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)In fact, I noticed that a few days ago, Skinner's avatar in no longer an H.
There are still plenty of contests left.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Wonder what he knows.
senz
(11,945 posts)Funny, he seems more likeable now. 
mcar
(42,334 posts)
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)lol
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Then definitely after next Tuesday.
It is time to rally behind the democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Your last sentence, that is.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I think 20% is a generous estimate
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
Squinch
(50,955 posts)would not be able to vote in the primaries if they registered as Independents and then registered as Independents?
The ones who specifically and actively CHOSE not to vote in the primaries?
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)Tuition free college and Medicare for all at the very least or I'm not going to campaign for her or do shit for her except vote for her if she gets the nom. Period.
I'll support the down ticket Bernie Dems. in canvassing around my area and donate to them. If Hillary Dems. win down-ticket primaries I'll vote for them but won't donate or canvass.
edit: Oh and I won't say anything about her or Bernie when/if Skinner says to rally behind her. Note I'll just go Swiss, at least on this site.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Thanks for the support of your vote
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I wont vote for her support her candidacy pbone bank drive the voter bus donate or vote for her. I will miss my voter volunteer buds but i cant at this point give her my time or money.
The indecency her supporters show makes it impossible
But that won't make me not on du. I will just save my opinion for the real world until its i told you so time.
Theres more to du than our lady of perpetual evolution
bvf
(6,604 posts)Nor will there be one until the convention. Get over it.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)The math is undeniable. For this site it is time to limit the vitriol toward Clinton. She will be the nominee. Sanders has no probable shot.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Clinton is not the nominee. That's decided at the convention. Not before.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I wish you the best. I know it's hard to accept the inevitable.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)It's so hard, I know. I know
bvf
(6,604 posts)to stick to your delusion that way.
(Psst! You're not an admin.)
Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Time for Hillary to ignore the angry man and focus on Trump/Cruz
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Nobody is stopping the Clinton campaign from hammering the clowns all she wants.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)We DEMOCRATS have a presumptive nominee.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)Because you do know it's over. And I feel bad for you. Enjoy your freebie. You seem to need it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)You kind of run out of steam pretty quickly when somebody calls bullshit, eh? Now that's understandable.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I know, it drives you guys crazy. There will be no "presumptive nominee" before the convention
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)Because I know you are terribly sad and need an outlet. Please. Go ahead. Snark away poor bvf.
Bless your heart.
bvf
(6,604 posts)You realize there's no nominee until the convention, right? You do understand that little detail, correct?
I'll take your failure to respond as an admission of ignorance of the fact.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Seriously, chill out. Your personal attacks here are a little over the line. Jeez.
has the same chance as Bernie does of getting the nomination.
She will EASILY get the required # of delegates long before the race is over, likely even before California. Bernie has no purpose in going to the convention other than to watch her accept the nomination.
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)I suspect Sanders will do the right thing soon and suspend his campaign. Heads will explode
bvf
(6,604 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)The convention is where the nominee is "officially" selected. Just like the inauguration is where the president-elect is officially president.
The fact that the president-elect isn't actually the president until the inauguration doesn't mean they aren't 100% going to be the president. And just because Hillary hasn't been named the nominee before the convention doesn't mean she isn't 100% going to be the nominee.
Saying "you hate the idea of a convention" is silly. It's like saying "you hate the whole idea of an inauguration" to someone who is talking about the president-elect as the president.
Unless Hillary drops dead or drops out, she's the nominee. Bernie can go to the convention. And he can sit quietly and he can clap when Hillary gets up to give her acceptance speech.
What do you folks think is going to happen at the convention? Bernie is going to give a rip-roaring speech and the whole crowd will break out in tears and disregard their binding rules and vote for him anyway?
LOL!
bvf
(6,604 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)you wouldn't need to put words in people's mouths to try to make your point.
We don't agree. Unless you think we didn't really know that Obama was going to be the President until the inauguration.
But we both know you knew he was going to be the president before his inauguration. And we both know Hillary is going to be the nominee long before the convention date.
I doubt Bernie will even be in the race by the end of next week. He knows it's over. I know it's over.
And when all that's left is snark, it's like hoisting a giant white flag showing us that you know it's over too.
bvf
(6,604 posts)"The convention is where the nominee is 'officially' selected."
-- Corporate666
pat_k
(9,313 posts)...counts the electoral votes.
As I'm sure you are aware, Congress has a duty to reject electors that were not appointed pursuant to a lawfully conducted election. The electoral college system is ultimately our backstop against stolen state elections. Had they done their duty and thrown out the unlawful Florida electors on Jan 6, 2001 (or having failed in that duty, had they redeemed themselves by throwing out the unlawful Ohio electors on Jan 6, 2005) we might not be in half the mess we are now.
Just as we don't have a pres-elect until the electoral votes are counted, we don't have a Democratic Presidential Nominee until the delegates nominate one at the Democratic National Convention. I don't expect any scandals or problems to emerge that would cause Hillary to bow out, or collapse her support before the CA primary, but shit happens. It ain't over 'til it's over.
Nominating presidential and vice presidential candidates is not the only thing that happens at the convention. The party platform is also determined. To have influence on the platform, a candidate should go into the convention with as many delegates as possible.
And that's not the only reason Bernie should stay in all the way:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143
Recursion
(56,582 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)behind her. NO reason in hell.
texasleo
(11,298 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)
obamanut2012
(26,080 posts)
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Your post is especially ironic considering that picture in your sigline.
this pic: 
bvf
(6,604 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
bvf
(6,604 posts)And you do know how pronouns work, yes? No?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and if you see it that way, maybe you should ask yourself if you're truly supporting the right candidate to begin with.
ismnotwasm
(41,989 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)On Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Call it, Skinner. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511783453
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No GDP material. Flame bait and offensive.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 19, 2016, 08:49 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Basically, this post is calling for a purge of DU. It is total crap and should be Hidden.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Completely and utterly inappropriate and over the top. As I have watched this primary go along, I have seen such horrific vitriol from Hillary's backers. I know it probably won't happen and at some point, I a 13-year-DUer will be banned for not liking her, but show the guts to shut down the worst of the supporters of both candidates, Skinner. Thank you.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Not before.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts) 
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
BKH70041
(961 posts)Besides, the entertainment here during the interim is too funny to give up just yet.
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)When she secures the nomination, things should change.
But I think the fat lady isn't on the stage yet, but she's doing her sound check.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)happen sooner).
Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #36)
Post removed
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)So take your insults and stick them in your ear, you goofy dreamer you!
metroins
(2,550 posts)Has the same chance as Hillary.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)That would be the FBI and the DOJ.
I'll wait for their opinion; we already know she committed perjury and my educated guess is that they haven't spent the last year baking cookies.
My money is its a done deal before Memorial Day.
senz
(11,945 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)There will be no indictment. Your prayers are in vain. Don't hold your breath for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.
Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.
TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)From the same team that posted the PDF of the SUBPOENA Hillary said she never received....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track, FOX News, January 11, 2016
EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.
This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.
"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.
(snip)
"No, there’s nothing like that that is happening," Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs.
Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.
(more at link)
And the Georgia Political Review has a different opinion just about the STORAGE AND HANDLING of those emails (as opposed to the corruption issues involving content) --
http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/opinion-why-hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-for-mishandling-classified-information/
More so, once the FBI approached Platte River Networks to retrieve Clinton’s original server, there are reports that employees at the company began to fear a cover-up . The company reportedly received a letter from Clinton Executive Service Corp instructing them to “cut the back up”.
The employees did not do so and the FBI has now recovered deleted emails which they considered to contain work-related information. This debunks her claim, which she made under the penalty of perjury, that she turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department. Depending on the nature of these recovered e-mails, she could be charged with tampering of evidence, lying to federal officials, and an obstruction of justice.
The key words are "could" and "if" -- the facts may be becoming clearer, but "what happens next" is speculation until the FBI and the DOJ finish their work. The author concludes:
(snip)
(C)areer Justice Department attorneys have been assigned to the case. When Attorney General Loretta Lynch was asked when the investigation would be wrapped up she said, “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, as well as career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice.” This is almost indisputable proof that the FBI probe has at least progressed beyond the initial referral. Why would the Department of Justice bring in their own attorneys if the FBI wasn’t going to recommend further action? DOJ agents are now likely using the government’s full investigative tool box – including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses, to create their case against Hillary Clinton. FBI Director James Comey himself will interview Clinton and her aides in the next few days. Second, Lynch would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been assembled yet. If there was no grand jury being convened, Lynch would have likely said so to quell rumors that she will be indicted. If a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence, she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
She already has hired her favorite criminal defense attorney; as long as they take her out before Memorial Day, I'm good.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)It is amusing to watch Sanders suporters use material that you normally have to go to the freeper site to read
pinebox
(5,761 posts)It's a lefty site and a good one at that. Seriously, check it out, good journalism and that's hard to find these days.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Same team that broke that little bombshell, complete with PDF of the letter --
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.
Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.
"To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one (intelligence community) element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources."
More at link, including PDF of the letter. Now, who shall I believe - the person who appears to have committed a crime, or my lying eyes and the evidence before them?
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Fox News has been telling its viewers for months that Clinton will be indicted. It is not doing to happen
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)
But at least now we know why you are comfortable supporting Hillary - she tells a blatant lie, evidence is presented she lies, and you just insist it's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
And you wonder why you look delusional to the informed....
By the way, the personal attacks implying I am someone who belongs on Free Republic have exceeded my tolerance quotient. See you on indictment day!!!
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Now no one has to go to free republic site to see what the freepers are posting about
Your amusing thread on the indictment was fun to laugh at. Not one of your conclusions had any basis in reality. Keep up the good work. It is fun laughing at your claims. The fact that you claim to be informed amuses me.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)No money, that would not be cool, but how about this.
If she is indicted, I will not post at DU for one month.
If she is not, then you will not post for one month.
Gothmog
(145,321 posts)Either on or before the convention or on or before the general election
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)That she will be out by Memorial Day. I don't know if she will have a "face saving" moment (health, maybe?) or not. I expect her to initially pledge to "fight" then "gracefully surrender" for either party or whatever. I have a pizza and two other fifty cent bets.
I would never recommend messing with the FBI as she has done. 
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)but fifty cents is silly. How about if she is out by Memorial day, I give DU a $5.00 donation.
If she is not, then you will give $5.00 to DU.
Bookmarking the thread.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)But the point is that the amount IS silly so we both know it is a "pride" bet in the "whose got bragging rights on being better informed".
I like the idea of it going to DU and am agreeable to that part but as an individual bet, my max is still fifty cents (although locally a Hillary friend and I have pizza at Buddy's as the stake).
So, fifty cents to DU by the loser if Hillary drops out by Memorial Day for "personal reasons"?
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)You should know that. It would cost them more to process that they would get.
I'll give $5.00 if I lose ( which I won't). You can give nothing ( which is what will happen to Hillary)
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Apparently I was not clear - I consider this a "fifty cent" bet because I expect to have ten of them (totaling $5).
I will accept your "ten to one" odds - my bet with you is fifty cents to your five dollars, with the understanding I will be giving a five dollar donation TOTAL if I lose (lumped with other betters).
Either way, bragging rights to the winner and benefit to DU.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Hillary still in it, still winning and no matter how you wish for it, she will never be indicted. Never.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)And even posted about it!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512087532
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)The Sanders people and the Trump people both know that they can not beat Clinton and so they are praying for an indictment. The sanders supporters are posting material from the Free Republic and other RWNJ cites to justify their hopes for an indictment. It is really very sad to see material from these cites being posted on DU
bvf
(6,604 posts)
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)And it's over.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I'm working off memory, so could be wrong.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)
demmiblue
(36,865 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Hillary is our nominee. For the good of the party and the HATE destruction to stop.. Call it please. Thank you
woodsprite
(11,916 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)There is no way to overcome the deficit in delegates or popular vote
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)
Let the Democratic Party Kumbayas begin!
sister_rosa_refried
(447 posts)Now is not the time. Be nice, dear.
Or Sister will give you detention and have to clean Sister Clara Vision's denture cup.
Not pretty, dear. Not pretty.
Number23
(24,544 posts)And pretty much did so weeks ago. Everyone with a firm grip of reality already knows this has been over for a while.
Really, all Skinner needs to do is figure out if wants the site to be used for the betterment or sliming of the Dem party. Should be a no-brainer.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)What will DU be from this point forward? That's the question
NanceGreggs
(27,815 posts)It should be.
wysi
(1,512 posts)n/t
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)it's been time for weeks now, but now it REALLY time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Not criticizing, just pointing out that part of the business model of DU requires keeping non-stars coming hitting "refresh".
William769
(55,147 posts) Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)MsFlorida
(488 posts)Time for a change. I can never vote Hillary, never.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)This is over.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts) 
no they will not msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)She had a good win tonight.
Maybe just enjoy it, rather than trying to neener your message board 'enemies'?
Just a thought.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #108)
berni_mccoy This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Time to start winning the White House.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)If you really want to move things in a positive, unifying direction, that isnt the way to do it.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)without demanding my feelings be assuaged. Why? SCOTUS is more important.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Here it is 8 years later, though, and you still seem to be nursing a grudge.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They sure tried to clear the decks for her, to the point that our party's bench is really weakened and sparse, particularly with a lack of solid non-east coast baby boomers in potential leadership positions.
Which I am sure sounds absolutely GREAT to east coast baby boomers, but even they are not going to be able to remain in denial that it is actually, now, the 21st century.... for much longer.
So we all have to wait, all of us. Even you guys, because she will likely officially clinch the thing sooner or later. The convention isnt really that far away.
And the longer she doesnt, the more time Hillary's people will have to lecture sanders supporters. If he drops out of the race, they'll still be lecturing, of course--- but it will be harder to tell through avatars, and facebook posts, who needs the lectures.
The fact that she hasnt been anywhere near as inevitable as she was supposed to be- well, one would think it might give her people pause, but who is kidding who? Even Eking out a slim win will be seen as validation for the worst parts of her campaign style. Oh well.
But anyway, waiting isnt going to kill anyone. Trust me on that.. my generation has had to get real good at waiting.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Demographically Clinton's support skews older, we know that.
I would think that a GE focus would first and foremost involve asking "how do we get Millennials on board and more enthused?" And I dont mean by doing the nae nae on ellen or asking people to tweet 3 emojis on the topic of student debt.
You have to admit that we could use a broader bench, too. if Hillary wins, even in the best case scenario of 2 terms eventually it will be 2024.
senz
(11,945 posts)The people don't give up that easily. You'll have to wait for your coronation ... if it ever comes.
UtahLib
(3,179 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But it's well past time to provide a glorious exit for those that have said they will not support or vote for the Democratic nominee if it's Hillary.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)of the democratic party!
UNITY NOW!!!!!
chascarrillo
(3,897 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Wow.
QC
(26,371 posts)They can't even kick in two or three bucks now and then but they want Skinner to run a private clubhouse for them?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Besides, what on earth would they have to do if it's all Hilleryans here? It would be like a ghost town. Tumbling weeds rolling down the main street, a saloon piano tinkling somewhere, a coyote howling....
QC
(26,371 posts)which is apparently such a snoozefest that its members spend most of their time picking fights here.
And what is the deal with so few of the very concerned, very busy new Hillary partisans having donor stars?
If they expect Skinner to drive out 80% of his traffic and provide them with a private club, they should at least be willing to throw a few bucks into the hat.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)Gothmog
(145,321 posts)
Sunsky
(1,737 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)kstewart33
(6,551 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)You know, walk the walk.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I thought it would be fun to watch especially to see if you didn't get your way.
And you should think about deleting your account either way...
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
brooklynite
(94,597 posts)"For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)And it's not clear.
revmclaren
(2,524 posts)After next week, there will be no doubt even to the Anti-MATHers.
Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)You know.....the base that got the vote out today.
frustrated_lefty
(2,774 posts)There is almost NO way for either candidate to reach the threshold for pledged delegates. Sorry, better cuddle up with the notion of a contested convention.
krawhitham
(4,644 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)
ecstatic
(32,710 posts)
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)I'll bet you guys are chomping at the bit to get her off limits -- there's so much Clintonian sleaze to conceal.
desmiller
(747 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)How many Bernie supporters can there be, if we look back at posts, are not TOS violators? They gotta go if you ask me.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)I've been here a decade longer than you, and in none of the primary seasons can I ever recall myself or others asking for purge of another dem candidates supporters. You're literally the first one I've seen.
Perhaps to you, as a newcomer, I might suggest this isn't the site for you. Because that's never been how this site rolls.
QC
(26,371 posts)since you're demanding that Skinner drive off 80% of his traffic.
Seriously, it's not that much, Five bucks now and then is all it takes.
Squinch
(50,955 posts)recycled Republican talking points.
Response to Squinch (Reply #177)
Post removed
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)And Skinner, don't do it man. Don't do it.
Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)on them.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)It's just scorched earth at this point, just look at all the "I WILL NEVER's" stacking up here.
Take them at their word.
Rex
(65,616 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)She won 12 out of 66 counties.
She will net gain about 25 to 30 delegates.
This was not a blow out win. This was not a decisive victory.
Y'are just entitled, and I hope to the gods that Skinner has the sense to not enable this. 
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Allocation of Congressional District Delegates, PLEO, and At Large based on initial vote totals:
Hillary 139
Sanders 108
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It ain't over til it's over.
angrychair
(8,700 posts)Keep in mind, with 99% of the vote counted, despite the win in NY, 4 out of 5 registered Democratic voters did not vote for Clinton.
NY voters by Party registration:
http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/enrollment/congress/congress_apr16.pdf
Election results:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
Math
Clinton votes: 1,037,344
Registered Democrats: 5,792,497
1037344/5792497= 17.9%
Therefore, more than 4 out of 5 registered Democratic voters in NY did not vote for her.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)All voters never all vote, even less in a primary. She won. That's just where it is in reality.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Don't count for squat.
Its why Bernie got his ass kicked in NY. He depends on the demographic that votes the least of all.
All those YUUUUUGE rallies notwithstanding.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)we really do not need this slimy shit here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1786350
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)was serious. We just don't need this shit any longer.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)It needs to end!
Totally disgusting!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)First, the post you link does not, to my mind, read anyone out of the party. It gives a demographic analysis of the vote, and a fairly unexceptional analysis, at that. (In fact, it's so unexceptional that the serious objection to that OP is that it's of little interest.)
Second, if you want to see people being read out of the party, I direct your attention to this post in our esteemed Hillary Clinton Group, about some of the new Wisconsin voters whom Sanders attracted to the Democratic Party:
Now, that is reading people out of the party -- with a side order of apparent satisfaction with Scott Walker's voter suppression, and all topped off with an insult.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Another false flag
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Enough of this nonsense.
Call it, Skinner.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,181 posts)As much of a slimebag as ol' Spiro was, I've always liked that phrase -- "nattering nabobs of negativism" -- but then, I'm a sucker for alliteration.
Anyway, there's still a ways to go -- let's grab our popcorn, Guinness Extra Stout, and Cheesy Poofs and watch it play out to its preordained conclusion. The people in states yet to vote would appreciate it. Sure, it's the bottom of the seventh, we're two touchdowns behind, and Wayne Gretzky has just been ejected for icing the mascot, but Yogi Bear is yet to come to bat and Secretariat's horse tranquilizers haven't kicked in yet. Something like that.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)And it's about more than just watching it play out.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Surely we should wait to see until the votes are cast. If Sanders continues to run that decision should be respected.
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)
Cha
(297,314 posts)
Hillary Clinton celebrates with her husband after winning the New York primary.
(Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-new-york-democratic-primary-20160419-story.html
Iaaahttp://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=108832
Hillary
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(297,314 posts)
Hillary Clinton
✔ ??@HillaryClinton
"New York is a place for dreaming big. But New Yorkers also like to get things done." —Hillary
5:36 PM - 19 Apr 2016
1,406 1,406 Retweets 3,455 3,455 likes
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Cha
(297,314 posts)the Tweet..
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Deal deal with both the Hillary and Sanders supporters that abused the alert system over the last few weeks? It has become absurd, and anyone that over alerted should have some action taken against them.
npk
(3,660 posts)No reason to drop out when Hillary hasn't clinched enough delegates yet for the nomination.
Cha
(297,314 posts)
TexasTowelie
(112,249 posts)coyote
(1,561 posts)Goodbye PPC revenue. I don't think the site owners are as stupid as some of the Clinton supporters here. Clinton supporters should know better, like your candidate it's all about the money.
BooScout
(10,406 posts) B Calm
(28,762 posts)and the longer he stays in, the more left Hillary has to run.
-none
(1,884 posts)watch her slam back to the Right. Wall Street and the banks backing her, want to be paid back.
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... well, not really, but you made it look good ...
... well, not really, but at least you were in the race ...
... well, not really, it was over before it really began, but you'll always have that bird.
auntpurl
(4,311 posts) Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)American oligarchy is unsustainable. Support the revolution or taste a pitch fork, your choice.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stonecutter357
(12,697 posts) NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Time to tidy up and dust and vacuum.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)Now....you must remember, this is his day job.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Apparently, Skinner should "call it" because then we'll all rally around Clinton and be able to focus on the general election.
I'm not seeing this at all.
As to the first point, party unity in support of Clinton will be hindered, not helped, by pre-Convention edicts that restrict Sanders supporters from expressing their opinions. (Yes, I know the First Amendment doesn't apply to a private website, so please don't lecture me. My point is not the Constitution. My point is that, if you want people who support Sanders to rally around Clinton, you have a better chance if you wait until the Convention. This is a small lesson in how you get things done, which your candidate is supposedly so big on.)
As to the second point, absolutely nothing that is written on DU is preventing Hillary Clinton or any of her supporters from doing anything whatsoever with regard to the general election. You want to start focusing on Trump? Go right ahead. If, as you assert, it's all over and Clinton's nomination is absolutely positively inevitable and nothing could possibly change that outcome, then you have no need to spend any more time trying to tell us how much better than Bernie she is. Your words of wisdom are just pearls before swine anyway, right? Just ignore the nomination battle and start posting negative things about Trump, Cruz, Kasich, Ryan, Reince Priebus, any MSM person who says anything negative about Clinton, or whatever else you think will help win in November.
If you lack the willpower to let our ravings go by unanswered, trash GD-P and the Bernie Sanders Group.
Here's the bottom line: Would someone explain to me, step-by-step, the chain of causation by which a DU decision to "call it" now would increase the chance of a Democratic victory in November?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Skinner should call it because there's no point in the endless anti-Hillary bashing.....it just irritates the actual Democratic base.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)That we should all rally behind Clinton was based on #14. The idea of refocusing was based on #112 and #227.
But I did begin with "Apparently" because I wasn't sure what the purpose was, and of course Clinton supporters aren't required to be all on the same page. From your post I infer that your motivation is different. You want the site purged of comments that irritate you and "the actual Democratic base" (a term that apparently no longer includes single-payer advocates and other such interlopers). The obvious response is that, as I pointed out, you can trash the offending parts of DU. I should have added that you can use your Ignore list. If Skinner merely makes sure that posts preferring Sanders to Clinton are confined to the Bernie Sanders Group and GD-P, why doesn't that solve the problem?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Still standing after at least two alerts, a proud moment in DU history.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=359126
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)revmclaren
(2,524 posts)since the same link had been hidden by a jury just hours before. We will see if anything is done.
Way past time to call it here at DU.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)best interest.
First, unless/until Bernie drops out of the race, the Bernie supporters on DU will not let it go, regardless of what Skinner says, which means it will get even uglier and more contentious here and likely result in a massive purge of posters who either leave by choice or get banned for not getting in line.
Which leads me to the second reason - the revenue for this website comes from clicks. The busier and crazier it is here, the more hits it gets, the more search results pop up, the more ads get clicked, the more money gets made.
Why in the holy hell would Skinner want that to end? If the primary conversation is shut down, and the Bernie supporters leave, shut up, or get in line, all that shrinks down. This is probably the busiest DU has been since the switch from DU2. I would guess the admin here want to milk this season for all it's worth from a business perspective.
musicblind
(4,484 posts)It's sad, honestly. Many good, long term DUers were tombstoned. I imagine that will happen again this year. In the end, DU does what is best for the democratic party because it is a forum for the democratic party.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Hekate
(90,714 posts)Probably needs an update to "all good persons" or some such.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's an interesting bit of trivia that might help you to win on Jeopardy one day:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/259/who-originated-now-is-the-time-for-all-good-men
Hekate
(90,714 posts)The quick red fox jumped over the lazy brown dog is the other phrase Dad used, as it supposedly runs you through all the letters.
When I'm trying out a new keyboard I type as much of Jabberwocky as I can remember (which is nearly all of it).
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)More panagram examples ... http://www.fun-with-words.com/pang_example.html
I like: "Pack my box with five dozen liquor jugs."
(Yeah, I know this is totally off-topic from the OP, but it's keeping it kicked.)
Hekate
(90,714 posts) Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You have to write that the fox "jumps", not "jumped", or there's no S to test.
I learned the sentence with "red fox", as you've written, but one could omit "red", given that "over" and "dog" pick up all its letters.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)There are still certain DUers I want to see twist in the wind for a little while longer...
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts) cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Resistance is futile:
Unprovoked mass-murder for fun and profit::
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)I'm not worried. Eventually we will have a nominee, and it'll take a little time for people to adjust. But I have no doubt that the vast majority of DUers will be on board for the general election when the time comes.
Everyone knows where this is going, everyone understands what is at stake in the general election. It'll all be fine.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)posters take themselves out.
We got this.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)When there is, Skinner will announce it and shut down GDFightClub
musicblind
(4,484 posts)"Everyone knows where this is going, everyone understands what is at stake in the general election. It'll all be fine."
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)about Hillary, so I'm kicking and rec'ing this after holding out to be nice. After last night, to post what was posted about her is just not excusable anymore.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)"It's astounding that those on the right saw the pattern of corruption before the rest of us."
WTF. How utterly dishonest and contemptible to compliment the RW for hunting the Clintons! I've had enough of this, so K&R!!
WhenTheLeveeBreaks
(55 posts)Reinforce the bubble. I can't quite hear my echo loud enough.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)was right all along? Maybe you can share your experiences. Reinforce the bubble, indeed.
WhenTheLeveeBreaks
(55 posts)Perhaps you should reexamine your choice of candidate.
Sunshine and lollipops are not how you persuade in discussions or prevail in debates in the real world.
Ignorance of the issues does not make the issues go away, it just makes you temporarily calm.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)of when you learned the RW was correct all along? I can't think of any on my end. You?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)-- sort of.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Really....do tell. I'm dying to know about all the Clinton corruption RW style.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts) R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Thanks for the correction.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)
QC
(26,371 posts)BKH70041
(961 posts)It's over when it's over, not when it's "statistically improbable."
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'd post in the ATA thread but of course I can't.
Skinner has apparently noticed, as some on this board have not, that there are millions of us who haven't yet had the chance to vote. We in New Jersey get slighted enough as it is.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Is that you?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)made. Skinner can only be responsible for his vote. This is his site, not compulsory one is a member or not, but respect the site.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)don't get my say.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Response to msanthrope (Original post)
CaliforniaPeggy This message was self-deleted by its author.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Hillary is our nominee. Bernie is not.
The attacks on our nominee weaken our party and our chances against the GOP ... from the top to the bottom of the ballot. This needs to stop.
brooklynite
(94,597 posts)...up from 58%.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... fired-up supporters who NOW (finally, at long last) realize how important it is to actually vote in person. (Assuming that they've properly registered.)
It will be interesting to see the linguistic gymnastics that Bernie's campaign staff comes up with for the next round of fundraising letters and emails.
I have a feeling that many Bernie supporters will be soon parted with even more of their money, but it won't help.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)And I guess Skinner knows that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Maru Kitteh
(28,341 posts)it's time to move forward.
