Then we can finally get to beating that demagogue POS Trump and his damned party!

Why not use some more obnoxious terms to help get support for Clinton in the General?

She murdered, castrated, clubbed, tortured, ripped his eyballs out....etc.

FU

Any true democrat/progressive/liberal will be voting for Hillary.

That leaves tea baggers, third party voters and sit at home cause my guy didn't win hypocrites for Trump.

Those people can KMA, I don't give a damn what they do TBH.

you might be doing more harm than good, even in this little corner of the larger universe.

Most Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary just like I would have voted for Bernie if he had won the nomination.

They know as well as I do what a dangerous threat a Trump in the white house would be.

To believe otherwise would be naive.

Principles aside, it would mean 2 more Senate seats

and this would certainly be 2 Democratic Senate seats and 1 Democratic House seat.

the last couple of decades (thanks in large part to Clinton I), I don't see that it makes that much difference.

One war or two (or more). How many can we put you down for?

the problem.

in a political party whose president gave us welfare "reform," continued skyrocketing of mass incarceration, militarized local police departments, and whose current DNC chair supports a predatory payday lending industry.

That's just for starters.

There's the problem. If you find it easier to blame someone for pointing it out, that's entirely on you.

Shaking your head in denial of the obvious requires an unwillingness to think, and a neck with meat and bone attached to it.

to believe that does require an unwillingness to think .

You can't dispute a word of it.

It's clear your mind is closed to reality.

And have another go at refuting it.

Or just shake that meat again.

I have a good enough idea what your choice will be. Seen this movie before, and there's little point in awaiting a lame rehash.

"No taxation without representation" has deep roots here.

Either stop taxing those who live in DC or give them the same right we all have!!!!

This statement is somewhat preceded by Hillary's in 2007, but he did also sign on to the New Columbia Admission Act of 2013. From http://www.dcvote.org/blog/where-do-current-presidential-candidates-stand-dc-equality

I'd be skeptical that the current Congress has the coherence to do anything about it too, but it's nice to bring it up, and this is an appropriate time, being the DC primary.

Every actual Dem has always supported DC statehood. If he is just now voicing support he is mighty late on that.

He's just focusing on it now because of the primary. And I applaud him for using his national audience to call attention to it.

It's probably like how he was a "champion for LGBT rights" even though he never returned a phone call from us.

http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/246170-bernie-sanders-joins-push-for-dc-statehood

Bernie thinks casting a vote the right way makes him a hero and a champion. Look how long he skated on "I marched with MLK" without ever actually doing anything after that?

I guess me and Bernie and his supporters just have a different definition of a "champion."

In any case, I never met a liberal that didn't support DC statehood. Not exactly a differentiator, but good for him anyway.

If there is one thing I would like to put to bed about Bernie is this false narrative that he was some sort of champion of LGBT rights or even marriage.

I spent 10 years of my life on that issue, much of it in DC and he was NO WHERE to be found. In fact he was screaming state's rights. And every sentient LGBT person who was paying attention at the time is aware of that.

I can't even tell you how foolish his supporters look to politically active LGBT when they say this crap. As for Clinton, she was in the thick of it there. Too bad you show a clip to mislead instead of the whole speech. She was actually mocking the rethugs who preached the sanctity of marriage as they condone divorce.

And at that exact moment, Hillary was actually helping us get 9 other votes against that amendment in the senate. That is precisely when I became a fan of her for life. I still remember the white board we used to tally up the commitments to vote against it.

So please don't straight 'splain this to me. I was there.

DO NOT appreciate being used for some politician to claim is a "champion" for us when the reality is he wouldn't pick up the fucking phone.

Please, just stop with this crap. You look foolish.

Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2016, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

You're very hostile

My very existence was at stake and he did not do jack for me, all the while claiming he is my champion. I can definitely understand why Hispanics, AA, and the LGBT community would not support him in any large measure.

Sorry - that is not how reality works.

who until the political winds changed enough to make her prior position a liability...actively campaigned to oppress you and deny you equality under the law.

Bernie may have been nowhere to be seen...but Hillary was holding hands with the most vile of Republicans and declaring "never!" to marriage equality.

Some sort of champion it repulsed me. Listening to that sit convinced me a lot of people had no fucking clue at all.

Against it.

http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/12573#.V17hwddOk0N

On the issue?

You can come back and say she was busy being First Lady, but there's no evidence that she supported it while Bernie was voting for it.

Bernie was ahead of her by a decade.

At one point, he had "taxation without representation" plates put on the presidential limos, shortly after the DC DMV started offering them, so his support was rather public. Bush had them removed as one of his first acts in office.

Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Besides, most Democrats have been in support of it for decades. Don't think that Sanders is some kind of trailblazer on the issue.

Trying to muddy the waters.

...it shouldn't matter who is more in favor of DC statehood or who did what first. It's a good idea.

Obama did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-to-use-dc-taxation-without-representation-license-plates/2013/01/15/f91b09ac-5f5b-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html

Its not an unusual move for Bernie to be for DC statehood, he is trying to whip up support for himself at the polls, so that's why he said it. We all know it.

...that's good, but when Sanders does it it's bad?

When Clinton supports it, it's for all the purest of motives.

But when Sanders supports it, it's because he's a scheming, skulking, conniving schemer, up to no good and only looking for money.

Gosh, that almost sounds like a trope of some sort.

All those similarities are purely coincidental.

...and he's liked basketball since he was a child.

It's in the Constitution that Congress shall have exclusive governance of it's district for a good reason...to avoid having a state place undue pressure on the Congress and gain undue favor.

James Madison:

"The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it… Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy."

The matters of the nation will not be subjected to the control of a single state.

If people in D.C. want to live in a state they need to move somewhere else...

...then Congress would give it pork out of fear that DC would shut down Congress otherwise?

Nothing new there.

It's three permanent seats for the Democrats. That's why Republicans would never allow it and we know it.

So nice thought, but this won't mean anything for the primary.

but going by the way the issue has been handled in Puerto Rico, the first step is a referendum on statehood by the people who actually live there. Let's start with that and move on from there.

If Hillary has the coattails I think she will, we have a good chance at a Dem Senate in November, with more seats in the House.

This is doable.

as are most Democrats. I was unaware Sanders had opposed it.

I think the sensible solution is to give DC one voting representative in the house, and allow them to vote in Maryland's Senate races.

...we can't expect them to permit the addition of two likely Democratic and African-American senators.

The other part is that it'd be a disproportionate amount of power for a small geographic area.

Truth be told, we need something along the lines of state reapportionment, but it won't happen. As it stands, a tiny state with a lot of people (Rhode Island0 gets the same number of Senators as a huge state that is sparsely populated (Wyoming).

It's just that they can't have certain states kicked out of the Union.