2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Bernie Sanders smear campaign has begun
Its a sign of Sanders success that one of Clintons hitters was set on the ascendant candidate last Thursday, with Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill appearing on MSNBCs Morning Joe to test out some new talking points to address Sanders astounding crowds and climbing poll numbers. McCaskill went with the acknowledge-then-conflate maneuver. Sanders crowds are at times dwarfing those of any candidate in either party. This cannot be denied. So Team Clinton has to try to make that clear sign of success a liability.
Well, you know, Rand Pauls father got massive crowds, Ron Paul, she said. He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. Its not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.
Ooooh, gotcha: Big crowds mean youre an extremist. So the fewer people you have, the more reasonable you are. And, so, I guess if you stand at a podium before no one, just an empty field, and give a stump speech youre the most reasonable and fringe-averse candidate ever to run for office.
Is this the best the Clinton team has right now? <..snip...>
More at the LINK
It will be interesting to see how the attacks will unfold now after the rally counts in Madison. Claire did a terribly obvious hit job which more than backfired on her. The deer in the headlights look when pressed on three Sanders policies she disagrees with was PRICELESS. They won't know what hit 'em. GO BERNIE!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)nastier this go round.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)We know who they are and how they operate.
Bernie is one of us, the 99%...he's genuine, not a manipulator/liar.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)If. Just wait. You know she will. No doubt about it. Of course she will.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)I assume she learned her lesson when it hurt her more than it helped her. People do change, and I'm giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I like the way she worked with Obama and the way she handle;ed herself as SOS.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)implying Obama has not handled foreign relations well on that front. That would be somewhat of a concern if true; will have to look into that further.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)I suspect she'll handle Israel with less than kid gloves considering the current climate of opinion. Liberals are pretty much in agreement that Israel has jumped the shark.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)She'll double down on her mistakes of '08, except with more money. She lives in a bubble of consultants and Wall St CEOs, and doesn't get it that we're on to her campaign of smears and hit men, and her corporatist platform.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 3, 2015, 09:43 AM - Edit history (1)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders, has no accomplishments, has had not any responsibilities run the
Dem party, and he has never been in a political fight.
Sanders background has not been exposed! Hillary has had turn over every detail
of her life to the public.
The public doesn't know Sanders, Sanders is a politician too, he should be subject
to the same rules as Hillary
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Team Hillary at it's finest.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders supporters are helping the GOP
99Forever
(14,524 posts)A train wreck in slow motion is fun to watch.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)watch the metal meet the concrete, but the people on that train? They just don't feel it because they are going the same speed as that train. Until it comes to an immediate, catastrophic halt.
It's the sound of inevitability, but not the way they thought it would happen."
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Thank you, my ally!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I don't mind highlighting it when somebody makes a great point, which you did.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Maybe I should change parties.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I'm too busy being one to make claims like that.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Try as you may
Nitram
(22,801 posts)I don't want to risk that again.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So we must run with bullshit?
I call bullshit!
Nitram
(22,801 posts)That's a cheap trick, and total BS. You sound a bit over-emotional at the moment. Need a nap?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...please do tell what you were saying.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Sanders has always talked a good line, but he has accomplished very little of substance and has no experience dealing with the big boys in the real world.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Even though he has tirelessly worked for these things his whole adult life.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Kind of a habit with you, isn't it.? I didn't say or imply that Sanders is dishonest. I said that he's better at talking about what's good for the country than actually doing things to make it happen. Some people are idea people and others are doers. I'd say Sanders falls in the first category. Now could you stop inferring things from what I've written that just aren't there?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You imply he is dishonest. Your words, not mine.
Out of curiosity: What has he said that you do not believe? List a few things and the reasons you do not believe them.
Thanks in advance!
Nitram
(22,801 posts)...to put his word into action.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Thus you imply he is dishonest.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Or stop harping on this rather obsession of yours.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)What evidence do you submit to back that claim?
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Behind the scenes its all corporate wishes and caviar dreams.
Out in the daylight its fighting for the little people, standing against hate and bigotry, saving the natural world for kids and fluffy kitties and love, love, loving that Jesus.
Then its backing to making the world safer for hedge funds and less safe for everyone not sheltered by the corporations.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)He was one of the founders of the progressive caucus in congress; one of the largest democratic congressional caucuses.
He has sponsored and cosponsered lots of legislation that has gotten passed.
Seriously, your tone is intensely patronizing and you are playing the old third way tune about him being "too liberal to get things done."
Im a sanders supporter but it almost sounds like you are trying to alienate people from Hillary. Why is that?
Nitram
(22,801 posts)The question was directed at frylock.
You people are priceless. Seriously, the tone of Sanders supporters to me in the conversation above has been nasty and antagonistic. Don't lecture me on being patronizing. Frylock challenged me to provide a list of accomplishments. I did and when I respond with the same question, you come off patronizing with "do the research."
Please provide a list of significant legislation.
Frankly I'll support whoever wins the nomination, but it has been the tone of Sanders supporters that has pissed me off.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Just curious...
Nitram
(22,801 posts)You keep insisting that I accuse Sanders of being dishonest and lying when I meant no such thing, and tried in vain to clarify my view.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Sancho
(9,070 posts)From 1990 until today, he has less original legislation than Hillary did in a much shorter time. 3 bills signed, and 2 were to name post offices!?
Bernie talks a lot and votes on bills he likes, but without a party affiliation he had virtually no ability to get a bill out of committee. Almost everything he sponsored died a quick death.
Even though it was RW, as a member of the House "Republicans have described Sanders as "an ineffective extremist" for successfully sponsoring only one law and 15 amendments in his eight terms in the House." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
Bernie introduced little, was not good at getting cooperation from other members of Congress, and generally argued a lot.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)btw, we have had this 's/he has accomplished nothing' before so I have the stats on the facts of who accomplished what, it might surprise you.
But go ahead and list the accomplishments, what 'they got done' other than talk, of Hillary or let's say, Schumer, my Senator unfortunately, so we can then compare with FACTS, rather than 'just talk' which is often what transpires in these discussions with little to back it up.
I like to see people back up these pronouncements and then compare notes so we can ACCURATELY judge the records of those seeking elected office.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Sancho
(9,070 posts)I'm sure you have looked at http://correctrecord.org/
For example, in one random clip of many...Hillary was VERY active as a Senator. Some things passed and other didn't. It would take page after page to list all the efforts. Here's an small excerpt from the immigration record 10 years ago. Bernie's record is an obstructionist, but quite ineffective in both the House and Senate on innovative legislation.
"Fighting for comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary Clinton has long been an advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. She was one of the two cosponsors of Senator Ted Kennedys 2004 bill, the S.O.L.V.E. Act, and during her time in the Senate she continued to cosponsor and vote for comprehensive immigration reform legislation. As a presidential candidate in 2008, Hillary called for a path to legalization to bring people out of the shadows, and she pledged that, if elected, she would introduce a plan for immigration reform in the first 100 days of her presidency. As Sec. Clinton recently told a tearful young undocumented immigrant, Im a huge supporter of immigration reform and a path to citizenship and will continue to advocate for that.
Expanding access to health care. Hillary Clinton introduced the Legal Immigrant Childrens Health Improvement Act to end the five-year waiting period for immigrant children and pregnant women to participate in the Childrens Health Insurance Program. Advocating for her 2007 bill, she said, While most children receive preventative medical care, such as vaccines and routine dental care, too often immigrant children do not. They are forced to forego treatment and can ultimately end up seeking needed care in emergency roomsthe least cost-effective place to provide care. Reintroduced and passed in 2009 as part of the Childrens Health Insurance Program reauthorization, former Secretary of Health and Human Resources Kathleen Sebelius praised this legislative push that ultimately allowed health coverage to all children who are lawfully present in the United States.
Job training for people with limited English proficiency. Hillary Clinton developed and introduced legislation to expand job training access to people with limited English language skills. Touting this bill, the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act, Hillary said, There is no question that English proficiency is critical to economic advancement and improved quality of life for LEP [Limited English Proficient] workers and their families. Workers who are fluent in oral and written English earn about 24 percent more than those who lack fluency, regardless of their qualifications. These individuals are better able to participate in the civic life of their community, which so many LEP individuals in New York tell me they want to do.
Expanding opportunities to gain permanent residency. As a candidate for Senate, Hillary Clinton called for passage of legislation so that All immigrants on the verge of gaining residency status should not be forced to leave this country while they wait for the INS to process their application. The LIFE Act and LIFE Act Amendments, enacted in December 2000, allowed certain eligible immigrants until April, 2001 to apply for permanent residency without being forced to leave the United States first. As a Senator, Hillary urged those eligible to apply for the program and she cosponsored legislation to extend it until April, 2002."
frylock
(34,825 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Once Bill Clitnot turned over the media to them with the Telecommunications Act it was a cinch ...like making Play-doh snakes.
lol
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Sounds almost like a religious conversion. Could you help me out here and list some of Sanders' accomplishments?
questionseverything
(9,654 posts)something never accomplished before
frylock
(34,825 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)At least she's being honest about that. You? Not so much
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)All Presidents have to work with the fellow American's:
Sorry if that is a new idea to you: Hillary will need votes
from all groups of people to get elected.
The Presidency is a political job: and one gets the job by being a good politician
President Kennedy, use to laugh at people who wanted the Kids to President
someday, but didn't want their Kids in politics. (that's Sanders supporters)
Politics is the name of the game that runs this country: Hillary is on the Dems Team,
she is best loyal player we have.
Bernie has never dealt with more than one party: His state only has 600,000, and
very limited business interest.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or, worse, sides with them. Like Clinton does on TPP, xl, privatized insurance, drilling, social security cap, Pentagon budget, war in the middle east, rttb, and so on.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Bernie has sat on his seat in Senate for years doing nothing!
Bernie has never been in fight against the GOP in his life,
they would have destroyed him.
Hillary and Dem's have been the ones to put the lives and families
on the line for Dem's party not Bernie.
He stayed in his small state while others took on the fight against the GOP.
It good he is getting active, but he has waited to a long time to pitch
in and help the Dem's.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)She was a Senator for 8 of those years. She was a Cabinet official for 4.
What did Hillary do in the Senate that makes her so much more amazing than Bernie
Bernie has gone toe-to-toe with the GOP often.
Biden stayed in a small state, too. Was he a poor choice for VP?
Sanders has supported the dems his entire career.
It's OK if you like Hillary, but you don't have to make things up about other candidates to justify it.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)It's exhilarating to get out in front of an issue, rather than to have to debate it. Take deregulation for example.
fed-up
(4,081 posts)I am a life long active Democratic party member!
She who shall not be named has slipped a little too far to the right.
I will vote for the candidate that represents THE PEOPLE!
I will do all I can to help my party retain it's values by campaigning and voting for BERNIE!
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)That's as credible as when Fiorina says it about Clinton.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He has not lead the senate in anything! He has no bills, he
introduces lots of bill that go nowhere. He unable to convince
people in the senate to support him. A President needs to
work with other people, no just be an ideologue.
He has not run a government agency, he has no foreign policy experience: no management skills:
he has never been test in a political fight. He has never had his life exam-ed
the way Hillary and her fellow Dem's have had. Hillary has been a part of
two successful Administrations, Sanders has no experience working in
the executive branch. He has never run a business, what does Sanders
bring to the table. The Dem party Ideas that go back to FDR.
Sanders is a talker, a nice one, but a talker. He has left the real work to move
the country forward in the hands of the Obama's and the Clinton's
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)In the run up to the 08 election.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)are attacking Hillary for being ambitious successful and a hardworking
loyal Dem. Sorry don't want an outsider who has not been loyal to
the Dem's.
Crazy left wants a man that has nice talking style, and nothing else.
frylock
(34,825 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I guess that's in Article 8 of the Constitution...
frylock
(34,825 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Didn't ask for links to Super PACs.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)sounds like you could use a few prunes. Do you not have the ability to read and evaluate the truth off the lists to which I linked?
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I'll need links to the "lots of bills that go nowhere," examples of him being an "ideologue." How many bills has Hillary introduced?
Hillary was tested in a political fight in 2008. How'd that work out?
No management skills? Really? Did you get that from the staff that he manages, or is this something you decided? Sanders co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and chaired it for 8 years. Sounds like people supported him there.
Being a first lady does not make you part of an administration. She was a cabinet member for 4 years.
Obama had no experience in the executive branch in 2008. Who did you vote for? Sanders was a Mayor. Is that not executive experience?
There is hardly anything accurate in your assertions. It's like you've been on the phone with Claire McCaskill.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Pretty thin. Look, I'll vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination, but it is clear to me that Clinton has way more experience and clout. Sanders is totally on the correct side of every issue, but it is not clear to me that he has the ability to do the politics it will take to get his platform through the House and Senate. Much of what he has done is stating his principles and making symbolic gestures in the right direction. Which of the accomplishments at the links I posted were inaccurate?
For the record , I'm not on McCaskill's list of contacts. thanks for the gratuitous insult.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I can come up with more, but what's the point?
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)That's a better question to ponder.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)that Bernie is the ranking member on the Senate Budget committee. You do understand what that means, don't you?
You do realize that Bernie sponsored the bill that gave the retired vets a COLA increase in 113th congress?
You do realize that Bernie was the mayor of Burlington and he really improved the place?
Strike three and you're out.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)His years in office guarantee seniority.
"He really improved the place"? RAOTFL!
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)He saved low income housing:
Under Sanderss leadership, the city adopted a number of laws to stifle the owners plans. One ordinance required apartment owners to give residents two years notice before a condo conversion. Others gave residents a pre-emptive right to buy the units and prohibited landlords from bulldozing buildings unless they replaced them with the same number of affordable units. (These measures lowered the selling price of the property.) Sanders then worked with the state government and Senator Patrick Leahy to get the $12 million needed to purchase and rehabilitate the buildings. The city allocated funds to help the tenants hire an organizer, form the Northgate Residents Association, and start the process of converting the complex to resident ownership. Today, Northgate Apartments is owned by the tenants and has long-term restrictions to keep the buildings affordable for working families.
His policies created jobs, brought in a much needed supermarket and built the park where he annouced his campaign:
When Sanders took office, Burlingtons Lake Champlain waterfront was an industrial wasteland. Tony Pomerleau, an influential local businessman, planned a mega-project that included a 150-room hotel, retail space, a 100-slip marina, and 240 condominiums in 18-story buildings. In his first campaign, Sanders pledged to kill that plan. After Pomerleau withdrew his proposal, Sanders backed another waterfront plan that included some commercial development, affordable housing, and generous public access. But after voters defeated a bond measure for this proposal, Sanders went back to the drawing board to envision a peoples waterfront.
The Sanders administration provided new firms with seed funding, offered technical assistance, helped businesses form trade associations (including the South End Arts and Business Association and the Vermont Convention Bureau), focused attention on helping women become entrepreneurs, funded training programs to give women access to nontraditional jobs, and lobbied the state government to promote business growth.
When Sanders took office, Burlington had no supermarket in the downtown area. The major grocery chains told city officials that they would invest in a new store only if they could build a mega-market that residents believed was too large. Instead, the Sanders administration put its hopes in the local Onion River Cooperative. With 2,000 members in its former location, some thought it was a risky venture. It turned out to be a good investment, and under Sanderss successor it became City Market, a thriving enterprise with more than 9,000 members.
http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/
He was one most successful mayors at getting it done.
You can stop swinging any time now, you are no longer in the ballpark.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)How did the "people's waterfront" turn out?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Good luck with that one...
haikugal
(6,476 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)eye at invading Iraq, that is a good thing. Margret Thatcher was tough also. We need someone with empathy for the poor, working Americans, our vets and our seniors.
Sen Sanders is for the people not for the billionaires.
The Bernie Bounce
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That all you got?
840high
(17,196 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Oh wait. That was someone else's idea of good, clean politics.
Just because the mainstream media said Clinton was a castrating witch that does not make it true.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)That is why the GOP is so desperate to have anyone but Clinton running. Remember "Acid, amnesty and abortion"? That is how easy it is for the MSM and the RNC to rebrand a relative unknown.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Like McCaskill did.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The best, maybe the only shot they have at the White House is the sort of depressed voter turnout a 'Bush vs Clinton' election would generate.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Oh wait, they did that already. Every time we think the unforced errors won't get repeated, we get disappointed. I think the HRC campaign needs new managers, or has to shed some people.
http://www.pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
Where's the floor for those numbers, when will the unforced errors stop?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)staying absolutely silent about any of the others,including Bernie Sanders,they would love to run against anyone but Hillary Clinton.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Division politics are sooooo last century. (And sooooo GOP, which is partly stuck in the last century, and partly stuck in the one before last.)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)"division poltics have become a disqualifying characteristic. It could well make you unelectable."
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)that will take care of the policies and flaws of the frontrunner, and Bernie, and the few other candidates we have....all the smears should be directed to them because dems are immune to inparty smears for the most part.
It won't be pretty.
Go BERNIE!
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)It's apparent that the Democratic power brokers and elites made it clear that no other Democrats (besides Hillary) would make a serious run for the White House.
We've got a few other Dems in the wings who have barely made an effort.
I'm sure, suddenly, these candidates will be leveraged and spotlighted by the media. A tactic, by the corporatist wing of our Democratic party--to diminish Sanders.
This person (or persons) will not be serious about winning, but will be a useful tool to derail Sanders and his momentum.
Can you imagine the embarrassment to the Clinton camp if Bernie won? His poll numbers from Quinnipiac this morning have him at 33 and Clinton at 52. This is all ready an embarrassment to her.
And there's no way that any candidate can steal the Iowa caucuses. We don't use voting machines. We write our votes on paper and they are tallied by several witnesses. These several witnesses also stand watch as the Precinct Captain calls in the precinct votes.
It's about as Democratic as it gets. No machines to flip votes or steal votes.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It's embarrassing to her that she is leading by 19%?
I'm not decided yet, but I'm really not understanding the brazen confidence that Sanders supporters have while trailing by double digits...
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)If Sanders can chip away at her "inevitable" status things will get real interesting, real fast.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Embarrassing?
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Losing 2/3 of her support in a couple months IS embarrassing...especially since it's a repeat of '07.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)then do a trend like forward for each candidate, you'll see that Hillary's downward trend line and Bernie's upward trend line will cross sometime in late 2015 or early 2016.
That said, it is true that a lot can happen in this last half of 2015 to change those trends.
I have decided to support Bernie for three basic reasons:
1) I agree with him on every single issue he talks about
2) His funding comes from small donors and unions; Hillary's comes from some pretty deep corporate pockets
3) I trust him more than Clinton for a couple of reasons: Hillary was instrumental in helping get the TPP going, in 2008 she refused to say that healthcare is a basic human right, and in my opinion she's too hawkish - Sanders, on the other hand, opposed the war in Iraq, opposed TPP and does acknowledge that healthcare is a basic right
I guess for me, bottom line, I just like Bernie's message (and his record, which matches his message) better.
jerryster
(715 posts)Hello DU. Haven't checked in for some time and I admit the impetus was Bernie Sanders. First, I want to say that I'm fine with Bernie or Hillary or Martin O'Malley. My big concern is the Supreme Court and any of our Democratic candidates will choose someone better than ANYONE any of the Republican candidates would pick.
However, I titled my response Sanders and TPP for a reason. I'm sure that a lot of people have convinced themselves that if Sanders becomes President he'll tear up the TPP. Simply put, he won't. Why? Because no one upon becoming President goes after existing free trade agreements. Moreover, they fall in love with them. Remember how giddy Ed Schultz was because of what a President Obama would do with NAFTA? President Obama never even talked about it, let alone did anything to it. The other day Ed was so upset with the President regarding the TPP that he said of him " I don't know who this guy is anymore".
Again, let me stress that Bernie would have my vote - as would Hillary or O'Malley (Webb, Chafee, maybe not so much) - and I would be proud to have him elected President. But people who are convinced he would shred the TPP if elected are going to be disappointed.
frylock
(34,825 posts)when do those caucuses take place again?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)When he is polling even with Clinton, THEN boasting is in order. Right now, people are boasting on being second...
frylock
(34,825 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Fact.
I'd welcome Sanders if he can take the nomination, but pretending that leading by 19% is embarrassing is just plain silly.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)to steal the Iowa caucus?
Did I actually just really read that on DU?
FFS...
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)
is vulnerable.
I think it's vulnerable because the worst elements in politics want to manipulate it for their own gain. We've seen this time and time again. Democrats have not fought hard to trash voting machines that can manipulate or flip votes.
One has to conclude that elites in both parties want a vulnerable voting system.
Hillary Clinton is a corporatist. She's part of the elite political structure. Did I accuse of her any specific behavior? No. However, I am suspicious of many politicians, including Hillary Clinton--because they have not fought for fair elections.
I am given a bit of peace--knowing that NO ONE could steal the Iowa caucuses. Given our corrupt system, and the corruption on both sides of the aisle, it's tough to know who are the angels and who are the devils. Nothing would surprise me.
My bigger point is that there's no chance of cheating in the Iowa caucuses.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)These are still issues, even though they've fallen off most people's radar.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)...with their heads buried in the sand.
We have never had this much corruption in our government. Our elected officials are bought and sold. The corporations call the shots.
Most Democrats have not rallied against this. Many are complicit and part of the corrupt system.
Part of that corruption is vote stealing and manipulation of votes on vulnerable ES&S and Diebold machines. This is an extremely important issue. The problem is--we forget about it until something "off" occurs. People go to the polls, and they can see their vote flip, right in front of them. Or the outcome of a vote doesn't match exit polling. Then, we're outraged and it's too late to do anything.
That's the problem.
I'll continue to say more than "Yes" and I'll be damned if I'm going to feel bad about speaking the truth.
Thanks for your support.
Bugenhagen
(151 posts)I am sure I saw that here.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And now the ER forum is on life support.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)The criminal activity happens, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence. Remember the chaos in Ohio, when Republicans were hiding bags of ballots? Remember Karl Rove talking about his own "math" and the IT guy he employed in Ohio? Didn't that guy later end up dead?
It's all kinds of vote flipping and election outcomes not matching exit polling. Suddenly, we're told that exit polling is just oh-so unreliable. Baloney.
Then we've got all kinds of voter shennanigans from the Republican side. Throwing away Democratic voter registrations in the garbage, intimidating people at the polls, asking for ID at the polls where it's not required.
Republicans are more brazen about all of this, but the system is vulnerable and easily hackable--and don't think that Democrats won't use the system if it serves them.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)They don't want to lose the possibility of using it. Or at least enough of them that it's kept from getting attention.
Things are so messed up. I know there's always been one form of election fraud or another, but computers have taken it to a whole new level.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)There's already a Hillary hit squad armed with that meme posting here on DU.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)McCaskill exposed herself as a devout fiscal conservative in her attempted hit on Sanders (but, but, but...he wants Medicare for all for chrissakes), and I think that will absolutely haunt her in her next campaign. Bernie is gaining ground faster than Obama did at this point in time in his campaign, and he is doing it in spite of a lack of media coverage. I am really beginning to think that Bernie will not only be the Democratic nominee, he will likely be the next POTUS. Out with the old, and in with the new. "Change" will be more than just a campaign catch phrase this election cycle. GO BERNIE!
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The use of that racially-divisive meme is an indication of things to come. Hillary's campaign is waging a real dirty-tricks program right out of the Lee Atwater playbook. Same strategists, same methods. We saw it in action in the smears against Obama, and they're back.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)
moreover, Sanders has personal history supporting civil rights that goes back to the 60's.
Standing in line, talking to the many other grey-haired War babies and boomers in line, one of the things that was readily apparent is that although it's taken a very long time, Bernie is very likely the democratic candidate that will go down as best representing the liberal political aspirations sown into our generation 50 years ago...and all of it was in his speech.
The sense that enough is way too much, and that the nation, it's democracy and it's sense of community has gone dreadfully wrong was pretty strong. Coming full circle on your coming of age ideals is pretty heady stuff.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)I'm just imagining how quickly y'all will start hating on Sanders once he becomes president and can't get anything through Congress.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)And while you're at it, enlighten me as to what your question has to do with the preposterous assumptions you made in the post that I replied to?
Nitram
(22,801 posts)...was directed at the characterization of Sander's speech as "brilliant".
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)High in both Vitamin C AND Fiber.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And I mean that in a good way.
File under: Shit nobody will ever have to worry about.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)It's funny how obvious "the game" becomes when you simply begin to look at the details. They are having to resort to carefully constructed polling data now to attack Sanders. The latest one, putting Biden (who hasn't even declared an intent to run) into the polling to cut Sanders margins. It's obvious that they had polling results sans Biden in the mix and they didn't like the numbers, so they created a meme around a poll where they got results they could massage into a negative. Their process is quite transparent. Bottom line is, you will know them by their campaign cash.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Great again.
Thanks. I was wondering why Biden was in the mix. I don't think he will run. He has just lost a son, and he hasn't been gearing up as far as I know. He is a great guy, but I don't think he would do well in a presidential campaign this time around.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)No explanation, just skips over them.
I can't wait until the Harrow campaign starts doing push polls.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Things I've been working for, waiting for, hoping for, my entire life.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)people. Whatever inappropriate things individuals dream up, that's their problem. When this sort of abuse becomes an organized campaign, it's a problem for this site, IMHO.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Please, show me what you're referring to.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)radiclib
(1,811 posts)Horrors.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)HRC supporters 'policing' the board like Zimmerman patrolled his Florida condo. The comparisons aren't what I consider apt, and it's a bit harsh, but not exactly part of an organized smear campaign.
Is there anything else?
Response to leveymg (Reply #70)
hrmjustin This message was self-deleted by its author.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Is there something else to this that we should all know about?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)How would I know what I wrote, and what I meant? How many ways can this get twisted into something I didn't?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)
We all have our own individual standards for when we alert and how we vote on juries. Remember, you have to get a majority of a jury to hide.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251417576
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1251417606
We are a very small number among the active posters. If you look at polls done here Hillary gets about 40 to 50 DUers while Sanders gets hundreds of votes.
About 7 or 8 of our active HRC supporters are on 5 hide forced vacations for targeted bogus hides. You can look them up.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251417576 - Same HRC supporter, as you describe him. That hide, I agree with you, was bogus. Stuck to the issues, and eligibility for the NH primary is a legitimate issue, not a smear, like the meme.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/1251417606 - Different poster, but also a bogus hide like the one immediately above. Speculates that Bernie may end up running as an Independent. He's entitled to voice that concern, as it has some basis as plausible, even if improbable. Of course, any candidate could end up running as an Independent and bleed votes from the Nominee, if sufficiently disaffected. Even Donald Trump.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And all were bogus.
We are being targeted and being made to feel unwelcome here.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The other two should be appealed. I would support those appeals for the reasons stated immediately above.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And you won't feel unwelcome. The Third Way® has run it's course, has been exposed for what it is, and is becoming ossified. We the people are running right over the top of the Third Way® and trampling it into the dirt. Anyone who clings to antiquated Third Way® beliefs will get trampled in the process. That's how politics work in this country.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Good day to you.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Good riddance
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)And if you have a savings account, or have dared to save for retirement, well you might as well as well put on a powdered wig, a fake mole and tell them all to eat cake.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am getging sick of it.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)But the good news is when the votes start getting counted and it becomes apparent that Bernie isn't going to be the nominee it will produce some very high grade schadenfreude.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Will the Post-Hillary Nomination Terror of 2016 be McCarthyite or more Stalinist? Will we all have to sign Loyalty Oaths or will the Bernie Group members simply be liquidated en mass?
Oh sweet revenge!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I don't see any purge coming.
I don't know why you are talking about a purge.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)absolutely logical to assume that her supporters are also Third-Way.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)
Not just a partisan who posted the racially divisive meme that insinuates "Bernie Sanders doesn't care about minorities, " regardless of the candidate's actual record. Here's the post that earned 1SBM his time-out:
Bernie is the bestest candidate ever and Bernie supporter only have my best interests, as a Black man, at heart.
What was I thinking being concerned that he seemingly prioritizes economic justice over social justice ... after all, he marched with MLK and was a member of SNCC 50 years before it was cool ... and so did Martin, and Malcolm would have, but he must have missed his flight. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026887515
Lord knows, why I, or anyone, would be concerned that Bernie is not registered as a Democrat ... that's only a requirement to get on the N.H. primary ballot ... I'm sure it was an oversight by some low-level, former campaign functionary (probably a HRC mole) ... besides, republicans and Democrats will over look the oversight because he represents the 99%. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251417576
I have seen the light!
A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Tue Jun 30, 2015, 08:46 AM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. When the original post in a discussion thread is hidden by Jury decision, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted. Hide post
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)when pressed about what he liked about Sanders, he stated "his passion". Couple that with comments that clearly lean to favoring Clinton, and it becomes quite clear.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)some of them anyway
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=423039
Read some of his hidden posts for more
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are plenty, including yourself, who don't engage in petty personal bickering or flame bait. There are others who seek flames and personal attacks. They get the hides.
When posters act like total asses and flamebaiters, they end up the losing end when their posts are borderline, I have found. They dont' get the benefit of the doubt when their post is close because they make DU suck.
It has nothing to do with their HIllary support. It has to do with their anti-social posting behavior.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)There are so few of us on this site to begin with and we lost about a quarter of our strength right now from targeting of HRC supporters.
How easy it is for those in the majority to judge us and say sre concerns are not real.
It is becoming increasingly clear thst HRC supporters are not welcomd here.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Those on vacations do not. It is that simple. It has nothing to do with supporting Hillary.
Whether Hillary supporters are a minority on DU does not effect the TOS. When posters act like an ass and use the board to disrupt, they get hides, regardless of who they support.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Considering the way we are treated here it is no wonder our side gets bogus hides.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There are posters I dislike, not for positions, but because they are rude, insulting, and post flame bait.
I haven't seen any bogus hides. The posters had posts hidden for abusing the board and posting insults and flame bait.
How have you managed to have zero hides? Most o the Hillary supporters do fine. The ones who act like jerks get hides and vacations, same as all posters. They don't get special treatment to be a jerk just because they support the monied front runner.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And i have had close calls on alerts
There are people here who do not like me and i know thdy are just ready to pounce and alert.
Our members are being targeted
And 1SBM got two bogus hides for questioning Sanders and he is ot supporting anyone.
Sanders supporters can dish out criticism of HRC but can't handle it when Sanders is criticized..
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It's just silly to say one tribal faction of DU dishes but can't take it. It's silly board wars.
If Hillary supporters don't want hides and vacations, they shouldn't violate the TOS. You could teach those how feel "targeted" how to behave.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The whole internet was one huge anti-Hillary mosh pit. So was Air America. Obama supporters unfairly and relentlessly attacked her for months and months.
I don't recall Hillary supporters taking their toys and running home crying then, so why should they do it now? This is politics. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But dare I say this: Those who stubbornly cling to discounted, disproven, or antiquated memes and fallacies will eventually fall to the wayside. That is just how it works, as unfair as that may be.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sanders supporters need to learn how to deal with it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It falls by the wayside.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)of Sanders.
Just look at what happened to 1SBM and Boston Bean the other day.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=421619
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Criticism is criticism.
Fallacies fall to the wayside (hides, etc). Criticism is answered and debated.
How well do Hillary supporters take criticism?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Du is one gigantic criticism of Hillary these days.
We are used to dealing with it. Sanders supporters can dish it out but can't take it here.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Because there is very little to criticize Sanders with, hence the memes and fallacies.
Fallacies don't go well with anybody except those who push them.
Oddly, several of Hillary's most ardent supporters were brutal critics of her in 08.
Life comes full circle sometimes.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)People change their voews.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Once the trojan horse opened its hatch, many fled in horror.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)We were had, big time, and it has been horrifying.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)The two that you are defending - well, I put them on ignore long ago because I don't like to get into useless flame wars with folks.
That's not how I wish to spend my leisure time, what little of it there is.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)a lot of unneeded hostility, unkind remarks and general ugliness for me.
Your mileage may vary, but I really must recommend it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Because if they are, they definitely deserve to be on a timeout. The other three I have no idea who they are, but I'm pretty damn sure why those who are.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #87)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Link to it now!
Link to it or withdraw your accusation!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bck it up with evidence.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And you can't even back up your claim.
You are accusing Hillary supporters of trying to get him banned but you can't actually back up your claim.
This is typical of you! Do me a favor, unless you have evidence to back up this claim don't drag him into this conversation.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)one of our fellow DU'ers that admits he is struggling.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #275)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You can't but it that didn't stop you from making baseless accusations.
You are a bully that can't back up your claim and at this point i don't care if i get a hide saying it.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)like to see posters get bullied out of DU and in my opinion, I see that coming. I have seen it many times before. I think you are one of the nicer posters here and that's why I was appealing to you. I hope it doesn't happen.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)My dog rolls on her back, too, and doesn't smell better for it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's crazy enough around here as it is!
leveymg
(36,418 posts)mcar
(42,331 posts)In my 12+ years on DU. So no one agreed with the poster so it's no biggie? Where were all the Bernie supporters and why would they allow that kind of slime from one of their own?
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)I mean, I don't know he was...just asking is all.
Its perfectly fine to support our candidates. Knocking each other is middle school crap.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Sorry if that happened. It should not have. Bernie would not like it any more than I do.
This is, in my opinion, not about the candidates' supporters here on DU, but about the issues. One of the issues is the acceptance of corporate money and the money of very wealthy people with an agenda other than that of Americans, but I don't think that issue involves any of the DU posters.
So, these personal jabs on DU should not be taking place. Sorry if they are. And I hope I can speak for supporters of all candidates when I say, "Enough is enough" of personal insults. It's just not about squabbles between DUers. It's about what is best for America. It's about building community.
That is also why I hope very much that we will not see negative campaigning. Claire McCaskill is in her rights when she expresses an opinion, but the "opinion" that another candidate is "extreme" when the other candidate is actually getting pretty high poll numbers in states in which he has campaigned and is speaking to issues in ways that many Americans respond to favorably is just way off the mark. Extreme ideas are ideas that get very little support from the American people.
In 1951, the idea that two men or two women could be married was considered extreme. Today it's the law. When we attack ideas for being "extreme," we forget that at one time the Divine Right of Kings determined who governed. The idea of a democracy was considered "extreme." So, Claire McCaskill needs to think before she speaks about what words she is using and what she is really saying. Because she is embarrassing herself.
However, on DU, our conversations should be about the ideas and characters of the candidates and not about the faults of other DUers.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)mcar
(42,331 posts)PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)Ridiculous. I don't even see a remote comparison and I'm very much for Bernie. I gotta tell you, though, I sort of got in an argument with one lady who shall remain nameless. I was talking about the TPP - an issue that really gets me going. The secrecy surrounding it, the miniscule debate in Congress, the refusal to let American people see it, Hillary's part in it...
Anyway, this woman kept asking me for links, first about how the TPP will cost jobs. So I linked her to articles by Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz. Then she wanted proof that Congress hadn't really seen it and would not have the opportunity to debate it in depth before their up-down vote, so I gave her a link that described Senator Barbara Boxer's experience when she went down to the basement to review the thing - no staffers in there with her, no notes, no copies. Finally, she wanted a link to prove that Clinton had something to do with setting up the TPP - so I linked her to a speech she gave while at State in October 2011 to the 'Economic Club' of New York. In that speech she speaks of 'economic statecraft' and takes credit for the (then) building momentum of the TPP.
Then she asked for more links saying the ones I'd shared didn't prove anything. At this point, I lost patience and told her to find her own links because it is all our responsibility as citizens of a republic to exercise due diligence before making up our minds on stuff. She replied that my texts didn't prove some (to me) hairsplitting point and that my position was 'bizarre.'
I mean, it seemed to me like she had kind of a rectal-cranial thing going on - you know, one of those people who don't want to be confused with facts, and if when presented, the facts are inconvenient, then dispute them. Left I guess as bad a taste in my mouth as the ridiculous and completely unfounded Zimmerman comparison for your candidate. I've been thinking of generating a post talking about people who demand link after link after link - because that's lazy of them, I think. I mean, why should I have to run all over supplying links to someone who seems to just be playing the hair splitting game? They can get their own links in future, I think...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)If you're introducing an audience to a subject that many might find unfamiliar or contentious, links to solid sources save you time and maybe your reputation (survival on the board) in the long-run.
It's like footnoting a research paper or writing an article for publication. It's the difference between a rant and journalism.
PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)There has been a lot of play on this board about TPP, and I suspect most people on the political sections have followed it to some extent. As an economist I can see it will be a total disaster - right up there with NAFTA. I guess my point is that I did not feel like I was introducing people on that board to a topic. It's been out there and it would be really hard not to have read a couple things about it, particularly if you look at lots of posts here as part of your newsgathering routine.
But this lady was really strange - she kept demanding links and when I gave them she demanded more because those weren't good enough, even though they were. I finally came to the conclusion she was playing games, i.e. being deliberately obtuse. It was kind of insulting actually.
To put it bluntly, I felt like I was talking to one of those Republicans who purposely deny the data and that a problem even exists. Remember the 2008, 2010 and 2012 campaigns? When people like Maher would have a panel with a Dem and a Repub and then he'd talk about a problem, like global warming or wealth inequity or something and the Dem would spout some stats and then the Repub would end the conversation by simply denying the problem even existed. Seriously, that's what talking to this lady was like. I mean, sure, I can see where we might disagree if you are for Clinton and I'm for Sanders, but geez.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)My definition of troll is someone who won't or can't engage in dialogue in good faith. Good faith is not determined by whether or not I agree with their conclusions. It's those who won't or can't state their premises, are disingenuous, and don't frame logical responses whom I would classify as a troll. It sounds like you found a troll - don't waste your time with trolls if it isn't just to whack 'em around the head for the fun of it.
PatrickforO
(14,574 posts)I appreciate what you've said about good faith, as well.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)It would seem that since they highlighted it more and more minorities are moving to Bernie.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)What they have said is they would like him to speak directly to issues concerning African American communities. That is not the same at all, and you know it. However, you dismissed 1strongblackman's very right to express that view as a "Atwater tactic," and insisted he was only "pretending" to be black.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=16797
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=419209
Here is a fact. There is a big wide word beyond this website, and people will vote as they see fit. You can insult them, deny who they are, and distort their arguments to fit your agenda, and all it does is hurt Sanders candidacy. If you all take that attitude out into communities, Sanders is finished. It is insulting not only to communities of color but those of us who value the rights of all Americans to have their voices heard.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)That is the best path IMHO.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's up to each of us to make those determinations and to respond promptly and appropriately. That's the only way to avoid becoming a victim.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Americans have been propagandized against it for over a century. But, we are on the road to recovery and will be joining the rest of the civilized world.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Hopefully Bernie can help turn that around. People like 'Socialist' programs like Social Security but still fear Socialism. A major disconnect.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)in the GE. Of course it will be used against him. All the explaining in the world will not make it a plus. I'm surprised Bernie has not unveiled his strategy for dealing with it. He needs to hang a light on it now instead of waiting for the Republican barrage. If he wins the primary get ready to hear it a lot.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Because Bernie will be the first candidate the GOP has ever called a socialist.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)He calls himself a Socialist, that's a big difference.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Bernie is a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.
A very important difference.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)Try explaining that to the middle of the road folks. It doesn't mean Bernie shouldn't be President it just means we need to be able to explain what it is to undecided friends or Hillary supporters.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Several times actually, with mixed results. What seems to work the best, is if you can get the skeptical to listen to what Bernie says. Gets them almost every time.
Keep fighting the good fight, my friend, we have to win it for our kids.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)its coming and it will be full and on-coming from all the PACS and Koch money.
jalan48
(13,865 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)there's a reason for the constant bombardment against Hillary and silence about Bernie,they don't fear him.
antigop
(12,778 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)Stardust
(3,894 posts)at Bernie's supporters lately on msnbc. Last night he compared Bernie to a "fling," someone they knew they'd never see again after a weekend of fun. I can't quote him exactly, but you get the drift.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,632 posts)She won't miss our small amount of $ over Bernie & TPP. We started donating to her because of animal issues before she became US Senator.
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)People mention the word socialist of which Bernie proudly calls himself and Hillary has a hit squad?
People question Bernie and Hillary has a hit squad?
Claire McCaskill questions Bernie and Hillary has a hit squad?
Sounds to me like Bernie supporters on DU have the hit out on Hillary and are making stuff up attributed to Hillary when it is either not true or at least not proven to be true.
I will say that I have seen pretty much respect from Hillary supporters on DU towards Bernie, but the more Bernie supporters talk smack about Hillary, the more you guys are going to lose our support. I like Bernie, always have, but Im tiring pretty quickly of all the trash talking about the person Im supporting for Prez Hillary. You dont like her thats fine - but quit your trash talking.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)I'm glad there is enthusiasm for a candidate that's talking about issues that normally don't get airtime this early, but Bernie's ascent to the nomination is practically 90 degrees--much, much steeper than Barack Obama's was. Obama had youth and stamina--if the 71-year old Bernie Sanders can keep the same campaign schedule in December that he's keeping now, give me a call and I'll consider voting for him.
I realize that Hillary is in her late 60s, yes--but unless Martin O'Malley surges into relevance at some point, she's the best combination of ability, viability, and campaign apparatus I believe we have right now.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She attacked him from the right and made a fool of her self in the process. You cannot stop the truth.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)who does not reflect the principles of the Democratic party base. The question put to her to identify three policy areas where she differs from Sanders was the ultimate tell all, AND the main reason Scarborough intervened in the line of questioning with his "wait a minute there" comment. She's a DINO who I predict will have some 'splainin' to do in her next campaign. She may do herself some good by laying tracks to a cushy lobbying job now.
StandingInLeftField
(972 posts)Then you obviously haven't been paying attention.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Hillary claims she is going to raise billions of dollars, has her own super pac, and has multiple pacs backing her. So where do you think all that money is going to go?
She's not just going to run constant ads of her kissing babies and hugging bunnies. Nor is she going to use that money to buy off diebold. That money and those pacs are to go on the offensive.
Sure you think it's there for her Republican challenger in the general, and I'm sure she'd love to save it all for that. But the simple fact is it's there to get her elected. If she's threatened in the primaries she's going to use those resources. Once she truly feels threatened she will go negative, just like virtually every other politician in existence.
Now do I believe all these attacks are coming from Hillary right now? No. It's still too early for her to go really negative, and there are lots of groups who don't want to see Bernie gain steam. The Democratic power structure, controlled by centrists, see Bernie as a direct threat to them . That's who I think is giving McCaskill her walking orders. The corporations and media see him as a threat to thier cash cows obviously. Even O'Malley and his pacs are after Bernie. He can't run an effective campaign of being left of Hillary if Bernie is already running an effective campaign left of his.
The simple fact is whether Hillary is running an attack campaign now or not, she will before this primary season is over. To think otherwise is naive and goes against her past actions.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Good God, he wants everyone to have healthcare! I can't vote for that!!!!
The only way for the Hillary fan club to attack Sanders is to use republican talking points.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)Seems supporters of candidates that are unlikely to win always start harping on perceived cheating or dishonesty by the other side early in the campaign. Then, when their candidate loses, it's because someone "stole" the election. May the best candidate win by virtue of their stand on the issues.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...is a "smear"?
Um, okay. Out in the real world, this is considered an obvious fact, but whatever floats your boat.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Nitram
(22,801 posts)Even questions are frowned upon.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I served on a jury, where an alert was made to hide a Bernie Supporter making a comment in the Bernie Group. I voted NOT to hide the comment. The NOT HIDEs won that alert. I thought it was a dumb alert and glad the poster won the day.
I posted the jury results in the Bernie Group (where the alert was made), with one comment in the subject line "LOL". I imagine my support for Hillary is likley well known. My LOL got me banned from the Bernie group. How open and accepting is that?
BTW the group mod and even another Bernie poster had told me over and over my c&P and I was banned because of use of emoticons and additional comments I had made. It was a lie and a smear. Never used emoticons, never said another comment. The post is open for everyone to see. Not feeling the warm fuzzies for Bernie Supporters when couple with one of them calling Clinton supporters "Zimmermans". Yeah, some nice, open to discussion, honest people there.
Mass
(27,315 posts)As somebody who has been called a Clinton hater each time I said something that was not a full and unconditional worship of Secretary Clinton, you comment makes me laugh.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...beside I was posting this as a request for an example. I gave an example.
Mass
(27,315 posts)I have no supporters. I barely post on DU anymore because most posts are currently about worshiping or hating a candidate. No substantial discussion occur anymore.
If you mean Sanders' supporters, I am not supporting anybody at this point, just tired of the whining on all sides. This is a campaign. People need to grow up. Some people are just stupid. Grow up and move on. And I doubt all Sanders' supporters are like the person you are describing here.
As I said, people are just stupid everywhere.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I admit I assumed you were a Sandres Supporter. my apologies.
I don't need to grow up.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)two days ago because I had the temerity to point out that the "Bernie doesn't care enough about minorities" is a smear akin to the old, "your candidate doesn't care about people like us", insert religious, ethnic, racial group. It's an ancient and oft-used political dirty-trick. I remember it from 1968 when it was rolled out to divide and sequester the Eugene McCarthy and RFK wings of the Democratic Party.
Lisa D
(1,532 posts)After comparing a regular poster there to Lee Atwater. It was politely pointed out to you that this was offensive. You repeated it in another post. The group host politely asked you to delete. Instead, you smeared the same group member--who was unable to respond--in multiple posts. Might want to rethink accusing members in the AA group of using dirty tricks like Atwater.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)While you're at it, you'll also see that some of the posters were less than polite in response. But, that's okay. I don't recall seeing the host asking me to delete. I pointed out to her that my purpose wasn't to be disruptive but that it seemed necessary to let people know that the "Bernie doesn't care enough about African Americans" meme he repeated is a political smear, and that had pissed off people enough that his post was alerted on and hidden by a majority of the DU Jury.
If you repeat a falsehood enough times it becomes a meme, which is a smear. That's precisely what 1SBM was alerted on.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)So that one isn't too surprising.
When you call people names, there will always be some blowback.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)...that "all or "most" Sanders supporters do. And it most certainly wasn't a lie. it was a personal observation. I also think it might make sense not to post posts posted in "safe havens" as "Greatest Threads". Doing so invites comment from the entire group.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)You called members of our group sophomoric and stated that they make things up. Sure you apologized, but my suggesting a better apology would be a self delete, and then I referenced your assertion that we make things up, is labeled a lie?
Still after all that, you still are not banned from the Bernie group.
I have to wonder how long I would last in the Hillary group if I did the same thing you did.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)I found a number of examples the other day when I was looking through the forum but couldn't seem to find any just now when I looked. I just go the strong impression that some in the group are pretty quick to use the L-word about any article that criticizes Sanders.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I only bring that up since in this thread that is your assertion and you pointed to my reply as an example.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)The implication that you think I "made things up" is clear. Is there a difference between that and a lie? Or was it just a threat?
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)You accused Sanders supporters of making stuff up. I responded to your assertion that things are made up by Bernie supporters. I did not in any way say you made things up or lied.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I was banned for saying she might not win in 2016. Not won't or can't, but might not. In a post written in 2012.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Response to NorthCarolina (Original post)
Post removed
Nitram
(22,801 posts)You people are priceless, and possibly paranoid. Flying monkeys? "And you're little dog, too!"
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"Flying monkeys" is a term for those who do someones dirty work for them.
Nitram
(22,801 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)Some of the dirt I've read here of recent rivals the kind of monkey shit Sean Hannity flings daily on his TV show. I'm not so much decided on either candidate, but it breaks my heart to see such "opposition research" on a democratic contender for the White House. I've seriously cut back on my visits as a result.
I understand that's the title of the Salon article, but I believe anyone who truly supports a candidate should stick to highlighting their positives instead of attacking other dems. It also breaks my heart to read nasty things about Bernie here, but my experience is that it's been mostly limited to specious opinions that he may be a hard sell to the country at large. With Ms Clinton it's been shameless displays of gut churning hatred.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)With all the fire power Hillary has at her disposal, it doesn't make sense that she encourages this type of talk this early in the game fro this particular person. But that's jmho.
Just as a DU'er yesterday called all Clinton supporters "Zimmermans", I was disappointed to see that only one person in Bernie's camp spoke up to shut that type of talk down. Should I judge all of Sanders supporters by this type of comment?
I'll tell you what does frustrate me about DU lately, and it's reflected in the article above:
gotcha: Big crowds mean youre an extremist. So the fewer people you have, the more reasonable you are. And, so, I guess if you stand at a podium before no one, just an empty field, and give a stump speech youre the most reasonable and fringe-averse candidate ever to run for office.
As much as I disllike McCaskill's opinion, NO, big crowds to not = extremist in every single case. Does it happen? sure. I can't help but think of televangelists. But to extrapolate a line and make it into more than was intended....sheesh it's happening all the time here and apparently in the article. Small crowds do NOT = reasonable either. We haven't even seen Trump's crowds. I don't imagine they are very big from the way the media clearly avoids panning the crowd at all costs.
So now we likley will hear ad naeseum how Clinton supporters turn themselves into pretzels to state that large crowds are for losers. no we don't think that. We also don't think that small crowds are optimum.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)That's who she speaks for.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)As for the comparison to Zimmerman I think the poster was referring to Zimmerman's patrolling the neighborhood to Hillary supporters patrolling DU for Bernie posts and not to the murder. I think they especially meant with emphasis on the last part of patrolling.
It seems odd that Claire didn't compare Bernie's crowds to that radical socialist foreign born candidate Obama's crowds. If I remember right he often had more than a few dozen at his events.
But we do agree on the fact that the size of the crowds is not indicative of being a radical or reactionary candidate. And anyway Bernie and Hillary are neither.
JohnnyRingo
(18,628 posts)The gut wrenching hatred in DU for a democratic candidate has been disheartening of late. Too many Sanders supporters have adopted a "with us or against us" attitude in post after post that uses more firepower against Ms Clinton than a typical "Hannity's America" hour.
I'm not necessarily a big Hillary supporter yet, but it breaks my heart to read posts from the Sanders camp these days with so many hateful comments that one has to wonder how many are just republican trolls enjoying the apparent amnesty here on Clinton sniping.
There's nothing wrong with listing positive attributes for any democratic candidate, but far too many only focus on what the OP ironically calls a "smear campaign", apparently not reading the last sentence of the post which directly calls out Ms Clinton as being desperate and inneffective.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Batiing tactic, so out of touch with the world that didn't know it is the word Capitalism that scares people now.
They tried the race card, with a man whose record on Civil Rights is exemplary not realizing how the 'whisper campaign' tactics are well known to today's generation. And that too is backfiring spectacularly.
But it will get worse the more successful he is.
HE knows it which is why he has stated over and over again how important it is to create a movement of millions of people so strong that it will be THEY are afraid to deceive and lie.
Our job now is to take the lead in exposing these whisper campaigns, finding the sources etc and let the public who are disgusted by these tactics, negative campaigning etc know just how far they will go to stop the people from getting the kind of representation they WANT.
Personally I think these smear campaigns based on lies should be illegal and there should be huge consequences for those who are involved as it is destroying our electoral system and this country.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)is Roy Blunt.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)Nitram
(22,801 posts)And sacrificed an American ambassador in Benghazi. And makes a lot of money by speaking to paying audiences. Pure EVIL!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's different for Sanders because....um....did I mention there weren't enough black people in pictures of his announcement speech?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)if you kept is up with the attacks on HRC it was going to backfire for Bernie,,,,,, but yall never let up!
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)She cannot compete on policy because she would be exposed for the Progressive she is not, just like McCaskill was on morning joe.
Hillary camp attacking Bernie has nothing to do with Bernie supporters attacking Clinton. It has to do with a campaign momentum that the Clinton camp has no idea how to curtail.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)They've got a weak candidate with multiple design flaws who is going to take on water, once the hull is pierced, like you've never seen.
The convention.... if it goes on that long... will be an ABS affair. ( Anyone But Sanders). Utter panic will prevail among the moneyed elite and the party establishment as they cast around for a corporate savior.
That's not gonna work either.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Indeed, who's democratic party is it?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)popular as she is with registered Democrats, does not speak for the party.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/nancy-pelosi-elizabeth-warren-wall-street-119631.html
Coupled with McCaskill's comments from the other day, that should give you some idea of who holds the reigns of the Democratic Party, and it isn't the voters. If your views are outside of the Wall Street bubble, you do not speak for the Democratic Party. Bernie's trying to change that, and I'm gonna help him as best I can.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, NorthCarolina. I was disgusted by by Pelosi's remarks.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)If Bernie is the nominee the GOP will not hold back. Same with Hillary. Both of them have been in campaigns before, they should know what's coming.
My opinion is obvious that who ever is the nominee will win because they got more votes than the others meaning whatever issues thrown at them did not turn off voters. It's a good indicator of how they handle the GE.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)And all the candidates are ready for it. However what some people call whining is just social media doing its job and calling out the smears when the regular media won't. I think some groups are taken aback that the smear tactics that used to go unchallenged are so vehemently scrutinized now. It's really throwing a monkey wrench in the money spenders plans.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)the message.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)It says the opposite.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 3, 2015, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)
Warrens Support for Bernie's message because Pelosi seemed a "bit testy" in her comments regarding Warren?
It's not just Bernie they're worried about and trying to discredit...It's Us Too....because while We have patiently tried to communicate with "our" Democrats over the Years..."our" Democrats have been Blatantly Ignoring us and our issues in favor of wall street/big banks/multi-national corps/the 1%'rs et al......
Now, we're "ignoring" them-we are no longer available to be taken for granted.....and for some Damned reason...they're a bit miffed...
Tough shit.
"We've" collectively Had Enough of the BS and Injustice/Inequality. Too many "certain Democrats" have played along and taken the corporate rewards.....We know who many of 'em are......and the rest will expose themselves before long, they won't be able to resist in their panic.......imo.
We begged. We reasoned. We gave ideas. We asked for a seat at the table. We've fired many. They ignored that message also.
They were warned. For Years.
All in my own opinion of course.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)I'm half expecting Claire McCaskill to come out and remind us who ELSE had huge rallies. Not too much of a stretch after she had the pluck to compare Bernie Sanders with Pat Buchanan.
Response to NorthCarolina (Original post)
moobu2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Apparently I am a nobody along with everyone else that follows politics.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You mean all the references to him as a fringe candidate or a socialist, if they even bothered to mention him at all? Hate to break it to you, but HuffPost is not mainstream media, and the mainstreamers have been writing him off all along. They're grumpy now that they even have to start covering him at all, thanks to his successes to date.
Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #258)
moobu2 This message was self-deleted by its author.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Bernie appeals to that younger crowd because he resonates with them. 55,000 subscribers is nothing to sneeze at, and they know about Bernie because Bernie has done several AMAs and because this demographic looks things up, they do not get their info from the MSM. They do not hate Hillary, they are just not interested in her because she represents the Wall Street status quo to them. They are not Party-oriented, really. The way people find out about everything - politicians included - has changed.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I think our party is so loaded with wonks (who we do need) that we're focusing too much on the early primary rounds. If our party quietly sanctions prominent members stepping up and deriding the message Senator Sanders has been delivering on behalf of many progressives, then there will be bloody hell to pay in the general elections of 2016.
It would be an enormous mistake to think a campaign derived from the hit pieces against Sanders will resonate with young voters. A mind numbingly enormous, where did that Republican victory come from, kind of mistake.
The young people will look at our party and see limousine liberals, loaded with cash from who knows where and in bed with the elites who are crushing them. You can't just announce to them that they should be excited to vote for the kind of message the deriders of Sanders are peddling. The more you try to saturate the media with that message, the more they will tune it out.
Do these people even mingle with this underemployed, storm tossed by the economy, generation? I see no signs of such contact. I tell you, when it comes time to mingle with the voters, I see that as being a very loud wake up call.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)What an excellent post!
I also recognize the bubble thinking. Some of those wonks must have very loud voices but very tiny ears. It's almost as if they don't care if Democrats win. Maybe they are just that corporate oriented.
"You can't just announce to them that they should be excited to vote for the kind of message the deriders of Sanders are peddling."
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)would prefer a Republican in the White House if the alternative is Bernie. I think the status quo is quite comfy for many in both parties.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Their bread and butter is the process of politics. Just as there's a good chance of Senator Sanders being our candidate, there's every chance that they'll just look at the numbers and start being extremely respectful of Sanders.
There will be a point of divergence when calculating our chance for victory in 2016. One path will have the enthusiasm of the Sanders/Warren/Progressive movement/Youth vote behind it, the other path will instead show a path where that enthusiasm was effectively spurned, and all hopes were put behind getting the electorate behind HRC's campaign and strategy.
They will be left with the kind of cold equation that a good wonk won't ignore. Those that haven't sworn a blood oath to the Clinton side will be very careful to not alienate the voters of this new phenomenon.
Look at the enthusiasm of the Sanders rallies, and look at the optics of every other politician's rallies. The talking heads on TV will have an easy story and talking point to focus on. Just look at the video on the monitors, and chatter about them.
When our party's wonks get televised and are asked to speak about this they won't want to look behind the curve, and irrelevant to the discussion. The better ones will have prepared, and have gone on record as being supportive of the enthusiasm.
This would also mark the time when the inevitability of the Clinton nomination is no longer a given by the majority of journalists. People will have begun to start believing their eyes, rather than the pundits stale cliches.
Great post; spot-on.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)with the Clinton campaign that seeks to keep Bernie Sanders off one or more primary ballots.
quickesst
(6,280 posts)...to give you all about a three month head start.
upi402
(16,854 posts)So I logged on to
https://berniesanders.com/
and donated $50 on the monthly program so he has more donors under $100.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)padfun
(1,786 posts)Is that this isn't just some presidential run and then fight a do nothing congress. This is a political revolution. This is a GOTV like you've never seen (well, Obama had a pretty good one too.)
For the first time, you are seeing young people getting interested and in huge numbers. Sanders campaign is a GOTV without trying to be. And because of this, you might see some of the GOP gerrymandered districts actually lose.
I think this movement needs people down the line challenging those GOP incumbents in previous "unchallenged" districts. We will see after the first two primaries whether this dies or gets steam. Super Tuesday will be quite telling.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Put on the helmet and shoulder pads and saddle up.
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)Within a few hours, it will be obvious it's "game over".
Fritz Walter
(4,291 posts)The Gray Lady has shown her bias.
The years come and go, Mr. Sanders wrote, in all apparent seriousness. Suicide, nervous breakdown, cancer, sexual deadness, heart attack, alcoholism, senility at 50. Slow death, fast death. DEATH.
This attack may work to sway some donors and voters away from Bernie, but if this is the worst of their mud-slinging, I'm cool with it. Unlike so many GOP candidates whose closets are crammed full of skeletons.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Dave: Sir, you know that I don't necessarily think you'd make a bad president, right? It's just that I think you'd be wiser to start out smaller.
Jimmy: Oh, come on, Dave. What am I going to do- run for prime minister of Cambodia and work my way up? No, that's not me. I'll tell you what- between you and me, I think I can WIN this thing.
Dave: Maybe. Or MAYBE, you'll just make an ass of yourself in front of the entire nation, uh, lose all your money and your credibility, and become known as that crazy old man that children taunt by shouting, 'how's it going, Mister President.'
Jimmy: I don't see Bob Dole complaining about it.
Dave: I just think you should slow down.
Jimmy: No. No David, if nattering nabobs like you had their way, NOBODY would run naked through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
Lisa: C'mon sir, you've gotta have a few skeletons in your closet
Jimmy: Oh, I've got skeletons running around eating leftovers from the fridge, but that doesn't mean you'll find anything.
Edit: And lol at "apocalyptically alarmist", wow, what cheap hyperbole and alliteration.
brooklynite
(94,571 posts)Whatever gets you worked up...
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Some here on DU participate.
It is all part of playing with the big dogs and if you can't deal with it, you need to step away.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)she doesn't need to get nasty. stick to issues like gun control.