eom

He speaks in plain words. You know exactly what he stands for, because he has never changed his message.

because the same damn things we've been doing have lead to the same damn things we've been getting.

Really too bad. It would be nice to be able to support one's own candidate without tearing down another. Bernie seems to be able to do this. Why can't his supporters?

then Hillary's entire campaign is a hit piece.

People are tired of this shit. We want to be FOR something, not just battling crazy Republicans.

We *need* to invest in our own country, expend resources to build it back up. I'm proud of my nation. It is being gobbled up by corporate hounds.

eom

is considered a "hit piece."

It's become very predictable.

DanTex is in it for the ride of his life...

Because I refuse to sit here and have another corporate candidate austerity our fine nation to death.

Bernie without bashing Hillary.

This is the greatest country in the world.

I will fight for it, and if necessary, I will die for it.

No person is going to convince me that we shouldn't invest in it.

Mr. Sanders believes in investing in it.

What does your candidate believe in?

I don't think even she knows.

after running a focus group on that subject and triangulating to the position and giving lip service to the progressive.

If we want a real Democrat or a pseudo-Democrat, we'll vote for Bernie, every time. Like people have a choice of a pseudo-Republican or the real thing, they can vote for the real thing every time.

So I'd like to see a real Democrat vs whatever Republicans can come up with and see which ideas are better for America.

Hillary's record and platform are far too long to describe here. Highlights include raising the minimum wage, fighting for equal pay, LGBT equality, the environment and climate change, immigration reform. Admittedly, I am realistic enough to understand that not all of this will get through a GOP congress. But she will certainly be fighting hard and pulling in the right direction.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are both candidates I would happily support. They are both running on progressive platforms. If either one got their full platform passed into law, that would be great. Even if either one got half of their platform passed into law, that would still be great. We're nearing the end of the best and most transformative progressive presidency since at least LBJ. Let's fight hard to ensure that what Obama has accomplished endures, and that we continue changing things for the better.

These are (no pun intended) concrete things to help our country.

That is just one issue.

Now tell me what your candidate is pushing for.

Because Bernie HAS been. Let's be open-throated singing like birds that we support those things.

And not just when the political winds sweep that way

Go Bernie!!!

Neither she nor others in her campaign have hardly mentioned his name. How does that make her "entire campaign" a hit piece?

So I have no idea why you are offering input on something that doesn't concern you. Look to your own Parliament. You folks have enough problems by yourselves.

...why are you following and campaigning for Senator Sanders?

Why do you care? I am a citizen of the USA.

I follow politics in the USA, which is necessary since it is the place I live in.

would be, that something that has often been done. A person will post, hey this thread can use a little love or everyone should see this OP. Posters listing other members OPs and asking people to rec them is what I assumed was a rec circle and that was what I got out of Georges OP that was hidden. I felt he was owed an apology for what I now see is a bad hide. There have been a lot of members complaining of bad jury decisions and IMO I see that was one. It doesn't take away the hide on his record but I can acknowledge that IMO that post should not have been hidden because the post I saw seemed to fit what he was posting about in his OP.

asking to rec posts and it's been done by both sides so I wanted to make sure the record was straight. Personally I think it's dumb, I don't do it and don't care if others do it.

an OP stands or falls on it's own. I have had some fall off the face of the earth. in record time.

"I came up with a strategy of posting things in the Bernie Sander's Group, and kicking and reccing so they would trend, and ultimately end up on the Top 5 list."

that I thought was wrong when I saw the post I linked in my post to you. That seemed to me to fit your rec circle theory that was hidden.

that the very threads you linked to were people wanting pro-Clinton threads rec'd.

I didn't believe that a "rec circle" existed, either, but damn, you were right. They do.

I'm sorry, it's hilarious that the conversation you were actually pointing to so far has gone unnoticed.

That's why I kind of love you, Autumn. You raise subtle to high art, my friend !!!

I'm stunned, shocked. I didn't even look at the link to see where that OP originated and I don't even want to know who would have recommended that rec circle.

say the same things, believe in the same things and are concrete about what you believe, well, it becomes obvious that those are the things you believe in.

If you moth on in, fluttering your wings, well, the wind isn't too kind.
(Lot of blowhards in here and you know what I mean!)

Its happening.

It's happening, and folks are feeling the BERN!

Keep the momentum going.

and we are going to get the House and the Senate back to Democratic if I have anything to say about it.

Not that it's any of your fucking business, but I was born in Brooklyn, NY (not far from where Senator Sanders was born, and only four years after he was born). What fucking nation do YOU live in??????

HOW THIS COUNTRY IS LED AND GOVERNED DOES CONCERN ME!!!! I'm concerned about MY House of Representatives and Senate and MY PRESIDENT. Where you come off with this idiotic and offensive comment about "your own Parliament" is beyond me.

But you're correct. "we" folks do have enough problems by ourselves - we have to deal with the likes of you.

Now go on your merry way and find someone else to insult.

That is my measured response.

I have only ONE parent who was an immigrant to the United States. Both of Sanders' parents were immigrants, so I guess your animosity toward him should be double your animosity toward me?

Yeah, not going there.

So, if that's true and I've lived in the United States all my life (67 years), just where do YOU live?

And no apology forthcoming, either.

Yuck.

Stay classy, folks...

"I have no idea why you are offering input on something that doesn't concern you. Look to your own Parliament. You folks have enough problems by yourselves."

Unbelievable what you read here and elsewhere on the internets, huh? I didn't submit an alert on the post, but apparently someone else did and the vote to KEEP it was 6-1!

And you're correct, no apology forthcoming, indeed she "doubled down" with a follow-up "Why do you care? I am a citizen of the USA."

Not the first, either...


Yes, some are allowed to insult at will, without any repercussions. Sorry to see this happen to you too. There's lot of this kind of treatment going around as of late.

Note: without any repercussions.

Key phrase...

Some of us, on the other hand, get our posts hidden in short order.

The idea that there are lots of Americans that live in lots of places in the world and who may still be very much involved in American politics, culture, life, everything is literally is TOO MUCH for some people to understand.

It's like they think that the second you move to another country, you stop being what you are. That you are no longer in contact with family and friends in the country of your birth. That the issues that still affect you, your family, your community and your wallet are no longer your concern. The attacks on DUers, American or not, that live in other countries may be an attempt to put us in our place, but all it really does and has ever done is show how insular, sad and myopic this line of thinking is. These are people I want no part of and sure as hell don't want on my side, so I'm lucky that most of them aren't.

And what's really kind of funny is that this type of "thinking" used to be a trait that I used to ascribe solely to Freepers but yet again, the DU "truth" has set me free! I'd also point out the blazing irony that most of the folks that talk the most junk are also the ones that pipe up the first in the threads about fleeing to other countries, but I think my point has already been made.

Remember it well, and had you in mind.

Saw "the treatment" first hand. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

life is too damn short.

other posts are coming from...

this country completely, not that they are not close to doing so right now.

But we still have a small window of time to maybe begin the process of reversing the damage. It has to start somewhere and it will not start with ANY Corporate Funded Candidate. No matter how much people deny it, billions of dollars are not donated to candidates for altruistic reasons.

Bernie is imo, possibly the last hope to begin the reversal, and he can't do it alone as he has stated. He is going to need that political movement he has mentioned, of millions of Americans to back him up.

And here you are. And I'll haul everybody I can think of to stand behind him.

a great candidate. You don't have to make excuses for him 'making a mistake' when he voted on a major issue, because he didn't. Or try to explain why he has just recently evolved on a major issue, because he didn't need to.

One thing people say to me about politicians who sound great in campaigns 'sure, but can you believe him/her, they ALL say what we want to hear in campaigns'. But then you show them his record and it's clear he is that rare politician who isn't just delivering the same old campaign rhetoric, he is the real deal and how often do we get a chance to elect someone who is this genuine?

You posted all about how bad Sanders is on guns with much conjecture. That's not a "hit piece" on Clinton.

Why even reply to the post if you want harmony?

Apparently some Bernie supporters were letting their Bernie zeal overcome their reason, and buying into the NRA's excuses for why the gun industry deserved civil immunity. If that had not happened, there would have been no need to correct them.

I don't see why it's so hard to simply say, Bernie's great, but he made some bad votes on guns. I can even lead by example here: Hillary's great but she sure made a bad vote on the Iraq War.

As for this OP, yeah, that link is a Hillary hit piece. Another thing I don't understand is why it's so hard for Bernie supporters to praise Bernie without simultaneously attacking Hillary. Just look at the OPs at the top of GD-P. Most of them are anti-Hillary. Not pro-Bernie, but specifically anti-Hillary. Very strange.

And I am not going through all that again. You are again making negative posts about Bernie supporters here. You are no better than what you say you don't like.

As far as this OP. The OP itself says nothing about Hillary. The link was not written by Aerows. It is not a hit piece. There is competition in a primary. Many articles from many sources include positives on one candidate and negatives on another. What this OP has is just positives on one. It links to where the information came from. It is you that brought out negatives and you, again, include an entire group of people.

Follow your own advice.

attacks are based on lies or conspiratorial allegations. One good example is that Hillary is "owned by banks". If you post things like that, whether you are a Bernie supporter or a Republican (or both), I am going to respond.

This OP links to a Hillary hit piece. No, the OP didn't write it, but the OP posted the link. I have no idea why, the OP would have been fine without it. But the link is there.

As I pointed out last post, the Bernie arguments here have taken on a very heavily anti-Hillary tenor. It is in fact not uncommon even for people to outright say that they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the primary. There is a post near the top that says that right at this moment.

In contrast, the Hillary arguments are generally positive. Hillary was endorsed by X. Hillary raised money. Hillary helped get the Iran deal. Hillary's economic plan gets thumbs up from Stiglitz. Things like that. This is because Hillary supporters, such as me, have a high opinion of Bernie Sanders.

Or you are not paying attention. There are more attacks on Sanders supporters on this site than almost anything else.

You came to a positive OP about Sanders then dissed Sanders supporters. You did that.

Your post on Sanders was not just his voting record. You dissed Sanders supporters again in the thread. You make accusations about us when very many of us have said exactly what I said. But that seems to make no difference to you.

There are people on this site that agree with Sanders on that particular vote. And that includes people who support O'Malley and Clinton.

Coming to a nice OP to say you won't rec it because you don't like the linked article, then bashing people who support Sanders, is just being divisive.

There is no point in continuing this, especially when you are blind to reality and admit that you bash people that have said nothing like you have said they do. People are individuals.

Enjoy your divisiveness. I'm done with it

I hope you actually do that. Because if, after that, you still believe that "there are more attacks on Sanders supporters on this site than almost anything else," then you simply can't count.

And I am not talking about the candidates.

And I am going to bed. Have a good night

So I checked one more time

I don't "head for the nearest exit" and what "facts"? "Look at this" isn't a fact.

Basically, what you are saying us that you want to make sure that you attack Sanders supporters because some people attacked Hillary. Great game. Enjoy yourself.

I tried to end this nicely but you chose get snarky because I want to go to bed at midnight.

I will happily count the OPs for you in the morning. It won't change what I stated and obviously, it won't change how you treat people

sums of cash for her personal wealth, because they ......... (help me out, why do they give her money?) Can you say "quid pro quo"??

by people claiming to be progressives, you can count on me not to be silent.

(I'm assuming that you're not seriously suggesting, with no evidence whatsoever, that Hillary is taking bribes from an industry that she supports stringent regulations on, and that this was just an illustration of the kind of FOX News nonsense that doesn't belong on a Democratic forum)

the distinction between huge corporate "contributions" and bribes is becoming increasingly blurred.

Congress serves the purposes of Wall Street, big business and plutocrats. Surely you agree with that?

Goldman-Sachs has her over for tea and she tells them that those picking on the banks are foolish. They applaud and give her lots of cash that goes directly into her fortune. You do know that her and bill are very close to being in the top 0.01% of the wealthiest? And you buy that she "supports stringent regulations". That's rhetoric. She won't support bringing back Glass-Steagell.

You want to dictate what belongs on a Democratic forum? Isn't that a contradiction? Think about what democratic means. Censorship is for the conservatives.

They hired her for a paid speech too. She's in the pocket of the campsters! LOL.

with both Goldman-Sachs and HSBC. In fact the CEO of Goldman-Sachs said he is fine with either her or Bush. She has told us that she wouldn't support return to Glass Steagall. Why choose her when we have choices without ties to the banksters that have opened the wealth gap? Or don't you care about the wealth gap? Don't you care that the poverty rate of American children is 22% and rising? Vote for the status quo and prove you don't. We need change and HRC isn't going to help.

wear it. I don't know why they get so upset. She owns it, she needs to wear it like she just doesn't care.

Oh wait. Let's pretend for the proletariat.

No.

I know it, and I intend to help it do so. House, Senate and Presidency.

We deserve better.

of the Oligarchy don't you agree? Supporting H. Clinton and Goldman-Sachs won't do it.

By the way did you see the article on Goldman-Sachs making millions on the financial destruction of Greece? This is not a good bank. Did you also see the article where Goldman-Sachs is giving their thousands of employees bonuses averaging about $233,000 EACH. Do you not understand the difference when these employees donate to HRC vs. the welders, mechanics, and pipefitters donate to Sen Sanders?

Goldman-Sachs openly says they would be happy with HRC as president and their employees are willing to contribute the maximum.

Why support someone that is very friendly to a corporation as dangerous to our economy as Goldman-Sachs?

But this thread was supposed to be about being "for" something rather than against Hillary.

us what we are "supposed" to be doing.

Are you a fan of Goldman-Sachs?

And obviously you don't want a positive one either. You just want to smear Hillary.

definition of "fact". The odds are certainly against him since all the billionaires and big corporations are lining up behind Clinton and Bush. Clinton and Bush, weren't they hand in hand on the invasion of Iraq? I ask myself why common folks would support a candidate that clearly represents the oligarchy. But I've seen is before. It's the same reason that kids line up behind the biggest bully on the playground. They are afraid. Afraid to fight for their own freedom. Our founders fought against the tyranny of oligarchy. They would be very disappointed that some now are willing to throw away all our freedoms and liberties just to be on the side of the biggest bully (the Oligarchy).

Take a chance, support the 99%, support freedom and liberty.

banksters and when she turned her back on her party in 2002, she showed she has no integrity.

those picking on the banks are foolish. That's a fact. Goldman-Sachs applaud and give her a nice check that boosts her personal wealth. Now she said she wouldn't entertain return to Glass-Steagall. What do you think about that? She won't bite the hand that gives her money. Goldman-Sachs said that they like either her or Bush. It is a toss-up. Do you understand what that means?

Why choose her with her baggage when you can choose a candidate that is clearly for the people? That's rhetorical. People like her because she is tough like Margret Thatcher. Willing to turn her back on her party and help Bush invade Iraq. What next? Iran? Russia? She won't address the growing wealth gap. She prefers to sell the crap about growing the economy to help the lower classes. The economy has been growing but the lower classes have been left out, hello.

A vote for the status quo ignores the plight of the American children (22%) living in poverty. The banksters don't care about them.

Manufacturers can still be sued for defective design or workmanship. Points of sale can be sued for unlawful sales or negligent 'inventory loss'.

So, seemed like reasonable legislation to me. If someone intentionally drove a ford through a playground and crushed as many kids as they could find, you wouldn't sue Ford. But you would if a parking brake was defective, and led to same vehicle crashing through a playground in an accident.

What you've given is the same misleading NRA characterization of the law. If it were really about driving a Ford through a playground, then there wouldn't need to be a special law for the gun industry. You can, in fact, sue Ford if someone intentionally drives a Ford through a playground. But you'll lose.

Anyway, I went over it all in another thread. You're not going to agree with me, but most progressives will.

There's certainly no daylight between us on any other progressive issues.

That said, you know full well people were bringing frivolous lawsuits against many manufacturers that would ultimately be dismissed, but still cost the manufacturers time and money. Something that shouldn't happen to any manufacturer of any product that worked as intended, but was criminally mis-used.

The NRA is responsible for plenty of nefarious shit, some criminal in my opinion, but I don't think they over reached on this one.

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 02:09 AM - Edit history (4)

The lawsuits weren't frivolous. If they were, the manufacturers wouldn't need a special law, because there are already laws against frivolous lawsuits. What the NRA didn't like is that the lawsuits were actually succeeding. For example, Smith and Wesson settled and agreed to change their business practices and implement some gun safety measures. It was similar to the lawsuits against tobacco companies or auto manufacturers, basically holding companies responsible for endangering public health and safety.

There is no reason whatsoever that gun companies shouldn't play by the same rules as everyone else. Criminal misuse of a product doesn't automatically get any other kind of company off the hook for lawsuits. If this were really a sound judicial principle, then (obviously) they should have made it a uniform law for all industries, not just guns. But it's not. There are subtleties and it depends on the particular case. If you are a bank and you design products that are particularly useful for money laundering, you can be held responsible if you end up being a conduit for money launderers, even though this is criminal misuse of your product. If you run a website that people are criminally misusing to sell drugs, you have a problem.

In fact, even the Ford-schoolyard thing can be hypothetically turned into at least a case that should be heard in court. Suppose:
1) The Ford used had special spikes around it.
2) Because of the spikes an extra 30 kids died
3) The spikes have no possible uses except for running down kids
4) Internal Ford research showed that the entire additional profit from providing the spikes feature was due to child massacrers
You get the idea.

One last thing. Here's an example from an actual case of how this law has been used. One kid found a gun, started playing around, and shot and killed another kid. The shooter had removed the magazine, thought the gun was empty. The victim's family sued the gun company claiming that the design was inherently dangerous because it didn't have a magazine disconnect. This is not a gimme lawsuit, but it is the kind of thing that can and should be heard in court. Manufacturers can be found liable even if products don't malfunction, if the design is dangerous. Is not having a magazine disconnect inherently dangerous? Maybe, maybe not. That's up to courts, and precedents, and so on.

However, in this case, the shooter ended up being charged with something as a juvenile. Reckless endangerment or manslaughter, something like that. That meant that instead of an accident it was "unlawful misuse". So the case was thrown out of court. Not the intent of the law, but this is the kind of thing that happens when you start passing out legal immunity.

It is really time we all got down to business and decided our damn country can do better than this.

And I do have to comment. That is a Hillary hit piece in the OP and illustrates a meme that I've observed for quite a while now: Bernie people cannot talk about Bernie except in terms of Hillary's failings (usually RW inspired). Now admittedly, we Hillary folks do complain about the Bernie supporters but rarely do we criticize Bernie, while the Bernie folks simple cannot exist without the perfidy of Hillary. Personally, I like Bernie a lot and don't like to hear him criticized. Keep up the good work.

....policy positions. And we'll vote for him should he get the nomination.

As you point out, rarely do Clinton supporters criticize Sanders on this site, however in most of the "pro-Sanders" discussions his followers have to throw in a negative comment about Clinton, many of them unsubstantiated "talking points", false assumptions, and even factual errors (intentional or not).

If you did, you wouldn't make such... let's say "incorrect" statements like this.

But I do see a fair amount of discussion about Hillary in this thread. Putting down Hillary does not embellish Bernie at all, he's a noble and fine man as it is. He also has many bright ideas. Remember I support both Bernie and Hillary. It burns me (no pun intended) to see either attacked by another Democrat (and quite meaningless when a CONservative does).

the primaries without discussing the candidates in the Primary?

Yeah, Hillary will be brought up. Bernie will for damn sure be brought up.

Primaries.

Discuss candidates.

WillyT. You are a great DUer.

I'm not going to just sit here and do nothing. I can't. If I can fucking quit smoking, I can get Bernie Sanders elected if I try hard enough.

to the end

Bernie Sanders.

....does "not live in your nation" and I should "look to your own Parliament. You folks have enough problems by yourselves."

Said Bernie who? She thinks that I, a Hillary supporter, am a far left liberal. I have tried to explain to her that on DU I, a lifelong Democrat, am considered Republican light. She hates politics and will not pay much attention until Oct 2016

in a Mississippi beauty shop into Bernie supporters while getting my hair done, I could turn Lestat into a sun worshipper.

I will not give up. I don't hate Hillary, I hate the policies that she endorses.

I'm still not for your candidate because of policy reasons.

better representation. Not just the Presidency, but we need to get busy getting the House and the Senate back to sanity.

be involved in deciding which direction our nation is going.

You have a choice. If you disagree with my candidate of choice, so be it, but you should go to the voting booth and make a decision.

and that is in the voting booth, my friend

the future and already know how everyone is going to vote have told us that "he can't win"?

but then again, not really. He's authentic.

is the only choice. Then after noticing Bernie Sanders gaining in the polls by communicating his ideals, his solutions, his character and conviction, her team needed to start adopting his message to appear more like him. That was a great compliment. They seem to have morphed into a Bernie Sanders cover band.

Snotcicles, you nailed it like a 2000 pound hammer LMAO!