Odd how plain facts are becoming so insanely annoying to the Clinton camp,
screaming 'HILARY BASHER!" is all they got, like I'm not supposed to point
out the obvious reasons why Bernie is the authentic Wall St. reformer in this
race.

And it was broadcast live onTV... CNN in fact.

From Mediaite: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mother-of-benghazi-victim-erupts-at-hillary-clinton-shes-lying/

The woman who told the right wing Christian magazine "World" that Hillary Clinton "directly" was responsible for her son's death. Patricia Smith, a favorite of Limbaugh and Newmax and Breitbart.

Sad.

Sean Hannity was as giddy as you are.

Clearly it's because media is in the bag for Clinton and does everything it can to help her win.

...

Wait?

for underfunding counsulate.

And they use the same sources to attack her.



Sid

Not knowing how a loved one spent their last moments is horrific. She saw the hand prints and has a scenario in her mind of her son suffering. If they were not her son's, this may bring her some peace.

I have sat with many people at the end of their lives and heard the last roll call of regrets. Not knowing the state of mind of loved ones is high on the emotional pain scale.

I hope this woman can find peace.

how many bills this true reformer has sponsored or co-sponsored to bring down wall street? I can yell like a crazy man on his lawn for the kids to get off, but that's not the same as doing something about it.

He has:
1. Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and would prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.
2. Led the fight in 1999 against repealing the Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money; is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions.
3. Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education.
4. Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs.
5. Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free
6. Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15 percent.
7. Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations.
8. Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008.
9. Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions

There's a lot more here, as well: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-economic-inequality/

I love it when they ask, "What has he done?"

She can't touch him.

or at least show me what is inaccurate about the information provided.

Out of all the victims in the world, h is not my number one concern.


They need to argue her stand on issues.

Far longer than I care to contemplate.

?w=477

This is the image I see happening now for her

And besides,

HE's OLD! HE HATES BLACK PEOPLE! HE HAS A FUNNY ACCENT!

AND HE'S A JEWISH SOCIALIST JUST LIKE KARL MARX!!!!

And he's a BIG MEAN POOPYHEAD denying the Chosen One the CORONATION SHE DESERVES, dammit.

big banks and brokerage houses. They own Hillary, and your support of HRC is simply just support for the powers that have crushed the working class for the past 50 years.

Congratulations...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-pretends-drugmakers-insurers-are-her-enemies/article/2574543

They run this country with almost all Republicans and Democrats in their back pocket. Hillary as POTUS will be their icing on the cake! That is how they put Obama in the White House. While I do appreciate the good things he has done, they are merely bones the oligarchs throw to us. He gave them a free pass for the fraud that ruined the world's economy and bailed their assets out. They have taken almost 100% of the gains ever since.

The oligarchies prefer a Democrat in the White House to help pass crap that Dems would never be able to do under a Republican administration. TPP for instance.

When will Americans wake up from the propaganda and manipulation shoved down our throats, it's so transparent now? How can so called Progressives and Democrats be party to their own economic demise?

the corpo-dems and those who support them have learned to love their Oligarchic Bankster Masters. Policy means nothing. Only the label. What's inside matters not a whit, farthing, or hoot.

because if she wins the nomination, do you think Republicans are not going to bring this all up?

This terror of Democrats bashing Hillary is child's play compared to what would hit her from the Republican side of the fence.

Frankly, she may know where all the bodies are buried but in a period of time when the establishment is completely out of favor, that's not an asset, that's a liability.

to scrutinize all candidates because I'd this democratic process. we as American citizens would be wise to think and criticize all options.

it's how democracy works. sorry?

but then, what else is there eh?

posts an inconvenient and documented fact or truth about HRH.

But HRH's record is readily available to anyone with access to teh Google machine. And those grim facts and her extraordinarily unsavory chosen associations (Blankfein, Dimon, Kissinger) are VERY stubborn things. They are what they are. As Frank Zappa put it, a cow don't make ham.

is addressed in this terrifying article posted right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027278432

I have ZERO reason to believe that anyone who is welded at the hip to the banksters and the MIIC by vast infusions of their money - and HRH is - will do one thing about it. She has masters to serve and it ain't us.

And you can create OPs and comments that bash Bernie or O'Malley or geese if you want.

whatever floats your boat.

I notice you still are not disputing the facts as presented.

just excuse if not wholly support them.

they have no problem with who she hangs with or has taken so much material support from

guilt by association is only for BS and supporters

than the foxes? They know all about chickens, don't they? This is the choice the Money Party wishes us to have. And many here actually think there is a difference. "Fools" doesn't begin to describe them.

Could be a real eye-opener.

They just want her to be there, period. And to hell with the American people.

of reasons why i won't vote for her. ever.

I love it, $666,666 round up to the nearest hundred and you have $666,700.

Double evil, rounded off.

Casually evil?


Talk about a lack of true dedication.

Someone's jumping the gun.

Other than the fact that the entire system needs an overhaul, this is the one we currently have to work with. So, with that in mind, what seems to be the problem? Aren't these the same rules that apply to all candidates, both Republican and Democrat?

Why would any serious candidate voluntarily cripple themselves and put their campaign at a financial disadvantage?

Prior to CU this kind of "buying candidates" would indeed have been against the law.

I cannot take Clintons claims to be "against" CU seriously, when she's clearly "on the
take" from the Billionaire Class, and loving it.

I couldn't take any candidate seriously who wasn't willing to use every legal means possible to remain financially competitive with the Republicans.

It's naive for any candidate to think they can be competitive by ignoring reality. This is 2015 and a candidate who plays by the old pre-CU rules is destined to lose.

Hillary knows that. And it's likely that Bernie's supporters do to.

for their "generosity"?


Hillary's talking the talk, Bernie's both talking it and actually walking the walk, knowing that -- once elected -- he will "owe his allegiance" to We the People, and not to corrupt Billionaires buying favors with their big buck$

… but for the sake of argument, I can say that I'd rather have a Democrat "owing favors" instead of a Republican.

Criticizing Hillary for playing the game effectively and strategically is just plain silly.

I'm afraid that Bernie's "walking and talking" would cost him the election. As it sits now, it's going to cost him the nomination, so the point is moot.

Nevertheless, even in defeat, I'm sure that Bernie and his supporters will get a lot of comfort and satisfaction from knowing that even though they ran a crippled campaign, at least they weren't beholden to ANYONE.

by fully embracing an admittedly corrupt & rigged campaign finance system, then
saying she'll "fix" it once elected and expecting to be taken seriously.

Another just plain silly thing you say, is flatly stating that Bernie's decision to finance
his campaign by appealing to We the People has "cost him the election"

HINT: This primary election is NOT over, however much Hillary supporters would
like to indulge in wishful thinking to "declare victory" after only ONE of six debates
and 1/2 way to the finish line.

THIS^ is just plain silly to me.

I understand that the primary is not over. But, for the candidate who lacks money, and who refuses to do anything it takes to have parity, well then, it may as well be over.

Sensible people know that serious candidates need money. They need enough money to publicize their message, and to respond to attacks. To argue anything else is just wishful thinking and a bit out of touch.

I prefer a candidate who doesn't WILLINGLY give Republicans a financial advantage.

Yes, I strongly believe that the way Bernie is financing his campaign will cost him the nomination. He'll never get to the general election.

ones who say one thing to sound "populist", then do the exact opposite,
i.e. the bidding of their Billionaire donors ... candidates who are more than
willing to be "on the take" knowing that is who they will be "beholden to"
if they pull enough wool over voters eyes, to actually get elected.

Yes, i see how it is, and it isn't pretty IMHO.

… and idealistic candidates who aren't willing to see politics for the bloodsport that it has become, and who aren't willing to do everything it takes to remain competitive, will be the losers.

I think we've reached an impasse. Good luck to you.

they usually want to stay in office.

It's the voters who decide whether they get into/stay in the office in question.

We decide who we want to vote on based on where candidates stand on the issues, not from a simple review of where they got money for campaigning from.

And you'd be bound to find an objectionable donor to Bernie.

I'm sure it will be gleefully trumpeted on DU within minutes, but I have
yet to see ONE, to date.

What I have seen is Bernie consistently REFUSING donors of questionable
character & suspicious motives, who keep trying to trap him into accepting
their money.

And happily, Bernie has not taken the bait, and I'm damned proud of him for
it, for keeping his integrity intact, and staying true his word to represent We
the People, rather than BIG money interests.

That’s a TEAM SPORTS mentality, and has NO place in a democracy; this is not rooting for the Yankees or the Red Sox. That seems a lot more “plain silly” than supporting the candidate who is trying to change things.

Also your prognostication about him losing the nomination is just a guess, so it does not render the point “moot”.

Yes, of course it's a team sports mentality. That's just the way it is.

If you want to win right now, these are the conditions under which you must play in 2015.

To run a campaign in a way that denies reality will be to run a losing campaign.

Losers can't change things if they're not in office. To believe otherwise is not realistic.

Best of luck to you.

Really. That’s just the way it is. Well, glad you set me straight there; here I was thinking that it was about electing the best person for the job--you know, the person who thinks about PEOPLE, not paying back corporate campaign donations with legislative favors.

Just reading your posts...wow, your simple dismissal of other people’s opinions and simpler explanations of yours are, um, interesting.

I wonder if you’ve actually seen the amount of money Bernie raised vs Hillary. He’s right behind her in terms of total money raised, and all done by small donors. NEVER underestimate the power of people. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html?_r=0


Reality is surprisingly fluid; take a look back over the past 300 years and see how entrenched regimes have been overthrown by a popular movements.

Me thinks you would be better endowed with wishes of good luck.

when it was the bulwark of the monarchy...then later that day it wasn't.

Last edited Thu Oct 22, 2015, 12:56 PM - Edit history (1)

… or what it has in common with our current election system. No matter how Sanders' supporters like to see themselves, and no matter what inaccurate analogies they try to make, one fact remains indisputable: namely, that this is an election, not an overthrow of the government.

The next president will be chosen at the ballot box, and not with pitchforks and torches. Candidates who believe that they can stomp and shout their way into the White House, and who think that it can be accomplished without money, are living in a fantasy world.

Thanks for your consideration.

Madison understood that beneficent governance was a safeguard against civil unrest. It was the reality of his time, as several revolutions and there aftermath were current events and a very modern history. The ritual of elections, including all of the verbal stomping and shouting on this board, is a safety valve for emotions and the one formal means for people to influence that governance. Make elections an obvious shame and you plug the valve. Continue to degrade society from within, and poverty rises like boiling sewage from the bottom up...and the pressure mounts. Police push back harder. Higher fences around the gated communities, borders, and prisons. The rich won't even smell the desperation outside the gates until the gate comes crashing down.

That was my point with the Bastille metaphor. You think civil unrest is fantasy? I say it's the logical conclusion to identity politics, stripped of democratic values, over time. We have a long way to go on this neo-liberal trajectory to its fin-de-siecle, or a short ride with the republican clown posse, but in the end the physics of poverty under pressure is immutable.

The imminent civil unrest you describe is a paranoid fantasy. I'm sorry, but it's not going to happen. This is the stuff of science fiction comet-impact, sun-explosion, alien-invasion, zombie, plague, Armageddon end of civilization movies.

I think the high-drama and dire tar-and-feather, pitchforks-and-torches predictions and metaphors are a bit over the top. People who say such things open themselves up to ridicule and being easily dismissed. I'm certain that you're sincere and that you truly believe what you're saying, so I mean no personal offense (although I fully expect that you will, so I apologize for insulting you.)

So, the question then becomes, do you want to intentionally allow things to get worse? It seem so. I get the feeling that Sanders supporters KNOW he's not likely to win against the Republican money machine, yet, this fact is just a small consideration. Many likely know that even if he miraculously did win, he'd be very limited in the scope what what he'd be able to accomplish. But, on the plus side (in their view) if he loses, things will surely get worse. What luck! Because by "allowing it to get worse" then they can intentionally usher-in the civil unrest that so many apparently desire so much.

It reminds me of fundamentalist televangelists who WANT TO intentionally do things that will usher in the "end times". A dangerous attitude.

I do know that we'll never agree. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. I think we're done here, and I think you and I have also reached an impasse after which nothing else can be accomplished. But I'll happily read any follow-on comments you may have.

I agree.

… and the wishful-thinking that mere enthusiasm can win national elections. (Try not to take it personally.)

It's a nice notion, but one that's not based in reality. In 2015, any national candidate who hopes to be competitive and win national elections will need money, and lots of it.

As difficult as that may be to accept, and as much as anyone wishes it weren't true, that's just the way it is. National candidates who can't accept this simple reality will be the losers and will be powerless to do anything from the inside.

I'm not at all sure what "entrenched regimes" you have in mind, or how that compares to this election.

Also I don’t generally take things from anonymous posters personally, but I do put people like you on ignore!

Really best of luck to you and your enlightened opinions! Buh-bye!!!!!!

Oh, please. Ignore? Seriously?

In my opinion, that's the reaction of someone has difficulty in defending a weak or flawed position or belief … to me, it's like a safe-place panic-room.

This country has procedures it goes though to make laws.

It takes a lot of money to run, and whoever donates to her may like her, but they can't call in favors of any kind. They can only keep the general good will.

It's conniving.

… when it comes to today's bloodsport politics and winning national elections, that's a distinction without a difference.

Those unwilling to play will be the ones grousing about how they lost. Hopefully she will do something about money in elections, but she has to have the power to do it. Losing is not the answer.

them. Legal doesn't equal right.

of that there can be no doubt whatsoever, it's technically legal. That makes it no less morally abhorrent and disgusting. Many things that are ethically immoral are legal. See Wall $treet.

I cannot support a candidate who happily and willingly jumps into that pigpen.

Until then, any candidate that's playing to win is going to get dirty. Candidates who are above-it-all will not be able to effectively compete on a national level, and are destined to lose.

I'm sorry, and I hate it too, but that's just the way it is. We live in a post Citizens United world. This is how the game is played and won. Pretending that it's anything else doesn't make sense.

A losing candidate will never be able to change the rules. It's the winning candidate, the one at the top of the hill, who is in the best position to MAKE the rules fair for all.

in order to overthrow the unalloyed evil of unlimited bribery and corruption.

By that logic when the application of enough leeches has finally drained every drop of blood from the patient, he is cured. Dead, but cured.




See how that works out and get back to me.

I disagree with it, but I get what you're trying to say. Good luck to you and your candidate as well, he's going to need it.

Other than with the Hillary worshippers.

The OP didn't make those facts up.

but is the easy way the best way to win against the kleptocracy ?

Another anti-Hillary thread. Get a life, BernieBots.

Yep, someone needs to get a life alright...

Did you not know? Yes, I'm for Bernie, and Hillary is his primary opponent.
When I see her saying one thing, and doing another, I will point it out, without
apology.

This thing is not over, not by a long shot.

So just keep on keeping on with your arrogant "presumptive" attitude and we'll see how
this all shakes out, down the road, as Bernie keeps gaining more exposure and support.

She’s going to overturn Citizen’s United!!!! These are all close personal friends of hers who just want her to be president, nothing more! For you to suggest otherwise must mean you’re a commie or something.

They're either lying or naive beyond description.

and landed in a cabbage patch.

Great post. I am amazed how the Clinton Corporatists are now using the "Bernie and Hilary" are the same strategy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only question a voter should consider is whether a candidate is for the corporations or for the people. Clinton, putting it mildly, is not for the people..........or to put it another way, Clinton's special committee members are giving $300,000, Bernie's supporters average $31 per contribution. See the difference? It is very real. It is very different.

...that HRC might very well have reasons of her own to want to undo that decision.

We need Bernie, badly.

Thanks for the thread, 99th Monkey.

AND that she isn't taking advantage of Citizens United while claiming to oppose it!

and for the billionaires shall not perish from the earth. Fuck the peasantry, in perpetuity - The Turd Way and the Repigz.

You can stand with the People or you can stand with the oligarchs and corporations. It is impossible to stand with both and anyone who says otherwise is a goddamn fucking LIAR.

for Hillary to unilaterally disarm.

that Bernie attracts.