2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTen honest questions I’d like every Bernie Sanders supporter to answer
"5. Do you understand that Bernie’s refusal to take traditional SuperPAC money means that even if he did get the nomination, he’d be outspent ten to one by his republican opponent? Are you aware that moderates and undecideds make their decisions based primarily on television ads, which are the most expensive part of any campaign? Do you get that nearly every ad would be for the republican? Do you get that he’d almost certainly lose? Would you really rather Bernie get the nomination and lose, than Hillary get the nomination and win? Because that’s how it looks to the rest of us.
6. Why do you spend more time pushing crazy lies about Hillary than you do talking up Bernie’s ideas? Bernie himself has made it clear that he thinks highly of Hillary, and he scolds any reporters who try to get him to trash her. If you’re primarily supporting him because you think lowly of her, have you considered the extent of the disconnect between you and your candidate? Has it occurred to you that if Bernie heard you talking about Hillary the way you talk about her, he’d angrily tell you off?"
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ten-honest-questions-id-like-every-bernie-sanders-supporter-to-answer/21570/
I like Sanders, always have, always will. More than Clinton. But there is a reality check that I think needs to factored into the equation. I have never argued against Sanders, just the logic some supporters have used. Of course that makes me a 3rd way, a non progressive, all kinds of things I have never been. Whatever. Notice I didn't ascribe a position not taken by Sanders here (I have as a logical argument before), so if you do so to Clinton as a rebuttal you are what is wrong with us. Ex, "she kills babies because she didn't vote against a weapons ban". " Supports companies profits over clean water" those kinds of things. Things you actually cant prove. Baseless smears. Things you actually cant prove. Is she the best candidate? Probably not. Is she the best candidate that can beat the Republicans? at this point yes. Things change, so lets see. I am disheartened to see people talk about registering as democratic just to vote for sanders, then un-registering. If I am a third way, what are you? A Democrat depending? Part time democrat? Democrat in waiting? Democrat for convenience?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Make7
(8,543 posts)
Eko
(7,281 posts)Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, Super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Super PACs must, however, report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or quarterly basis -- the Super PAC's choice -- as a traditional PAC would. Unlike traditional PACs, Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)You may as well argue that the police should all be carrying automatic weapons because, well, it's a dangerous world out there.
a Clinton supporter, I may as well as copy paste it as much as I have to type it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
yardwork
(61,588 posts)What is the Sanders campaign plan if he won't accept support from Super Pacs?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Recursion
(56,582 posts)No candidate gets super PAC money, and "pledging" not to take any is cynical to the extreme.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's like when a grocery store advertises that their carrots are gluten free.
No candidate takes super PAC money. Every candidate takes connected PAC money (all those labor union donations Sanders has taken? Those are from the unions' PACs).
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If you think he can't win, surely you MUST understand that it is that VERY thinking that is the only thing preventing him from winning.
I mean... you do get that, don't you?
Eko
(7,281 posts)I think santa claus is cool also, me thinking that does will make it more any more possible that he is real. Sanders is not Santa, just using logic to disprove your point.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)That's why he'd link to an 'honest' screed like this, that includes lines like
Surely that's just the sort of things actual Bernie supporters do, and not, for instance, the sort of thing a troll would do.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Of course, that doesn't mean the OP was the alerter.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)YOU have a vote, as do we all. However you, and all of us, decide to cast that vote,
is what determines who will be POTUS. That's what was being discussed.
Capn Sunshine
(14,378 posts)
demwing
(16,916 posts)it was your mom and dad, all along. No amount of belief will EVER change that.
Bernie's chances of winning depend to a large degree on how many people act on their belief that he can win.
Bernie could have ZERO money, and still win if the people who believe he can win ACT on the belief, which is why Camp Weathervane is so invested in trying to convince folks that Bernie has no chance of success.
Eko
(7,281 posts)But it would take a massive shift, not that it hasn't happened before, its just a bit unlikely. Here is a good article about it. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/
hollysmom
(5,946 posts)they are shooting the democrats in the foot?
not one vote has been cast yet, why are people here being insulting to each other? why not just wait?
Eko
(7,281 posts)I am not saying she can win either. Just positing a view.
delrem
(9,688 posts)and run to be delegate for Sanders,
then write an anguish stricken apologetic to DU explaining that they would be for Sanders except for the fact that Sanders' supporters are racists, and are all kinds of ugliness. After which they write posts hyping Hillary Clinton.
We all see it, so what is it? Do they hold out for a price or what?
When should I cash in my "I'm for Bernie but..." credentials now, or try to stretch another dime out of it?
Eko
(7,281 posts)except I have never done that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 21, 2015, 07:05 AM - Edit history (1)
like Bernie as Mayor of Burlington or something. Maybe not even that.
Once you read their comments in that context, their comments become much less puzzling.
madokie
(51,076 posts)It doesn't matter Bernie won't need them anyway. We didn't have Hillary supporters when we elected Obama so why would we need them now with Bernie?
Bernie has this one and those of us who support Bernie has his back. fact
nt
cali
(114,904 posts)did you stop beating your wife.
Huge fail.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hey why do Clinton supporters spend all their time dishonestly smearing Sanders and his supporters? Huh? Do tell.
You are too funny, way too funny. Like there hasn't been Sanders supporters here doing things like saying "she has a fondness for certain munitions that kill kids" or that she prefers "oil companies profits over clean water for the rest of the world". I call it like it is. I check the Clinton forum and havent seen things like this, I know, there are some kkk stuff and things like that for sanders, I haven't seen them and only comment on things I see. I could search them out and comment if that would make you happy, but I know it wouldn't. If there is a recent thread pleas point it out to me and I will go there and do my thing.
cali
(114,904 posts)Like all rhetoric, the goal is to persuade. Sorry, you're not well informed on the subject, but it pretty basic.
Oh, and plenty of Clinton supporters acccuse Bernie of supporting the nra, or being a white supremacist and more.
Eko
(7,281 posts)email me the links and I will go there a give them my what for also. Ok?
cali
(114,904 posts)you are horrible at debate. I don't think you could be worse. You assume what I believe, I offer a chance to prove otherwise based off of your beliefs, and you back down. You constantly use logical fallacies hours after posting that you support them, and resort to grade school arguments.
cali
(114,904 posts)And you're the brave knight who's been cut down to size repeatedly in this thread- or in to put it another way, has had his or her posterior handed to them.
treat me like a 10 year old and show me. Dont be afraid to use your words.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)You seriously don't know that cluster bombs kill kids? Well read on, buddy, and edumucate yourself!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251413864
The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.
This vote was cast in September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Before I get into why this was such an important amendment and why a no vote was so terrible, I just want to post the vote totals with presidential candidates in bold.
30 Democrats voted YEA: Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN), Dorgan (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wyden (D-OR)
15 Democrats and every Republican voted NAY (R's not listed):
Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Clinton (D-NY), Dodd (D-CT), Inouye (D-HI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Schumer (D-NY)
Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.
This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.
Many countries are just full of these bomblets and many more innocent children will die as a result:
As a result, 84 countries are currently participating in the Oslo process to ban cluster munitions (of course, we're not part of this either):
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Burundi, Chad, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Greece, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lao PDR, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Mozambique, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, St Vincent and Grenadines, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, UK, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, and Zambia.
Eko
(7,281 posts)Voting to not band cluster bombs does not equal fondness for kids playing with them. Just like voting to not ban assault rifles does not equal fondness for people getting shot by them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They're more like, I dont know, random farts of opinion masquerading as semi-coherent poitical commentary.
Take;
8. Do you get that you’re supporting Bernie for essentially the same reason that conservatives are supporting Donald Trump?
Sure, Cara. Do you get that that is solid reasoning which makes sense if you are, say, a carrot or a turnip.... not so much if you're actually a primate capable of using symbolic logic and reason?
Eko
(7,281 posts)so why do you support Sanders? BTW, good argument.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Which are long-overdue for discussion in our national conversation.
He may not be the nominee, but he might. Either way, I appreciate his being out there, because he is driving the conversation, and otherwise all we were likely to get from HRC was 6 months of "I want to empower communities and families" and soft-focus music videos.
Eko
(7,281 posts)That doesnt sound like "random farts of opinion masquerading as semi-coherent poitical commentary" at all.Thanks for clarifying.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)When they act like Republicans, not so much.
For instance, when they cheat or appear to cheat at gaining a nomination or simply use thuggish power plays to do so, not a Democrat. And that promises to bite the DNC and everybody involved in that in the butt, along with the rest of us, if we don't restore the semblance of sanity and logic and fairness into the debate system right quick, we are all going to pay a heavy price potentially. A disappointed electorate, who thinks they've been cheated is not a happy mob.
When the policies of Democrats are like those of the Republicans, then again, not so much.
When people buy into the same lies and propaganda they have been fed for years, about "Socialism" and the like, then absolutely, positively off the charts not so much.
The beauty of Bernie Sanders is, as long as his star lasts, he is layering through the bullshit that has been floating around here ever since the days of Ronald Raygun and "talk radio" first started. Many reading this, if any do, probably can't remember a time before that propaganda machine took off, with the words of "entitlements' and "small government" and so forth.
Small government, invented by a guy when he was thirteen years old, the lovely old Grover Norquist. 13? Not to have to pay any taxes, that is about a bright an idea as a child would come up with. Like I don't want to go to bed or eat my vegetables or whatever.
Anyway, whether she is best to beat the Republicans is up for grabs. Let the debates begin, the public reaction commence, and then we will get a better evidentiary knowledge of who is best. My evidence so far says he is by far the best to beat the Republicans, exactly because he is layering through the bullshit to the truth that most Americans now intuitively understand in a way that Hillary never, ever, ever will, unless she mightily changes her tune.
Let the debates begin!!!!!!!!!
Eko
(7,281 posts)Name a republican who wants to expand social security and expand it?
delrem
(9,688 posts)Like "single payer". A fucking no-brainer.
Except for Hillary.
Hillary who can't see a war that doesn't need starting. The candidate who dared to say she was running to the right of Ronald Reagan on military matters. Kissinger's BFF. Friend of the Kagan's. And this is on record.
No wonder they don't like to see contradictions between their phantasmic plans and their previous actual investitures.
Eko
(7,281 posts)"Hillary Clinton Wants To Improve Social Security Benefits For Women, Low-Income Seniors"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-social-security_55d1d44de4b07addcb43546e
Please name that Republican that wants to do this?
delrem
(9,688 posts)So you "deked" it.
You do realize that the Republicans are fascists? That they are spouting neo-nazi garbage?
The Dem primary isn't about who is opposed to Republican fascism.
And there's a little bit of a cushion, too. Enough of a cushion so a hard-core porn video like the youtube sensation "We came we saw he died" can be absorbed.
Eko
(7,281 posts)was that Clinton was just like the Republicans, wasn't that the meme of the thread? If it wasn't then why didn't you start your own thread about why she wont support single payer? Was that a mistake?
delrem
(9,688 posts)That was my argument. A fucking no-brainer.
OK?
So don't respond to me as if I was saying something else.
Eko
(7,281 posts)was the thread we were fucking talking about and the one you commented off of. So maybe follow the threads buddy.
delrem
(9,688 posts)That's what you're made of?
Eko
(7,281 posts)The thread was not about this, you wanted to make this thread about this so I answered you. That is one of the reasons I support Sanders over Clinton but that in no way makes her a republican if she doesn't support this. If so, our President would be a republican.
delrem
(9,688 posts)With what you now claim to be a total non sequitur, that ignored the content of my post.
What a disgrace!
Eko
(7,281 posts)at post 9 and then 15 and tell me how this actually went. The question was "Name a republican who wants to expand (keep is what I meant) social security and expand it?" and you decided the argument would be about single payer and single payer only. You ignored the question entirely and its a "disgrace" I wont play your game.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)I'm not saying all policies.
But, to be honest, practically the only thing that matters to me now are the thuggish tactics of the DNC and the surfing that is being done by Ms. Clinton on the goodies she is being thrown. Such as twice as much speaking time in New Hampshire. Going first, when all the people are there, and then people walking out afterwards.
Look, I can't say that everything that is being done is not fair, but when so many question the reasoning behind something like the timing of the debates and the amount of debates, and nothing is done in response, something is very, very off. Bernie may be Socialist, which is just fine with me, but he isn't Totalitarian. DWS and the DNC and thus the Democratic Party are acting very, very Totalitarian. And that is absolutely unacceptable in my book.
So, I truly think that, for the good of the people and the party and the process it is the people who love Hillary who should lobby for more debates. Let her prove her mettle and prove any detractors wrong. Let the process be judged as fair.
If we can sit down and work out an agreement with Iran, DWS should be able to sit down with O'Malley and Sanders and work out a debate schedule that would be satisfactory.
I think we should all lobby for that, because if it doesn't happen, there is going to be tribal warfare all the way through the election, and that is going to hurt us all and the whole country.
Eko
(7,281 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)to·tal·i·tar·i·an
tōˌtaləˈterēən/
adjective
1.
of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.
"a totalitarian regime"
synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More
antonyms: democratic
noun
noun: totalitarian; plural noun: totalitarians
1.
a person advocating a totalitarian system of government.
synonyms: autocratic, undemocratic, one-party, dictatorial, tyrannical, despotic, fascist, oppressive, repressive, illiberal; More
Seriously, I'm about fed up even posting on this site.
To be insulted by those with apparently such blindness or perhaps little knowledge, who act however as if they know it all or have the monopoly on reality, when they only have a strict adherence to what has been propagandized for so long and is far from true..
The supporters of some other candidate seem incredibly solipsistic.
solipsistic
[sol-ip-sis-tik]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
of or characterized by solipsism, or the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist:
solipsistic
[sol-ip-sis-tik]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
of or characterized by solipsism, or the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist:
Truly, we can only win together. Please be clear, be fair, and open up to some new possibilities.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Security and expand the benefits. Right now, the average Social Security benefit is 1,332.35
for a retired worker.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0780010.html
What taxes is Hillary willing to raise to pay for better Social Security benefits, college tuition for students, infrastructure repairs we desperately need and environmental investment we need?
This statement in the Huffington Post article you linked to on Hillary's stance on Social Security:
"I'm especially focused on the fact that we need to improve how Social Security works for women," she wrote in the questionnaire, which was seen by Reuters and confirmed by three union sources.
"I also want to enhance benefits for our most vulnerable seniors," she wrote, adding she will have proposals on retirement security for Americans "in the weeks and months ahead."
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Clinton said this month that she would consider raising the cap on the amount of earnings taxable for Social Security, but has otherwise said little about the program.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-social-security_55d1d44de4b07addcb43546e
All Social Security benefits need to be raised for the many, many people who rely on Social Security for their income. Social Security does not need to be needs based because if you earn over a certain amount per year, you pay extra taxes on your income that lowers the actual amount of Social Security you receive.
Hillary's stance on Social Security and raising the revenue to fund it are unclear. She equivocates on so many issues. Bernie comes right out and tells you who is going to pay for what and where he will find the money to do things. He tells us right out what government expenditures he wants to cut. He knows the US budget very well as he has served on the Budget Committee, and he takes every job he does seriously.
Hillary just does not have the many, many years of experience in Congress on the Budget Committee, on the Veterans' Committee, dealing with the nitty gritty of government. She has never served as a mayor or governor in much of any national management position.
Bernie is simply the better, more experienced candidate.
His knowledge of our budget is just one example of his superior qualifications.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)equivalent of about $7.50 per hour for a 40-hour week. That's about 2080 hours per year.
So many Americans survive solely on Social Security. And many, many -- one-half of retirement benefit recipients -- live on less than that amount.
Social Security should not be needs based. The tax structure already takes back part of the Social Security for people who earn over, I think $40,000 and $80,000 per year. (Not sure on that.)
We need to expand Social Security.
Right now, millions of Americans between the ages of 45 and 63 are spending down their retirement benefits because they have lost their jobs -- often fired because of their age and for no other reason.
I remember working with a poor woman who was fired because her hearing was bad. She wasn't paid enough to afford a hearing aid, and for some reason could not retire -- may have been younger than she looked.
Age discrimination is one of the huge problems in our workplaces. We need to make the penalties for age discrimination in the workplace much stronger than they are, and we need a campaign against age discrimination.
The lack of savings of Americans is a scandal. When we lived Austria, for example, the government had a Bauspar program that provided that if an Austrian put savings in certain accounts, the government would contribute. I'm not sure the government contribution matched the savers deposit or whether it was a percentage of it. That was not a 401(K) program. You could take the money out when you wanted. Bauspar literally suggest that ou are saving to build or save a house. Bauen is the verb for to build. So as in English, build has a variety of meanings or connotations.
We need a similar program because Americans do not have enough savings.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)$15,720 per year. Social Security income is based on the highest 35 years of earnings and divided by 35. If a person does not have 35 years of reported earnings the earnings are still divided by 35.
There has been some talk of "means testing" where those who do not need the income is not paid. Social Security reform some years has stretched SSI from 2012 to 2036 by increasing the full retirement age to 67 and increasing the cap for FICA per year. We need to look at ways to increase this again so our young people will have this extra help in the future.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)there is a benefit from having a program that benefits everyone equally and does not penalize people who have money. Instead of means testing Social Security, just raise taxes on the higher portion of all people's incomes. That will be a way to tax the Social Security benefit without some complicated mathematical means of determining whether a person "needs" Social Security or not. That is less objectionable and simpler to administer. If your total earnings are over a certain amount, your tax rate goes up a bit and it makes no difference what the source of your income is. For the very well-to-do, Social Security is a drop in the bucket anyway. For the middle class it is something that has been earned by all and should not be decreased directly.
We do need to raise the cap on the Social Security benefits.
And we need to do away with the carried interest tax deductions and other deductions that benefit the very wealthy. I like Bernie's idea of taxing certain stock exchange and commodities exchange and similar trades. That would discourage some of the fraud in our markets and exchanges.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Are in need.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I favor lifting the cap, but the retirement age of 67 is already too high.
Employers are "reorganizing" and finding excuses to rid themselves of employees who are older, meaning over 50.
People who can actually continue to work above the age of 60 or 63 are lucky.
When I turned 50, my boss said to me, "There is a reason men divorce their wives when they turn 50." I had done nothing wrong. It"s happening across America.
A few years later, at a new job with a new degree and excellent. Qualifications, I was, just a couple of weeks into the job, invited to a "lunch" at which ny boss and another relatively new employee discussed their difficulties with an older woman who had worked there for years. "Menpause" the younger man said. There was silence. For them, that one incriminating word summed up the "problem" with their female nemesis. My thought? "Menopause? She finished that years ago, and so did I."
Bosses do not want experience. They want admiration, beauty, youth and subservience. Sign me, "Old Enough to Know Better."
We already have an epidemic of seniors who are homeless. The age to qualify for Social Security should be lowered not raised.
People do not receive much to live on from Social Security. They will only quit good jobs to "retire" early if their health demands it, they are really tiring too easily, their spouse and family urge them to quit or their boss is picking on them or fires them.
Some studies should be done on these issues.
The people who run the world like to work a long time. Tells you how easy their jobs really are. If Jeb Bush wants to work until he is 70 and beyond,that is fine, but people who hurt their backs hunching over computers, driving trucks, carrying trays do work that takes a toll on their bodies and need to retire earlier.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)associate with many people who are 60, 70, 80 and 90 I can say I disagree with you or those who say these things. In fact my company likes to hire the older worker because the older worker shows up to work and does the job ask of them. This does not hold true for every profession but do not kid yourself into thinking 67 is too old to work. In fact the 67 full retirement age was for those born after 1938 and there is still Social Security for those 62 but at a reduced rate and for widows without children at 60 and widows with children until the children reach 18. Another fact is the amount is increased by about 8% per year a person waits after 62 to start their pension.
On the homeless issue, there is senior housing available for seniors and many places based on the amount of money the person receives but there are rules with this housing.
Since you are a Sanders supporter then his age of 73 must be overwhelming, I am a supporter of Clinton, 67 does not scare me in the least. I think there are some myths which needs to be busted or Sanders needs to be sent home to draw his pension.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Some are not.
You are lucky if you work in a place that values older workers. Most do not.
Eko
(7,281 posts)"I'm especially focused on the fact that we need to improve how Social Security works for women," she wrote in the questionnaire, which was seen by Reuters and confirmed by three union sources.
"I also want to enhance benefits for our most vulnerable seniors," she wrote, adding that she will have proposals on retirement security for Americans "in the weeks and months ahead." http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-points-social-security-changes-afl-cio-questionnaire-050441631--business.html
> 1. If Elizabeth Warren were in the race, most of you would be supporting her instead. If neither Warren nor Bernie were in the race, most of you would be supporting Martin O’Malley despite knowing nothing about him. How are we supposed to take your endorsement of Bernie seriously when you appear to be simply backing him because he’s not Hillary?
Well, we're not simply backing O'Malley (or Chafee, Webb, or Biden) because they're not Hillary. If Hillary wasn't running, I'd still be an enthusiastic Sanders supporter. He's excellent on the issues, and someone actually trustworthy.
> 2. Do you honestly believe that Bernie would do well with foreign policy? Do you think he’d really be able to get congressmen of either party to vote for any of his initiatives once they see that he’s not willing to compromise even a little? Are you envisioning a scenario in which President Bernie would be able to get anything accomplished at all? Even his most prominent supporters like Noam Chomsky have acknowledged he would get nothing done in office. Are you so enamored with the very idea of a protest candidate winning, you wouldn’t care that he’d be ineffective?
Bernie would do a lot better with foreign policy than someone who voted for war with Iraq, a war with Iran, and wanted to arm the Syrian jihadists. Bernie is no peacenik, but he thinks carefully before supporting a war.
The idea that Bernie never compromises is ridiculous. He'd worked with Republicans over his whole career, whether it was as mayor of Burlington, being the top sponsored of passed amendments in the Republican controlled 1995-2006 House of Representatives, or getting a major Veterans bill passed through the Republican House last year.
> 3. Are you unable to understand national polls, or do you just like to ignore them because they reveal that your guy is losing by thirty-eight points within his own party?
Sanders is not losing by 38 points. He's losing by comparable numbers to Obama this time in 2007.
> 4. Are you under the impression that the people showing up to Bernie’s rallies each get more than one vote? Is that how you think he closes the gap? Or have you intentionally saturated yourself so thoroughly with people voting for your guy that you’ve honestly forgotten the vast majority of the nation says they favor someone else?
Total straw-man here.
> 5. Do you understand that Bernie’s refusal to take traditional SuperPAC money means that even if he did get the nomination, he’d be outspent ten to one by his republican opponent? Are you aware that moderates and undecideds make their decisions based primarily on television ads, which are the most expensive part of any campaign? Do you get that nearly every ad would be for the republican? Do you get that he’d almost certainly lose? Would you really rather Bernie get the nomination and lose, than Hillary get the nomination and win? Because that’s how it looks to the rest of us.
No, he would not get outspend 10 to 1. Sanders can raise hundreds of millions of hard dollars like Obama did. And when he got elected to the US Senate, he won over 2-1 despite having $7.3 million spent against him. That's about the same per voter as $3-4 billion nationwide.
> 6. Why do you spend more time pushing crazy lies about Hillary than you do talking up Bernie’s ideas? Bernie himself has made it clear that he thinks highly of Hillary, and he scolds any reporters who try to get him to trash her. If you’re primarily supporting him because you think lowly of her, have you considered the extent of the disconnect between you and your candidate? Has it occurred to you that if Bernie heard you talking about Hillary the way you talk about her, he’d angrily tell you off?
Crazy lies? Another strawman. Bernie is simply much better on the issues.
> 7. Do you really think that Bernie’s strong showing in New Hampshire, a tiny state five minutes from where he lives, where he’s been locally popular for decades, is representative of the nation? Do you really think that New Hampshire’s four electoral votes will make a difference in this primary? And again, do you not know how to read national polls, or do you just like ignoring them because those polls reveal that your guy’s candidacy is already finished?
Burlington isn't 5 minutes from NH. NH is a totally different state than Vermont. And Bernie is leading in Iowa.
> 8. Do you get that you’re supporting Bernie for essentially the same reason that conservatives are supporting Donald Trump? Do you realize that both men are basing their campaigns entirely on “government sucks, the system sucks, both parties suck, politicians are idiots and a trained rat could do better, and I’m just that trained rat.” Do you not understand the parallels between your desire to stomp your feet at Bernie’s generic indignance, and conservatives’s desire to stomp their feet at Trump’s generic indignance? Does that not embarrass you?
Another straw man. Bernie has a 32 1/2 year record as mayor and Congressman of working for better government.
> 9. Most of you supporting Bernie are also fans of Obama. Seeing how Obama has all but endorsed Hillary, and how Obama sees her as his natural successor, don’t you find it odd that you’re instead rooting against her – even as you still try to take credit for supporting Obama? How does that make you any different from the republicans who try to take credit for Obama’s accomplishments while insisting he should be replaced by republican?
Obama hasn't all but endorsed Hillary. Particularly if Biden runs. And Obama certainly isn't as good as Bernie on the issues.
> 10. And the only question that truly matters: when Hillary becomes the democratic party nominee, will you pout and stay home on election day and hand the nation back to the republicans? Or will you show up and vote for Hillary because you know she’s the far better of the two candidates? While none of us understand why you’re supporting a less-qualified protest candidate whose ideas aren’t realistic and who can’t win anyway, we’re really only going to judge you based on what you do on election day. So when it’s Hillary vs Jeb TrumpCruz, what’s it going to be?
The idea that Bernie can't win is hogwash. And Hillary certainly hasn't done a damn thing to earn my vote.
cali
(114,904 posts)They aren't even really questions.
Eko
(7,281 posts)just because you cant answer them doesn't mean they aren't.
cali
(114,904 posts)Coming from someone who can't even tell the difference between rhetoric and an honest question, I can only continue to find wee hours amusement in this thread.
Eko
(7,281 posts)didn't you just comment about how logical fallices would reduce the posts here by 1/2 or something on another op, were you referring to yourself?
You're good for me! Laughter really does help with pain.
merrily
(45,251 posts)as honest as you think the questions in your OP.
Eko
(7,281 posts)I may not quite agree with it but it is cogent and logically laid out. Thank you.
cali
(114,904 posts)And when someone laboriously does just that, your only response is a one liner saying I disagree but not even bothering to say what you disagree with.
I love the smell of hypocrisy early in the morning.
been busy with a lot of other posts. I will try to respond to this well thought out reasoned response when I get the time to do so. Thanks, and that is a very valid critique.
Truth. Its appreciated!!!
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... face himself... Obama and Hillary are not Teh Devil
8. Red Herring, could care less if he had 320 years in congress he's basically saying the same thing Trump is saying about Americas government and Obama (other than the racist Bullshit); that they're both noneffective for the middle class and that's bullshit on its face.
7. Syntax, 5 minutes 5 hours it's Bernies stomping ground and not representative of SC, GA or even West MO... this is a non answer, 6. Fair, stupid strawman,
5. Non answer, 10 to 1 or 1.5 to 1... he'll be outspent and Vermont isn't representative of the rest of the US ... see Walkers numbers, 4. Fair, stupid strawman,
3. I agree, Obama was behind too... but he ran a smart campaign that concentrated on delegates not crowd sizes.
2. Non answer, the question was will he do well not will he do better than someone who's at the bottom of the barrel... like saying he'll do better than Bush... my 4 yr old can do better than Bush.
1. Opinionated question, my own feeling is people are being reflexively anti establishment cause that's what the CeC and the GOP wants and they've worked hard at fighting Obama at every turn so few productive things get done and people can justify feeling this way.
America's government sucks was RayGuns prose ... and he won big time off of it
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The "logic" of 'OMG, I can't take you seriously because if your candidate wasn't running, you'd vote for someone else!' has me rolling around laughing.
artislife
(9,497 posts)And going line by line!
These OPs were at first thought provoking, then a bit repetative, moved to annoying and now at eye roll level.
This response is classic. I should copy and paste it eveywhere...with your name
So jfern says:
heh
delrem
(9,688 posts)Is that the point?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Eko
(7,281 posts)bernie can win, or bernie can win. Genius.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)There is a valid leftist critique of Clinton, such as this one: http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
And her ties to Beacon Global Strategies, Corrections Corporation of America, Monsanto, Burson-Marsteller et al. are indisputable.
The repetitive insinuation that every critique of Clinton is part of a right wing smear campaign really, really ought to stop. It won't, of course, but it should. Labels are a powerful force. It's that tribal mentality that leads people to care more about a person being on a certain team - having a 'D' next to their name - than they care about principles and issues.
You can make a decent argument that a person should still support the lesser evil when the general election rolls around, and that any POTUS will be constrained by the system as is, but let's not pretend like there aren't substantial reasons to be less than thrilled by Clinton.
Eko
(7,281 posts)I never ever once said there was no valid critique of Clinton. That wold be a strawman argument.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The insinuation is clear and less than subtle. And it's been repeated ad nauseam on DU. It's certainly not a straw man. Look no further than just a few phrases from the OP:
"baseless smears"
"crazy lies"
"kills babies"
As I said, the insinuation is less than subtle.
Eko
(7,281 posts)is up to you, you are going to take it how you want no matter how I present it or act on it. You are using your own bias's to come to that conclusion. So whatever.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)You have to be a fool to not see how things like "baseless smears," "kills babies" and "crazy lies" aren't insinuating (or outright claiming) that there isn't a valid leftist critique of Clinton.
No "bias's" (or biases) here. And the only straw men are coming from the OP.
How is saying that "baseless smears," "kills babies" and "crazy lies" means that there is not a valid leftist critique of Clinton? I am saying that those aren't valid, they could be if there was proof. Proof is important. Otherwise its a smear.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)An article addressing the valid leftist critiques, perhaps acknowledging them but then making the case for supporting her anyway, might actually be worthwhile. But when those critiques aren't mentioned, and instead we get "crazy lies" along with "baseless smears," the insinuation couldn't be more clear. There's no point in saying "baseless smears" are baseless, so either the author is an idiot or the author is insinuating that all smears are baseless (or both). Logic 101, my friend.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That site is a joke. You would think with all the campaign money Hillary has (superPACs? Helllooooo!) she could hire some halfway decent bloggers to set up the thinly veiled campaign bargle sites, pretending at being about "news"
Instead it's amateur hour.
Eko
(7,281 posts)so therefore it is a joke. Except it is not to the majority of democrats so maybe you should address it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Take #8- "you understand you support sanders for the same reason people support trump?"
ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEEEEEASE
"Why sure, mister herp derp, i derp derp jerp herp derp derp. Derpitty derp."
And that site is a VERY low budg Hillary campaign mouthpiece, nothing more. Yes, a joke.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Good grief. I'm glad I didn't bother to click on the link.
And progressives critiquing Clinton are the ones relying on straw men? Riiiiight.
Eko
(7,281 posts)The insight, intelligence, straight out logic just floored me. I thought I was reading a south park scene.
cali
(114,904 posts)You remind me of the defeated armless, legless knight in the Monty Python movie.
Please do continue.
Eko
(7,281 posts)once again, I myself love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning, and man does it really smell right now.
Better and better. You dive right in.
Eko
(7,281 posts)quite as deep as you have, although I have tried.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)with a flair anymore?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)1, 6, and 9 are why-do-you-hate-Hillary-so-much questions, and 2 and 8 are basically Bernie-would-be-terrible questions.
How many questions on actual policy differences? Precisely zero.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)the one suggesting that people support Sanders for the same reason people support Trump, I knew it was best to not bother clicking on the link. Actually, I only needed to read the OP to know I shouldn't click on the link.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)but what do I know, I only write for South Park, or some shit.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)cali
(114,904 posts) AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)they sure seem to be having a problem coming up with valid criticism of Bernie. I guess that is why we like him.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Why doesn't anyone believe me?"
reformist2
(9,841 posts)It's actually pretty funny, because it's all so desperate, so counterproductive, even damaging to the candidate they are supposedly supporting.
delrem
(9,688 posts)In one case we know that it's coordinated with a Dem candidate. Internet specific. That's a LOT of money.
Prepare for the tsunami, this is the first surge.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)New posters, all supporting the same candidate, posting the same thing over and over and over. Nope, we've never seen that before. 
Fuck me. We could write the fucking script.
merrily
(45,251 posts)On Mon Sep 21, 2015, 02:35 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
So THIS is where that SuperPAC money goes, into websiteswhere paid hacks and trolls spout off.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=609801
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I know, I wont win. When I insinuate someone is a troll I get hidden, but when a Sanders person does so its cool. I'm not even a Clinton person, this place is getting crazy.
the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: OTT with insults.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Reformist is referring to the site linked in the OP, not to DU.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I cannot understand why this post was alerted.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is getting out of hand
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
cali
(114,904 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Coming soon to a theater near you. "I was 100% behind Bernie and would have voted for him, except that his supporters (fill in the blank)."
djean111
(14,255 posts)In the WSJ? I think the Third way is now upset that Bernie's campaign is "getting out of hand".
merrily
(45,251 posts)comment against the OP. IOW, the alerter incorrectly interpreted Reformer's comment and one of the juror's bought into the alerter's error. So, "this is getting out of hand" is, I believe, a reference to misconduct by Bernie's supporters (imagined by the alerter and the juror who made the comment).
IMO, what was out of hand were the alert itself, the pot shot at Bernie's supporters in the alert, and several jurors either buying into the alerter's error or voting on a partisan basis. Reformer's comment was about other websites plural, not DU, and trolls who write articles for those other websites. Reformer was not calling the OP a troll. Sigh.
I served on the jury. I looked at the replies made by the OP on this thread and at some other posts made by the OP on other threads. I hope other people do the same and make up their own minds. That is all.
djean111
(14,255 posts)made me laugh. Gonna be a long campaign season. Although I don't think it was originally intended to be that way.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I do so appreciate your concern, though.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Others have answered your "questions" very well indeed. There is nothing you could post in the form of "questions" (and I fucking love the I like Bernie stuff, I really do, it adds a little garnish) that could make me support someone who is in favor of fracking, war war war, the TPP, increasing H-1B visas, and cluster bombs. All of which hurt those women and children constantly maundered about. And then there is the lie about the sniper fire. Not just oh, there was sniper fire, but a detailed story. Can't trust that one, sorry.
It is THE ISSUES. Bernie's supporters are voting for Bernie because of ISSUES. Not because we would even bother to "hate" Hillary. ISSUES.
And I do not do the Pledge-y Thing. Tell you one thing - I won't be voting for a dishonest candidate, ever, and sure am not going to vote for a candidate whose campaign/Super PACS engage in lies and dirty smears.
No fucking free pass for that. And that is all this is about - an attempt to dishearten (FAIL) and a request for a free pass for the usual HRC campaign slime. No - change the tactics, or do without my vote. I am not voting for that, and that is on the HRC campaign, not me.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... dismissing them out of hand and the few attempts just ignore the questions with red herrings or non answers
merrily
(45,251 posts)quite a few others were about a bogus alert.
But, I regret you are disappointed that most people on the thread did not take the bait. And, if we would have, what difference would it have made anyway?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)... congress and how Sanders is supposed to deal with them and all I get is platitudes about "revolutions" and shit as if the GOP cares about guns being pointed to their heads (literally and figuratively).
merrily
(45,251 posts)That's my opinion and seems to have been shared by quite a few other posters on this thread.
Not only that, but I personally do not take to heart the Op's claims about not being a Hillary supporter. When, rightly or wrongly, I perceive disingenuousness, yes, I do see bait. I don't think I'm alone on that, either.
However, you ignored the point about the OPs insults to those who did respond and also ignored the bottom line point my prior post made, another posting behavior I cannot admire.
Let's assume for a second that I saw the questions in the OP as meritorious questions and took the time and effort to post thoughtful answers. What difference would it make? What would I have accomplished, other than flushing my time and effort? Why bother?
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)But I don't feel any obligation to answer #5, especially since I don't think Sanders will be the nominee. #6 is just a bunch of hot air.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)The poster dumps a pile of strawman arguments here and you expect honest answers? If you want honest answers, you have to answer honest questions.
merrily
(45,251 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie suppoters are teh evul spawn.
And how dare we not take this seriously?
merrily
(45,251 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Unfortunately, it's white. I don't know if anyone at the Bernie store has toted a tote around a large city. But, there is a rainbow tote, too,
In all, I think the Bernie Store could use a consultant.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The rainbow one sounds nice though.
I just wish they had hoodies.
Oh and that we didn't have to wait so long for our stuff.
They probably had no idea he'd be such a rock star.
edit I love this:
?v=1442616270
merrily
(45,251 posts)Remember as well that his campaign has to operate on a shoe string and staff costs. The stuff being sold in the store is union made in America, so the margins are probably not covering the costs of running the store.
I'm glad we managed to make some good use of this thread. However, I have to get to some other internet and noninternet stuff for a while. See you later.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)That way they can claim all the evil female Sanders supporters are... (spoken in a whisper) lesbians.
( 
for the sarcasm-challenged alert trolls)
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Sanders has been around the block a few times. So has his team. They know what they're up against and they have a strategy.
"Things you actually cant prove. Baseless smears. Things you actually cant prove." I haven't seen anybody on DU use baseless smears against Hillary. Just her words and her track record. 
"I am disheartened to see people talk about registering as democratic just to vote for sanders, then un-registering. If I am a third way, what are you? A Democrat depending? Part time democrat? Democrat in waiting? Democrat for convenience?"
You do realize you're posting at DEMOCRATIC Underground, right? If people here talk about registering Democrat just to vote for Sanders here, they're violating the terms of agreement, so feel free to alert on them and get them banned.
You wouldn't be trying to play the old "Sanders isn't a real democrat would you?
Unrec. How I miss that button.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=603061
How DARE Sanders supporters accurately quote Clinton!!
Eko
(7,281 posts)Someone keeps saying that was satire even when the poster said they didn't overstate it one bit.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"5. Do you understand that Bernie’s refusal to take traditional SuperPAC money means that even if he did get the nomination, he’d be outspent ten to one by his republican opponent? Are you aware that moderates and undecideds make their decisions based primarily on television ads, which are the most expensive part of any campaign? Do you get that nearly every ad would be for the republican? Do you get that he’d almost certainly lose? Would you really rather Bernie get the nomination and lose, than Hillary get the nomination and win? Because that’s how it looks to the rest of us.
You answer your own question with the statement "Are you aware that moderates and undecideds make their decisions based primarily on television ads, which are the most expensive part of any campaign? Do you get that nearly every ad would be for the republican?"
Corporate money, the money of the oligarchs, not Bernie, is the greatest threat to our democracy right now. It is also the greatest threat to our national defense and security because it weakens the unity and resolve of the American people. This is especially true since we have no way to identify the national origin of the donors of the huge sums of money.
Hillary is accepting the corporate money and the money of the oligarchs. Bernie is not. We need a candidate who defies the dominance of corporate and oligarch money in our system. We tried other ways to change that system. They have not worked.
Congress has been asked to pass a constitutional amendment that will end Citizens United's laissez faire rules on campaign financing. Even when we had a Democratic majority in Congress, Congress members refused to really get serious about undoing Citizens United although the very least they could have done under that ruling would have been to require that the donors to campaigns and super-pacs be identified.
Bernie's campaign is our last chance to say no to that dirty money and the corruption that it brings with it. Hillary's campaign is just more super-pacs and big, rich donors and all the corruption that brings.
In my view, we have to take the risk with Benie and make the mysterious origin of the money in the Superpacs and the donations and the corruption that money represents a major issue in 2016. Life is risk. If we don't take the risk and vote for Bernie, if we vote for Hillary, we risk continuing to destroy our democracy ad by super-pac ad. And with the risk we take when we vote for Hillary, we are also risking our environment, our middle class, our economy, our Social Security, many of the things that make life livable for those of us who are not billionaires. Because the super-pac money and the oligarchs and corporations' domination and threat to our democracy are a greater threat than supporting Bernie and facing defeat in the general election. At least, a Bernie defeat would be honorable.
As for whether Bernie can win, we shall see. It is too early to tell. But let me tell you that when I wear my Bernie pin, people i have never met stop me and say how much they like him. I never had that, not even when i wore Obama tee-shirts. It is quite astounding.
Last week, I talked with a professional woman. When I told her I liked Bernie, she was a bit skeptical and frowned. I then said to her, just watch one of his speeches and see what you think. She called me today to tell me that she watched Colbert's interview of Bernie and had sent $50 to Bernie's campaign. That's how it works with Bernie, and that is why I think he will win.
So, don't assume that Bernie can't win. That's just propaganda from the Clinton bunch. I think Bernie can win. There is something very compelling about a person who really cares about something. Bernie does really care. He conveys the message that he really cares, and he is a very, very compelling candidate, the most compelling in my lifetime, and I am 72.
Do I like Elizabeth Warren? You bet I do. But Bernie is running. Warren is not.
A couple of my issues are Wall Street reform (Glass-Steagall in a 21st century version should be enacted.) including the enforcement of regulations, imposition of criminal penalties on bankers and Wall Street investors who encourage or commit fraud or do not strictly obey security regulations, breaking up the banks, imposing watch-dog regulations on the gambling that goes on on Wall Street and other similar reforms. Hillary is not supporting those kinds of reforms, and I would not trust her do actually do anything to reform Wall Street even if she promised to do it.
Hillary is indebted to Wall Street. She owes them too much. She is not trustworthy on this issue which is very important to me. Reform of the financial sector is a dealbreaker for me. I saw too many people who were hurt very badly in the 2008 crash, and I cannot in good conscience vote for any candidate who does not strongly support Wall Street reform and I mean real reform.
6. Why do you spend more time pushing crazy lies about Hillary than you do talking up Bernie’s ideas? Bernie himself has made it clear that he thinks highly of Hillary, and he scolds any reporters who try to get him to trash her. If you’re primarily supporting him because you think lowly of her, have you considered the extent of the disconnect between you and your candidate? Has it occurred to you that if Bernie heard you talking about Hillary the way you talk about her, he’d angrily tell you off?"
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ten-honest-questions-id-like-every-bernie-sanders-supporter-to-answer/21570/
I don't think I push lies about Hillary. Why are you pushing lies about Bernie such as that he cannot be elected? That is an assumption and when asserted as a fact over and over and not simply as a belief becomes a lie.
Why do Hillary supporters say Bernie knows nothing about foreign policy when he has served in Congress so many years and demonstrated with his vote against the two Iraq Wars more foresight and understanding of the issues in foreign policy than Hillary did although at the time of the vote, she had just spent 8 years in the White House and was briefed specifically on the Iraq War issue by Code Pink women who had visited Iraq. I can understand that she might not be impressed by a delegation of women, but she huffed out of the room after they plead with her to vote against the war as if she knew everything and they knew nothing. And as history has demonstrated, the Code Pink ladies were right, and Hillary has had to eat crow and admit she was wrong.
Do you know (and this is verified in a video prior to the vote) that Bernie's reasons for voting against the war (the second Iraq War) were that he questioned how we could govern Iraq if we succeeded in winning the war and second, he questioned what we would do if the country fell into civil war? His questions were brilliant, prescient in fact.
Bernie's intelligence, his compassion, his solid, American values are what we need in our president. We need his wisdom and good judgment to lead our military and our foreign policy. His understanding of strategy far exceeds that of Hillary. Our military might be a bit suspicious of him at first, but I think they will soon learn that Bernie understands how they think and can follow their strategies and policies much better than Hillary. I believe that Bernie will earn the respect of leaders around the world. Hilary??? Maybe. But Bernie is much better in this regard.
I don't push lies about Hillary. I don't have to. The record is clear. And since she takes credit for her "experience" during Bill's years as president, I have to blame her as well as Bill for NAFTA, for the Telecommunications Act, for welfare reform, for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the many other mistakes that the Clinton administration made.
Bill Clinton appointed Greenspan, a libertarian, friend and follower of Ayn Rand to the top spot at the Fed. What kind of Democrats does that suggest that he and Hillary are? That speaks volumes for me. What a horrible choice. And we have paid for it dearly.
As for Bernie's ability to work with Congress. He knows far more about how to work with Congress than Hillary. He has worked with and been elected by far more Republicans than Hillary. That's for sure. Numerous terms as mayor of Burlington, Vermont and then to the Senate and house by a margin of as much as 71% of the vote in a rural state that has its share of conservatives. Amazing. His work on Veteran's Affairs has endeared him to many veterans.
In contrast, I clearly remember Hillary's attempt to reform health care insurance which was rejected like a rotten egg by the Republicans including those in Congress. Hillary has a very poor record of working with Republicans. They do not like her. I have a relative who is a Republican and who sent me anti-Hillary e-mails years ago when Hillary wasn't even running for office. The idea that Hillary will get along with Republicans and Independents (who get all those anti-Hillary e-mails too), is not well supported by the historical evidence. The ridiculous "scandals" on Benghazi and the e-mails prove my point.I like Sanders, always have, always will. More than Clinton. But there is a reality check that I think needs to factored into the equation. I have never argued against Sanders, just the logic some supporters have used. Of course that makes me a 3rd way, a non progressive, all kinds of things I have never been. Whatever. Notice I didn't ascribe a position not taken by Sanders here (I have as a logical argument before), so if you do so to Clinton as a rebuttal you are what is wrong with us. Ex, "she kills babies because she didn't vote against a weapons ban". " Supports companies profits over clean water" those kinds of things. Things you actually cant prove. Baseless smears. Things you actually cant prove. Is she the best candidate? Probably not. Is she the best candidate that can beat the Republicans? at this point yes. Things change, so lets see. I am disheartened to see people talk about registering as democratic just to vote for sanders, then un-registering. If I am a third way, what are you? A Democrat depending? Part time democrat? Democrat in waiting? Democrat for convenience?
I think I have answered your fears on these issues.
I am a lifelong Democrat. But I live in California. We are a blue state. If Hillary hasn't won without my vote, she is not going to win anyway. I will not vote for her. I do not trust her. I do not think she has good judgment. I think Bernie is a better candidate. (By the way, I am a woman.) I also object to the fact that she is the wife of a former president. I think that we should not establish a tradition of voting for family members of former presidents for the presidency. George W. Bush was a terrible mistake. It's just a practice we should avoid. It is appealing to the corporate mentality that gives so much money for campaigns and spends so much to sell us on the corporations' favorite candidates, but it is not healthy for our democracy.
I hope I have answered your questions clearly. Thanks for asking.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)For example, is simply an opinion, not a fact. And one based on the same sort of conventional wisdom that can't explain why Sanders has gotten above a few percentage points in the polls. Have you noticed that the same sorts of people asking those 'ten questions' for the last few months have been confidently predicting that Sanders can't beat Clinton, that he couldn't get above 10% in even Iowa and New Hampshire, above 15%, above 20%, above 25%, that he couldn't win them, etc, etc, etc? Those questions are based on the same sorts of thinking. That Sanders is running a conventional campaign. And he's not.
So my answer to those questions is 'Not Applicable'. They're simply 'not applicable' to the sort o campaign Sanders is running.
It's also opinion that Sanders supporters are 'spreading more crazy lies about Hillary' than they are talking up Clinton. Hell, I think the only time I've even mentioned Clinton off of DU is to agree with someone that there's no way in Hell I'd vote for her. And that was someone who brought her up only to say 'Well, I know you're not voting for Clinton' because he remembered how ticked off I was about all the racial dogwhistles she and her surrogates used against Obama in 2008. I don't even mention her name off DU, and I'd bet most of her supporters on here are the same. And there have been thousands of OPs about Sanders to maybe a hundred or so OP's about Hillary's emails? It's ludicrous to even make the claim that Sanders supporters spend more time talking about Hillary than they do about Sanders.
Another debunked myth. Sanders supporters, even ones who think Hillary is rotten, support Sanders because they support his policy ideas, not 'because of Hillary'. The world does not 'revolve around Hillary'. I'm sorry, but the real truth is, people by and large don't give a crap about Hillary. She's just another politician like so many others. They're excited about Sanders.
Mere supposition again. 'At this point' is not when we're holding the elections. At the point in time when our nominee is facing off their nominee, she's a lousy candidate to beat the Republicans. They've been hating on her for decades. There is NO ONE more guaranteed to drive out Republicans to vote than Hillary Clinton, and no one more likely to make Democrats go 'Meh', and be apathetic about turning out to vote.
What am I? I'm a Democratic Socialist. I've been a Democrat in the past, until the party drifted too far toward Republicans. When the party returns to the left, I'll be a Democrat again. I've never moved in my convictions. The party has, for 'convenience'. You do realize that the effects of legislation on people's lives are far more important than 'party identification', I hope. If the Democratic Party continues to move to the right, the people who stay are ever more like Republicans, and that's not a 'good thing'. The good people will leave the Party, and be 'Democrats in waiting' - waiting for the Party to return to them, not chasing it like some codependent.
merrily
(45,251 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Basically, it says we can NEVER elect someone not backed by big money (i.e. big corporate interests). And that won't change as long as the laws are made by the people who are backed by big money, who are the only ones who can get elected. Ergo, America--as anything close to a democracy--is doomed.
This used to be how we would describe "democracy" in some parts of the world... Sure, you can vote, providing the illusion of some amount of democracy, but every candidate was ultimately selected and backed by the same interests, so you really had no choice at all. You're only choosing who you would rather be raped by.
No, I'm not saying there's no difference between HRC and the nuts on the other side. But there's only so much progress that can ever be made if the only candidates who can win are the ones the corporate interests support. On a lot of issues that really matter, we won't be able to do more than tinker around the edges.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I'll put out an honest answer, even though this isn't an honest question; it's full of unfounded assumptions. So here goes: Before anyone (other than the inevitable HRC) had announced, all I wanted was someone to nominate who is NOT a neo-liberal. That's all. I would have supported ANY non-neo-liberal. So that part is true. HRC was never going to get my support. She simply does not have what it takes to do so. When Sanders jumped into the race, I was grateful, because he gives me a reason to bother showing up at all.
I would have supported Warren if she'd been the one. It was clear to me she wasn't going to be that candidate, and I'm fine with that. If it were Warren vs Sanders, I'd be supporting Sanders with a light heart, knowing that either way, I'd get my ultimate goal: a nominee that is not a neo-liberal.
O'Malley? Somebody at DU floated his name over a year ago and I looked at him. Briefly. I've said nothing whatsoever about O'Malley in this primary campaign season, and I'm not going to do so now, other than to say I DO know some things about him, and if I had to choose between O'Malley and HRC, you're probably correct, but it wouldn't really be a happy choice. Fortunately, I don't think it's going to come down to that.
My "endorsement" of Sanders is based on his record, his positions, and his integrity. He's got what it takes in all those areas. HRC does not. Deal with it.
Yes. I honestly believe that. Yes, I know he'd be able to get congressmen of both parties to work with him, because he does it all the time. He's got a great record working with others in Congress.
I understand them just fine. I don't value them much, but I understand them. I understand trends, and which candidate is trending up and down. I understand that, if a candidate doesn't come out of Iowa, New Hampshire, and other first/early states in good shape, a campaign is in big trouble, and many candidates drop out at that point. I understand that candidates coming out of those early races in good shape attract more money and support as they continue.
I understand that the candidate that is trending up attracts massive crowds, which the candidate trending down has been unable to do. I understand momentum.
I'm under the impression that those energized, motivated people will be working to talk to others about Sanders and to GOTV. I understand that the person asking these questions is pretty damned desperate to hold on to the idea that the nation "favors" someone else, at least until Biden jumps in to save the day.
I know that I'm happy to see this question, because attacking Sanders because he has integrity, and his campaign is supported by people instead of corporations, works out just fine for his bottom line. For example, in response to the recent smear campaign conducted by a Clinton SuperPAC:
“We’ve never seen an immediate donor response like what the Sanders campaign received on Tuesday. At one point, it drove 180 contributions through our platform per minute,” said Erin Hill, executive director of ActBlue, the fundraising firm. “Over its 11-year history ActBlue has sent money to over eleven-thousand campaigns and committees — and the Bernie Sanders campaign holds the record for the two biggest donor days ever for a campaign on our platform.”
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/17/supporters-respond-pro-clinton-super-pac-smears-donating-1-2-million-bernie-sanders.html
It's telling that anyone supports this kind of SuperPAC machination.
Now we've reached absolute bullshit territory. I have never "pushed crazy lies about Hillary." I talk about her as little as possible. I'm too busy talking up Bernies ideas. The assertion in this question is a flat-out lie, and is pathetic.
I really think he's been drawing large, supportive crowds all around the nation, and that HRC's campaign is so concerned about that fact that they are trying to minimize Iowa and NH.
Another insulting, bullshit assumption. I can't speak for Trump and his campaign, but I don't support Sanders because "government sucks," but because he supports a government that serves its people.
We've gone so far past any pretense at "honest" questions that I can't believe Cara Harris can publicly ask this without cringing in shame. These questions are not only not "honest," but are a clear smear of Sanders supporters. I guess that's what HRC's campaign does best? Smears?
1. Don't make assumptions about what politicians I am a "fan" of.
2. Obama has endorsed no one.
3. I base my vote on issues and record...not on what any other politician says.
4. I'm not taking credit for supporting Obama.
5. I guess if I were really a fan of Obama, I'd have a clue what this question about republicans is supposed to mean, but all I'm getting is a garbled mess.
Wow. After all that dishonest vitriol, now the only question that really matters is the loyalty oath demand?
And suddenly we've got "none of us" and "we're really only going to judge you..." Who is this invisible "us" and "we" that you claim membership in, and exclude Sander's supporters? A blatantly judgemental group that can't tend to the log in their own eye, to be sure.
And more bullshit and inaccurate judgement from that invisible group, about qualifications, ideas, and electability...quite a rant. The author and her invisible group are scared.
My answer: None of your damned business. I don't take loyalty oaths demanded by bullies trying to shove me into their line. What I'll do after the convention is what I'll do after the convention. Right now I'm trying to nominate someone I'll be happy to work for then.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)how thoughtful and kind to say how much you really agree with someone and then bloviate on about how he "can't" win despite having the best ideas.
have you guys noticed that there's been a lot of "new" Bernie "supporters" lately? Especially the concerned kind who really like his policies but don't think he can win and go to great lengths to try and convince all of us poor uninformed saps the error or our ways.
its quite touching, really.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Many times.
Like any of this is even worth the read? I don't owe anyone any kind of response in the first place but to slog through this dishonest crap? Please, I have a ton of horse shit to shovel IRL, the last thing I am going to do is read more from the HRC camp.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Now, third party PAC's can go ahead and spend money on Bernie if they want. Yes, there'd be a ton of money spent against him, but the party and third party PAC's will also be spending a ton, even if Bernie makes a point of not connecting it all with his campaign.
I think if he continues to keep the big money contributors out of his campaign in terms of direct contributions, it will still resonate as a message to the people out there of ALL parties who are rejecting candidates that are "bought" by other money (which is a reason that Trump is doing well with the Republicans, much like Bernie is doing well in the Democratic race).
There's a revolutionary mood in the voter space now that wants to reject what is being spoon fed to them by third party campaign money, and the rules this race I suspect will be very different than the last 30-40 years in terms of what campaign money spending generates in terms of candidate support.
I suspect that one strong message BErnie would send as a part of a GE campaign message (to go along with public campaign financing that Obama turned down) is the notion that we should make public campaign financing an integral part of reforming elections to take the *BRIBERY* out of them! In effect his taking public campaign financing that Obama turned down will be a campaign message in and of itself that will generate support for him!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)because I know he isn't taking super PAC money and because I know he will need the money, and I'm not done donating either. I will continue to donate all throughout his campaign.
Byebye
treestar
(82,383 posts)BS is a Democrat for convenience. The imaginary President BS would get zip out of Congress.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Since it actually has answers?
Why'd you bother to post a blatant lie? How, exactly, did you think it would help?
treestar
(82,383 posts)no surprise you consider the snark to be "answers."
jeff47
(26,549 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm also a Socialist who will happily vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson .
november3rd
(1,113 posts)But I'm not sure there's any such thing as an HONEST QUESTION.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)Stupidest question ever. If HRC weren't in the race, you'd pick OMalley, and if O'Malley weren't in the race, you'd pick Chafee, etc. We pick the best potential candidate.
Yes. I think Bernie will do well with foreign policy. He can be tough and he generous. If Bernie wins the presidency it will be because he appeals to a broad cross-section of Americans. Look at the Bernie supporters on DU. We are a diverse set of Democrats and leftists who have sparred on many issues, but we are for Bernie. Look at the reactions from conservatives based on his Liberty U talk.
He is doing what needs to be done at this point in the race. He will win NH and IA and many folks thought that was impossible until it wasn't.
You're first question in this set is insulting, but I'll treat you with more respect even though its clear these aren't "honest questions." The excitement at Bernie rallies is contagious and its that excitement that will attract people to him and possible vote for him.
Bernie is already being outspent by HRC and catching up to her. Anything is possible with a people-based political message.
Most of what you don't like is simple criticism of Hillary. I know it hurts your feelings because she's losing momentum, but such is life. Deal with it.
Yes, because once HRC fans thought she couldn't lose NH or IA, but now its looking likely. If Bernie succeeds people will look back and say it started with NH and IA. You just can't see that yet.
I thought #1 was a stupid question, but this one is even worse. No one confuses the messages from Bernie and Trump except disingenuous bloggers. You should be embarrassed.
Question based on evidence not record. You assume too much about Obama.
I can be counted on to vote for the Democratic nominee even if it is a choice between the "lesser of two evils" regardless of who it is.
jkbRN
(850 posts)Tell me why your voting for someone who is bankrolled by big money interests?
See, you may have a opinion about Bernie, but there are blatant FACTS about Hillary which leads people to not want to vote for her.
Before you go and demand answers from Bernie supporters, you should really try to answer some questions about Hillary within that same tone.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)
rurallib
(62,406 posts)truly insulting.
If those are 'honest' questions then i am an ayatollah and the pope.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)I used to live in NH. We would get these all the time.
"Could you support Hillary Clinton even knowing that she belonged to a right-wing religious cult that is out to achieve word domination and that she prays with them every chance she gets?"
And things to that effect.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Hillary was associated with 'the Family', a dominionist religious group that believes that religion should control secular governments, but I don't know that she still 'prays with them every chance she gets', even if she did refer to the leader, David Coe, a man who idolized Hitler and Stalin, as her 'spiritual mentor'.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)1. Vote for the candidate who will be best for all the people of this country, no matter what you're told or pressured to do.
2. Vote for the candidate that you're told has the best chance of winning, to avoid the lesser of two evils.
I've picked choice #2 too many times in my life. From now on, I'm going with choice #1.
That 'reality check' is what keeps us from thinking, the same 'reality check' that uses polls to make up our minds for us.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)First point of dishonesty... There's vastly more than ten questions here.
Most of them are leading or rhetorical.
Fully half are simply derisive statements appended with a question mark.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Since Bernie is kicking everyone else's ass with real people, Bernie Bashers are showing up left and right. To me it smells like desperation on the part of the "establishment".
frylock
(34,825 posts)If Sanders beats Clinton's money, then he beats the presumptive Republican candidate's money.
demwing
(16,916 posts)each one makes assumptions and pushes an agenda.
try again...
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... any questions about BS will invariably be responded to with ridicule, vitriol, and/or personal attacks on the interlocutor.
The fact is that BS supporters have NO answers to some very obvious questions. They simply live in denial of the realities that pose some very major problems for their guy, and dismiss them out-of-hand as irrelevant.
Eventually, however, those realities will kick-in, and it will be a rude awakening for many here.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,174 posts)1. Super PACs can spend their money as they please. Bernie is not going after Super PAC money and he isn't appearing at their fundraisers. That doesn't mean they are FORBIDDEN to spend their money on ads to support Sanders. By some bizarre chance Sanders wins the nomination, do you think the Super PACs are just going to lock the safe and not spend any money to support him?
2. I don't spend my time "attacking" HRC. I realize some do. I realize some HRC supporters attack Sanders. But personally, I think the vast majority of DUers support their candidate and leave it at that.
Number23
(24,544 posts)But I think the rest are good questions.
MindfulOne
(227 posts)1. False dilemma, I'm supporting the candidate I most like and who I believe can win the GE.
2. I think he'd be effective. Foreign policy is not particularly important to our very real lives. Fuck that.
3. Please see 2007 and 2008 and then get back to me about polls.
4. The author is desperate, really grasping at straws. Bernie draws crowds. Deal with it.
5. A well funded Hillary will tank under her own failings, I'll take my chances with a poorly funded Bernie.
6. OK, this is just stupid now.
7. Yes, I think as people come to know Bernie, they will come to love him, in all states.
8. The question says more about the author than about Sanders supporters.
9. False premise, I don't see where Obama has endorsed Clinton and even if he did, I don't care.
10. Quite the dramatic closer. The test, the loyalty test. I say to the author, try harder.
She did write this, however, and it's a thoughtful follow-up:
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-supporters-answer-the-tough-questions-about-their-candidate/22492/
1. I agree with you.
2. Foreign policy is very important, in matters of economics and militarily. I think the question is not a very good one and exaggerates the problems Bernie might have but is still a valid question.
3. The question is asked in a snarky way but looking past that it is a good question. The polls for Sanders nationally are not so good. Clinton still leads by about 20 points, the trend has been going down for her so that is a valid viewpoint on the Sanders side. And yes, things change.
4. So far it seems that Clinton has drawn the largest crowd at Four Freedoms Park, that could easily change,
5. I hear you, but this is not what I like or don't like, it is who can win against the Republicans. Money is a large factor sad to say, but I dont think you have made the case for this one.
6. Not silly at all. I have seen this and linked to this so its a valid critique.
7. Opinion, could be right. I like him so,,,, but that doesn't mean a majority of Americans will.
8. I agree with you.
9. False premise, agree again.
10. I have seen plenty of Sanders supporters talking about registering democrat in the primaries and if he doesn't win then unregistering or if he does then doing so after the general. The way the question was worded was disrespectful to those who support Sanders and would never do that but it did address a sizable population of sanders supporters who have claimed to want to do so.
Thanks,
I did not write this article, these are not my questions as some have asserted and I do not agree with all of the questions. I appreciate you replying and being civil.
oasis
(49,376 posts)
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)I've done my research on Bernie's record. You can see the post in my journal.
There is a line of support for Bernie that to this day, I do not see expressed on DU, that I feel is pretty compelling.
If you look at his extended tenure as mayor, you see a guy who can start in a bad situation, the outsider mayor of a badly run city, and in 8 years it's voted the most livable city in America. Not only that, but the people who were his allies went on to successfully run that town for all but one or two of the next 31 years.
The number of actions, some of the original tools he created, like land trusts to guarantee affordable housing and seed money for coop gardens, are Bernie Sanders firsts, with many cities mimicking them today.
He's the candidate (between he and Hillary) that's governed and that rags to riches story is nowhere to be found. As much experience as Hillary has, she hasn't done THAT, and I don't see it discussed on DU or many other places.
I think if that message were a bigger part of the campaign and what we see here on DU, his appeal would be broader than it is.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Do you have investments in Wall St? If so, you are funding the very attacks against the values you love to claim to champion.
Yes, it is difficult to achieve progressive victories. Especially when so many are vested and laboring, daily, against them.
If Bernie fails, it will be because of the best efforts and investments of those more concerned with profits for themselves than being a decent human being.
no investments in wall street.
1. I am backing Bernis because of his positions. Were neither he nor O'Malley running, I would probably skip this election. I could never support Webb or Hillary because they are cut out of the same cloth. I would have to research Chafee.
2. Foreign policy is almost exclusively the domain of the President. How would he get Congress support? I expect he would do what every President has done and tell Congress to go pound sand. This one was not a well thought out question. Or intended for a very ignorant audience.
3. Me no understand national polls. What national pole thingy is? That be where flag hang? D'uh....
I really, really wanted to answer all of these honestly. But dishonest questions do not deserve honest replies. So far all of these have been, but this one was so fucking ignorante it is not answerable. Of course, we understand national polls. And we also know they fucking change. Otherwise we could just take a poll and cancel the elections. It appears the author of this is a complete dimwit who does not understand polling and elections.
Or is just, you know, lying.
4. He has already closed the gap in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even Hillary supporters are conceding New Hampshire and some have conceded Iowa. Here is a question that Hillary supporters refuse to answer: how does Hillary win rural support? Answer, she doesn't. That is an automatic victory in Nevada just as it was for Obama in 2008. How does Hillary win African-American support when South Carolina approaches and the media is saturated with reminders of the racist 2008 campaign she ran? Couple those with the fact that she started out the gate 0-2, Hillary will be viewed as the Kucinich of 2016.
A 4-0 start makes him look like the only viable candidate by the time Super Tuesday comes around. THAT is how he closes the gap.
5. OFA, DFA and DNC will still run ads for Bernie. They will be less coordinated. But Bernie's genuineness has been his biggest asset.
6. I don't.
7. Already answered in #4.
8. I am not stomping my feet. I am supporting the only candidate addressing the real needs of this country. You support a candidate who, at best, just sticks her head in the sand. Does that not embarrass you?
9. Obama has in no way, shape or form endorsed Hillary. The dislike between Obama and the Clintons is palpable. He publicly disagreed with her while she as at State at least twice. Have you ever known a President to have to do that more than once? State was obviously a face-saving political horse trade to stop Bill campaigning for McCain in 2008.
10. I will not pout. I will not stay home. There are plenty of other races that matter as well. But there is no fucking way in hell I will ever vote for Hillary after her racist 2008 campaign. Ain't going to happen. It infuriates me that Democrats would even consider that woman for office after what she did in 2008. No way, no how. Period.
I don't think Hillary supporters realize how big THAT is going to play when the primaries actually come around. Actually, they probably do. That would explain the racial attacks on Bernie. They're trying to deflect. But it ain't working.
Her finger wagging reply to BLM - because she just couldn't help herself - versus Bernie's increasing support from BLM has already destroyed that tactic. Sure, she has some BLM on payroll** who will keep pounding out the drumroll. But BLM is too big and spread out. They saw the finger. And they are learning about Bernie.
You were dealt a losing hand. We're not falling for the bluff. You lose. It is really that simple.
** Nothing wrong with that. Bernie has a BLM activist on payroll as well. But I can't help thinking he has her on payroll to advise his campaign while Hillary does to buy their support. Bernie-vs-Blacks bears a striking resemblence to Obama-vs-Gays (yet another racist overtone of that 2008 campaign given the "Blacks hate Gays" meme).