I can show every Hillary supporter why they should be supporting Bernie

[pinebox]

Yet many refuse to see the light.
Why is it people are soooooo painting Hillary as someone she isn't?
Plain and simple, let's break this down.

Let's cut the bullshit right now with Bernie and gun control.

Climate change and renewable energy? Hillary is the least effective candidate on the issues. http://cleantechnica.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-vs-martin-omalley-climate-plans-chart/



Black Lives Matter and incarceration? Hillary is propped up by the private prison industry https://theintercept.com/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/ … and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton and http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/private_prison_lobbyists_are_fundraising_for_hillary_clinton_20150724 and http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/24/guess-who-else-fundraising-clinton-private-prison-lobbyists That's FOUR LINKS all of which are from liberal websites. Read them!

LGBT issues? GTFO! Doesn't shit like this bother you Hillary supporters when you have a candidate who's been for it a long time ago and fought for gay rights dating back to the 70s? Seriously, come on! Quit making excuses! She defended DADT and the sanctity of marriage. The Daily Beast said it best with "Hillary Is No Gay Icon" http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/hillary-is-no-gay-icon.html and just this week it was revealed in emails, her comments about gay parents http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html You don't think those emails are anything? Well, it seems that they certainly are and they're very telling! Especially when it comes to LGBT issues. More on that here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-same-sex-passports_560c68e6e4b076812700bf06 but those emails don't mean anything do they? Horseshit!

Wall street reform? Really? When you're biggest donors are big banks? When you're against Glass-Stegall? Riddle this Hillary supporters, do you honestly think Hillary is going to bite the hand that feeds her? Come on now, let's not be naive! http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/




Minimum wage? Living wage? Ha! She doesn't support a $15/hr national wage and has said that's too high http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/05/hillary-clinton-is-quite-right-15-is-much-too-high-for-a-national-minimum-wage/ Bzzzzzzzzz! There is Hillary's Titanic. The minute this becomes an issue in the debates, she's done. Wake up Hillary supporters! Bernie wants #15ForAll

KXL, TPP, NAFTA? I won't even touch that. We all know what's up.

Immigration? Nope. It's time to end the la la la la parade for Hillary on the immigration issue. Have fun with this!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/hillary-clinton-immigration_n_5507630.html

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that unaccompanied minors who crossed the border illegally in a massive influx over recent months "should be sent back" to their native countries, but also that they should be reunited with their families -- which sometimes requires them to stay in the United States.

"They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns about whether all of them should be sent back," the potential 2016 presidential candidate said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families."

War? Not just Iraq! We all know how she voted for the Iraq war but let's take a look at something else shall we? How about her comments that we should "obliterate Iran?" Oh forgot about that one Hillary supporters, didn't you?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/22/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.

Keep in mind these other great choices too!

http://therealnews.com/t2/component/content/article/170-more-blog-posts-from-david-william-pear/2458-hillary-clintons-neocon-legacy-coups-dictators-corruption-chaos-executions-and-assassination There's more of a reality check at that link than you could ever want and imagine. If you think for one second that this stuff won't come up in the debates, you'd be sadly mistaken.

On and on it goes, there's more, there's lots more but Hillary supporters need to stop with the BS and start seeing her for she truly is. These are serious issues which should concern each and every single one of you. There is literally NO reason to support her. NONE.

[leftofcool]

1. Should, should, should? No thanks. I think I will decide who I support.

[cantbeserious]

2. Good Luck Supporting An Establishment Candidate In An Age Of Anti-Establishment Sentiment

eom

[Persondem]

17. " An Age Of Anti-Establishment Sentiment". That's funny. Really.

Only in your echo chamber. 90% of the electorate won't care until well into 2016, and only about 25% of Dems are on board with Sanders. Add the Clinton and Biden numbers together.

[cantbeserious]

26. Guess One Does Not Follow The Sentiments Of Young Voters - Ignore Them At Your Own Peril

eom

[retrowire]

20. i think that people that have such a hair trigger

offense to the word should are being somewhat child-like.

the word "should" has its purpose. You "should" drink lemonade instead of Drano. would it be wise then to kick and scream that you were advised that you "should" do something? or should you take the advice for what its worth?

Or would you rather be advised more nicely with sugar on top? not myself, if I were into something that wasn't so beneficial for my well being, I'd rather someone tell it to me straight. their use of the word "should" wouldn't deter me from the value of their entire message.

[pinebox]

22. Do it!

Do it & study the issues and and ask yourself who falls in more with Republican principles from the Bob Dole era than Dem principles.
Think about it and study the issues and where she stands. Compare.
The evidence is there.

[BlueMTexpat]

42. +1!!!

[rhett o rick]

91. Let me guess. You will support the candidate with the most money. I would ask why but doubt I'd get

an answer, so I will guess.

1. The 99% are a bunch of lazy paupers
2. The 1% were given their wealth by God so they should rule.
3. It's safer to back the biggest bully.
4. Terrified to fight for our 16,000,000 children living in debt. Afraid to lose what one has.
5. Trickle down has it's points.
6. Maybe some day I will be in the 1%, so lay off them.
7. Clinton will really work for the 99%, in spite of the fact that the major banks are supporting her campaign.

[GoneFishin]

101. Fantastic list. I'd wager that 1, 3, and 6 are hot sellers.

[rhett o rick]

110. I think 3. We've raised a couple of generations with too many authoritarians.

Worshiping strong authoritarian leaders. But also 4. Some are terrified of change. They would have been Loyalists in Colonial times.

[DanTex]

3. People have different opinions about things sometimes. I doubt that a bunch of misleading

charts are going to change many of them. Personally, I don't think the gun industry should have a special legal immunity, for example, and no amount of NRA talking points about guns and hammers is going to change that.

[pinebox]

7. It's cute Dan

That you think charts are misleading when they're backed up with facts. Let us know how that works out for you. NRA talking points? Yeah Dan because rural America is the same with the gun issue as urban America isn't it? O_o Keep trying.

[DanTex]

8. See, that's an example of a different opinion.

Some people think that those donor charts are an accurate way to express the fact that 3.4% of Clinton's donations came from employees in the financial sector. I'm not one of those people. I'm sure a lot of people share your opinion about that, but those people already don't support Clinton.

And with the gun issue, yes, there are people who think the answer is more guns. I'm not one of them. And those people also already don't support Clinton.

Different opinions, see how that works?

[pinebox]

13. 3.4%?

You don't even know what she has because of dark money and SuperPacs. Psst! Bernie doesn't have either. Checkmate!
Aren't you concerned? I mean really! You should be. Yes you're right, people who are concerned with the importance of corporate money in politics aren't supporting Hillary. Let's not forget that MoveOn.org cited it as the #1 issue.

The gun issue is what it is. What works for rural America isn't going to work for inner cities and urban areas. You can't lump hunters in the same group as gang bangers.

Different opinions? What I showed you isn't opinions but facts. I think you'll get a wake up call with the $ later this month when FEC filings come out. Do you honestly think a former Monsanto attorney who supports GMO's and a former Walmart board member is right for this country? Really? In fact there's a petition over on MoveOn.org http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/hillary-clinton-its-time

She's bought and paid for Dan.

[DanTex]

66. Yup. That's what you get when you divide the total from financial employees by the total she raised

Simple math. From the FEC filings and opensecrets. But you'd never know that from that misleading chart you posted. This is why you are surprised to see it.

Yes, the gun issue is what it is. And Bernie is on the wrong side of it. Evidently you don't care. That's your opinion. Like I said, people have different opinions.

[kenfrequed]

9. He never effectively responds on the charts

It is always an accusation of being misleading without anything to really back it up.

[pinebox]

16. Yup

[Jim Lane]

99. His current kick is this guns-and-hammers thing.

He'll just keep asserting over and over that Bernie Sanders is a bought-and-paid-for tool of the gun lobby and voted to give them huge special privileges. His response to patient refutation is tireless repetition.

I've variously seen Sanders's NRA rating cited as D-minus or F. In a quick search I found this page giving him a lifetime rating of 0% but that was as of 2000.

[cui bono]

19. Why do you bring up gun industry having special legal immunity?

[DanTex]

72. Because Bernie voted for that.

[cui bono]

83. No he didn't.

[A Simple Game]

71. I have read your post where you mention the gun industries have special immunity from being sued

that other industries don't have. Could you cite this law for me please, I have never read it.

[DanTex]

73. PLCAA. It was the NRA's top legislative priority, and Bernie voted for it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[A Simple Game]

76. Wow, good for Bernie, that law ended a very discriminatory practice of suing gun

manufacturers for negligence when none was apparent. Can you imagine the uproar if car manufacturers could be sued because their products were used in an illegal way? Getaway car in a robbery, hit and run or even just an accident caused by poor road conditions. My god what about the people that are in charge of the road conditions? Could they be liable? Where would it have stopped if not at this law? We would no longer have car manufacturers in this Country. If the practice of trying to sue gun manufacturers out of business hadn't been stopped where would our armed forces acquire their small weapons, Russia, China? It boggles the mind when courts would even consider allowing a person to sue a corporation for making a well functioning product. I cut myself with a perfectly good, sharp knife yesterday while cutting onions, better check the brand of knife, wasn't much of a cut but there may be a few bucks in it for me.

I'm anti gun but common sense tells us that the problem is not with a poorly made product. Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable for making a good product. Good for Bernie to practice common sense.

As you support suing gun manufacturers for making good products who else would you support suing for making non-defective products? Where would your cut off be.

[mythology]

74. It's the protection of lawful commerce in arms act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

[sabrina 1]

102. They are changing many of them. Why do you think that a virtually unknown Senator

from a small state has gone as far as he has in just a few months when still half the country doesn't know him?

Polls can't reflect his support until all the new Dem registratiions are polled, I'll be taking someone to register as a Dem this week eg, who never voted before due to disgust with the whole system.

So yes, people are not only reading them, they are disgusted with the establishment politicians whose records contradict their campaign rhetoric every time.

Except for one.

[DanTex]

103. I doubt that. People who support Bernie do it because of his message, not because of some dumb

misleading internet meme, and certainly not because 3.4% of Hillary's campaign contributions came from employees in the financial industry.

[hrmjustin]

4. Thank you for the condescension!

[beam me up scottie]

5. And there it is.

I appreciate the effort to address the issues but campaigning against Hillary isn't as effective as campaigning for Bernie.

That said I'll give it a rec for the excellent research.

[randome]

6. For the vast majority, I don't think you need to convince them on the issues.

But Clinton is still favored to be the nominee. That's the one salient fact that no amount of 'convincing' will change.

She has the electoral votes lined up. She has the campaign machine and she has the endorsements.

You can't convince anyone that 2+2 equals something other than 4.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

24. "she has the campaign machine"

That is exactly the problem. We're sick of that. We need someone who is actually in it for the people, not coming into it like an army taking over.

[randome]

78. I agree completely. Clinton is no Obama. Sanders is closer in character.

But that machine is not going to change between now and next November. If we want to change it, we probably need to start right after the election. I doubt there's enough time now to make that kind of fundamental change.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[cui bono]

84. It's already changing. You can join the revolution or remain part of the problem.

All it takes is for people to vote for Bernie.

[LostOne4Ever]

107. There is no after the election anymore

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Thanks to our fucked up election system we are stuck in an age of never ending campaigns, and more and more candidates who sold their souls to corporations and PACs to get elected.[/font]

[hifiguy]

87. Well, when you're owned by the banksters who finance you

you DO have a lot of money to throw around.

[Fawke Em]

70. How does she have the electoral votes lined up?

No one has voted, yet.

[randome]

75. Doesn't she already have some super-delegate votes lined up?

Regardless, she looks 'fated' to win the nomination right now. The endorsements alone will sway many primary voters. I'm tempted to vote for Sanders in the primary just to send a message but I don't think he'll win.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[restorefreedom]

97. the superdelegate thing is what the hrc campaign is selling

as part of the inevitability meme. if sanders gets the votes and the superdelegates try and steal it for hillary, that will give rise to a new party and the dems will implode. 2008 was nearly a disaster. i like to think they won't try something again but i don't trust them to play fair because it is clear they already are rigging.

[cui bono]

89. She had the pre-sale password?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Stop bashing! Talk about ISSUES! Welll....not those issues. K&R

[artislife]

77. The issues! Nt

[BlueWaveDem]

11. Nice cherry-picking of charts.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/07/1409515/-Setting-the-Record-Straight-Hillary-Clinton-s-Campaign-Donors

Meanwhile, her top 20 contributors were Unions and she ran on carbon pricing in 2008. She's also againt KXL and arctic drilling. The entire climate chart is wrong and her contribution chart is also misleading. Nice try.

[cascadiance]

14. Speaking of cherry picking... That article cherry picks charts that ignore number of donors...

... and emphasize total contributions which masks the demographics where Hillary relies more on smaller numbers of contributions from more well heeled donors... How about this chart that explains this more that the other article was cherry picking to avoid putting in it too.

[BlueWaveDem]

18. You realize her LARGEST contributors were unions, right?

[cascadiance]

37. You also realize that the union membership have been rejecting their leaders' "union endorsements"..

.... of Hillary lately, and some have had to pull back their "endorsements", which clearly weren't reflecting the opinions of the union membership, but just those at the top that are "connected" to the party establishment, which many of our party's constituency are concerned about its viability and participation in the massive government corruption that Americans in general are FED UP WITH!!!

Machinist Union members PO'd...
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18321/bernie_sanders_machinists1

Teacher's Union members PO'd...
http://nypost.com/2015/07/16/teachers-union-members-want-hillary-endorsement-withdrawn/

NEA not getting membership support for potential pending endorsement of Clinton.
https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-nea-may-be-about-to-endorse-hillary-clinton-without-input-from-majority-of-members/

Firefighter's Union backing away from earlier Hillary Clinton endorsement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/politics/firefighters-union-backs-away-from-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

SEIU and AFSCME put brakes on Clinton endorsement
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton02016-unions-delay-endorsements-213922

AFL-CIO holding back on Clinton endorsement...
http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/252823-labor-unions-hold-back-on-endorsements-for-hillary

Teamster's holding back from endorsing Clinton...
http://www.ibtimes.com/teamsters-abandon-democrats-union-withholds-hillary-clinton-endorsement-after-twice-2121237

Bernie Sanders is what more union members want as president and here are the reasons why they should...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-spielberg/bernie-sanders-not-hillary-clinton-unions_b_8205288.html

More about the process of union memberships not wanting Clinton versus manipulated leadership...

[George II]

85. Read the fine print:

“based on analysis of voting records and political contributions from 1980 to present”

That includes only three campaigns for Hillary Clinton (two Senate and one Presidential), whereas it includes only "local" campaigns for Sanders up until April of this year:

Two for Senator and one for Governor (or the other way around) under the Liberty Union party
Several mayoral eletions in Burlington Vermont (total population of 35-39K during his time in office)
Six or seven campaigns for Congress, all but one of which he was virtually unopposed
Two campaigns for Senate, again without viable opposition.

Each and every one of those were for office within the tiny city of Burlington or relatively small, lower populated state of Vermont. Remember, the highest number of votes that Sanders ever got (in one of his Senate campaigns) he only received 207,000 votes.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, ran twice for Senator in New York State and once for President in 2008. In her Senate elections she received more than 3.5M votes in each of the Senate elections and roughly 20M votes in her Presidential bid.

It's not logical to compare the size and types of donations that each have received. The dynamics of the elections that the two have participated in are entirely different.

That chart also just talks about percentages of donors, not the actual donors, and the categories are arbitrary. The "medium" category top limit is only $200 below the maximum contribution permitted.

Finally, what are the actual number of contributions to each for each category (small, medium, and large)?

[cascadiance]

86. Well, that shows a history of how the two candidates have been funded. How about this present one

Which shows the same contributor behavior that emphasizes that Bernie gets more total donations with more contributing smaller donations whereas Clinton relies on a lot more of her contributions from those contributing large contributions.



Bernie represents more of the 99% than Hillary does. This chart makes this pretty clear. I know that was from July. But look also here how Bernie has raised more than ultimate President Obama did during this time in 2007.

[George II]

90. Again, that pie chart only shows undefined % - are those % of total donations or % of total donors?

In other words, are they numbers of donations or amount of donations?

Also, we saw in the news yesterday that the Sanders campaign has received "One million donations", but even that might be misleading.

Are those individual donations or individual donors? If every one of his donors contributed five times (people on monthly schedules, for example), then that might represent only 200,000 donors.

The second chart, the bar chart, really means little since the economy was entirely different in 2007 than 2015. We were just about to entire a deep depression back in 2007 as opposed to the a relatively better economy today. People today have a lot more discretionary income/savings than they did in 2007 when they were worried about even having a job.

[cascadiance]

95. It seems pretty clear that the graph represents numbers of donations...

... and they are grouped by which donations have different amount ranges in them.

The largest percentage of the NUMBER of donations that Hillary Clinton gets are those where the donation amount is the maximum of $2700 per donation, where for Sanders only 1.2% of the NUMBER of his donations are donations giving the maximum amount of $2700 each.

Now, could there be cheating going on, where there are some donors giving to the Sanders campaigns giving many small donations instead of one large donation to his campaign to make it appear these donations represent more people than they do in actuality? Perhaps, but I suspect if that were being done to any extent, the corporate press would be sure to let us know about it. All of these donations have to have people's names documented, etc. and any kind of activity would be sure to be spotted, since lying about who's giving money would be a crime.

I think whether you allow for inflation or not, these numbers show at least a degree of equivalence in their campaigns at this point, if not having Bernie ahead. With McCutcheon decision in place, it isn't hard to see how there might be more money collectively being spent on campaigns directly to candidates for everyone. I'll give you that.

But just as important are the polls too, where Bernie now is AHEAD of where Obama was at this point in 2007 in September in terms of his numbers versus Clinton's. That's something that isn't affected by monetary inflation. Those are just polling numbers sir!

[pinebox]

15. Nice try?

I'll take the fact checking sites over blogs.

She's against KXL you say? Ohhhh you mean her recent decision to be against it?
Meanwhile....

A former Keystone XL lobbyist just joined Team Hillary
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/26/a_former_keystone_xl_lobbyist_just_joined_team_hillary/

Hillary Clinton’s newest campaign consultant is Jeffrey Berman, the strategist credited with her 2008 primary defeat and who, in the time since, has worked as a lobbyist for TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline. Environmentalists have a right to be concerned.

Whooops!

Or was it the whole entire thing of her refusing to take a stance on KXL for so long? http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2015/07/hillary-clinton-still-wont-take-position-keystone-xl

Or was it this? http://uspolitics.about.com/od/CampaignsElections/a/Hillary-Clinton-On-The-Keystone-Xl-Pipeline.htm
During a 2010 speaking engagement, Clinton appeared to be supportive of the pipeline from Canada and told an audience that her

Department of State was “inclined to" give TransCanada approval for its project.

This is what Clinton said about the Keystone XL pipeline in response to a question at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco event:

"So as I say, we've not yet signed off on it. But we are inclined to do so and we are for several reasons — going back to one of your original questions — we're either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada. And until we can get our act together as a country and figure out that clean, renewable energy is in both our economic interests and the interests of our planet, I mean, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone how deeply disappointed the President and I are about our inability to get the kind of legislation through the Senate that the United States was seeking."

The climate chart is wrong?

One Simple Chart Explains The Climate Plans Of Hillary Clinton And Bernie Sanders http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/28/3684667/omalley-vs-clinton-vs-sanders-climate-plans/
Fascinating.

[BlueWaveDem]

21. Yes. Those charts are completely wrong.

She is against KXL, arctic drilling, for carbon pricing, for carbon regulation. FFS she ran on carbon pricing in 2008 as well.

[pinebox]

27. Let's take a look

Have a read please and I mean READ http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/27072015/hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-climate-policy-ambitious-falls-short-bold-democratic-primary
That site is legit, so legit it won a Pulitzer.

[BlueWaveDem]

30. Read it. It was written in July. She already announced support for "the other half".

For expanding renewables, against arctic drilling, against KXL, etc. You basically just posted a now outdated cherry picked link.

[pinebox]

45. Outdated?

Try relevant. It's outdated info from July 27th? Or is it more of Hillary once again changing her mind on issues. I think the latter is pretty well demonstrated and illustrated here. If cherry picking a link makes it a fact, so be it. In the meantime can you please tell us why Hillary was so silent for so long ago KXL, an issue which Sanders, Warren and the likes were out of front of for months on end? *crickets* Of course you can't because Hillary never gave a damn answer as to why she couldn't make up her mind months ahead!

Meanwhile, from same article...

Eventually, during the Democratic primary debates, she may have to argue the merits of a carbon tax with Senator Bernie Sanders, who favors one, or parry with former Governor Martin O'Malley, who says his target is 100 percent renewable energy.

But for now, her policy is relatively anodyne: "We can make a transition over time from a fossil fuel economy, predominantly, to a clean renewable energy economy, predominantly."

Yup yup.

[cascadiance]

39. If she's not against TPP, her stance "against KXL", amongst others are MEANINGLESS propaganda...

... especially when she earlier supported KXL. Because ISDS courts gives companies like Transcanada the means to override the effects of her shutting down KXL monetarily at U.S. taxpayer expense, or to "force her hand" if she were president to restart KXL to avoid that massive debt incurred from such a pseudo court (ISDS) ruling that she doesn't want to stand against its formation of.

[ibegurpard]

12. No you cant

But you've made a good case for supporting Bernie. Stop telling people they're wrong, put yout case out there and let it speak for itself.

[pinebox]

51. I stand by my comments

and I for one am sick of people putting their heads in the sand and making Hillary out to be something she isn't. It's time the bullshit was called out.

[Persondem]

23. No way. Sanders goes down in idealogical flames ala Stephenson and McGovern.

He can't win a general election. No way the RW gives him a pass on being a tax raising, socialist, conscientious objector (aka draft dodger). They won't even have to lie.

[cui bono]

29. Those are all things the people admire and support.

We are craving someone who stands on their principles. Everything you mentioned is exactly why people will get behind him. Bernie will explain all of that, he doesn't care about talking points, he gets to the meat of the issue. We all know why we need taxes and Bernie will explain why we need to make big corporations pay their fair share. Everyone agrees with that. Even Teabaggers. They're against the banksters too. He'll explain how medicare is a democratic socialist program. People love that, even Teabaggers. "Get your govt out of my medicare." He speaks the truth, in non-political speak, and people are listening.

So no need to be concerned. He can and will win the general. Dems just need to vote for the person who best represents their interests. And that person is Bernie.

[Persondem]

33. Thank you for the nice reply. I just don't see it that way.

We need a Dem in the White House, and I just do not see a way Sanders gets there. HRC is the best chance for having a president that will pick SCOTUS judges that can overturn Citizens United and get rid of gerrymandering. When elections are free, then other fixes are possible to how things work in D.C. If the GOP gets the WH in 2016 then we are screwed for at least a generation.

Sanders gives way to much new ammo to the GOP ad writers. Polls show the US would elect a Muslim or an atheist before electing a socialist.

[cui bono]

36. But Sanders is a democratic socialist. And that was used against Obama and he won.

I believe the people are smarter than that now. The people that would fall for that are the same people that fall for the birther shit. The stupid and uninformed, the GOP base.

With the internet people can just listen to Bernie speak and that's when he gets them. His authenticity brings them in. He just comes across as a real person and not a rehearsed politician. He excites people. We can see that in the turn out and the quick rise in popularity as people get to know about him.

Imo, Hillary embodies the exact problems you fear Bernie has. She has so much negative baggage coming into this thing. Agree or not, many people simply do not like her, do not trust her and do not get excited by her. Many will sit out the election if she is the Dem nominee because neither side will make them care enough to vote.

We see Bernie gaining supporters from the indies and even moderate Republicans. He even has appeal with the teabagger faction due to his strong views on income inequality and the 1%.

The fact is, the more people that get to know about Bernie the more people support him and get excited about him. Everyone knows who Hillary is and they just aren't that excited about her since she is just business as usual.

[pinebox]

53. He can't win in a general?

Hillary would make the GOP base turn out in droves with decades of anger and hatred pent up.

Speaking of that RW....

[NorthCarolina]

28. It;s the establishment vs the people. The establishment holds

most of the cards so will run the show to their benefit. The peoples ONLY power is through their vote, and even then a percentage of that will likely be intentionally compromised in favor of the establishment candidate through the usual voting tactics and EVM's. That's why they can be so smug, because they're confident they've covered all their bases guarding against an interloper like Bernie gaming any type of foothold.

Lets be honest, They have the media, they have the public officials, they have the voting machines, they have the money. We just have us. Fortunately, there are a LOT of us, but will it be enough? time will tell. I hope so.

[questionseverything]

56. about the voting machines

yes we will have to have overwhelming numbers

hopefully bernie learned from obamas campaign and is starting now to count precincts and concentrating in caucus states

[stonecutter357]

31. I am voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton....

No thanks you can't show every Hillary supporter why they should be supporting Bernie.

[pinebox]

46. Ten tell us why you think Hillary is a better candidate

Go for it, let's hear it, despite all the evidence I showed above, please tell us how she's better because a hell of a lot of us want to know why HRC supporters think that when evidence shows otherwise.

[whereisjustice]

32. Hillary and Bush - McCandidates manufactured just for you in carefully controlled environments...

so clean, so sterile, so fucked up.

[Metric System]

34. Still with Hill. What a bunch of condescending tripe.

[pinebox]

47. Ahh no argument?

Prove me otherwise, you have the floor. Go for it, let's talk policy shall we? Condescending tripe or perhaps you have your head in the sand from ducking sniper fire XD Show us please where she's better than Bernie on policy.
We'll be waiting.

[Metric System]

67. What's the point in wasting time arguing with someone who writes, "There is literally NO reason to

support her. NONE."? Your mind is made up, your thinking is apparently rigid and you obviously dislike Hillary to the point that you are unable to be objective in assessing the merits of her candidacy. I've wasted my time even writing this.

[workinclasszero]

35. Bernie can't win in the general election.

/thread

[pinebox]

48. Ya Obama couldn't either, right?

/openthread

[workinclasszero]

57. Please...Bernie is no BHO

Thats laughable, seriously.

[cui bono]

65. Thankfully, you are absolutely correct!!!

Bernie means what he says. He actually wears his 'comfortable shoes' every damn day.

He is ahead of where Obama was at this time in the primary race. He is only going to get more and more popular as more people learn about him. He has crossover appeal like no other.

Hillary is business as usual, has a built in hate factor, will NEVER attract any Republican votes because of that and will not GOTV.

The excitement Bernie generates, which is undeniable as you can clearly see from the crowds he is drawing as a mostly unknown candidate, will GOTV. People who would sit out the election if it's just the same old same old will come out in droves to vote for this authentic person who not only says he will fight for them but who has actually done so for decades now. He has the record to show for it and he speaks to people in an authentic and sincere manner that really connects with them.

He absolutely can win the general, unlike Hillary, who will most likely lose since the GOP will come out in droves just to vote against her.

[LostOne4Ever]

109. Which is the reason why the polls show just the opposite?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html#polls

[ejbr]

38. The title of your diary is very bold

You can bring someone to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

[hughee99]

40. Is Bernie Sanders a woman?

For some, that's a deal-breaker.

[MyNameGoesHere]

41. Thank you I now see that

Martin O'malley is the best candidate. You sure woke my ass up with your info

[pinebox]

50. O'Malley is a great candidate

and if Bernie gets the nod I can see him as a VP choice.

[JoePhilly]

43. Isn't the air kind of thin up there?

[pinebox]

49. And highly oxygenated

You know, clean air is pretty good for ones lungs, it allows us to shout pretty loudly and clearly. Just sayin' XD

[JoePhilly]

106. I get the sense that you do not know what thin air at higher altitudes actually means.

You get less oxygen, not more.

You become out of breath more easily.

You tend to get light headed.

And you tend to become less coherent.

Just saying.

[pinebox]

108. That depends Joe

If you're a flat lander, sure but I'm willing to bet I can circles around you at 14,000 feet because I'm acclimated XD

[SoapBox]

44. Hill cannot and will not win.

Once she steps out from her money grubbing private parties and finally into the wide public eye...

Americans will be reminded of why they really do not like her...trust.

Hill burnout runs DEEP.

[Andy823]

52. From the looks of your first comparison chart

It should be O'Malley we want to put in the WH. Now I will agree on that.

[pinebox]

54. O'Malley would be good

No question about it but right now I think he's vying for VP mostly and he would be a great choice. A ticket with O'Malley and Bernie would be most excellent.

[Thinkingabout]

55. I did not see anything about the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, this was a big

part of the financial crisis, Bernie voted for this. This would be a start on seeing who Bernie truly is standing. His vote on the Brady Bill shows where he is on gun control. Welfare to the 10% whose kids would gain a free college education, they can afford to send their kids through college. These are good reasons not to support Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Can you cite proof of your claim about the CFMA? Tia!

Also, since he's pro-gun control and wants every American to be able to attend state colleges tuition free can you explain how those positions different from Hillary's?

Again, tia!

[thesquanderer]

63. Not quite

CFMA discussed--and disproven--here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251640125

(In short, the bill he voted for in the house did not include the onerous language of the version that passed in the senate.)

As for free tuition to public colleges and universities, no, it is not a handout to people who don't need it. People who have money mostly send their kids to private colleges. No one is getting a free pass to Harvard here (or any other private university). If you're really going to argue against this one, why not argue against free high school education? Maybe only people with money should be able to get something beyond, not merely a 12th grade education, but even an 8th grade education, right? Really, you can justify one as easily (or not) as the other.

I'll give you the Brady Bill and the NRA's ranking of Sanders as "only" a D- if you give me IWR, PATRIOT Act, death penalty, private prisons, DOMA (a long time ago, but so was the Brady bill), TPP, Glass-Steagal...

[Thinkingabout]

80. Here is the bill information

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities_and_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

Here is the voting record:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/106-2000/h540

As far as the IWR, the AUMF was already passed, the IWR was to establish steps Bush should follow but did not follow, at least Hillary tried to establish an inspection should be done for WMD's before the invasion, a no vote would give Bush full range to do what he wanted.

[thesquanderer]

94. Your link proves my point

From your link at

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodities_and_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

As so passed by the House*, H.R. 4541 contained, in Title I, the language concerning OTC derivatives that became the source for Title I of the CFMA and, in Title II, the language regulating "security futures" that became the source for Title II of the CFMA. Titles III and IV would be added when the CFMA was enacted into law two months later.**

* the version passed by the House would be the version Sanders voted for, as he was a member of the House at the time

** Titles III and IV were added two months later. These are the problematic parts of the bill, as also described at your same link:

Title III established a framework for SEC regulation of "security-based swaps." ... Title IV established a framework for CFTC regulation of "bank products."

These changes were ultimately incorporated into an appropriations act, where the CFMA portion could no longer be voted on separately as it had been originally. Therefore, people who voted for the original CFMA in the House never had the opportunity to separately vote for the much worse CFMA as subsequently implemented. Once something is part of a much larger bill like the appropriations act, where you cannot vote against it without voting against a lot of other things, a person's stand on a particular issue is basically no longer possible to discern, at least from the vote alone.

This is also discussed at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779131 where post #7 explains "The House version, for which Sanders did vote, did not include the compromise that allowed mortgage derivatives and credit default swaps. "

The process the bill went through is described in great detail at:

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/04/01/read-the-bill-the-commodity-futures-modernization-act/

which also includes, for example (emphasis added):

While Ewing’s bill sailed quickly through the House, it stalled in the Senate, as Sen. Gramm desired stricter deregulatory language be inserted into the bill. Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or the CFTC with any hope of authority in regulating or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. Gramm’s opposition held the bill in limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election.
...
During a lame-duck December session, while the media was focused on the recounts and court cases, Gramm and Ewing sought to strike a compromise on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The day after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gov. Bush, December 14, Ewing introduced a new version of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. On December 15, with little warning or fanfare—aside from the overshadowed discussions on the floors of Congress—the new, compromise version was included as a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001, an 11,000 page omnibus appropriations conference report.

HedgeWorld Daily News, a trade publication for hedge funds and one of the few news outlets following the bill, stated, “Details of the final language are not immediately available. Congressional aides said Sen. Gramm did succeed in getting additional language protecting the legal certainty of swap, especially those traded by banks, which are the main users of the products.”

The final language, which the public was hardly aware of, contained some new sections not in the original Ewing bill that, for all intents and purposes, exempted swaps and derivatives from regulation

In short, you can't take Sanders to task for voting for the "Commodities and Futures Modernization Act of 2000" because the version of the CFMA that he voted for there (which passed the House almost unanimously) did not include the toxic parts. So, Sanders' vote on the CFMA actually is not problematic. (And seriously, I have a hard time thinking that anyone here actually believes that Sanders was on the side of the banks. It would basically go against everything he's said and everything else he's voted on for decades.)

Now maybe you could take him to task for voting for the subsequent "Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001" but that's a tricky argument to make because you can pretty much count on every omnibus appropriations act every created--including, I'm sure, ones that HRC voted for--being a very complicated mass of good and bad things, and that's a can of worms that probably no one wants to open. Voting for such an omnibus bill, by itself, is not a "gotcha", as these bills contain so much in them that no one who votes for them can be assumed to agree with everything in them.

(Though whether Sanders or other House members who voted for the original CFMA were even aware of the changes that were made to it by the time it became part of the later 11,000 page Appropriations Act is, AFAIK, an open question. as this kind of "late night sneaking things into bills" is a phenomenon that itself has been the subject of controversy as well. But that's a whole other conversation.)

On to your other point, where you say,

As far as the IWR, the AUMF was already passed, the IWR was to establish steps Bush should follow but did not follow, at least Hillary tried to establish an inspection should be done for WMD's before the invasion, a no vote would give Bush full range to do what he wanted.

The original AUMF (9/14/01) did not authorize action against Iraq, but only against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 attack (which Iraq did not). Arguably, it was the very fact that the original AUMF could not clearly be applied to Iraq that required the subsequent IWR In the first place. So while I agree that there was language there to encourage diplomacy as well, no, a "no" vote would not have given Bush authorization to do what he wanted. Logically, if he felt that he already had the authorization to do what he wanted without it, he would not have pushed for the IWR in the first place.

This is also consistent with the fact that almost half the Dems in the Senate at the time voted against it, and why that bunch included the most reliably liberal ones (like Feingold, Wellstone, Kennedy) while the bunch that voted for it included the most reliably hawkish/right-leaning ones (like Baucus, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu).

IWR specifically gave Bush the authority to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq", as opposed to the earlier resolution which authorized force only against those involved with 9/11. This also means that, at its core, a Yes vote accepted the premise of a genuine threat posed by Iraq that, in fact, did not exist (and there was plenty of evidence at the time that the administration's "evidence" to the contrary was skewed and cherry-picked). Regardless, I think it is clear that Bush would not have had the authority to use force against Iraq without the IWR, and certainly there would otherwise have been no reason for him to request it.

[Thinkingabout]

96. The question is did Bernie vote for HR 4541, yes he did.

Next question, did the IWR contain information for inspections to be made in Iraq, yes it did. Was these inspections completed, no they was not, in fact Bush pulled the inspectors out before the inspection was complete.

If you are giving Bernie a pass on CFMA because of the claim he did not vote on the final bill, then Hillary gets a pass on IWR because all avenues was not exhausted.

[thesquanderer]

98. Well...

Last edited Sun Oct 4, 2015, 09:09 AM - Edit history (2)

Yes, Bernie voted for HR 4541, but HR 4541 didn't have the bad stuff in it (and passed the House 377-4). So what's the problem?

(BTW, the four No votes were split Dem and Repub, and included Ron Paul. Is this really such an ideal litmus test?)

(BTW #2, you are aware that the final, toxic version of this was ultimately signed into law by Bill Clinton, right?)

Unlike HR 4541 which passed with virtually unanimous bipartisan support, the IWR was far more divisive. It had the support of less than 40% of the house Dems, and 58% of the Senate Dems, so plenty of Dems were against it. I don't discount that it had language to provide a way out of going to war, but ultimately, its purpose was to permit Bush to go to war. Some people think it was naive to think that Bush would genuinely use the resolution to avoid war, but maybe you're among those who, like HRC, gave him more credit than that. Fine. Regardless, without the IWR, he simply did not have the authority to go in. And IMO, a lot of dems voted more intelligently on this than HRC did. (And almost no Dems voted differently from Bernie on HR 4541... and again, that makes sense, as it was not the terrible bill some people are making it out to be.)

A nice analysis of Hillary's floor speech is at

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq#

Especially pay attention to the discussion of Carl Levin's alternate resolution, which HRC voted against.

[Thinkingabout]

104. Bush already had bill to go to war, AUMF which only had ONE no vote, Barbara Lee.

I don't think I would be pushing Sanders as a person always opposed to war, bombing, etc, his record has too many occasions where he has voted for military action, they well out number the times Hillary has voted for military action.

[thesquanderer]

105. AUMF didn't authorize action against Iraq

That's why he needed the separate IWR. AUMF only authorized action against those connected to 9/11, and that didn't include Iraq.

I don't push Sanders as a pacifist, so maybe you aimed the rest of your comment at someone else. But he did get the IWR vote right. I never counted up how many times each has voted for military action. I would certainly not be surprised for the number to be higher for Sanders... after all, he was in Congress for many more years (I think it's 24 years for BS, vs. 12 years for HRC), so there would have been many more opportunities for such a vote. And again, I never claimed he was always opposed to war or that he never voted for military action.

I would, however, be surprised if there were any military actions that he supported that HRC objected to.

[thesquanderer]

100. Oh, and also...

If you simply prefer HRC's generally less liberal positions, or think she'd be more effective in working with congress, or prefer her foreign policy experience, fine. But I think it's silly to knock Bernie over HR 4541 (for reasons explained in the previous post), or to pretend that the IWR was more about giving GWB a way to avoid a war than it was about giving him a way to start one. HRC herself admits the vote was a stinker.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hillary-clinton-on-iraq-vote-i-still-got-it-wrong-plain-and-simple/

"I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn't alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple."

And I don't knock her for that admission. I'm just surprised that anyone else here is still defending that vote, that even she no longer defends. It did take her a long time to get there, and other Dems looked at the same information and didn't get it wrong, but at least she realizes it. And no one gets everything right. I would not choose a candidate on this or any other single issue alone. But to actually not consider her IWR vote a negative? Really?

[Indepatriot]

60. STOP ATTACKING HILLARY!!!!!.... with actual facts that point our her shortcomings....

[abakan]

61. This is a convincing display for those who can be convinced.

Those who can't, will do nothing but argue about invented flaws.
So my main question to you is, why bother?
What we Bernie people need to do is to quit having pissing contests and get out and support our candidate .
Arguing, and sniping, helps no one and just makes the other side more recalcitrant and hostile, no matter how
compelling your information.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

62. ...

/revision/latest?cb=20120826123355

[Uncle Joe]

64. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, pinebox.

[Dems to Win]

68. No, Bernie, guns are not 'different' in Vermont

This gun massacre of four people happened not two months ago in Vermont:

Suspect in death of Vermont social worker was laughing: records

BARRE, Vt. — The Vermont woman charged with killing a social worker because she was upset about losing custody of her 9-year-old daughter was "calm and laughing" as police arrived on the scene minutes after the shooting, according to court records released Monday.

Jody Herring, 40, pleaded not guilty in Vermont Superior Court on Monday and was ordered held without bail. She was arrested Friday following the death of Lara Sobel who police say was shot twice in the head — including once when she was already on the ground — as she exited the Barre office building that houses the regional office of the state Department for Children and Families that afternoon.

Police also believe that before shooting 48-year-old Sobel, Herring shot and killed her own two cousins and an aunt in the neighboring town of Berlin. Charges have not been filed in connection with the deaths of Regina Herring, 43, and Rhonda Herring, 48, the suspect's cousins; and Julianne Falzarano, 73, an aunt.

In an affidavit, police officers said Washington County State's Attorney Scott Williams heard the shots and when he got to the scene, he saw Herring standing near Sobel's body still holding the .270-caliber hunting rifle. Williams was able to get the gun from her and he and bystanders subdued her.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hundreds-gather-to-remember-slain-vermont-social-worker/ar-BBlzQ1y

Plenty of human deaths when hunters use guns, too. If it's hunting season, it's time for a tragic accident story of a 12 year old shooting his brother.

IMHO, some number of intentional murders are written off as tragic hunting accidents in rural areas. And it has always been that way.

I'm a Bernie supporter in spite of his stance on guns. Also in spite of his vote in favor of the Afghanistan/drone endless war. No candidate is perfect.

I was a very active supporter of gun control after SandyHook, and have concluded that it's a hopeless cause. The 2nd amendment prevents any effective action, and hell will freeze over before the majority of Americans will be willing to give it up. As long as there's a USA, it will be awash in guns and gun deaths.

So, I sadly believe that a candidate's position on gun control isn't very important. The majority of Americans really do love their guns and gun rights more than they love their neighbors' children. And, of course, gun owners believe that their own children are protected by their own guns, so they won't even recognize the reality that they are acting as if they love their own guns more than their own children, given the stats of safety of children in homes with guns.

[Juicy_Bellows]

69. You can sure try!

Most aren't interested in changing their minds or challenging their beliefs. It's the Turd Way or bust!

Thanks for the attempt - I see it's already been labeled as bashing by some.

If you believe in Jesus as your lord and savior no amount of facts will sway such minds.

[taught_me_patience]

79. Condescending tripe

"No reason to suport her. NONE"... whatever.

I don't need to see the light either.

[Metric System]

81. When someone starts from that position, there's no point in arguing with them.

[pinebox]

92. Actually I ended with that position

Just sayin'.
But honestly. let's talk policy. I'm all ears.

[riversedge]

82. agree.

[pinebox]

93. Maybe you should

I mean honestly, I'm game for a discussion, lay it on us. Let's hear it. What in your eyes makes her better. Honest question.