2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHIGHEST RECOMMENDED KOS DIARY: "Dear Hillary Clinton supporters"
Hell yeah! You know when words are spoken truth to power. This is the de facto example of truth against Hillary's power!
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/9/1458402/-Dear-Hillary-Clinton-supporters
Dear Hillary Clinton supporters
By Australian2
Wednesday Dec 09, 2015 5:44 AM EST
Let’s leave the personal attacks at the door this time, hm? I’m going to offer a list of actions that, in my opinion, disqualify anyone taking them from seeking — let alone gaining — the Presidency of the United States of America, the most powerful elected office in the world. In the comments, I would like you to explain either a) how Hillary Clinton has not taken them; and/or b) how those actions don’t disqualify her from the office. In no particular order:
1) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, cast as one of her first votes in the Senate a vote in favour of bankruptcy “reform” that the credit card companies had spent many millions lobbying for, and which made it vastly harder to re-start one’s life after bankruptcy?
2) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, cast a vote in support of invading another sovereign nation (Iraq) without even reading the National Intelligence Estimates that cast significant doubt on the Administration’s casus belli?
3) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, push (within the Obama Administration) for more military intervention in Libya and in Syria during her time as Secretary of State?
4) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, give multiple speeches immediately after leaving her Cabinet Post, to Wall Street audiences and paid for by Goldman Sachs, at which her message was that bankers were being unfairly treated in the wake of the 2008 meltdown?
5) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, vote for both the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its reauthorisation in 2005 while in the Senate?
6) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, repeatedly and explicitly support Israel’s de facto apartheid policies against Palestinians while still a Senator?
7) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, speak in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on no fewer than 45 occasions?
7b) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, refuse to lobby Congress to block the TPP after belatedly opposing it?
8) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, claimed to be both a progressive and a moderate in rapid succession?
9) Does Hillary Clinton, or does she not, support the use of the death penalty to this day, despite the many and obvious flaws in the US justice system?
10) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, spoken against lifting the cap on income taxable by FICA, calling it “a tax increase on the middle class” despite the cap already being at $117,000 p.a. income?
These are not alleging criminal actions on Clinton’s part, nor slamming her for things she did before entering politics. They are not actions that Hillary Clinton took while subordinate to another person. These are statements of what Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton has done, herself, that have made the world worse or indicated a desire to make the world worse, or that speak to a lack of character on her part.
If you are intending to rebut these criticisms, please respect my diary’s guideline and limit your rebuttals to an explanation of either
a) How these actions and words are not/were not Hillary Clinton’s doing and/or responsibility; or
b) How these actions are not, singularly or in toto, disqualifications for the support of progressives for the most powerful elected office on Earth.
I await rebuttals.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)...
Duval
(4,280 posts)one candidate is gaining. We're all Democrats here and every voice counts.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)or are you doing some kind of ostrich impersonation?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You nailed it.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)... votes than that just on the issue of gun control.
1-5. He voted 5 times against one form or another of the Brady Bill.
6-7. He voted 2 times to give gun sellers immunity from civil suit.
8. He voted to make it harder for the ATF to penalize law-breaking gun dealers.
9. As part of the Indian Health Care Act, he voted to prevent the use of funds for anti-gun programs.
10-11. He voted to allow guns in National Parks and into checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
12. He voted to prohibit higher health insurance rates for gun owners.
Since he first voted against gun control in Congress, there have been 13 million non-fatal gunshot victims, and hundreds of thousands dead. That's just on one issue.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)When claiming that he has had bad votes on things other than gun control you must then give examples of those votes. It seems you are unable to do so since all your examples of votes you disagree with are on that one topic.
Tortmaster
(382 posts)Also this:
1. Voted against TARP. We could be in breadlines right now if enough people followed his lead.
2. The first AUMF on September 14, 2001.
3. Introduced Federal Reserve Transparency Act with Ron Paul (nice company; kinda CT for me, though)
4. Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.
5. Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (That's him being a Libertarian. Again.).
6. Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform. (This wasn't Libertarian so much as Republican).
7. Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers.
George II
(67,782 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And I've heard of people doing that exact thing, George.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that they forgot to include her support for fracking over people's water supplies.
Hillary Clinton is a strong proponent of fracking. While working for the taxpayers as Secretary of State, she used the power of the US of A to help Chevron by convincing foreign governments to begin or increase their use of fracking in spite of the protesting peoples in those countries.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,323 posts)And neither is the new York Times. So I guess you'll need a selfie with that email or letter in the background. Good luck, friend.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)now they embrace the Corp-Media, well some of it. They like to pick and choose what a good source is.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)of so many issues that liberals, progressives, and environmentalists stand for. She is like the anti FDR. How far we have fallen.
senz
(11,945 posts)and I wish her supporters would stop to think about it.
Just think.
NNadir
(33,538 posts)...on fracked gas for electricity generation.
Until two years ago, Vermont emitted no carbon dioxide to generate electricity. Today it does.
I personally oppose dumping any carbon dioxide at any time for any reason, but I take endless grief for it.
Right now, in Vermont, trucks are tearing through forests to put up stupid and toxic wind turbines, ripping trees out of the ground.
...Just saying.
I really don't care who wins this nomination. I think however all this criticism of Ms. Clinton is a little absurd. Irrespective of the wave of enthusiastic fantasy here - and I say this as a guy who was a passionate supporter of another Vermonter who didn't get very far in the Presidential race, Doctor Dean - Ms. Clinton's odds are better than Senator Sanders are. Her opponent will be a man like Trump, or Cruz. Is that what we really want?
Mr. Sanders, for the record, has a delusional policy on climate change, not much better than Ms. Clinton's. I am aware of Senator Sander's position on guns - which is as much a function of his locality as Mrs. Clinton's votes on Isreal - and I frankly find his opinion awful.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
Basically, the official Democratic party position on energy is absurd. It's all wind and solar, both of which are wholly and totally dependent on having gas to back it up.
Basically, as my life draws to a close, I'm very upset at how banal and clueless our political rhetoric has become. It's the basic reason that I can no longer have any enthusiasm for any candidate.
The idea that Sanders is the messiah is a little puerile I think.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Sanders does represent the People more than Clinton that hasn't met a corporation she wasn't willing to help. Look at who supports her candidacy. We must break free of the corruption of big money in politics. Don't you agree?
NNadir
(33,538 posts)I'm a person. Senator Sanders doesn't represent me.
If he's the nominee, I'm going to have a hard time pulling the lever for him, to be honest. I mean the guy voted against the Brady Bill?
I also find the representation that every corporation is the enemy of the people rather puerile as well.
"Corporatist" around here is a curse word, as if there is some socialist nirvana somewhere. Where exactly is it?
It's very easy to say what one doesn't approve of, but how does one say what should replace it? Suppose we pick on, say, General Motors, and they shut their doors here and move to Singapore where nobody gives them any shit. What's the Sanders plan for replacing those jobs? Tea shops in Michigan? Organic farms?
There were no corporations in the Soviet Union, but to be perfectly frank, Stalin was worse than any CEO anywhere at any time.
You don't want fracked gas, but you're in favor of wind power? What happens on a cold dark still night? Burn trees ripped out of the national forests to make access roads to wind turbines?
I think President Obama came into office with high expectations - expectations I shared. Did he have the power to do what he wanted to do? How will Senator Sanders deal with a Republican Congress? Better than Obama?
Part of me wants to vote for the Ghost of Glenn Seaborg in the coming Presidential election - I'm so demoralized by the stupidity and ignorance on both extremes of both parties. I've been a lifelong Democrat but the invention of blogging has left me demoralized as I realize that in many ways my party is as clueless as theirs.
If it's any consolation, I have a nagging fear though, that the neo-Nazi is going to get the Repuke nomination, and in the off chance that Mr. Sanders is his opponent, I will surely end up doing what I am increasingly called upon to do - and I've never missed an election in my overly long life - and vote for the "lesser of two evils."
And to be sure, for me at least, that's the best Senator Sanders can do for me, be "the lesser of two evils." I realize I'm just one member of that generalized collective you call "the people," and maybe someone here will announce that I'm an evil corporatist fascist, but that's how I feel.
Good luck to you and your candidate.
Have a nice day tomorrow.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Sanders will not be able to wave the magic wand of wishes and hopes. He needs to be able to wield power, and he has precious little support where it counts. The "people" have not put in place a Congress to support legislating in this manner. He has spent decades ripping away at those he needs as allies. Because of this, he has no coattails nor does he have the political skill of the President. Likewise, your point about corporations is spot on. Blowing up the universe does not fix its problems. It is an act of destruction with the potential to lose control of the construction that must follow in its wake. I'm not a fan of chaos for the sake of chaos.
Should he pull out a win, I will vote for him as well. I think the potential for change under a Sanders administration would be greatly reduced.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)NNadir
(33,538 posts)...Brave New Climate: Current World Energy Demand, Ethical World Energy Demand, Depleted Uranium and the Centuries to Come.
You may read my view on energy ethics if you're interested, although I confess the account is rather long.
I am midway through a 5 part series on the same website as a guest author, but I'm taking a break to deal with some personal issues.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I, a woman, 72-years old. I have the essay I wrote on "atomic" energy in my senior year in high school. I got an A on it. But it certainly did not prepare me to even read the words in much of your article.
So, the fact that nuclear energy is incomprehensible to an even smaller percentage of the world's population than the percentage who enjoy an excess of electricity, gas, oil and other energy while the percentage of the world's population that understands the disastrous effects of Fukushima, Chernobyl and other nuclear plant break-downs means that nuclear energy is not likely to be trusted by the world for a long, long time.
I don't know where you live, but here in Southern California, even our coldest days require very little heat. Air conditioning takes energy. My house is surrounded by trees that cool our house. When it is hot, e open the many windows of our nearly a century old house and cool it at night. We close the windows during the day.
We have been told that we do not even use enough electricity to justify putting solar panels on our roof. That seems odd to me. Solar panels, while not as productive as nuclear plants per unit, could easily supply a great deal of the energy usage in warm climates like ours. If you live in a colder climate, your energy needs are much greater than the needs of people in hot climates.
When I read sales pitches for nuclear energy, I am reminded of the 1974 First World Energy Conference in London. I was working for an oil company at the time, and was allowed to attend an afternoon session on alternative energy. MIT presented a discussion of solar energy. After that excellent presentation, a man stood up right behind me a few rows (I've told this story before on DU so please forgive me if you have read it) and said, "I represent the nuclear energy industry of Canada. We are not interested in solar energy because there is no product to sell."
I think that the incentive to try to "sell" people nuclear energy is very great. And maybe we do need some of it. But I believe we should first do everything possible to learn about and develop effective ways to make people energy-independent through the use of solar power. Less money has been invested in learning about solar power than in learning about nuclear power. There is less profit to be made in solar than in nuclear.
But the fact is that the capital, the money has gone into developing the nuclear industry. That is a mistake. We should be learning far more about safe solar. Nuclear energy and the results, the deaths caused by the nuclear energy accidents are appalling and make its use very unattractive.
Certainly reducing population and birth rates in impoverished countries and among impoverished populations is also a necessary goal.
Much of the world's population lives in warm, sunny climates in which solar, which is safe would easily supply a lot of the need for energy. Let's put more effort into developing solar and less into nuclear. Nuclear is especially worrisome because it requires water for cooling and as we saw in Fukushima that is a bad mix. Further, as the oceans warm and water is rising in many places on our earth, the proximity of nuclear reactors to important water resources is troubling.
So I do not think that nuclear energy should be increased at all. We should put more of our resources into developing solar energy. People who live in cold climates may like nuclear, but for those of us who live in warm, sunny climates, we should not be using it. We need better solar, more efficient solar energy -- and maybe solar energy produced with innovative materials rather than the rare materials now used.
I am clearly not a scientist, but I do understand the dangers to human life that nuclear energy present. I also understand the greed and gain that comes from using nuclear energy. I do not, therefore, see it because of its expense, as a solution for providing energy for poor populations in the world.
On edit: Another advantage in using solar power and wind power and non-nuclear sources of energy is while nuclear energy transfers the wealth of the poor to the owners of the nuclear reactors, the producers of nuclear energy, solar, wind, etc. transfer wealth to the poorer people, to the middle class and poor users of the energy. At less cost, a large family can produce and would be able to produce even more energy for their daily use with solar and especially with wind energy. The Dutch have used wind energy for generations. It all depends on your environment and whether you want to work with it or ruin it for future generations with the use of dangerous materials.
We should invest as a nation in developing less dangerous, less costly sources of energy than nuclear. It's just not practical to use nuclear. Nuclear energy, its construction, the materials, their extraction and then the maintenance of potentially deadly nuclear energy plants, it's just too expensive for most of the world. It does not solve as many problems as it creates. The problem of storing nuclear waste has not yet been solved and until it is we should not use nuclear energy at all.
NNadir
(33,538 posts)Let me start here: I too am a baby boomer, and I spend an awful lot of time apologizing to young people, in particular my two sons, for the awful, disastrous, and most likely irretrievable environmental mess that our generation is leaving for theirs, and for all future generations. I am extremely ashamed of what this generation - which began with disingenuous "peace and love" rhetoric and ended up in a orgy of consumerism and delusional fantasy - has left for the future.. The only thing we have committed ourselves to is ignorance and indifference.
Now let me turn to the particulars
I'm not sure that I can appeal directly to the scientific literature here, owing to the remark you make:
Here's how the statement reads to me, and I certainly do not mean to be ungenerous or hostile, so excuse me if it sounds so: "Ignorance about a topic (in this case, nuclear energy) is massive, cannot be addressed, and so we have to be OK with ignorance's effects."
I can't really let that go by without some comment in response.
Now, because it's the language I speak, because I am a scientist who deplores scientific ignorance and is disinclined to accept its consequences "because it's there," I will need to appeal to the scientific literature, because unlike political campaigns, and political rhetoric, the scientific literature is suffused with reality.
In the year 2012, an international panel of scientists, scientist-physicians, academics and health professions surveyed all of the major risk factors associated with death and disability on the entire planet. I included it as reference 33 in the 67 references I provided in the article I linked. For convenience I will link it again: Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60 According to the data therein, approximately 7 million people die each year, every year from air pollution from the normal operations associated with combustion. The breakdown is about half and half between people living in desperate poverty and thus required to burn "renewable" wood and garbage indoors, and half from outdoor pollution.
A more recent publication in one of the world's premier scientific journals, Nature, suggests the situation (with respect to outdoor air pollution is getting worse, not better. Nature: The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale (Nature 525, 367–371 (17 September 2015))
This means that 70 million people die each decade from air pollution. This is more people than died in all of World War II, from genocide, battle deaths, civilian bombings of all type, including the two nuclear devices, although the amount of deaths from the nuclear attacks were trivial when compared to the biomass fuels (nitroglycerin and palmitic acid) and petroleum fuels diverted to weapons of mass destruction. (Napalm?)
Yet you want to tell me about Fukushima? How many people died from radiation there? Have you called, by the way, for the elimination of buildings on coast lines because of the 22,000 people who died from the tsuanmi - the parts that had nothing to do with radiation?
One of the features of arguments like the one you make, when you state,
is a curious calculus in which the person making the argument represents that any death from any nuclear operation anywhere is worth quite more attention and concern than quite literally millions of deaths from any other energy operation. This is why so much oil, gas, and coal has been burned in order for people to run computers and servers to tell us all about Fukushima.
Recently not less than 10 miles from where I live, a 62 year old woman was vaporized in her home by a gas explosion. Did you hear about it? How about the people who recently died in New York from a similar event? When 162 people were incinerated alive on the Piper Alpha platform explosion, how long did you think about it? The Horizon disaster when 10 more people were incinerated alive? Think about that much? The more than 200,000 people who died when the Banqiao dam system collapsed in the 1970's in China? Do you even know that happened?
But you know all about Chernobyl and Fukushima.
For the record, I embraced nuclear energy (after opposing it, because I was a stupid baby boomer) after Chernobyl blew up, because I recognized that all of the nonsense I'd been hearing about nuclear accidents killing tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people was a priori nonsensical. So I did what a thinking person should do when confronted with an obvious lie: I educated myself. I have, at this point, probably reviewed tens of thousands of papers, monographs, and other material on the subject of nuclear energy, everything from the crystal structure of mixed uranium/plutonium nitrides, to the effects of neutrons on complex ceramic refractories, to heat transfer in liquid metals interfacing with supercritical fluids.
Thus I actually do not take the last statement I cited from you seriously. I don't think you understand danger at all. You are screaming about a burning match during a hundred thousand acre forest fire.
Let me tell you what air pollution is: It's waste, dangerous, deadly, fossil fuel waste. The same people who stand by watching tens of millions people die every decade from air pollution will carry on and on and on and on about so called "nuclear waste," even though so called "nuclear waste" is unique among energy wastes inasmuch it has been stored for half a century without killing anyone.
Now: I spent over twenty years in Southern California, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Mira Mesa, La Jolla. I've also been all around the world. I'm going to tell you something, and it is your choice whether to regard it as bluster or something to consider as possibly true: I know more about solar energy technology than you will ever know. Right now, a huge environmental disaster is going on in China (which is not, I admit, Southern California) and solar cells and other semiconductor technologies are very much involved. No one gives a rat's ass about it of course, because well, the rote position is that solar energy is "green." This concerns the distribution of cadmium and other heavy metals and semi-metals over Chinese agricultural land. In Southern China, as much as 10% of the crop is contaminated with cadmium.
Now.
That's neither here nor there. We squandered nearly two trillion dollars on so called "renewable energy" in the last decade alone, and combined, the solar and wind industry don't produce even 5 of the 560 exajoules of energy that humanity consumes each year. The gas industry grows each year on a scale that easily outstrips the entire output of all the insipid renewable energy.
Two trillion dollars...ten years...this on a planet where over one billion people lack basic sanitation.
And you want to tell me we're not spending enough on this toxicological nightmare, so called "renewable energy?"
Now, again, in an appeal to the scientific literature, the climate scientist Jim Hansen and a colleague, have analyzed the data on the performance of nuclear energy over more than half a century and compared it to, well, everything else. He published the results in one of the world's premier Environmental journals: Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power.
His calculation is that 1.8 million lives have been saved by nuclear energy: More might have been saved were it not for fear and ignorance.
Nuclear energy saves lives, and any representation to contrary is insupportable.
It follows that opposing nuclear energy costs lives, and as such, it is unethical almost to the point of criminal, at least in an absolute moral sense.
There are some fine people in our generation, I think, Dr. Hansen among them. Although he an old man, as I am an old man, and you are an old woman, he clearly cares about the future, not the world he lives in so much as the one he leaves behind. He has written an elegant book on the subject of future generations: Storms of my Grandchildren
Try it. It's not "overly" scientific and you might learn something.
Overall, our generation has been a disaster. We're delusional pigs mostly. History will not forgive us, nor should it. The sooner we get off the planet and give young people the chance to clean up the awful mess we've left behind, well, the better.
Oh and by the way, Sanders energy policy is pure, unadulterated baby boomer crap, clueless and decidedly, annoyingly bourgeois:
Feel the Bern: Sanders Energy Policy
I really, really, really cry for the future when I see the Presidential candidate pool, left and right.
Have a nice evening.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)How long ya gonna hold your breath before embracing your hypocrisy?
NNadir
(33,538 posts)That, I expect, would be a very, very, very, very long time, since my experience of your harassing little notes suggests that you will never be educated.
Dime a dozen, mindless types, and we're talking 2015 dimes, essentially worthless.
I have fully expressed my feelings about the type of person you represent in our previous two unpleasant encounters:
Post 184
Post 316
Now, if I recall correctly, one of the nice things about Democratic Underground is that it allows for an "ignore poster" option. Although I never have used it but, since for some reason I sometimes find myself wasting time confronting dumb guys, facing the dilemma described in the literature to which Post 316 refers, I will now investigate that option. Life is very short, and there is no use wasting it on mindless automatons.
Bye. Have a nice life calling for the heads of scientists.
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)hey where are you going? I just met you and the messiah comment...right on...
purerile...right on... cheers maggie stick around for a while...
NNadir
(33,538 posts)...because time is so much more precious.
Now I think quite a bit about Galois, scribbling out the foundations of group theory on the day before he died, pausing every once in a while to scrawl in the margins, "There is not time, there is not time..."
I'm not him of course, although I've been, in my own way, as much a fool as he was in throwing away his life, though I had longer to do it than he.
I have had a very, very, very, very beautiful life, enjoyed privileges of which I was not really worthy, saw much magnificence, and survived some tragedy more or less unscathed. I loved the most the woman who could love me best, and I saw two sons enter into manhood, one of whom gives me the pleasure of seeing him believe, as I might have done when I was his age, that "Bernie" (or some equivalent) can save the world. Bernie can't, but I cannot complain about that at this point, especially with regard to my son. A little blind faith, not too much, but a little, can be lovely, at least in a person who is young, as he is young but still not immortal.
I can't complain about anything. At this point I'm as amused as much as sad.
If I regret anything, it may have been assuming my immortality, in spite how at any point we should know it doesn't exist. Time was less precious whenever I assumed I was immortal or acted as if I were.
Assuming immortality is like assuming Bernie Sanders will magically save the world. It's a distraction from the deeper things. I'm not immortal, and I hate to mention that you aren't either...and...and. as for Bernie, well, despite what you may read here or elsewhere, like on that Den of Fools at Kos, he is as powerless to save the world as I am powerless to live forever.
Thanks for your kind words.
Have a nice day tomorrow, and I wish you happy holidays.
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)I feel my mortality in the past closer than now...and I now it's there waiting for me...it's a palpable presence....I only hope you throw all caution to the wind and speak honestly and experience inner peace and it sounds as tho you do....it's so ironic that being close to the abyss gives a mindset that actually makes you valuable to yourself, loved ones and humanity....if you can experience and feel it together....agree....no one can save the world....it's unfair of Bernie supporters to treat him that way....alone we are all powerless the only things that matter are the here and now and the things we accomplish together....like Bhutan...to increase the gross happiness of the universe.....I don't know who you are or how long you have but you are right on! Cheers to you and your accomplishments Nadir....revel in them to the end..you are the hero of your own life..and all those you touched and will be even after you are gone...that is your immortality... Bravo Bravismo! I raise my glass to you. Maggie
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They'll just kill the messenger, call Sanders supporters "desperate," yell that Hillary isn't the same as (as bad as?) the billionaire blowhard or adapt to the very anti-Democratic policies she supports in order their continued support of her.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)There goes Kos under the bus... thump thump...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Google, YouTube, Kos, CNN, ABC, TPM and a host of others declared right-wing sources.
randys1
(16,286 posts)No, I have been here long enough to know who started this shit and I have been in politics long enough to know who benefits.
And it aint the democratic party.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I tend to believe its supporters from all candidates. Not all supporters, of course. Not even most of them. Merely the irrational who are unable to grasp or criticize policy without sounding precisely like a petulant fifth grader.
The reason I believe that is because I've witnessed the vulgarity from both Sanders and Clinton supporters.
Should we consistently apply one standard only to both candidates' supporters, we can clearly read that very same vulgarity and boorish behavior from both sides in this very thread.
Should we however, apply a higher standard to the opposition supporters than to our own, then yes-- it's only "them" doing it (however "they" are).
Should we decide to observe, as objectively as possible, the behavior from supporters, we are compelled to conclude that the petulance is not in fact, one sided but equitably and progressively shared among the plethora of half-wits and nincompoops from each demographic (and we'll know them because they will take exception to the premise).
WIProgressive88
(314 posts)it's a minority of posters on both sides. Most Hillary and Bernie supporters are good people.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)Wow, to find that on the DU...sad, IMO.
merrily
(45,251 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)look it doesnt matter bernie...because....the greens don't have enough support across the states...the greens/labor party in the states are not like the labor socialists in say UK, australia.....etc...greens always build a castle in the sky with no foundation....I vote green locally but not enough greens run for government locally across the US to support a winning national candiate...and I say that as someone who has voted for nader...and values Bernie...it's a team effort....now if you would convince your local greens/labor everywhere to run for local positions where people can get to know them and their voting record and they can learn how gov works....but it seems they prefer activism to running for government.....I love Bernie...but I'm a realist and will vote green locally and HRC in the national...been there...done that....
retrowire
(10,345 posts)You say that Greens build a castle in the sky but with no foundation.
Bernie has built a solid foundation of socialist minded folks in the political halls of Vermont. Read his autobiography Outsider in the White House to learn more about that.
But again, you say that they build castles in the sky with no foundation. Everything Bernie is proposing is already being done in many other countries so it's not impossible to pull off, and there is a foundation in place.
If you have any further questions about his policies and how he plans to do them, check out feelthebern.org or berniesanders.com
Again, welcome to DU! 
You've come here during a vile and violent time. lol
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)it's the blocks underneath the pyramid that I see that are missing....I wont' elaborate too much...since you have read me...among them are lack of national network of local elected representatives as national support network....then there is the social backwardness of the party that just focuses on the environment and labor issues and is awkward with the social issues....so it's not a fully fledged party...someday it could be and that would be nice...yes it's being done in other countries...and those countries are already socialist democrat so their infrastructure is already there.....it would be nice if the greens/labor/socialists would focus on building that infrastructure....Bernie has some great policies and he's got some things I disagree with ....I would say that Bernie is far more "actualized" (to use a new age term) as an individual than the party is....I think that is going to take a number of more years and concerted effort......infrastructure and social maturity retro wire and thank-you for the welcome.....there are the critics that love you and the critics that hate you...I am the critic that loves you ....those are the ones you should listen to ...cheers, Maggie
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaym!
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And I've got the tire tracks to prove it!!
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)And satire is officially dead.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Why would he be thrown under a bus?
seaglass
(8,173 posts)"He's still a repub at heart""
840high
(17,196 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Vote for whoever you want. I don't need to be lectured about principles from the crowd whose principles are to threaten to stay home if their preferred nominee isn't on the ballot. Your principles don't care if Trump picks the next 4 SCOTUS justices, which means: You are not an ally. UNACCEPTABLE!
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)She's RIGHT of CENTER.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)They refuse progress and let Trump pick the next 4 SCOTUS justices. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Sanders has been consistently beating EVERY GOP Candidate.
Hillary cannot even come close to saying that.
She's hated by EVERYONE on the right not trusted by half of the left.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)We have REGRESSED in the past 30 years and Democratic presidents and lawmakers have signed many of those bills.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)US history they would rather live in. Answer? Now.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Guess you've been missing all the rising racist rhetoric in the past decade... the police killings of African Americans that are still unanswered for... the economic policies that have hit people of color harder than any other demographic...
Haven't you been a vocal "supporter" of BLM? Have you actually listened to what they say?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Race, gender, or sexual preferences. Not me. I take those into consideration as well.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Now...do you think Black Lives Matter would agree for you speaking on behalf of people of color stating that they have it better now than any point in history?
Duval
(4,280 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)WTF? Sexual preferences, really? Why not using the word lifestyle while you're at it? 
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)How telling that a supporter of Clinton is stuck in the 20th century when it comes to LGBT rights.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)...BEFORE the invasion of the DINOS.
[font size=1]LBJ, the last Liberal/Progressive Democratic President signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964
with MLK looking proudly over his shoulder.[/font]
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)We've gotten some social justice in the last seven years. So now - on those bone-chilling nights when you're trying to stay alive in a discarded appliance box - no one can (rightfully) disparage you by cat-calling: "Serves you right, ya friggin' ________________________!" <- fill in the defamatory slur of your choice.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)But we are regressing economically especially with in the Democratic Party. RIP economic progressivism
Lorien
(31,935 posts)just yesterday. We all agreed that sexism and racism have increased significantly since the mid 70s through to 2000. It was much better for all of us in the 80s compared to the crap that we all deal with today. While things have improved for the LGBT community, we women and minorities born after 1960 are confronting levels of racism and sexism that we haven't seen since early childhood.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I'll be voting for the person who best represents me, my country, and the world... Sanders.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I addressed it in my post you responded to.
Is that a lot of people who say they won't vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, are people like myself who were so turned off by politics that we bailed on the racket. I personally view Bernie as one of the last hopes to save modern american politics. I will give the system one more chance and vote for Bernie. I however will cast a vote if Hillary wins the nomination, a fat NO VOTE. Because for people like me there is no real candidate other than Bernie. Everyone else is part of the racket. Maybe that helps Hillary supporters understand our logic.
Kali
(55,019 posts)people have been banned for advocating a no vote or against the Democratic candidate
from the ToS http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Response to Kali (Reply #233)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)In a hypothetical matchup against the current GOP front-runner, business mogul Donald Trump, Sanders takes 49 percent of the vote to Trump's 41 percent. Against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Sanders leads 44 percent to 43 percent. He also beats Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) by 10 percentage points and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson by 6 points.
Fifty-nine percent of voters also say Sanders is honest and trustworthy -- placing him well above former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, and above all top Republican candidates tested in the poll.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not a term I like to use anyway, but that's not the definition.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)According to the source, a REAL progressive will vote for War Promoting/Anti-LABOR/Anti-Working Class Conservative in order to keep another War Promoting/Anti-LABOR/Anti-Working Class conservative from maybe winning.
Does that seem like a viable political strategy to you?
I WILL vote for the candidate that best represents me and my LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE/FDR values, and unless my internal compass swings 180 degrees, that won't be Hillary or anyone from her "wing" of the Democratic party.
merrily
(45,251 posts)progressive votes for progress. IMO, the first point is flat out wrong and the second is totally without meaning. But then, the DLC deliberately messed with the term progressive in order to make it meaningless. And the point about SCOTUS justices is, at best, ill-considered. The day of SCOTUS terrorism politics is fast ending.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I would like to read the rebuttal. Thanks in advance for your posting it.
There are so many strong Hillary fans on DU. I'm waiting to see one of them, let's say one of those who posts Hillary talking points all day and night, prove that any point made in the Kos article is false.
I'm waiting. As I said, thanks in advance for posting it.
I'm waiting.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)etc. She agrees with the republicons on those issues.
And besides Sen Sanders has a better chance of defeating the republicon nominee. So if you want progressive justices nominate Sen Sanders.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Often they vote against the middle class MORE than the Republican picked judges.
And both Kagan and Sottomayor were picked largely because they will do whatever the heck Monsanto wants them to do, when cases against Monsanto are brought before the Supreme Court.
Of course if the next Democratic President is Bernie Sanders, that might possible change! We might once again have people on the SCOTUS that care abut the middle class and not big banking, and big business.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)Obama selected corporate judges/justices for every open position in the Courts. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules for corporations over individuals over 90% of the time!
When is the last time a Justice was appointed who had been a trial lawyer that represented victims instead of insurance companies/Wall Street/ or corporate America?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you're talking about being progressive, well, Bernie is that for sure. Hillary, not so much. Not sure if you saw this that's quoted below or not, but anyone voting for someone that did/did not do all of this is certainly not voting for 'progress'. If you want to vote for 'progress' the only way to do it is to vote for Bernie. And he will beat Trump - or any other GOP candidate - hands down, so you won't have to worry about SCOTUS.
2) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, cast a vote in support of invading another sovereign nation (Iraq) without even reading the National Intelligence Estimates that cast significant doubt on the Administration’s casus belli?
3) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, push (within the Obama Administration) for more military intervention in Libya and in Syria during her time as Secretary of State?
4) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, give multiple speeches immediately after leaving her Cabinet Post, to Wall Street audiences and paid for by Goldman Sachs, at which her message was that bankers were being unfairly treated in the wake of the 2008 meltdown?
5) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, vote for both the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 and its reauthorisation in 2005 while in the Senate?
6) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, repeatedly and explicitly support Israel’s de facto apartheid policies against Palestinians while still a Senator?
7) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, speak in favour of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on no fewer than 45 occasions?
7b) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, refuse to lobby Congress to block the TPP after belatedly opposing it?
8) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, claimed to be both a progressive and a moderate in rapid succession?
9) Does Hillary Clinton, or does she not, support the use of the death penalty to this day, despite the many and obvious flaws in the US justice system?
10) Has Hillary Clinton, or has she not, spoken against lifting the cap on income taxable by FICA, calling it “a tax increase on the middle class” despite the cap already being at $117,000 p.a. income?
.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)You are incapable of responding to the points of the OP? Because that is exactly what it sounds like. And that is a sad state of affairs by Hill's people.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Obama replaced a fire breathing Liberal (one of my favorites) John Paul Stevens with a "moderate".,
thus making the Supreme Court even MORE conservative and Corporate Friendly overall.
I would expect conservative "business friendly, pro-Free Trade/Anti-UNION, anti-consumer, pro-Unitary Executive appointments from Hillary too.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Gotta love how you all throw Bill out there when you think it helps you but it's ALL ABOUT HILLARY when you're trying to run away from his crappy record.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Am I to think that you believe that if HRC is elected it will actually be Bill Clinton's 3rd term? Because that's what you are sounding like.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)don't expect any liberal judges to be appointed with Clinton.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Sotomayer and Kagan are both liberal judges. You do realize that in our system that the Senate gets to vote on SCOTUS choices. You are going to get a liberal judge from Clinton-probably won't be getting any Socialist judges however.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Do you believe that if HRC is elected, that Bill Clinton will be the one choosing the next Supreme Court justice(s)?
It seems to me that you think that Bill Clinton will be the puppet master and HRC will be his puppet.
Maybe that's true, he certainly seems to be proficient in the manipulation of HRC.
merrily
(45,251 posts)on the Medicaid portion of the first ACA SCOTUS decision.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)The Democratic Party is thrilled to be supporting her campaign.
She is a progressive who gets things done.
merrily
(45,251 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)and you are in the minority with your view.
merrily
(45,251 posts)extrapolating about the Party has no validity. Neither does your claim that Hillary is a progressive--except to the extent that Al From, DLC Founder and Clinton icon, deliberately made "progressive" a confusing term. http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710158
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)But you don't get to define it, either.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Neither Hillary nor Obama are members.
In case you are having difficulty with the math, that makes Progressives the MAJORITY,
and the DLC 3rd Way Centrists the minority....but a minority with power because they "work" with Republicans to advance the agenda of the already RICH.
WE need a clean sweep to push the DINOs back to the Republican Party where they belong.
[font color=firebrick][center]The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR. [/font][/center]
---bvar22
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Including every single member from NY.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)you will post The List and educate all of us.
I'll wait.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)She apparently has gotten the all-important Silvio Berlusconi endorsement. The list claims Nicolas Sarkozy as well, but he merely seems to have said good luck. Not sure I'd be trumpeting those endorsements, especially since one of Sarkozy's underlings is busy touting Trump's "ban the Muslims" proposal.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Waiting and waiting and waiting!
KMOD
(7,906 posts)click the link.
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The corporate repubs who left their own party and took over ours are big fans though.
askew
(1,464 posts)Not something where she played a supporting role, but something she led on. Outside of the bill to speed up payments to 9/11 first responders, she did nothing of significance in the Senate. Most of the impressive work on foreign policy was done by Biden or Obama in first term and Kerry has already proven to be a much better SoS than Hillary. He's traveled more miles and gotten more done.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And that road in New York named after Tim Russert.
And her vote for the Iraq War.
Other than that, nothing that really stands out.
Except her votes to help the banking industry, and her votes for the Patriot Act.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Hillary led the charge against Flag Burners while a Senator. gawd only knows where we would be if those flag burners had gotten out of hand.
AND
She also led the charge against cartoon violence in Video Games,
while at the same time authorizing Bush to murder a MILLION REAL completely innocent people (NOT cartoons),
displace another 5 million from their homes,
and turn a secular, stable Middle East Country into a medieval Hell Hole.....
but thank gawd she recognized the threat from Grand Theft Auto.
With judgement like that,
and the ability to prioritize cartoons above real flesh and blood,
I don't see how we can NOT want this person to lead us.
Take Me, Hillary.
I'm yours.
Gotta move on.
Something about this post made me want to cue up GTA5.
askew
(1,464 posts)And she didn't even lead on the Patriot Act, etc. She just isn't leadership material.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)ontheissues.org examines their records and rates both her and Bernie as "hard core liberals."
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Is that because you have no rebuttal for the arguments?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Shouldn't the author have included the numerous great things she has done in her life and career, or am I to judge an entire person based on an incomplete cherry picked record of their existence?
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...because you could have come up with similar (okay, maybe slightly smaller ) lists for Obama and Kerry. You take the bad with the good. She's not my first choice, but if she gets the nomination, I'll absolutely take her over Trump, Rubio, Cruz, etc.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Especially, when one considers the gop alternative.
askew
(1,464 posts)For one, he never personally enriched himself by giving speeches to corrupt corporations like Goldman Sachs. Two, he was smartly against the Iraq War.
And most importantly, Obama had a list of real positive accomplishments that he led on in 2008. Hillary was taking credit for Bill's and other Dems' hard work because she had so few accomplishments of her own.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)It was the most important vote of her Senate career.....and she completely blew it and exposed her priorities.
She had the opportunity to LEAD the Democrats,
instead she chose to follow Bush & The Republicans.
THAT, in and of itself, is a Deal Breaker for me.
Over 1 MILLION innocent Iraqis DEAD (blown to pieces),
over 5 million completely innocent Iraqis displaced and now refugees,
the most progressive, secular, stable nation in the Middle East destroyed.
That is way more than an oopsie.
THAT vote (and war cheer leading) will hang around her neck for the rest of her life, and hopefully beyond.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Your statement that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "the most "progressive" state in the Middle East tells me exactly what you mean by "progressive"--brutal dictatorship--and what you really want from Sanders.
I think the Senator would be appalled.
It means that Iraq was a secular state where Christians, Sunni, and Shiite lived peacefully next door to each other. Women could own property, drive cars, attend school, vote, and wear blue jeans on the street.
Radicalized Muslims (like Al Qaeda) didn't dare enter Iraq for fear of death.
Saddam, in all his dictatorial glory, was all that was holding Iraq together.
Taking him out was:
1)None of our business
2)Turned Iraq into a Failed State and killed over a million INNOCENT Iraqis.
IF you ask the Iraqis, they preferred Saddam to the Sharia Law they now live under.
Thanks, Hillary, and your Republican friends for this wonderful gift to Iraq (and over 4,000 dead American young men and women),
and all the wonderful advancements you have made for women......except in Iraq where they have gone backwards 500 years. (Libya too).
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)See post 19
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)These smear mongering posts by people who are completely clueless, as this Dkos person CLEARLY is, are tiresome at this point. I don't give a shit who people like that vote for. There is no way to prevent people who are this clueless from voting, so whatever. And frankly if they spend that much time on a political site, their ignorance is willful. So there is really no point in trying to educate them.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)On Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
+1000000 on that
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=888104
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
OTT calling DUers and Kos posters clueless and ignorant.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 9, 2015, 07:34 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
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: Primary debate season is a bit rough. The comment may be considered somewhat disruptive, hurtful to some, rude, insensitive, but not over-the-top. If we limit debate to the point that no one's feelings are ever hurt, and nothing is insensitive, etc., the discussion (if any is left!) will be completely without passion. Democracy involves a vigorous debate.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not everyone here is a cleverdick.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nope. No hide. Sorry.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nice try. Alert-swarmers continue to suck ass.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)someone down
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)With an attitude like that, the GE is likely to be lost should Clinton manage to get the nomination.
Rebut the arguments!
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)On Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Here's a radical idea:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=888029
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This poster has personally attacked a DU member with comments like 'Your principles don't care' and 'you are not an ally' without ever commenting on the substance of the OP. It is a direct, personal attack.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 9, 2015, 06:20 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post is accurate
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: She is being completely truthful, and on schedule the Bernie supporters alert on truthful statements. This is Democratic Underground, not anti-Democratic or Bernie Underground.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What the everlovinhell was this alert even about? Stop wasting our time.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No, that's not a 'personal attack'. It is about 'the crowd' (so not personal), and it may be a mischaracterisation, but it's not an attack (but now that the Bernie Sanders Group hosts have pinned a thread celebrating someone who was banned for advocating not voting if Hillary got the nomination, it's true of at least one Sanders host).
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You have to look at the context of the post. The poster starts out by saying "I don't need to be lectured about principles from the crowd." OP is talking from a personal standpoint; it is not a reflection upon others. I do not see it as a personal attack.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Bringing up something Bernie fans wanted to avoid.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Free speech and all.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If anybody doubts Clinton supporters aren't being targeted that alert should disabuse them of that notion. That is why I have invited anybody who really wants to know I think to contact me via private message.
This targeting makes me alternately 
and 
.
As to Australian2 I find the notion that I should respond like a slave or a trained seal to his demands is astounding.
Paka
(2,760 posts)...just like the snarkiness coming from both sides. It's a small minority of supporters, but the few are very persistent. I wasn't around on DU during the last primary, but I'm getting a full dose of it this time around. No one side can claim purity.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Apparently you've made the common right-wing mistake of equating government suppression of speech with someone challenging you on an Internet forum...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Hillary supporters either support increasingly right-wing policy or are turning a blind eye to it.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)...is probably minimal.
I think the concern would be more over the independent (and crossover Republicans) whose votes we could lose if HRC is the nominee, because I think that's where Sanders' potential greater strength in November comes from.
But luckily, current polls show both BS and HRC as being very able to win in Novemeber.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Party. She is not liked. She has so many negatives it is amazing.
Bernie is the liked candidate. He stands up for ordinary people. He will appoint wonderful Supreme Court justices.
I am the one who will repeat and repeat that I will vote for every Democrat on my ballot except Hillary. She will ruin the reputation of the Democratic Party for a long time.
Vote for Bernie Sanders. He's the person who will best represent the American people's interests. Hillary represents bankers, hedge fund managers and the ownership class.
We do not need Hillary in the White House. She has already been there. And Bill Clinton signed the bills that permitted the 2008 crash to happen. She will do worse. She is sold out.
I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't want her wars on my conscience.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)
I wish I cared enough to bookmark all the nonsense that I read here.
Hyperbole much?
okasha
(11,573 posts)and free rein for armed white supremacist thugs wandering the border does not represent me. I wonder why you think he represents you.
George II
(67,782 posts)........she's still win the nomination. Easily.
okasha
(11,573 posts)So does the accompanying pic, yet another bad Photoshop attempt to make Hillary seem older, bad-tempered, with the apparently unshakable bigotry that "unattractive =evil."
When a piece starts off with a blatant visual lie, why should any of the rest be taken seriously?
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)...that I'm supposed to vote for the candidate LESS likely to beat him in the general!
This is deja vu back to the 2008 Hillary versus Obama angry back and forth. I was strongly on Obama's side (voted for him both times) and couldn't stand Hillary. That being side I couldn't stand the name calling and bickering on DKos and DemocraticUnderground even more so I had to avoid those sites in the months leading up to the Democratic Primary election. It's annoying as hell. Since the Hillary versus Bernie fight has started I find myself avoiding these sites again. Just vote for who you think is best and don't denigrate those who have a different viewpoint. Tiresome.
Here's where I'm at right now. Whose ideals do I agree with more? Bernie Sanders. Who do I think will be more successful at playing the ugly political games that have to be played to get things done? Hillary Clinton (and that's not necessarily a testament to good character). Do I think Hillary is an evil Wall Street hack who will turn against all progressive principles once elected? No. Do I think she is 100% sincere? No.
If I've learned anything from the last 8 years it's that being President doesn't mean a lot in regards to getting things done--the bottleneck is in Congress. Bernie Sanders says what he means and that hasn't changed since he started running for President. In my opinion he is one of the most sincere candidates who truly believes what he is saying, he doesn't change his position simply to get elected. I love that about him. That being said, what difference will it make if we don't get a majority in Congress? Hillary is one of the savviest politicians out there and she knows how to manipulate the system to get things done--that may be a bad thing in regards to character but it's a necessary thing in regards to Washington and getting sh*t done. So I'm on the fence. I think both Hillary and Bernie will elect liberal Supreme Court Justices and that's probably the one thing that a President actually has some sway over.
Who am I going to vote for in the primary? I'm still not sure. One thing I do know is that the nasty name calling isn't helping my decision in any way, shape, or form.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)They have become a pain in the backside. They proselytize like the Tea Party crowd. They have become dogmatic and boorish, it's either Sanders or no one for them.
The more they push, the more they annoy her supporters and the more counterproductive it becomes.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)That's not pushing, annoying, or counterproductive? And the comparison in your case, does not come from a dogmatic attachment to one candidate?
Your response is bordering on hypocrisy, and firmly within the realm of irony...
Beacool
(30,250 posts)No hypocrisy here. I don't post negativity about Sanders, although I prefer another candidate. The endless attacks on Hillary are not going to change the minds of her supporters. It actually has the opposite result.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And hold your fingers in your ears. No one cares. You're not the target. There are MANY people out there who don't have a set opinion and who are receptive to the message Bernie is pushing and who are lukewarm or downright distrustful of Hillary.
Beacool
(30,250 posts) Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Your comparison is - I feel - bordering on a breach of the terms of service. Because Tea Party members are all reactionary Republicans.
Doubling down on the insult is not helping your case.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)
Its a little grittier, but who can resist the name?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Plus the tee-shirts are awesome. 
Duval
(4,280 posts)I appreciate your posts, berni_mccoy! Always helpful!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)With anything other than "well you must support Republicans then"
Rather ironic considering all the policy positions you just listed are pretty Republican.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)and bad enough that everything they do can be blamed on non-voting, but good enough to work with, logroll, and pass all their legislation once the election's over
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)As such, I formally nominate it for the dumbest DKos diary I have ever seen. It doesn't deserve a serious response because it is so illustrative of someone who has no clue about politics.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)A presidential candidate who is not currently an office holder should be "lobbying" congress? Hell, she is endorsed by 89% of Dem senators, and I am pretty fricking sure they have heard what she says about the TPP.
Sorry, the person who wrote this diary is an idiot, IMO.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)than lobbying Congress against the TPP.
But go ahead, keep trying.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... and they are super delegates. And she is running.
Is this complicated?
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)and if you think that Hillary winning is more important than that, then I would refer you back to your own comments on the capacity of the author of the diary.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)What we have learned is that Bernie supporters will smear her if she was for it, or if she is against it.
Are you starting to see why HRC supporters don't take this shit seriously any longer? Bernie supporters would smear her if she found a fucking cure for cancer and say why didn't she find it sooner, or she only did because of Goldman Sachs, or because Bill had an affair with Monica, or whatever other ridiculous construct they could spin.
But I will give you props for finally posting something that is not from a right wing site. That's progress.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Not when she had a direct hand in crafting it and defended it more than 45 times.
Please, keep trying, so far, you are 0-2.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I don't need to "keep trying."
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's better spent pointing out foolish this kind of thing is. IMO.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Got it.
There is nothing to discuss here. It's just another ridiculous smear on Hillary. THAT is the only topic worthy of "discussion" in this thread.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 9, 2015, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)
It's not like Bernie's record is spotless--far from it--or that Mrs. Clinton's supporters haven't refuted most of these points thirty eight times.
I'm starting to think of his supporters as Bern Victims.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)There is so much victim mentality among Sanders supporters. It's odd because Bernie has none of that. Bernie is a good man.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts) dsc
(52,166 posts)One, no she didn't push for military intervention in Syria (she pushed to arm the rebels). Two I agree with her more than Sanders on the SS issue (I favor increasing the cap to reflect the percent of people covered back in the 1930's which would make it around double what it is now and increasing other taxes to make up any remaining shortfall). Sanders and she have identical positions on Israel.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)She spoke against raising the cap.
dsc
(52,166 posts)which I very much disagree with. I don't think SS can withstand people getting million dollar pension checks that they would be entitled to with the elimination of the cap. I think the cap should have its purpose reestablished which is what my increase would do, but we should not be taxing all earned income and paying put pensions based on that.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)First, he wants to lift it to $250,000.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/strengthen-and-expand-social-security/
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)What exactly is "Your increase"?
dsc
(52,166 posts)you get a certain percent of the money you pay in. If you pay in based on a 50 million a year salary then your pension will be millions of dollars a year.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)It works out that a person gets 15% of the upper part of the earnings. Thus a person making 10 million a year would get a small bit over 1.5 million a year.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The shocking part is that she learned NOTHING from this 2008 "schooling" given by Professor Obama on exactly WHO the Middle Class is.
Hillary STILL doesn't know.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Seriously.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)In the last couple of days I haven't found one truthful honest OP about Hillary from the other side.
Yesterday they she was going to nuke Iran, she supposedly attacked Bernie about Baltimore, she buys all the polls in her favor and a bunch of other weird stuff
It is almost like a contest to see who can come up with the lamest OP about Hillary.
Even though you say it isn't so you are freaked about the polls.
Well in less than two months she will kick Bernie's behind in IA.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Hillarians are hilarious is an opinion, but one supported by your posts.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)I'll concede that Hillary is on the "wrong" side of each and every one of those issues.
If the author thinks those are the 10 most important issues and thus won't vote for Hillary, fine. I could make a list of issues that I feel Hillary is on the right side of and demand a debate on that specific list of issues.
In the real world, it doesn't work that way. I, like most people, will be voting for the best available candidate. IMO, Hillary is the best candidate, and it's not even close.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)who the author was voting for? Please don't change the subject, and thank you for conceding that Hillary is on the wrong side of the issues.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)K&R
Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
Post removed
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Pleasure to know in a few months GDP will disappear, bernie will go back home & Hillary moves on to the US Presidency.
Amen.
840high
(17,196 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)"Have you been or ever had thoughts or deamed in your sleep of ...."
"Winning in all 50 States, Most clicks for Person of the Year" (so of course he'll be chosen!!)...and now the inquisituon thought up, written & "liked up" by their social media crowd as though it was everyone's reality..and you honestly expect people to take this serious too?
Maybe this belongs in the bernie forum.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Bern the witch!
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)KMOD
(7,906 posts)Australian can vote however s/he chooses.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
jalan48
(13,879 posts)But isn't this election all about "Madam President"?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)At this point I do understand Sanders supporters needing to rally.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)But...then Clinton with her draws of...WOW...600 people at a rally, I can see why a Hillary supporter would not wish to discuss the subject of rallies!
Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)is that I'm voting for whom I like. Got it? You can try listing every vote Hillary made vs Bernie, every comment she made vs Bernie, you can talk incessantly about issues, but the fact is I like Hillary more - a LOT more - than your guy - and I'm voting for her. Not him.
Oh and good luck in that NH primary. That might be about the only one you'll come close to winning - well, maybe VT also.
It's too bad - I use to like Bernie before I met his supporters.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But, on the bright side, this site seems to keep them busy, instead of going out and working for Bernie. LOL!
Walk away
(9,494 posts)"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)Reminds me of the 101st Keyboard Typist Brigade....on basement station. 
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)This Australia2 gentleman or lady is making demands on me/us like we are slaves or trained seals.
If I owe an explanation to anybody for my actions it's God, not some poster on Daily Kos.
dpatbrown
(368 posts)Why do you like Clinton more, a lot more?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Like, who needs to know about the dangers of smoking when it gives you a rush and makes you look cool?
Republicans aren't the only ones who vote against their best interest.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The devils of particular senatorial votes are certainly in the details, and "speaking in favor" of the TPP can only be.
Demanding yes or no answers comes across as rather fatuous, as does trying to provoke squabbles with the supporters of candidates rather than with the candidates themselves. The OP is unfortunately going to fail at persuasion, but I doubt that was the goal.
I would be all for deep dives into these very excellent questions, however. A candidate ought to be able--no, eager--to address the issues in detail and answer for documented deeds.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)i'm shocked she garners support when her integrity and respect for the middle class and the impoverished in our country is pandered to with lies. but then again, trump is doing the same.
blackspade
(10,056 posts) 
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)you may need this to sooth out the hurt.... I see you got some unexpected answers over there LOL.
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)
The Polack MSgt
(13,191 posts)I'm expected to do a point by point refutation of this guys opinions?
1. She voted for the bill that included this. Explain how that "disqualifies" (ooh quotation marks are nifty fun!) her from office.
In what way is life VASTLY harder? (all caps tho? not so fun)
Which bankruptcy policy changes meet the Bernie threshold of acceptability?
Can you reasonably expect sitting Senators to never horse trade on bills to get things done? Oh, sorry getting things done in the Senate is not the point, or there would be more OPs about all the laws Bernie wrote in the last 25 years.
Please clarify the objection raised by the phrase - one of her first votes - Is it worse than if it was her 24th vote or better? She gets extra blame for not controlling the schedule?
2. Yes she did vote to authorize force in Iraq. This has always been the Bernie fans' best plum. He voted against - Can't even argue.
3. No she did not. Not if we are using "words" with "definitions"
4. Whatevs. This is petty as hell and you know it.
5. Yes she did. Does it matter to you that her constituents were hugely in favor of doing so? She did represent NY BTW. Bernie of course can reasonably expect leeway on gun control votes because after all he represented a pro gun rural state. Shit goes both ways
6. Support for Israel is a disqualification for national office? GTF Outta here - when did that happen? Care to compare and contrast her position with Bernie for those of us who can't see the daylight between them?
7. Spoke in favor sure, 45 times? Beats me - got links?
7a. BTW you don't actually have to stop the lists at 10, there is no reason for not numbering them with whole numbers. If you feel that subcategories are appropriate the accepted procedure is #, #a, #b etc.
7b. Was she asked to lobby Congress - she did not lobby congress but unless she turned down a request to do so she did not refuse to do shit.
8. Yes indeed she did. She is most accurately described as a center left moderate - We used to call those people Democrats.
Which when put on the political spectrum as it now exists is kind of "progressive". I realize that she used your sacred word without permission and the butt hurt is like a gaping wound in your soul - Sorry
9. She does. I do as well. I want better over sight and access to effective counsel, but like a large number of folks I do not want it banned.
10. Is $118k-$200 not middle class? It's more than I make sure, even with my military pension, but it is hardly wealthy. It would in fact be an increase in payroll deductions for people who are demonstrably middle class. So the quotation marks once again do not change the actual meaning of actual "words"
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)First, on all of the points, the issue about disqualify, I take to mean for the Democratic Nominee, who is supposed to stand up for the working class and the poor *over* the interests of the corporations, financial institutions and the wealthy. If she is running for the Republican nominee, I agree, these stances would not disqualify her, but instead, propel her to win.
1. What exactly did she horse trade for this vote? Using that as an excuse is really allowing her to stand FOR the banks vs. standing up for the rights of the middle class.
2. Glad you concede this.
3. Might want to read this
4. Glad you concede this. And I don't think many working class people think its petty.
5. If by constituents, you mean Wall Street or the MIC, then sure. For the rest of us who don't like what it resulted in it's a big deal.
6. I can see your take on this. However, supporting Israel isn't the problem. Supporting their apartheid stance is.
7. Both of these points are in regards to the TPP. The fact is she did have a hand in creating it as well as in defending it. See my earlier post (with plenty of references) on this in detail here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251773896
8. I'm sorry, I (and I don't believe anyone else) is trying to own the definition of progressive. There is a Progressive Caucus in Congress and Clinton was never a part of it. She's said many times that she's moderate. She is actually conservative on many of them, including finance and war. On social issues, she is left. This doesn't make her Moderate. It makes her what she is. And you can't be Progressive if you are conservative when it comes to war and finance, especially the way it impacts the middle-class and war.
9. The death penalty, to which I have always been opposed, is wrong, not just from the perspective that it is immoral, but also from the perspective that the justice system is severely flawed when it comes to race.
10. The numbers you cite are not middle class, they are distinctly the upper bounds of the middle class. And by having a cap, you are saying only the poor and middle class are going to pay their share. The upper middle class and above is not going to contribute a decreasing amount relative to increasing income. Not only is that not progressive, it is regressive.
Again, thank you for your reasoned response. It is far better than any other Hillary supporter has responded with.
The Polack MSgt
(13,191 posts)I did not see your reply until after I posted it.
I'm rather new to the forum so if I over stepped accepted boundaries in my copy and paste frenzy, I apologize.
Thanks for pointing out my response to the posters saying that no Hillary supporters will ever answer this OP. I appreciate the courtesy.
Peace
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)And let's discuss the issues!
valerief
(53,235 posts)
Javaman
(62,532 posts)pretty much what I expected.
if you have a quality candidate, then answer the questions. It's really that simple.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts) SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Still waiting.
Bernie will be through his second term as President and we will still be
waiting, waiting, waiting.....
olddots
(10,237 posts)Pradas .
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Since I’m banned from replying to another thread started by ‘playinghardball,’ I’ll just reply here instead. Playhardball made an idiotic comment about Bernie flying coach while Hillary flies corporate jet.
Even if true, who the hell cares? Like that has anything to do with leadership?
But that may explain something, though. That might explain why Bernie looks angry and ruffled all the time while Hillary is cool and calm!
zalinda
(5,621 posts)and how we must reduce our carbon footprint, and then flew off in a private jet. So, basically what she means is that every one else who is not rich should reduce their carbon footprint.
On the other hand, Bernie also talked about climate change and reducing our carbon footprint, and then he flew off on a public airline in coach. We he says our carbon footprint, he means everyone, including himself.
Bernie always looks angry and ruffled, because he's angry at the way rich people treat the 99% and he's ruffled because he knows appearances don't count, only actions do. Hillary is cool and calm because she thinks she's better than every one else.
Z
dpatbrown
(368 posts)Great counter Zalinda. I asked the same person why she liked Clinton a lot more than Bernie. I'm still waiting to hear.
Again, great stuff. I love your style.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)zalinda
(5,621 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)If you really want to refute the points about real issues affecting real people and have a discussion, there is no fear from a hide.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I've seen a post hidden that directly quoted Sanders because the Sanders quote did not paint Sanders in a very good light.
Because of that, posting anything mildly critical of Sanders, which any rebuttal would be, is a risk of being hidden on DU with Sanders stacked juries hiding anything anti=Sanders.
Even this post is a hide risk, though not as great as posting a rebuttal to your OP would be.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I an see your avatar.
And again, even this post was a hide risk.
I receive PMs from other DUers on nearly every post I make in GDP with the jury results.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I won't alert on the PM. I have had other Hillary supporters harass me in PM and I did not alert on those when I could have.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Not. Falling. For. It.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)
Serious kudos to the Hillary supporter who actually DID response with substance.... now ask me if I'm surprised by the low post count!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Not. Falling. For. It.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It would serve your candidate better if this energy and effort was placed in getting voters registered to vote and present your candidate in a fashion where you might be able to get votes and endorsements for your candidate. We think Hillary is handling her campaign quiet well and the results shows more people are supporting Hillary. Work on your candidate.
Uben
(7,719 posts).....I give everyone that privilege whether I agree with them or not. I won't submit a rebuttal, I'm not interested in butting heads with a fellow democrat and DUer. There's probably not much you can tell me that I am not aware of, as I read up on politics daily, and have for many years.
Bottom line is, I'll vote for whomever I feel is the most qualified based on my knowledge and research and I WILL vote for the democrat nominee, whoever that may be. Years ago, I might have offered my opinion based on my knowledge, but those days have come and gone and I prefer to stay on the perimeter here at DU. I've been here almost since this site started and have decided that its much more relaxing to me to just read the info submitted and make my own decisions based on what I find to be credible. I am truly proud to have both Clinton and Sanders as our candidates and believe either would make a great president if elected. Judging by what the republicans are offering as candidates, I have no doubts one of ours will prevail!
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Boy, you Sandersistas really have us right where you want us!
"Is Hillary Clinton someone someone US business can work with, even though they know she's proposing significant reforms?"
Ooooo.... ouuuuchhhhh! We terrible Clinton supporters are not even rebutting it!!!!!11!!1!
Here are the real questions:
* Do you have any idea where the country is on most of these issues?
* Do you understand how out of step you are, and how even more unelectable you're making Sanders?
* Do you recognize that the public isn't voting for a Socialist, no matter how you spin it?
* Do you understand with these diatribes that you're not convincing anyone?
I mean, the answer is clearly no, but still, you're welcome to "rebut" it.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"Here are the real questions: "
In logic, this is known as moving the goalosts, because not one person had been able to refute the facts the op made But:
* Do you have any idea where the country is on most of these issues?
Why yes, most of the actual polls tend to say the nation is more liberal than most would suspect:
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/21/karl_roves_dream_come_true_why_voters_favor_liberal_ideas_but_polls_undercount_conservatives/
http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/liberal-policies-win-liberal-candidates-lose.html
* Do you understand how out of step you are, and how even more unelectable you're making Sanders?
An insult is not a question, however, lemmings are perfectly in step, and some of us do not want to the see the program that is a proven failure, the attempt by democrats to play republican. I could rebut with a question such as "do you have any idea how many seats we have lost since Debbie Wasserman Schultz took over?"
* Do you understand with these diatribes that you're not convincing anyone?
Funny, as Bernie is gettign endorsements, somebody is ggetting convinced.
I leave with one question:
Do you realize that the more certain people yell about how Hillary is inevitable and should not have any pressure to lean left placed on her, the more people will get sick of her? Do you realize all this shouting and demonizing reflects weakness rather than strength, as if you are trying to convince yourself?
and lastly
Did you learn NOTHING from 2008?
Sadly, I wonder of Hillary has. I hope she has, because if she has not, she may very well take the democratic party down with her.
* Do you recognize that the public isn't voting for a Socialist, no matter how you spin it?
because of course the words socialist id demonized, however, against a Trump, maybe the public would prefer anythign to Trump
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Just FYI, "Moving the goalposts" means changing the criteria of a previously asked and answered question when the factual answer doesn't match what you'd like to me true. This is not what I've done. Rather, I assert that the questions that were originally asked are not apropos at best, or at worst, the answers to them show the superiority of Clinton over Sanders.
To give you an analogy you might be able to better understand, if you were a Carson supporter saying "How DARE you challenge the idea that MY GUY STABBED SOMEONE. Care to REFUTE that?!?" And me going "Stabbing a guy isn't exactly the best qualification for President, so I won't challenge you." No goalposts moved.
In this case, Hillary supporting Israel and supporting Free Trade (or conversely, opposing communism/socialism as unworkable), isn't a negative as the OP asserts. Okay? So I'm more than happy to "admit" that she does these things.
I went ahead and read the links you provided, and was bemused by the fact that the positions outlined are (far from the positions in the OP) things that Hillary Clinton also supports. This is to be expected, as Hillary is a liberal. My guy, Biden, isn't even in the race, and though he's more moderate than she is, even he supports most of them.
But since you "answered" my questions, let me answer yours. First, pointing out that someone is absolutely crushing everyone else in the polls is a simple matter of fact. If you can't handle facts, that's your problem, not the fact's problem. Second, and more importantly, the DU is filled with an incredibly narrow demographic. not just the far left, but the hate-filled anti-Democratic Naderite/Green/Socialist/Communist/Anarchist left. Go out into the real world and you'll find Hillary's support is both broad and deep. Polls say that around 15% to 20% of democrats don’t view her as their first or second choice – and that the other 80% to 85% are likely to vote for her if she’s the nominee. Especially since the Democrats who won't vote for her are more extreme conservatives, rather than disaffected WFP types. So in conclusion, no, I don't think a few data points bringing such a thin slice of anti-Democratic party haters who hang around a Democratic Party website to throw rhetorical spitballs at nearly every national Democratic party leader is really going to harm her (or anyone) with anyone whose vote was really up for grabs anyway.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I understand that on many issues from going to war to medical marijuana, the majority of this country is more liberal than the polls would suggest. Indeed, Hillary's supposed 11th hour conversion on the TPP and Keystone shows that many of the conservative democrats, including her husband, who were FOR those things turned out not to have a proper gauge of the people's will.
My point was to show the weakness of these polls, as far as what she "supports" well, your Hillary has a very bad track record for supporting something one minute, then doing a 180 the next. She glady supports BLM when they are yelling at Sanders, but then when they challenge her, she says "I guess I will only talk to white people" in one of the most clueless statements ever made since "let them eat cake." One moment, she talks of peace, next moment, she goes "we came, we saw, he died" in a statement that she KNEW would pour gasoline on Libya's fires. I understand perfectly that no matter what she says, she can say the opposite. That is fine, she would just need to understand that some of us will use Bernie to pull her to the left. Before you use your snark to say "that won't happen" refer to the TPP and Keystone. If she can flip flop for others, she can very well flip flop for us.
and you avoided my questions, but let's face it, I expected that. How do you expect anything but failure from a plan that was used in 2008, and shown to fail, and two mid terms where we have had our head handed to us. It will not matter if Hillary is a demigoddess in the primary, the general is what matters, and as the past two mid terms show, those "undecided" voters and "moderates" you claim Hillary owns are not so reliable come November. For that matters, yelling at Bernie supporters like children, and acting like everyone who does not think like you do is somehow unable to "understand" is not what will help you in November when all hands will be needed on deck to fight the Koch brothers drowning the election in money. As Odious is I do find some Hillary (and for that matter, some Bernie) supporters here, I do relaize come November I will be right next to them in the call center trying to get people out to vote, especially in purple states where the GOP will be rigging the table. I hope the Hillary supporters see that, because if not, Hillary may go down as the most expensive failure in history, something she does NOT want. Be careful you do not become like the Elvis fans that loved poor Elvis to death.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Regardless of our very heated differences of opinion, I will absolutely be 100% working for the Democratic nominee.
And if it turns out to be Bernie, by god I'll go put on a fucking "Che" tee-shirt and do calls for him, if that's what it takes.
Because the world cannot afford Trump or any of the other Republican disasters.
Okay?
Let the best candidate win. You may not realize this, but I've never said a bad thing about Sanders on the DU (other than he made some political messaging mistakes); I don't attack other Democrats no matter how much I disagree with him. I've only defended Secretary Clinton from the repeated over-the-top attacks that I see on this site, and even then, really only to entertain myself, because I don't think anything written here is worth the typeface to read it. It doesn't affect jack shit.
You just gained respect from me, because every single election I'm out cutting turf, knocking doors, tabling, and phone banking -- basically doing things none of the usual DU screamers know anything about -- but you at least mentioned it.
So, for the rest, let's agree to disagree, at leave it at that.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
FloridaBlues
(4,008 posts)Guess your shouting about her isn't an issue with majority of dems.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)If you only want to vote for the winning side then your values must change.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts) 
Faux pas
(14,687 posts)Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
IHateTheGOP This message was self-deleted by its author.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Paka
(2,760 posts)Every one a dis-qualifier.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)It's truly beyond me. I guess to some it's all about perception and image and not substance. They are fooled by the persona and will of course be disappointed later and have to either make excuses or end up disillusioned. Her statements and actions are repugnant to me. Playing the fool isn't happening.
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)Have a nice day.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Unlike the automatons I think for myself and have been following the Clintons closely for decades. Wars at home and wars abroad. They ramped up both. I don't care if the economy deregulated made the middle class stocks rise. The poor were run over and it doesn't matter if you're in prison how well the stock market is doing. I woke up when I realized the Clintons are Bush Sr's hand selected democratic "opposition". The time I liked her was long ago and misguided. I also felt sympathy for her because no one deserves their husband cheating on them. But she loves Kissinger, Rockefeller and Bush Sr. That makes me sick and if it doesn't you then maybe that's the question you should be asking yourself.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)"in the flesh". Two told me that they were voting for her because she's a woman and it's time we had a woman in the Whitehouse, but neither would confirm or deny support for Palin or Bachmann. Another said that it was because she's "the most experienced". I asked him if her support for more wars, fracking, Monsanto, bank deregulation, for profit prisons, etc. bothered him, and he just mumbled "well, but it's her turn." The forth said that she supported Hillary because Hillary was for the Democratic party and the party was for her. Bernie, they said, is a "Johnny come lately" to team Blue, so he isn't a true Blue team player in her eyes. Go team! Woo-hoo! As if it's all just a matter of personally identifying with a sports team, not what anyone's position is on the issues. Yes, some voters are now THAT shallow!
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)All Bernie supporters or Republicans or fed up and not voting.
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)10 yard penalty, repeat first down!
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)to take these one by one and refute them. Please. 185 replies...and no substance. I'll double down on the challenge by the OP...what is not true. It's what made a Bernie supporter out of me. You can be a Hillary supporter, but if the above is not true, then take it to task. If not...well, that's your choice too.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)true progressive, populist, decent FDR Democrat. We would move the earth to get her elected.
But she isn't and she won't be, and every republican thing she would do as president would be done while calling herself a "Democrat".
This list is everything we don't need in the oval office if we truly want the US to become a better nation. Its shameful the Democrat Leadership has forced such a person on us.
From the KoS OP~
7b) Did Hillary Clinton, or did she not, refuse to lobby Congress to block the TPP after belatedly opposing it?
These are Democrats screwing us over with these "trade" deals. The party for the working class....wtf?
This has to stop.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)speech and browbeating - while claiming with a straight face that name-calling and hateful comments about Bernie and his supporters is a serious discussion of the issues.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Excellent questions, Mr. McCoy.
The Hillary Fan Club doesn't care, since the polls shows she's winning and that's all that matters to them. If income inequality increases or the middle shrinks as she continues the policies that since 1981 have increased income inequality and shrunk the middle class, well, I suppose that's just collateral damage.
Yes, Hillary is indeed ahead in the polls. That's a real concern and we should do something about it.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)K&R!
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)Vote for Sanders, but stop with the continuous efforts to recruit Hillary supporters. It's become nothing but a bore.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Hillary won't even consider raising the FICA cap. She prefers means testing Social Security. Many of us feel means testing would be the beginning of the end.
Hillary doesn't even favor single payer Medicare for All.
Uncle Joe
(58,389 posts)Thanks for the thread, berni_mccoy.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)Don't you people understand that?!?!?! 