voting is controlled by perception. or did that fact escape you. the debate schedule designed to help clinton. you cannot use the outcome of a result to dispute the assertation that maybe things were going on to influence them. says the person accusing me of being sexist racist and violent. i'll calm down when i quit being lied about and told i'm a monster for not supporting clinton. grammer nazism is the last refugee of people who don't have an argument are your seriously that loopy. thats my entire argument. that the pro sanders opinion is not respected. you don't get to through mud and than complain when it gets tossed back at you. and he has tried admonishing them which you lied about and claimed he didn't. he has in fact when the bernie bro slur( will get to that little bit of libel against me) was designed to create a false narrative that he hates women. its perfectly ok to discuss it its not ok to lie and say all of them do when it is a small minority which your doing. to use my analogy from the karma thread there is a big difference between saying the catholic church needs to do more about child molestation and claiming all catholic priests are child rapists. your claiming to do the former while doing the later. again your missing the whole point, my point is not that there aren't any misconduct its not that its supported and its not everyone. i find it embarassing and try to shut it down as much as possible. i take offense to your claim its every sanders supporter. which you ignoring so you can continue to attack people. so don't tell me to calm down. not to mention the fact that could easily be construed as rasict if i was black because its not that simple. to claim it is ignores the myriad of ways to influence the vote. you have been reported for this personal attack and libel. this only goes to prove my point. despite my clear history of being pro women you think its ok to label as a misogynist simply for being a bernie sanders supporter. and don't lie bells you know its a slur and you knew exactly what you were doing. its shit like this is why i'm voting for sanders and not clinton. because if you were a sanders supporter making a claim like that it would have to be attacked but since your now a clinton supporter its ok. look at the delores huerta debacle. was clinton ever asked to admonish her for trying to falsly paint sanders supporters of being racist nope. don't ever libel me again Bells. i demand an apology. i'm a nice person but i do not take kindly to personal attacks of this nature not that you won't get pass because james has decided its ok to lie and attack me.
Bern-ing Down the House Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The question arises whether Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is politically inept, or perhaps is pursuing nontraditional goals. To wit, Steve Benen↱ offers what seems a valid take, but only if we presume the alleged Democrat is actually running for the nomination: Whether you love Sanders, hate him, or are somewhere in between, he's no fool. He can do arithmetic as well as anyone else. The Vermonter is well aware of the fact that there's no realistic scenario in which he wins each of the remaining primaries and caucuses in lopsided landslides, catching up to Clinton in the race for pledged delegates. It's why Sanders and his top aides have argued for several weeks that they'll pursue an alternate course: winning the nomination by taking their fight to the convention and convincing Democratic officials to override the will of the voters. It's not the strategy the senator hoped to pursue, but given the primary results, Team Sanders just doesn't have much of a choice. On its face, the scenario is far-fetched―why would Democratic insiders deliberately ignore the wishes of Democratic voters?―but it's even more difficult to imagine given Sanders' latest efforts to infuriate the very people whose help he's seeking. TPM's Josh Marshall explained the other day, "Sanders has in the last three days essentially declared war on the institutional Democratic party…. But his entire stated strategy is to do well enough in the final run of primaries that super-delegates, the embodiment of the institutional party, decide to drop Clinton and switch their allegiance to Sanders…. You don't gain the acceptance or support of people whose very legitimacy you are currently attacking." To the other, if Bernie Sanders really does see no difference between the parties, it makes a bizarre sort of perfect sense. As with Donald Trump↗, though, the "perfect sense" of the Sanders campaign requires taking Ockham out for a drink, and this time a direct action team is going to truncheon him in the alley. If the parties are the same, then Mr. Sanders has no reason to not try to wreck the Democratic Party. If he is successful, then Republicans will be empowered. If Republicans are empowered, then the differences between the parties becomes much more apparent. If the differences become that much more apparent, then he can complain of Democratic inefficiency. If he can complain of Democratic efficiency, then he can posture himself as the center of a new liberal revival, thus building his personality cult. At which point Ockham will be thankful to have been beaten comatose, as then he doesn't have to figure out the lex parsimonae of such a suggestion. The problem is that complicated mess now appears virtually as likely as the proposition that Mr. Sanders is in good faith actually running for president. In 2014, Mark Jacobson↱ noted, for New York magazine: Soon we are discussing a major question in the would-be Bernie campaign: Would he run on a third-party ticket or as a Democrat? The choice seems obvious. Not even Ross Perot could afford to launch a meaningful third-party national campaign these days. Beyond that, you risk what Sanders calls "the Ralph Nader dilemma." If there's one thing that really bugs Bernie, it is the specter of Nader, who earlier this year sent a bizarre "open letter" to the Burlington Free Press whining about how Sanders won't return his calls. Discounting the argument that the two-party system might be a big part of the status quo he so deplores, Sanders slaps down his soup spoon. "Do you remember Florida?" Sanders half-shouts. "I won't play the spoiler." Seventeen months later, it seems rather quite hard to believe Bernie Sanders. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Bernie Sanders sharpens his pitch to Democrats". msnbc. 23 May 2016. msnbc.com. 23 May 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/244ikWX Jacobson, Mark. "Bernie Sanders for President? Why Not?" New York. 28 December 2014. NYMag.com. 23 May 2016. http://nym.ag/1Wd4S3H
Well, I haven't heard or seen anyone, especially here, delegitimize Bernie or his supporters. But at some point reality must be addressed, it cannot be ignored. Reality in the end will prevail. Facts in the end will matter regardless of your wants and beliefs. The facts are voters have rejected what Sanders is selling. That's why Hillary has more popular votes. As has been pointed out to you, even if the voting changes Bernie's crowd wants were implemented, he would still lose. Democratic super delegates have always voted with the popular vote. And the popular vote has gone against Bernie. Bernie would need to get 91% of the remaining votes to win. That's just not going to happen. Arguing as you have, that somehow the debate schedule made a difference is specious at best. It's absurd and desperate. One should, you should, wonder why Trump supports Bernie and his followers. Republicans have a long standing practice of supporting the weaker opposition candidate. In 2008, Republicans supported Hillary against Obama. Now Republicans support Sanders against Hillary. When your opponents are cheering your actions, that should cause you some concern. Obviously, Republicans don't share your ideology, so why do you think they they are cheering Bernie and his supporters on? The unfortunate fact for you and your fellows is Bernie is the weaker candidate. That's why Republicans support and encourage Bernie and his supporters - always egging them on. That's why Bernie hasn't garnered enough popular support to win. Bernie likes to point out that he is wins against Trump in national polling. Well, that's true today. But how true will that be after Republicans begin attacking Bernie as they have with Hillary for almost 3 decades now? How well will it go for Bernie and Democrats when Republicans bring up the fact that Bernie honeymooned in the Soviet Union? Bernie has a history that Republicans would love to exploit should he be nominated, and Bernie would have little time and little money to refute it. Bernie is the Republican great white hope this election cycle.
I had the misfortune of actually talking to a Bernie supporter last Friday at a tea shop. She insisted Bernie could win if the superdelegates changed their mind at the convention. Claimed that's what Obama's superdelegates did. Fact check? I said Hillary will most likely win California. She said no, Bernie was going to win. I just smiled and nodded as she carried on about all the great things Bernie will do. She said we can fund it all by slashing our military budget. I pointed out that we need to stop ISIS. She agreed. I regret afterwards not telling her why I'm voting for Hillary. Her vast experience. Her record on gun control. Her support for equality. Not to mention her cool and classy demeanor. But you really can't talk much to Bernie supporters. They have their mind set, and they're goin to win no matter what.
An Obvious Note Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 'Tis a fair question. If one or two of these [polls] showed outlier results, it'd be easier to question the reliability of the numbers, but when there's polling unanimity, the observation is much tougher to question. And so, Sanders and his supporters point to these polls, loudly and repeatedly, as a way of deflecting questions about the Independent senator's electability. And really, who can blame them? Most voters are reluctant to throw away a vote on a candidate who's bound to lose, and the Vermonter and his campaign allies appear to have quantifiable proof that he's a safe choice―perhaps even the safer choice. But some caveats are in order. The problem isn't that Sanders' argument is wrong―the data clearly backs him up―but rather, that the argument is incomplete in a broader context .... .... Hillary Clinton has been a high-profile national figure for many years, and her public reputation has been shaped in part by attacks from Republicans who've hated her, on a professional level, for the better part of a quarter-century. Sanders, in contrast, has never sought national office and has never been subjected to the full weight of the GOP Attack Machine, in part because his re-election bids in Vermont have been so easy. Indeed, much of the public, which is not yet engaged in the presidential campaign, probably has very little idea about who the senator is and what he believes. (Benen↱) In and of itself, the point is largely speculative. However, Sen. Sanders' penchant for trying to shush questions he doesn't want to answer, as well as his acknowledged lack of policy preparation, reinforce perceptions of his vulnerability. Steve Benen, again: GW political scientist John Sides noted last month that Sanders' views and ideology "creates the risk of a penalty at the ballot box." He highlighted a Gallup report published last summer that asked Americans, without mentioning any candidates' names, whether voters would be comfortable with different kinds of presidential candidates. For example, 93% of Americans said they're fine with voting for a Roman Catholic, and 92% of voters are on board with supporting a woman. Further down the list, just 60% said they could vote for a Muslim, and atheists did a little worse, at 58%. Socialists, however, finished dead last at 47%―the only group that finished below 50%. And, you know, I wouldn't worry so much about that last if I believed Sen. Sanders capable of withstanding the attacks. Nothing about his campaign, however, suggests he can; indeed, all indications hint otherwise. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "The missing details from Bernie Sanders' general-election pitch". msnbc. 9 March 2016. msnbc.com. 23 May 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/1p8f7rU
If he's not I am. I don't regard those quotes as being from Sanders or his "campaign", and I do regard your attempt to pin them on the campaign as a symptom of one of the major Clinton campaign afflictions. This bs is just strange. Fundamental insecurity? That would not be surprising. Trump is not going to need any help, with this stuff. And it has been provided to him by the Democratic Party and its chosen standard bearer, not by an elderly Jewish socialist who shouts too much and has a few perfectly legitimate grievances about the way the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party has been behaving. If you for one second entertain the notion that Clinton represents the "we" in that paragraph, you need to lay off the koolaid pronto. Whoops: Too late. This at least makes perfect sense: Now there's grounds for rapprochement. That's a sentiment a whole lot of people can get behind, and an open door through which Clinton can gain access to Sanders's voting base in the Democratic Party. But that would require political competence, actual political ability in a leadership role representing agreement on those issues. And that isn't available.
Considering that Sanders has rejected numerous debate days and his campaign even went so far as to complain and pitch a fit and demanded the debate be moved to New York, for example, which he then lost? A debate is a debate. I don't understand how one can argue that the dates the debates are held on can benefit one candidate over another. What has been clear is that Sanders has argued to have debates held here and there, on particular dates and he's even lost those debates. To wit, the question I would like to ask is at what point is the Sander's campaign going to take responsibility when they do badly at something like a debate, instead of palming blame off on everyone else? Can you please show me, exactly, where I accused you, in particular, of being sexist and racist and violent and where I declared you were a monster for not supporting Clinton? What you have done is pitch an absolute fit because someone dared to criticise a very valid and obvious problem surrounding the Sander's campaign, which Sanders has yet to actually address and which is resulting in people leaving his campaign and speaking out publicly about it. Aside from the obvious sexism surrounding his campaign, there is also an anger issue surrounding his campaign, this rage and abusive rhetoric, which you have displayed aplenty with a spade. To wit, this is doing a lot of damage to Sanders and his failure to correctly address these issues is going to harm him in the long run. This encouragement and feeding the rage, this constant blaming everyone else and this push to make everyone else the boogeyman is harming him.. Sander's is doing badly because of Sanders, not because of everyone else. You're killing me! But seriously, pjdude, aren't you even mildly concerned with the Bernie Bro's who are harassing and abusing women in this fashion? At all? Aren't you somewhat concerned that Sanders is still to actually address this very serious issue? Aren't you concerned that he has made no move to distance himself or to disavow those who spout these things in support of Sanders? Because as someone who is so left that I passed the Gandhi and Nelson Mandela on the political chart and left them behind in my dust, I find it disturbing that people are willing to overlook the rampant sexism and absolute misogyny and dismiss it as not being important enough to comment on it.. When the pro Sanders opinion comes laced with swear words and abuse, how do you expect it to be respected? You won't get respect if you fail to respect others. And you will certainly not get any respect when your pro Sanders arguments come off defending sexual harassment and misogyny and sexism. I'm sorry if you feel that should be respected, but it won't be. I don't respect anyone who defends such behaviour and I certainly do not respect anyone who then goes out of their way to excuse it and blame it on everything else instead of actually addressing it. Can you link where he admonished his supporters for their sexism and misogyny? You mean when he addressed it in February of this year and that was it? Even this latest issue in Nevada, where his supporters have come out and made obscenely sexist and misogynistic attacks, he did not address the sexism and misogyny. Not once. I would have thought it proved an apt opportunity to address this very serious issue. Instead he said he does not condone violence and added a big 'but' and went on to justify and excuse the reaction of those who protested and responded as they did. That, pjdude, is not admonishing them. His own arguments and words shows that he has an issue himself when it comes to sexism, pjdude. His response to the latest bout of misogyny and sexism was to say that the Party should welcome people who felt so energized and invigorated.. As Marcotte of Salon noted: In a statement responding to the Nevada convention, for instance, the Sanders campaign said that while they don’t condone violence, they encourage the party “figure out a way to welcome people who have been energized and excited by his campaign into the party.” Sorry, but calling a woman at home to spew misogynistic vitriol at her isn’t being “energized and excited”. It’s being hateful and bigoted. The Democrats should prioritize making the party safe for women, not safe for men who like to yell “cunt” at them. Firstly, I did not say it is every Sander's supporter. Secondly, if your display in this thread is how you shut it down, then I can see where the problem might be. Thirdly, the only people I am attacking at the Bernie Bro's in his 'base' who are behaving this way and I am criticising Sanders for failing to address this properly. Fourthly, how is telling you to calm down racist if you were black? What? What?! Finally, Sanders will not condemn these latest sexist and misogynistic attacks against Lange because he still needs those particular Bernie Bro's. He won't condemn them now, because he needs the votes. He needs their support. Which is why I said that if the path to glory has to come at the cost of ignoring this kind of behaviour, have you really won in the end? More excuses. It's a simple question, pjdude. Your comment raises other issues, however. Your comment and argument appears to be based on the belief that voters really are that stupid that they can be influenced by a debate date, for example. It is condescending of the large portion of voters who are voting for Clinton, and it is offensive. Because the question is simple and if a candidate is unable to respect that millions of other people may just prefer Clinton over him and if the response is that they are somehow gullible or stupid because they choose to vote for someone else, then it is easy to see just how and why Sanders is losing.
You can report me to James if you like, and you are free to do so. You don't get to swear at people (and act like an angry Bernie Bro) and then demand an apology when they call you out on it. The irony is that it is behaviour like yours and others in his campaign that turned me off Sanders completely. And you don't think some of Sander's supporters are racist? There is more than enough evidence of Sander's and his campaign remaining silent in the face of racism in this current election cycle. Arthur Chu, of The Guardian, addressed my concerns exactly. It's a good article. You should read it and hopefully learn from it. The worst trait of fundamentalists is their insistence that anyone who’s not on board with their revolution is part of a coordinated conspiracy to silence and suppress that revolution. You can watch in real time as any progressive public figure who refuses to openly endorse Sanders – whether or not they also endorse Clinton – gets bombarded by wave after wave of accusations of being on the take. Their hypocrisy, too, is distasteful. When black activists were singled out at a political rally for being “potentially disruptive”, many Bernie supporters were silent. And when detractors criticize Bernie about his record on gun control, or the fact that his healthcare agenda, unlike Clinton’s, never directly addresses reproductive rights, those people are often accused of being disingenuous shills using “identity politics” to enact the agenda of the big banks. If people find it off-putting or troubling that Sanders seems persistently unwilling to pivot away from his one-plank platform of attacking income inequality to talk about any other issue – be it police violence against black Americans or violence by Daesh overseas – they’re No True Leftists, because it’s self-evident to any true leftist that all issues should come back to economics. Hell, even when the Sanders campaign does something unambiguously and unarguably bad, like when one of their staffers gets caught accessing Clinton campaign data and is summarily fired for it, you hear Sanders people grumbling about how that staffer came from the Democratic National Convention and may possibly have been a plant. It’s a problem when a movement cannot accept criticism or dissenting views. When Sarah Jeong, a journalist and Bernie Sanders supporter, said she saw racist comments on Twitter linked to a #FeelTheBern account, a mob of trolls tried to chase her off the internet. Another woman, who said she personally likes and identifies with Hillary Clinton, was sent death threats. These are not isolated cases. The worst part is that I don’t think it is entirely confined to jerks on the internet – it’s been percolating its way up through the campaign, and has now even tinged the rhetoric of the candidate himself. Consider that Bernie Sanders called Planned Parenthood “The Establishment,” despite being primarily an organization that provides healthcare for the poor. That was after the group had been on the ropes for months from vicious, false attacks that culminated in a mass shooting last year. But when you’re fighting a “political revolution” and the entire atmosphere of your campaign is dripping with revolutionary zeal, then pretty quickly anyone who’s not with you is against you. It’s disappointing that Planned Parenthood’s choice to endorse Clinton over Sanders was a reason for Sanders to dismiss Planned Parenthood as yet another adversary to “take on”.
PJ, bless his heart, isn't "in" the Sanders campaign either. Meanwhile, it isn't the behavior of Clinton-favoring Dems in this campaign that turned me and so many other Sanders campaign supporters off Clinton. All that did was sharpen and amplify the warnings directed toward them, regarding this cliff edge they are presenting as the mature, stable, adult path. It's her own record and her own rhetoric and her own choice of allies and friends - her own demonstrated, career-long, political MO. It's not only undesirable and problematic in itself, this MO, but a clear and present danger in the face of the rise of fascism in the US. She is naturally and personally a rightwing authoritarian, and she is continually getting rolled by political forces and factions we need our political leadership to defy and confront. She is not only capable of losing this election, a major disaster, but of furthering and abetting the very bad agenda of people we cannot afford such compromise with, if she wins. Meanwhile, the fact that her Party-defying vote for the Iraq invasion alone, W's Republican Folly, the clearest political gut check of our time, the hinge of catastrophe for the country she was oath-bound to govern well, did not disqualify her for consideration as a Democratic Party endorsed Presidential candidate, is all you really need to know about the Democratic Party "leadership" and its claims of political realism. And you should fact check it - along with your "concerns" - especially for context. Arthur Chu is a very perceptive, articulate, and honorable analyst, and there are few writers whose word I would more willingly accept about anything he chooses to take under consideration, but his "concern" hut there is built of some dubious bricks. Not all, but some - and it's the cumulative effect of the lot that makes the case.
Come on, try being honest, at least with yourself. Despite all that you have been told by several people, I don't think you realize you are very much a part of and responsible for that "clear and present danger in the face of the rise of fascism". She (i.e. Hillary) isn't the one whose supporters have taken to violence and threats of violence as Bernie's supporters have. And whither you chose to admit it or not, Hillary's positions are far from right wing. They are reasoned and credible positions. Gun control isn't exactly right wing by any means. Universal healthcare isn't exactly right wing. Raising taxes on America's wealthiest citizens isn't exactly right wing. Well, that's funny coming from a Bernie supporter who hasn't been a party member until he recently decided to run for POTUS. Bernie has defied the Democratic Party a number of times, especially on gun control. Two, Clinton didn't vote for the Iraq invasion. She voted for an authorization which allowed Baby Bush to invade Iraq in order to support UN sanctions against Iraq based on assertions from the Baby Bush administration which were later found to be untrue. Fact matter to everyone but ideologues. I was not a supporter of Bush's decision to invade Iraq, but it was Bush's decision as POTUS - not Hillary's. And if that's the best you have against Hillary, that's probably one more reason why Bernie is losing.
If she didn't know that she was being lied to by W&Co, or what she was actually voting for, that's worse - not better. Was there anyone in the US with less excuse for that level of gullibility than Hillary Clinton? Is there a bigger flaw in a President?
Threshold Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to sound off. This touches on a general phenomenon I've never quite understood: Afterward, we look back at a threshold and pretend everything was the same before as it is after. There was a lot of cynicism about our response to 9/11, but saying no because one believed the president was lying was not exactly the sort of thing people did back then. In the end, the '02 midterm reminds where the marketplace was. Mr. Sanders has a comfortable Senate seat; he doesn't give a damn about anyone else. To wit, we get the bit about gun owners in Vermont; he doesn't seem to care what's going on anywhere else. Democrats actually have to give a damn. Everything about this post hoc righteousness deliberately evades the question of market reality. If someone can explain to me just how this fantasy was supposed to work―you know, if only the Democrats actually threw down against the marketplace, the marketplace would respond affirmatively―it would actually be nice to learn. Hindsight might well be twenty-twenty, but it seems rather quite inappropriate to project that perspective back to eyes looking forward and trying to figure out what to do. It's easy enough to say, looking back, that 2001 was a shitty vote. But it was a losing argument at the time. As a result, the only people who stood the line against war also happened to have safe seats. In a way, it's kind of like family members who tell you what to do, tell you what to do, tell you what to do, and then you take their advice and something goes wrong and they say, "Well, why did you do that?" Unlike my brother's advice, for instance, politicians do actually need to pay attention to what voters are telling them. And nobody participating in politics has yet to explain the resolution to that age-old demand of the People: I'm pissed off today! How dare you do what I told you to do yesterday!
I never said he was. I said the behaviour of people like PJ and others who are involved with the campaign itself is a turn off. You cannot say that the sexist and abusive supporters of Sanders do not constitute a problem for the Sanders, his campaign or for the party itself.. Because it is a problem. On the Democrat's side, Sanders has done little to distance himself from this element. The latest brouhaha in Nevada and his response to that, suggested that the party should welcome some of this element as being the new voices. And it shouldn't. He shouldn't have said that. These individuals are now engaged in the party or the democratic system of voting and the damage that Sanders is doing by suggesting or encouraging the belief that everyone is against them, is only feeding the hatred and anger in these people. And that is going to end up being a huge problem for the party itself and its future. I don't think I would classify her as being right wing authoritarian. I think she falls more in the middle. Anyone is capable of losing this election, including Bernie Sanders, because people are rightly afraid that he might just completely screw this up, his inability to answer pertinent questions, his campaign promises, while they sound great, the means to fund them are vague. Like his free higher education plans, that would involve Wall Street speculation funding for the college and university studies for everyone.. Sounds great, yay, free education for all! Setting aside a disagreement over how much a Wall Street tax would raise, in any case, Sanders’ own proposal is straightforward about the fact that the tax revenue will not fund the free public school tuition 100 percent. And as CNN’s Burnett noted, there is some concern among skeptics of Sanders’ proposal about this piece in particular: What if state governments don’t want to play ball and refuse to kick in the remaining one-third of program costs? For example, many states have resisted federal dollars for expanding Medicaid, the low-income health insurance program, under the Affordable Care Act, even though the federal government would provide at minimum 90 percent of the funds to expand the program. In order to receive federal funding for Sanders' education proposal, states would have to meet other requirements designed to maintain high educational standards, like reducing the number of low-paid adjunct faculty and maintaining state funding for need-based financial aid. This, combined with the fact that state funding for higher education is tight across the country, raises the question of how states — particularly those whose governments are spending-averse — will respond to such a proposal and how that will affect students living in those states. In the CNN interview, Sanders said if a state chooses not to participate, it can expect its students to flock to a state that does. But Sanders is offering a generous deal that might be too good to pass up, said Barmak Nassirian, director of federal relations and policy analysis at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. He said the amount of federal money Sanders is putting on the table exceeds what states take in with undergraduate tuition, so they shouldn’t have to worry about a shortfall as a result of Sanders’ program. "But it is theoretically possible that some state does not take federal money," Nassirian said, noting that Sanders’ proposal is massive and won’t necessarily be politically feasible to implement. That's the issue with such huge campaign promises. They sound great when you hear it for the first time, but then when you look at the reality behind such promises, it doesn't come off as being so great. One of the issues with his proposal of taxing Wall Street in various ways is that it will dissuade people from investing. There is also the issue that companies may just move their trading off shore, which would result in fairly severe job losses in the financial sector, not to mention the various companies who would move off-shore. This would cause and create further instability in the US markets. Look, tax rates for Wall Street and the rich have to increase. The wealthy should not be taxed so little. But they need to be done in a way that will not drive companies off shore where the tax rate would be lower than what he is proposing and taxing transactions would result in lower income earners who are the mamma and pappa investors, simply not investing. When you take from one to give to the other, there are and will be losses elsewhere. The issue with Sanders is that he has the ability to completely ruin the left. He could set the left back terribly. And for a lot of progressives on the left, that is a risk they aren't willing to gamble on. If you think Clinton getting rolled by the right is something now, it will be nothing to what they will do to Sanders when he tries to pass these policies and promises through the House and the Senate. I'm not a fan of Clinton because she is too close to the center for me personally. But her campaign promises are more feasible. Her support of organisations like Planned Parenthood, which provides healthcare to so many of the poor, not to mention providing reproductive care and support for countless of women, as just one example, is something that can draw the left to her. Not to mention her support for for Human Rights Campaign, who have been described as being "establishment" by Sanders, provides support for countless of people, particularly members of the LGBT community. Describing them as being "establishment" in the manner that he has is damaging and for me, is a huge turn off. It shouldn't be an afterthought. This is an issue that affects all women in the US. And he should treat it as such and he hasn't. Fighting for the actual rights of the people, be it women, LGBT and minorities, has been a core value of her campaign. It hasn't really been for Sanders. In an age where fundamental human rights of women and LGBT is now at risk, he should be focusing more on this. He isn't. Clinton is. Considering the whole country was duped, how far do you think this complaint is going to go? The links are there and they are sound. You will believe what you choose to believe. And I did fact check it. Which is why I agree with him.
Bullshit. I don't know how far this "complaint" is going to go, I hope not far if Clinton is the nominee, but the whole country was not duped. And the whole country had nowhere near the resources of Clinton. I was following it, and I was not duped about the justification of the War Powers Act (although as my wife reminds me, I still didn't believe they were really going to go through with full invasion and occupation, even right up to the launch - I thought they had some still evil but less idiotic partial incursion and Saddam bullying in mind, leaving Bagdad intact etc. I really didn't think they were that damn dumb, to buy their own pitch). Neither was anybody else duped in my corner of the political universe, what has come to be known as the Left despite being mostly centrist libertarians and liberals. Neither were the German, British, French, or Russian intelligence services. It wasn't that subtle a situation. Not even a majority of the Democratic legislators in Congress were duped (your link omits the House vote), much less the huge body of antiwar protestors, the intellectuals who took out full page ads in the New York Times urging a vote against the War Powers act, the leading ambassadors and foreign policy analysts Clinton had on tap for advice, the generals who were preparing for war (they didn't bother to fully prepare for counterattack by chemical weapons or nukes, just made a show of it, apparently because they knew there weren't any of any significance), and so forth. The most serious discussion on the Left was not whether any of the W propaganda had a shred of truth to it, but how those guys were planning to handle the inevitable revelation if they did invade. There were two main hypotheses: they were planning to simply drown the critics in ballyhooed victory celebration and maybe some exaggerated description of remnants they did find; they were planning to salt the battlefield with clandestinely imported stuff. I voted for door A - the ballyhooing. In other words, it was widely recognized, by pretty much the entire American left and liberal intellectual crowd among others, that the Iraq War Powers act was being sold on blatant lies and a massively orchestrated propaganda and political pressure campaign, motivated by an obviously ugly agenda - W&Co wanted to play war in Iraq, for very bad reasons, and was going to do it unless prevented. They were famous for this obsession. They had already begun bombing Iraq in preparation - not punitive strikes to bully Saddam, but targeted strikes to cripple his tank and infantry defenses, something that Clinton cannot fail to have known, in her position. It was also obvious that the War Powers Act was a ploy to evade having to declare war to play war, that it handed the President - W, mind you, not Lincoln - a blank check on power he should not be trusted with, that it was an abdication of Congress's proper and critical governing role. It was a clear choice, in other words, between right and wrong, good and bad governance, even sanity and evil. It was one of those rare political moments in which the sane and informed observers are simply watching to see who has political courage and who doesn't. The gut check of our time. And this is how your link defends Clinton, presents what appeared to be (at the time, not just now in hindsight) an ordinary, if ugly, combination of cowardice and cynical calculation in as favorable a light as possible: That's just cringe-inducing. As mentioned to Joe: that's worse, not better. Nobody who would actually take the word of something like "mushroom cloud" Rice's sycophantic, embarrassingly starry-eyed W loyalty on a matter as serious as that should be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. That's just unbelievably gullible. That's sucker level hook swallowing. And I don't believe it. I might think ill of Clinton, but I don't believe she's a childlike moron. Clinton, on the other hand, has a record of ruining the left. It's not so much a risk, with her, as a safe bet. I have no idea why you guys think Clinton will have any more success getting her promises through than Sanders, without a wholesale change in the House and Senate. The difference would be in the response to being blocked or even (in Clinton's case) merely threatened - Clinton, in the past, reacted to threats in advance, by adopting the Republican agenda as her own, and pushing that (in the face of newly repositioned Republican opposition, of course). Sanders I think would be more likely to simply be defeated, to fail but not to get rolled. The link to the racial profiling incident in Minnesota is a bit misleading. That's one I was following when it happened. Apparently, it's only racial bigotry when black people who are planning to embarrass a candidate on misrepresented racial grounds are removed - not when black people who are planning to support a candidate on deceptive racial grounds are recruited. Chu's a great guy, but nobody hits them all.
It's ironic you say this when Sanders voted for the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorist 2001, which was cited as legal justification for dubious military action since the 9/11 attacks. The legislation which gave the President the authority to act as he felt was necessary against whom he felt was necessary or whom he felt harboured or aided and abetted terrorists. It gave the President immense power, which Bush used to great effect, including invading Iraq. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. It also authorised Bush to open and use GITMO.. It gave Bush broad and sweeping powers. And Sanders voted for it. Ironic, isn't it? They were all duped back then too. Legal scholars had said that this was too broad and gave the Executive too much power with no check or balance and they were ignored. Barbara Lee, the sole nay vote, also voiced the same concern. And that piece of legislation gave Bush authority to invade Iraq and it allowed him to strike at will, against anyone he suspected was involved with terrorism against the US. To complain about Clinton's being duped, and ignoring this vital piece of legislative history, which gave Bush, and Presidents after him, the authority to do as he pleased, is somewhat strange, considering. It reeks of a double standard. If anything, what Sanders and all voted for in 2001 was more dangerous than the vote to invade Iraq. It literally gave Bush the right to do as he pleased, from the use of dubious surveillance, to attacking any target he felt posed a threat or were connected to any terrorist organisation or group. Much more dangerous and its effects are lasting and all the more damaging.
Cont: For someone who is anti-war, he sure has a record of supporting the war effort and sanctions which has led to immense pain and suffering. In fact, one could say that his voting record when it comes to the military completely negates his claims that he is anti-war and his proclamations that he voted against the war in Iraq. What the record does show is that Bernie Sanders has voted for increasing military spending, which included voting for increasing military spending to support the war in Iraq that he keeps reminding everyone he is against, not to mention rejecting proposals to close GITMO back in 2009, voting for giving financial and military aid to Israel and voting in support for Israel's bombing of Gaza. He voted for removing Saddam from power in the form of the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which was later used by Bush to invade Iraq. And this is on top of the Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which gave Bush broad powers that was used to invade other countries and support his demand for forms of surveillance that he claims to be against. He has supported sanctions that have been grueling and frankly, constituted as human rights abuse. When his constituents voiced concern or dismay at his voting record for military spending and his avid support for supporting and voting for the war effort, not to mention his voting for increasing military aid to Israel and supporting their bombing of civilians in Gaza, he threatened them with arrest and/or screamed abuse at them for disagreeing with him in town hall meetings. The classic is his vote for increasing military spending to the tune of over $180 billion, for military spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan war in 2007.. For someone who is against the Iraq war, he has not failed to vote yes to increase spending to support the war.. And you still want to complain about Clinton voting for the Iraq war? Look at his voting record and then get back to me with a straight face... You are concerned that Clinton would ruin the left? I think Sanders has given the left such a bad reputation already, that the left may never recover from it. An interesting article from 2003 sheds some light on the hypocrisy of his current claims: There seems to be some kind of contradiction here. Sanders may have voted against the budget that cut these veteran’s benefits, but by voting to support Bush’s war (no matter how much he protested it), history will most likely judge him to have sided with that leadership. Like a baseball line score, when one looks back at a legislator’s voting record, s/he only sees the “yay” or the “nay.” There is no play-by-play account–your team either has the winning score or the losing score. No details are provided about runners on third who got thrown out at the plate or an incredible pitching performance. Likewise, when history looks back on Bernie’s vote for this resolution, they will see that he cast his lot with the GOP hawks, and not the Democrats and others who voted against the bill, despite their support for the human beings wearing America’s uniform in Iraq. At one time, Sanders claimed to be a socialist. When he was elected mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, Burlington, in 1980, his victory was almost universally cheered by left and progressive folks in the US. Since he moved to Washington six terms ago, however, those cheers have diminished, especially amongst those who know him bes–his fellow Vermonters. It is time the rest of the country wakes up to this truth: Sanders Sanders is not a socialist and is not that progressive, especially when it comes to matters of war and peace. Instead, Bernie’s politics are reminiscent of the Social Democrats of Germany during and after World War I. Despite a popular groundswell against that war, the Social Democratic leadership supported the war against the wishes of many in their own party. Then, during the failed revolution of 1919 against the German government, it was some of that same leadership that diverted the revolution from the masses and had Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht killed, precisely because these two revolutionaries exposed the duplicity and anti-worker policies of the Social Democrats. This is not the first time Sanders has supported America’s wars. For those of us with a memory longer than the average US news reporter, we can remember Bernie’s staunch support for Clinton’s 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. I served as a support person for a dozen or so Vermonters who sat-in in his Burlington office a couple weeks into that war. Not only did Sanders refuse to talk with us via telephone (unlike his Vermont counterparts in the Senate-Leahy and Jeffords), he had his staff call the local police to arrest those who refused to leave until Sanders spoke with them. The following week Sanders held a “town meeting” in Montpelier, VT., where he surrounded himself with sympathetic war supporters and one university professor who opposed the war and Bernie’s support for it. During the question and answer part of the meeting, Sanders yelled at two of the audience’s most vocal opponents to his position and told them to leave if they didn’t like what he had to say. They chose to remain and point out that Bernie’s style of democracy seemed awfully authoritarian.
Ya. The guy was an NRA stooge. It's ironic that he goes so far to protect gun manufacturers.. Sanders’ vote against the Brady Bill was one of several that appealed to the gun-rights community, including a 2007 vote that prohibited foreign or United Nations aid to be used for gun control and a 2009 vote to allow firearms on checked bags on Amtrak. The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry. I mean backing measures that prohibited foreign aid to be used for gun control measures in other countries.. And then voting to protect gun manufaturers from facing lawsuits.. If only he applied the same disdain for wealthy gun manufacturers and the very wealthy NRA as he does for Wall Street, for example.
? I wasn't talking about Sanders. I claimed no special virtue for Sanders. The point was that Clinton's Iraq War Powers vote was especially not virtuous - a failure of courage and sense, a betrayal of her Party, her office, and her country at the same time, and one particularly telling given her unique standing and situation. No, it isn't. You are posting bullshit. Meanwhile, I did not post, and do not believe, that Clinton was duped to the extent she didn't know what she was doing. That was your claim, Joe's claim, etc. I think she was cynically calculating, and due to an essentially rightwing authoritarian nature and ideology compatible with W&Co she badly overestimated the competence of the W administration. She was assuming the Iraq invasion would be a military victory followed by competent occupation of a fairly peaceful and "liberated" country, resulting in a long term successful and stable alliance, in the sense of achieving its basic (hidden, but obvious to her) agenda of US alliance with the government in control of the marketing of Iraqi oil (it is sweet, shallow, crude, and plenty of it - whoever controls it can set the market price of crude oil). And removing a potential threat to further Israeli expansion would be a valuable ancillary benefit, whereas voting against such a removal would cost her valuable Zionist support, within her New York constituency. A vote against that bright future would have damaged her chance at the Presidency, in other words. The amorality of the whole thing, the fate of the Iraqi people and their neighbors, I don't believe crossed her mind as a relevant factor, but not because she was duped in that respect. Please. Your audience laid off the koolaid long ago. We all know why and how Congress voted to fund W's Folly, which he was running "off budget" by using the soldiers essentially as hostages - we were watching it happen, watching the budget manipulations, watching the debates and traps. We know which of the two, Sanders or Clinton, is most zealous in support of Israel - it's Clinton, and it's not close. His NRA rating is what, D-? He's on their hit list. He's noted for common sense in the matter, one reason he picks up support from "independents" despite the hostility of the NRA. But hey - Clinton probably doesn't need any of these Sanders voters, does she? This idiocy isn't dismissable screwballing - this will hurt. The crazy on the "gun control" side is going to be a major factor benefitting Trump, and Clinton put no distance between herself and those people. Now it's too late. That is, Clinton missed a big bet not picking up Sanders's principled and sensible gun control stance. It was an aspect of competence she could have latched unto, made her own, and used to shore up one of her weak areas. And it would have fit beautifully with her "incremental improvement through competence and sanity" schtick, being in fact both incrementally beneficial and competently composed. She needs as much reality as she can pick up, in that arena.
You have consistently referenced Clinton's Iraq vote. The irony of your backtracking is that when confronted with Sanders consistently voting to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention voting for sanctions that caused much harm to the people of the region, this is your response. Sanders has repeatedly made reference to 'Clinton voted for the war in Iraq', yet in doing so, he repeatedly fails to mention that he has repeatedly voted to fund said war and voted to expand military aid to fund the war in Iraq and in Afghanistan. His and others claims that Clinton is a 'war hawk' is deeply hypocritical and dishonest. Sanders has voted for more military spending and increase in spending, than Clinton has. He voted to increase the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, the very wars he keeps telling everyone he voted against, but he votes to keep it going and to increase troops on the ground? She voted for the war, along with several other democrats. He voted to increase military spending and increased funding for the war.. And he has done so consistently. You think her vote was a betrayal of her party and her office and country? I would say the same for Sanders voting to expanding the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the Democrats voting against it, because by that time, it was clear the war was a mistake. Yet he repeatedly voted to expand the war. It makes him as bad as her. One could argue that she failed in trusting Bush's promise. Sanders voted 'yes', knowing full well what he was actually voting for. It's no wonder he pitched a screaming fit and threatened his constituents, the actual socialists who voted him into power in Vermont, with arrest when they sought answers for why he kept voting to support the war in Iraq. Actually, yes it is. The AUMF is widely known as being the backbone for US military incursion in other countries in their fight against terrorism. It gave Bush and later Obama, the legal right to invade countries, not to mention it allowed for the legalisation of unilateral Presidential power for things like surveillance and even GITMO. This is widely known, iceaura. And Sanders voted for this piece of legislation. He may not have voted for the second invasion of Iraq, but he voted for the legalisation that allowed Bush to push for the invasion in the first place - remember the speeches and the claims that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks? The AUMF was what was cited to grant Bush the power to invade Iraq. The AUMF gave Bush the authority to use any and all force he deemed necessary against any country, group or individual he felt was involved in the 9/11 attacks, without any oversight. From an article back in 2014: September 2001. After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. In October 2002, after two years of war on the people of Afghanistan and a series of lies and misinformation, Congress and the White House (with help from Great Britain and a couple other governments) ignored the United Nations and world opinion and invaded Iraq. While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. The other piece of legislation passed that long ago September was the PATRIOT Act. Like the vote that sent troops to Afghanistan, that legislation changed the US forever. To his credit, Sanders voted against the original PATRIOT Act legislation and attempted to curtail its effect in subsequent votes. In a similar vein, Sanders voted against the original legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security, but by 2006 he had joined the majority of Congress in passing continued funding of that agency. To wit, his voting record contradicts his claims. Do you think it crossed Sanders mind when he then went on to vote for expanding the war effort in Iraq? After all, by this point, it was clear the damage the war was doing to Iraqi civilians and it was clear there were no WMD's. So why did Sanders vote to increase military funding and spending to support the disastrous war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hence the absolute hypocrisy of his continued harping on of Clinton's voting to invade Iraq.
I think both are pretty much the same in that regard. He has been fairly consistent in supporting the expansion and funding of the war he voted against. It's this double standard that should raise eyebrows. And yet, for his avid supporters, it does not. Some of the things Sanders has voted for, crossing the floor to vote with Republicans and Bush in particular should be concerning. Nuclear waste dumping comes to mind. And Hillary has an F rating. He has consistently voted for laws that support and protect gun manufacturers, for example, so much so that the NRA were sure to tweet their support of him in a debate against Clinton. How many times did he vote against the Brady Bill, which required background checks and a waiting period before being able to obtain a gun? What? Five times or something? He even voted against measures that would have provided the CDC funding to study gun violence in the US.. He's changed his mind now, in the election campaign, when it was clear that his stance on these measures could damage him because of the many mass shootings have have occurred since he started campaigning. But of course, when it comes to the issues of guns and even the mere suggestion of the dreaded gun control, your panties tie themselves in a tight knot and your pitch automatically gets higher. Case in point: I don't call denying funding to study gun violence "principled", just as I don't think refusing to back legislation that called for background checks and a waiting day period of a week and less, "principled". Nor do I think it is principled to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits. So much for being for the little people..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
