2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Race Card, the Red Card, the Gender Card! All being played by the Hillary Campaign.
Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 06:40 PM - Edit history (2)
Bernie Sanders corrects the record on the ISSUES that Hillary kind of glossed over and tried to put a new spin on.
Her campaign whines in response: Bernie is going negative!!
Lol, the TRUTH isn't negative, except to those for whom it is inconvenient!
DOMA eg.
That is a new one, 'I vote against something because I'm for it and I support something because I'm against it'.
Well, I guess you can't keep sayiing, 'that was a mistake'!
On Getting money out of Politics.
'I take it so I can get it out of politics'!
My head spins when I read every new excuse for the support of policies that no Democrat should have supported.
Edited to include the Anti-Semitic Card, despicably played against Sanders questioning his loyalty.
H/T to Sheepshank for the reminder in this thread!
I guess this is why her campaign works so hard to DISTRACT from all these mental gymnastics to try to distract from the Issues because when people FOCUS on the issues, her record doesn't hold up very well.
So, they bring out the CARDS! And they use them to try to pull people AWAY from the issues she cannot explain.
Bernie doesn't use such negative tactics.
Nor does he use Corporate Funded Super Pacs to PLANT RED CARD SMEARS in the Media.
He doesn't use surrogates or paid operatives to address the Issues or to DISTRACT FROM THEM.
HE handles these things HIMSELF.
That's what a leader does.
No sneaky smear campaigns for Bernie. He tells the truth PUBLICLY.
The Cards being played are NOT resonating with the public.
The People care about the ISSUES.
Political Dirty Tricks are now thoroughly despised by a majority of the People.
So I watch them play the Race Card, the Red Card, the Gender Card and I know they are dooming Hillary's campaign so why would I try to stop them?
I don't! I focus on the ISSUES and PROMOTING my Candidate because it is so easy to do that.
He IS one of the BEST Candidates for the Democratic Party nomination in a very long time.
We don't need any 'Cards' to try to distract from OUR candidate.
It's obvious that Hillary's campaign feels THEY do.
Keep on telling the TRUTH Bernie! That's all you need to do!
Edited to add: The Anti-Semitic Card
One of the lower moments in this campaign season.
to DUer Sheepshank for the reminder ...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
artislife
(9,497 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Bernie chose his political path not Hillary: Bernie has to be
a big boy and answer the Charge. Leave Hillary out it she
has been a confirmed Dem for very long time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a woman! How come? I'M a woman and NO ONE gets away with shouting ME down. She needs to be a 'big girl' and stand up for herself and stop being a victim.
Victims don't make good leaders.
LiberalArkie
(15,716 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Bernie is different which is why so many are behind him. It is a rare opportunity to be able to support a really ethical candidate.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The more I know I was correct in my assesment and that we need to help bring people into the light.
I watched Bernie lose the race this Summer after BLM. Anyone who participated in the harassment of individuals of color during that time where gobs of people were targeting african americans over BLM, really has no place to talk and their complaints fall on deaf ears.
So much I see the 'mote in thy brother's eye, while ignoring the beam in thine own' stuff around here, that I decided to overcome my distaste for Hillary to stop those who would condone or ignore the harassment of black americans by their own peer group. I may not love her, but her rivals ignore social justice and condescend to black americans and pretend that nothing is wrong with it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Yes I know you think Bernie supporters are racially thickheaded and don't understand and overreacted to the BLM things.
But I'll bet you'd have had a lot better luck "bringing people into the light" by trying to understand their perspective, and instead of fanning the angry flames, accept that maybe -- just maybe -- they are well intentioned, and are receptive to new ideas and perspectives.
I say that as one who raised an honest question, and was told that all we could do was to "Shut the Fuck Up."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)are very willing to engage in conversation about them. Just not here, as you and many others have discovered, including other minorities here.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)All evidence to the contrary
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)A total waste of time
Vattel
(9,289 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"bringing people into the light"?
ETA: Personally, I think many portraying the conduct mentioned, are unreachable, re: race ... and I think (and she will correct me if I am wrong), so does Bravenak.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But this notion of "Bernie supporters" as being some monolithic racially insensitive and biased mass is just wrong.
AND if people support the same ultimate goal, but may be looking at it differently in terms of how to get there, I think it would be more constructive to actually recognize that there are more than one ways of looking at things. The only way to make progress on anything is to acknowledge the need for listening on all sides.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ALL BERNIE SUPPORTERS ... I think folks have been VERY, and explicitly, clear about whom they/we are talking about.
Why would you lump yourself in that group; rather than, condemn and disassociate yourself from that group ... I pretty sure you can see what is being talked about. 
bravenak
(34,648 posts)they should not feel guilty.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)football, every election cycle, proves how little they understand the issue.
But politics is not the way to resolve these issues. If it were, after all this time, all these elections, all these 'leaders' who made campaign promises, the decades of listening to WORDS then waiting for the ACTIONS, if politics were the solution, this country would be devoid of racism.
So why have all these politicians not done ANYTHING to stop, eg, the murder of AAs by police?
Do you know how many Americans have been killed by our Civilian Police since January of this year ALONE?
Not a thing has been done to stop those murders. Not one single thing. Talk, that's about it. The killer cops are still getting off, the poor and minorities are still under fire from the police.
Why on earth does anyone think that using race or gender or any of the three or four issues brought up in every campaign, then instantly forgotten is the way to solve these issues?
Because clearly the proof is in the pudding, politics isn't what does it.
It wasn't politicians who finally got marriage equality for Gays. IT was the CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION. It was the Gay Activists who used our Court system and every other tool they could use, to force the country into granting them rights they had been denied.
It sure wasn't Politicians, despite all the campaign rhetoric.
The few who tried, were unable to get the support needed to get this done decades ago.
So it interests me to see so much discussion of these issues ONLY during campaigns.
When Ferguson happened, eg, where were all these 'concerned' people on DU when we tried to keep it in the public consciousness?
DU had little interest in what was a historical point in the battle for Civil Rights. Shameful, I thought at the time.
After a while those of us who were trying to maintain interest here, gave up and went elsewhere where there was interest.
I am willing to BET that when the election is over, all the 'concerned about racism' people will be on to something else.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that completely ignores what I was talking about.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)facts. But if you're not interested in this issue but rather in personalities, then I will not discuss issues with you. Like I said and you just proved my point, DU is the last place to go to talk about this issue. Few people here seem to be very interested in it, other than to USE it as a political football.
Just as I said in the OP. Thanks for the demonstration. It's very difficult to get any interest in this issue here.
Btw, what was Hillary doing during the Civil Rights Era? It's become a very big question in AA communities where it is of great importance to many people who are very happy that at least one candidate for the presidency was there and participated in that historic effort. But it raises the question every time,, 'what was Hillary doing back then'?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)First ... I was not asking the question of you ... so, it matters not what you are about.
Secondly, People (supposed, Democrats - though less so by self-admission) treating Democrats, on a site dedicated to electing more Democrats, like crap because they don't care for one candidate or another IS an issue ... for me, and I would hazard to guess ... many other Democrats seeking to elect more Democrats.
IOWs, for the I've lost track of how many times, across how many different areas, time ... YOU don't get to define for ME, what MY issues are, and are not.
Is that your GBCW ending post? I talk about the issues that concern me ... and ignore the ones that don't.
Phew, I thought I might have to suffer through a whole day, without a non-Black telling me/counseling me/advising me what is going on in MY community ... Thank you!
And Yes ... I know the personality that you have no interest in discussing, was a member of SNCC (until he grew "frustrated" because they ... {GASP} ... wanted to focus on race matters) and he marched with Martin Luther King (and then, spent the next half a century in the whitest space he could possibly find).
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a source of unending amusement for those of us, women mostly, who are told who we are by some man. Men speaking for women, getting it so wrong, at this point, is simply entertainment.
As for GBCW! Lol! That was funny.
Unlike some women, I do not get shouted down and have never seen myself as a victim simply because I am a woman.
But it's always nice to have things mansplained to us women. Thanks for the effort.
I will definitely refrain from bothering you with ISSUES from now though. I do that with people who are interested, mostly in RL and more now that we are all working to get Bernie elected.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What is your "point"? That I don't want to talk about YOUR pre-approved issues ... that is all that is at issue here. You (butted in) wanting to deflect from what I was talking someone else about, to tell me I don't want to discuss "the issues" ... again, again ... YOU do not get to determine what MY issues are, or are not; nor, what I do/don't talk about.
What "assumption" have I gotten wrong ... that you are not a Black person?
That is the only assumption that I have made ... and it is well grounded. BTW, how the HELL did you get on that gender track ... I have said nothing about your gender ... until NOW ... your being a woman is of zero to do with you telling me what is going on in the Black community, on the whole.
Good ... Can I expect fewer responses from you telling me what I should be talking about and what is going on in the Black community?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)For better or worse I'm just another individual, trying to figure things out as I go along.
I think the tenor of these subjects hss gotten far too negstive snd alienating on all sides. It is not condusive to mutual understsnding or accomodation, much less encouraging of working together for common purpose. So I usually try to stay away from it on But sometimes something is said that gets my dander up, and I put my two sense in. (Which is exactly the time when it would be best to count to ten and let it go. But common sense does not always prevail. )
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)suggesting that Black people suffer with Stockholm Syndrome, are low information voters, are voting against our interests because we (in the main) do not support the candidate you (in the generic sense) support ... is not condusive to mutual understsnding or accomodation, much less encouraging of working together for common purpose.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I think for people with passionate beliefs in any candidate (or side of a debate) it's a difficult line to straddle between trying to convey those stronngly, without either being condescending or going overboard.
That Stockholm thing is an example of what is out of line from some Sanders people. And a term like "low information voters" should never be used (except perhaps against Republicans
)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you had left out the:
Part ... it comes off as more apologia.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I have always (by nature, my father was the same way) tried to see things through other's eyes, and apply an objective sense of why people behave and react to things. In other words, I try to think of what combination of human nature, personal circumstances and experiences and other influences affect their views....
That's especially important in situations where there are strong differences. So I also try to apply that with people I may totally disagree with, rather than dismissing them as totally unreasonable.
So, what may seem like an apologia is basically just an extension of an internal yardstick I have always tended to use in personal, as well as political, situations. Not necessarily justifying, but trying to understand and explain.
But to be honest, I also inherited my mother's opposite tendencies to be very emotion-based, so I also can get overly passionate and pop-off at times. 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)place to go to hear from minorities. In fact, this place is so out of touch with the Real World, so many AAs who used to post here, have gone elsewhere due to either being called names, or simply not being represented.
Like everyone else, and why we are expected to view AAs as somehow different from other people here on DU, is beyond me, AAs vary in their views of politics and are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
Your views are yours, like everyone else's.
But I'm hearing more and more opposition to Hillary from minorities due to her long history of voting against or supporting policies that were against their interests.
I hope you acknowledge that you are not a spokesperson for all AAs.
That would be an incredible claim, considering that even right here on DU other AAs do not agree with you.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Most of us are voting for Clinton. See? That shows that I am a mainstream black Democrat. I also know so many black people who can be comfortable speaking to me in a real way and tell me things about how they feel.
I make people feel relaxed, so they confide.
What I am hearing is people discussing mass incarceration and the Clintons, and then mentioning that Bernie voted for it too so they may as well stay with her. Many do not know him just by name and from TV but are not willing to give him the time of day.
Many are excited more about Bill returning to the White House than Hillary! One guy is wearing a holey Clinton/Gore shirt from their second election.
My sister in particular loved welfare reform and thinks too many are leeches (she leans right).
Most of all, are my uncle the Reverend and his large Los Angeles congregation... Most lean Hillary he tells me, and they know she shares their faith. They love that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attempting to plant lies re Sanders, using the Red Card AND Hillary's Super Pac, in the media?
He was caught 'red' handed and only succeeded in raising $3 million for Bernie and disdain for Brock, which I frankly never lost.
His Hillary Super Pac is funded by money made possible by Citizens United. Has Hillary ever condemned that Super Pac for engaging in such deceptions on her behalf?
She does say she opposes Citizens United.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Or superpacs. Hillary comdemning a superpac will make me no nevermind. They can all use superpacs for all I care even if they said they wouldn't. If Bernie wins the primary he better take the money because republicans are insane.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Over 80% say that it is on the top of their list of important issues since THAT is the main reason why we have people like the Tea Party Repubs, all funded and BOUGHT with Corporate Money.
Biden eg, says it is the single most important issue that must be dealt with in this campaign because 'until it is nothing else can be accomplished'.
A majority of Americans agree with that.
So while it is not important to you, which is your right, for Hillary it is going to be a very big issue as the campaign wears on.
See how activists from BLM and Color of Change demanded that she stop taking money, bundled by Lobbyists from the Private Prison Industry eg.
It sure matters to THEM because of what it has BOUGHT in the way of legislation that has so destroyed AA communities by targeting them for mass incarceration and longer sentences for non violent crimes.
Breaking up families, especially in Minority communities.
See these are the issues I see AAs talking about, not here of course but just about everywhere else.
Pressured by BLM and other Minority advocacy groups, Hillary finally stated that she would 'cut ties' with the Private Prison Industry.
However, they are still asking what she has done with the money she already accepted from them.
So you see, an issue that is huge for BLM and other minorities groups, is of no interest to you. Which is fine, but it does put you at odds with the minority communities in general.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)We actually have to wait for Scalia to die to do anything. I'm serious.
The rest of the issues you listed? Yep. I have been on those for years. Glad to see them getting attention.
If you look back through my post history, you'll see I was discussing mass incarceration and welfare reform from the time I signed up and placed most of the Blame on Bill Clinton.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which never, ever should have been allowed in any democracy. Nor if we were a true democracy, should these horrible people ever have been allowed to influence our Criminal Justice System in any way.
I worked with a woman on this issue who was deeply involved in trying to even get some attention for it, as most Americans seemed to be unaware of it.
Sanders said it better than I can: 'It is morally reprehensible' that this has been allowed to fester in our country and Private Prisons must be shut down.
He knows however that won't end the rot in our so-called Judicial System. But at least it would end the profiteering from what was supposed to be a fair system of justice.
I agree that bringing an end to CU isn't going to be easy.
But there are more ways than waiting for the SC to do it.
One way is for all Democrats to refuse to take advantage of it in campaigns and then make it a HUGE issue against Republicans.
THAT is a WINNING issue due to the huge majority of the public who are now so opposed to that Dark Money in our political system.
Bernie is doing that. One of the many reasons why I support him.
AND he has caused Repubs to try to defend THEIR big money donors.
And that is the beginning of moving towards an end to the notion that money doesn't buy politicians.
It does.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 05:07 PM - Edit history (1)
How the purple fuck can that be a good thing for African Americans. who are the primary victims of both?
ETA - I forgot to note she also supports the militarization of the kkkops, another just peachy thing for AA citizens.
Riddle me that.
randys1
(16,286 posts)What I cannot for life of me understand is how HRH's fan club can ignore these indisputable facts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issue, and many of her supporters are beginning to realize this, then maybe it's time to find another candidate. Unless of course you are somehow benefiting from supporting a particular candidate.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)are so absolutely invested in her for the sole reason that she is a woman.
And the more one reads here the more obvious it is. They honestly don't give a single hoot, fig, farthing or damn that she either has no real policy positions or often has horrible, Repig-lite ones when she actually does. If she started recycling old Thatcher or Reagan speeches word-for-word tomorrow, they would still swoon in ecstasy, like bobby-soxers for Frankie Sinatra.
I just don't get it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)amazes me that people think a woman who is operating at that level of power, is going to be any different from any man once in that position when it comes to issues.
Maggie Thatcher was eventually literally thrown out of Parliament after her long reign of terror. No wonder Ronald Reagan loved her.
I'm not interested in the physically traits of those who are asking us to give them positions of great power.
And when I see a woman I believe will make a GOOD leader, I'll support her.
Until we get such a woman, I'll go with the person I believe is the best choice with the most qualifications, meaning good judgement and foresight to begin with, to do that job.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to personally attack non Hillary supporter.
I am happy when I don't have to go to the trouble of finding and linking to perfect examples like this.
Btw, I am immune to internet personal attacks. I take them as a compliment because in my long experience on online forums, they generally don't come from people whose opinions matter to me.
They do however serve other purposes, I'm for making use of everything negative for positive results.
Thanks for kicking the thread. 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Oh, now, I get it.
Now I understand this meme about African-Americans not liking Bernie.
The Constitution says that we are not to apply a religious test when filling public offices.
The Constitution doesn't actually specifically prohibiting a racial test for offices. Still, we understand that there should be no racial test when considering candidates for office
When it comes to religion, even though the Constitution specifically prohibits considering religious affiliation, SOME IN OUR SOCIETY CONSIDER A CANDIDATE'S RELIGION WHEN VOTING.
That's against our Constitution.
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[a]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
Religious discrimination is just as bad as racial discrimination.
Millions of Jews were killed in Germany and Eastern Europe due to the persecution of Jewish people. That was one of the worst examples of discrimination ever in the modern history of the human race.
I should hope that your uncle who is a pastor reminds his parishioners that the Constitution prohibits applying a religious test for office. Very specifically prohibits that:
How can one minority complain about discrimination if it discriminates against another even smaller minority?
African-Americans are about 13.2% of the US population.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
In contrast, Hispanic or Latinos make up 17.4% of our population.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
Jewish people in the US -- 1.7 to 2.6%.
Depending on religious definitions and varying population data, the United States is home to the largest or second largest (after Israel) Jewish community in the world. In 2012, the American Jewish population was estimated at between 5.5 and 8 million, depending on the definition of the term. This constitutes between 1.7% to 2.6% of the total U.S. population.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
I'm really shocked that African-Americans would vote against a Jewish person based on the religion of his or her opponent in a race.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Who said they were voting against him because of his religion? They already like and prefer her, PLUS, she will visit the congregations. I do not understand the diatribe.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)
stevil
(1,537 posts)That is reaching and you know it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)That is already supporting her AND liking that she shares their faith. I never said her faith was the REASON they vote for her.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)People do realise that Jesus was a Jew right ? And also , I have to be a bit gentle with this , he was a ..... SOCIALIST !
I know , shock horror 
My friend's Sunday school teacher loved it when I brought that up , being a child born of a Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother I was well informed of people who judged people based on what Deity frequency they tuned into . Sad to see this concept perpetuates 
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If invited, I'm sure he would. He went to Liberty University. He is not opposed to the Christian religion just because he is from a Jewish family.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)He is the candidate. Why should they track him down to give him the opportunity to ask for their votes? That is his own responsibility.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)getting support from AA pastors who don't seem to be concerned about his faith or theirs. They are supporting him based on where he stands on the issues and his history of fighting for Civil Rights. In fact one AA pastor who WAS for Hillary recently announced that he had not known Sanders until recently and when he saw his record he could no longer support Hillary.
This is happening all over the place. Bernie's problem with Blacks, Latinos, Whites was NAME RECOGNITION, that is all.
I know people here,its just a few, have been inventing stuff and throwing it around hoping some of it will stick, it hasn't and it won't mainly because the facts contradict made up stuff every time.
I am working with people for Bernie which include AAs, many of them, Latinos, Asians, Whites and it is inspiring to see how informed they are.
They would be horrified by this forum. I was tempted to show them a few posts from here, but frankly, I didn't want to upset them.
When you're out there meeting people who support Sanders, then you look at this forum, it's like a different planet wrt this.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Let us not use hyperbole.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)The government cannot apply a religious test to a canidate. Do you see that happening?
But you are telling voters that they have no right to take a persons religion or lack thereof into consideration before they vote for him or her?
Get real.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)is the most wildly misunderstood document in the U.S.. I've seen posters,here and elsewhere,claim that hidden or removed posts are against their "freedom of speech".
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Damn. I've been banned off of here before but I never screamed I got 1st amendment rights because this place is private property and the owners can do whatever they want to do with it.
It wasn't the government telling me to shut up lol.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I remember what a big fuss was made over the fact that John F. Kennedy was Catholic. To Protestant Americans, especially Republicans, that was a huge problem.
I think that the statement about Hillary being of the same religion and same church and therefore better liked is exactly the same as saying that a candidate is of the same race or ethnicity as the voter and therefor better liked.
As we saw in 2008 and 2012, the MAJORITY of white people in America do know go to the polls and vote for a person because, after all, that candidate is of my race or ethnicity.
It's an absurd reason to vote for someone.
It is absurd and discriminatory to prefer Hillary over Bernie based on Hillary's religion.
That is religious discrimination.
And if a person does not want to be discriminated against, then that person should not discriminate against others.
If the candidate is anti-abortion partly out of religious reasons, and a voter votes against that candidate because of the abortion stance, that is not voting against the candidate based on that candidate's religion but based on that candidate's stance on abortion.
But voting for Hillary because she is a Methodist o r a Christian and not voting for Bernie because he is Jewish is like not voting for someone based on race or ethnicity. It really should not be a consideration in our country in this day and age.
Horrors!
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I don't like the way he parts his hair...or his religious beliefs or lack thereof.
It's my right as an American. The government cannot stop anyone from gaining office because of religion.
You are free to disagree but that doesn't take away my right to vote for whom I chose
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)test for office.
I made my point about members of racial and ethnic minorities.
I think that a person who refuses to vote for Bernie because he is Jewish needs to rethink priorities. The Founding Fathers did not want religion to be an issue in our elections or in appointments to offices.
Of course, the government cannot stop you from voting because you like the way someone parts their hair --- but you and the rest of the country pays the price when voters pick candidates based on superficial, unimportant reasons.
The Founding Fathers thought very carefully about the provisions they put in the Constitution. England was a country with an official state religion. It caused enormous problems in their history. The wars between Protestants and Catholics caused great suffering in Europe within the centuries preceding the adoption of our Constitution.
No one can stop someone from considering the religion of a candidate, but we should not do it. It is very unAmerican. It's against what we stand for as a country.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But when you look at the sum of a persons life how can you wall off their religion?
Or non belief in any religion? It's a large part of the picture.
It shapes their world view in many ways.
Look at those nutcase republican teahaddists. Their twisted Randian religion sure as heck shapes their views.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and all of the major ones, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, certainly were. Franklin may have even been in his heart an atheist of sorts. None of them held any beliefs that any contemporary "conservative christian" would accept as being even remotely christian. In a deist's view a creator God set the universe in motion and no longer takes any interest in its operations, much less the daily lives of individual humans.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Perfectly illustrates the point that is often made that Hillary supporters can't go positive on Hillary so they have to go negative on Bernie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)discrimination against someone for any reason, religion, race, was warned against in the Constitution. We abhor and say so, people who won't vote for a politician because of his/her race. We do that because we agree with the warning from the Founding Fathers, that basing one's choice of elected officials on ANYTHING BUT their ability to do the job they are asking for, is harmful to this democracy.
And it certainly makes sense to point out that if we do not want to be discriminated against based on our race we should not engage in the same kind of discrimination against others because of their religion.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Bravissimo! Encore! Bis!
And if people don't get the point of your post it is only because it whooshed several miles over their heads.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Good job calling out the dog whistle.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That's code right there.
Also, back when Prop 8 came around the AA vote was incredibly heavy for it, and Faith was the main reason given.
I'll let the viewer come to their own conclusions.
randys1
(16,286 posts)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/faith-not-race-the-big-fa_b_156780.html
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)instead of a blog post that just claims something with nothing to back it up?
BTW, if you want to get really technical, the black vote was inconsequential to Prop 8, even if it had been 100% against it would not have swayed the numbers. The reasons behind it passing are still, however, 100% religious.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bernie was subjected to anti-semitism almost from the beginning of his campaign. The vile 'dual loyalty' question was asked of him by the host of a talk show, complete with the LIE that he DID have dual citizenship, which of course he does not.
Sadly this was DEFENDED here by a few, or dismissed.
His supporters here and HE were called 'White Supremacists'! To even think such a thing wrt to a Jewish Senator, whose own family were the victims of one the most infamous and notorious White Supremacists, is beyond words. I guess I view DU very differently since this campaign began.
Great post filled with FACTS which seems to be very rare these days here on this forum.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)applies to the government. It means no federal employee (elected or appointed) can be required to accept or adhere to any religion or belief.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)religion to take a position in our government -- whatever that religion may be.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)They can be agnostic or atheist or believe in astrology or whatever as well.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The Jew card! Nice try slipping it in there at the end.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'd appreciate a link to me saying Jew. Thanks in advance. I am an atheist.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)so I know you know perfectly well what I'm referring to. The antisemitic dog whistle you threw out there about how people "share her faith and love it". Something like that.
It's despicable that you would rant about racial injustice and then not only use a racist's post against Bernie but now use an antisemitic dog whistle.
SMH.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)still_one
(92,213 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)You'd have seen them to get to my post.
Read the last few lines of her post. "they know she shares their faith and they love it" or something to that effect. It's very clear if you don't have the Hillary shades on, especially when it comes from someone who posted a smear piece on Bernie that was written by a racist and who hangs out at the Clinton Cave where there is other antisemitic crap posted.
still_one
(92,213 posts)Hillary. That is how I read it.
DU is really no fun anymore.
I can't even go to General Discussion or LBN without those forums being infested with some political jab about a candidate.
There used to be a time where whether one agreed or disagreed with someone you could at least have a good dialog.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)If you want good dialogue you have to be honest. When you pretend there was no mention of sharing faith then you yourself have not contributed one bit to good dialogue nor to honest discussion. But you are right about the political jabs, which is why I called this one out, particularly since it is an antisemitic dog whistle.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)It was getting pretty ugly.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Perhaps this poster is over-tired but making a charge of antisemitism with no evidence whatsoever and no explanation is disruptive and over-the-top. Please hide, thank you.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 27, 2015, 12:28 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No evidence? Read her other posts.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If you want an explanation you should ask for it in the thread.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Divisive and inane comeback.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: then what was the "shares the faith" comment supposed to mean?
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
still_one
(92,213 posts)I am also Jewish, and there was no "Jew card" played
zeemike
(18,998 posts)The opinion was expressed that sounded like jew bashing...and I don't hide other peoples opinions.
And those opinions are expressed all the time on race, gender and orientation and it is permited...so why can no one call it out for Jews?
still_one
(92,213 posts)on a jury, I base it on the evidence as I see it. My decision is NEVER influenced by the political preference of the alerter or the poster being alerted upon. It is based on an obvious violation of TOS, and if a personal libel against another DUer is made
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Juror #6 got it clearly.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You'll only get a target on your back for your troubles.
But good job anyway, you're right - several of us heard the dog whistle. It helps if you know the history of the person blowing it - some people really don't understand what anti-Semitism is and need to be educated. Others know just how far to go without risking a hidden post.
Anti-Semitism can be found in code all over DU and if you're not familiar with it it can go unnoticed. Jurors seldom vote to hide the posts so it goes unchallenged much of the time. Posters who call it out are called liars, over sensitive, accused of wanting to "silence" others.
I applaud everyone for doing so in spite of the backlash.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And the anti-Semitic stuff directed at Bernie is all over the Sewer Site if you can get in to see it unless they scrubbed it. We KNOW it was there because you and others preserved screencaps of the stuff they now deny ever existed. Complete in many cases with their DU screen handles on the posts!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They claim to be to the LEFT of everyone else but use bigoted talking points.
Anti-Semitic dog whistles, minimizing the discrimination of other minority groups, it's a dead giveaway.
Once you see that you know not to bother, they can't be reached.
Real progressives care about everyone.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)What does that mean? You represent a majority of black people? By whose authority?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)It looked like you were getting ready to speak for a majority of blacks. Frankly I didn't think you actually meant to do so but your wording was weird. "I fit within 'the majority" is much more clear.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)...that you went right ahead and spoke for a majority of blacks.... something you have no authority to do. It's nice that your friends and some folks you've talked to said they are voting for Clinton, but I doubt you have sounded a majority of blacks in the USA. Perhaps some polls that have or something like that is in order.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The polls agree with me!!
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)Not whitesplaining to me about race and my experiences and understanding about the African American experience are you? I know you wouldn't do that!
If you want to find an echo chamber from what you want to hear from African Americans be my guest. Just don't tell me that I don't understand. I don't need a lesson about the African American experience.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I was worried there for awhile.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)goal. You choose to back a candidate that only part time supports social justice and even then changes her mind. You have a choice of a candidate that has always been consistent in his support for ALL of the 99%.
Some are willing to sacrifice others to support their cause. Shame on them. We have 16 million children living in poverty and HRC isn't even pretending to be concerned. She told Goldman-Sachs that she thought people were unfairly attacking bankster. For this she received a check for her personal fortune for $200,000 each time. She didn't tell Goldman-Sachs that they needed to sacrifice a little to help those living in poverty. Goldman-Fracking-Sachs gave her $200,000 a couple of times but would not give a dime to the poor. Think about that. They know that as president she will return the favor. Quid Fracking Pro Quo.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I try. But humility must come before enlightenment.
They talk at us and repeat the same tired talking point that we have already discussed to death but refuse to discuss things that they find unconfortable. I am helping by providing topics to discuss.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)in the real world.
Believe or not, a lot of people really care about social justice that aren't black and don't feel exactly the way you do. But when you invalidate their thoughts, experiences, and feelings you isolate them from your cause.
"her rivals ignore social justice"
Do you not see how insulting that is?
Do you not see that many of us, on the left, are totally on the left because of "social justice" issues?
===
From the CDC:
"In 2013, the population of African Americans including those of more than one race was estimated at 45 million, making up 15.2% of the total U.S. population.
Those who identified only as African American made up 13.2% of the U.S. population-over 41.7 million people."
===
What the above statistic is meant to show is that we all need friends if we are to survive and prosper.
Just because I don't like Hillary Clinton's hawkishness and her loose relationship with truth or her "win at all costs" behavior doesn't mean I "ignore social justice".
P.S. Here is something I want you to read (I put it in another thread but I had you in mind when I wrote it):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=729554
One, I think Bernie may not have a relationship with the black community and its leaders. I am assuming that's the case. I may be wrong. But if I am right then I think this is a fundamental issue for his campaign. Not saying he is antithetical to their causes but just that he hasn't been "in the loop" and thus he is not necessarily seen as a natural ally.
Given this may be the case it would explain why he doesn't poll well right now with the AA community. This is also why I don't think it has anything to do with BLM as I don't think the BLM really represents the AA community like we sort of imply it does here on DU.
Two, there is an insinuation in another thread that Bernie has not supported AA politicians. Which makes me wonder "has anyone really asked for his help". Thus the question in my OP.
Three, I think it is worthwhile to be fair to each other about the difference between Bernie just not being a part of the AA community and its issues and him being antithetical to them.
The "white supremacist" smear is where I think the BLM and others on that side have been unfair to Bernie.
However it may be just fair to say he has not been involved and can't expect to reap political benefits.
We do all need "friends" and having "political friends" that is one area where I think the Clintons are quite good with and I don't mean that in a cynical manner.
You do need political friends and sadly I feel Sanders may not have many.
Not fair considering his spouse was never President but I think that might be the case.
I still believe in his message though and I believe in him as much as I know about him so far.
===
The above is my assessment of the situation. Am I being unfair?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)board.
You don't think that a lot of the white folks on the left have your back and your interests at heart? Especially the far left ones?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I think they way many have been treating me since I have been back proves my case. I am being polite. They are not. Many are rude. One called me shit eater. Many call me racist. Or race baiter. Or race nagger. Anti semite one calls me. It is not just me. Many blacks have complained and when They do, they recieve even worse treatement and calls to 'prove' that saying nasty things and piling up on them is actually bad optics and looks, well, you know what it looks like when a large group of white persons go and tag team and harass one black individual with comments of race baiter and telling them yr candidate is best for them because of welfare and something they did when your mom was eight with DR. King.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Board and I say some pretty pointed stuff. Mainly because I feel people need to think and sometimes challenging people is a way to do that. Sometimes I get carried away. I wouldnt doubt that we would all be a lot nicer to each other in real life too. Forum boards bring out the worst sometimes.
I think Bernie supporters feel frustrated he isnt getting much AA support and they dont understand why.
We also on its face dont understand why the AA community is so supportive of the Clintons considering some of the stuff they have done for political expediency.
However I do think the Clintons have built many alliances with the AA community that we dont see. They are known to them and they are effective at winning. I can see why a sure thing seems safer than a wild card bet like Bernie.
Anyway, I just want to say that I am sorry if I ever say anything that does seem racist or insensitive. It is not in my heart deep down. This is probably meaningless to you but not having a father had me search for father figures.
I have had many and some of them were African American men that played a huge role in my life and I wanted to aspire to what they were and know what they could teach me. I didnt see color in those people though. Just heroes. May seem silly but thats how a kid thinks when he doesnt have much else to go on.
I think thats part of why I gravitated to the left... and as I got older and saw all this injustice in the world I went farther and farther left until the Clinton middle became distasteful to me. To me it was just a slide to the right.
That's about the time I really got turned on to Obama. He turned me on. In my mind, he was a correction to so much that was wrong. And I thought wow what an inspiration for so many people, what a great thing.
And for the most part he has been a very good President and probably the best President for many many years...probably decades. Probably since FDR.
But he has had his limitations and that limit is the whole corrupt system in my mind and its this system that hurts so many people especially the weakest among us.
And so to me Bernie is the only one speaking to the brokenness. What he says feels like truth.
He is not a perfect candidate. He makes mistakes. He likely wont win the nomination. In large part because of lack of AA support. But although I was angry about it for a bit I kind of chilled out it in my mind because I figured it was just a product of simple human nature tha the Clintons do seem like a safer bet.
This became clear to me from seeing some pictures of Clinto with some black pastors and what not... I thought yeah... I think I get it now. So yeah there is that and I am ok with it.
But that doesn't mean I am still jot going to fight here for yhe ideas and method I believe in. And though I think I understand you a little better now... I am still gonna call you out on bullshit if I think you are writing bullshit.
That goes for anyone... that's just how I am.
Can we shake hands?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I can understand the frustration. I honestly think the tactics are leading to a resistance to his message. It gets muddled. I had advised peope to pipe down and let him lead. It angered folks.
Also, african american are eternally hopeful people. We have to be. I hear alot of pessimism in his message and I can see that it is not helpful to getting black support. With all we deal with we prefer a message of hope instead of 'the world is on fire!' We know. We have been in a depression since slavery. We know. We want hope.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Has flaws as a candidate. I started a thread the other day saying he needs to be able to pivot.
He needs to speak to the brokenness but also apeak to the uplift in a way that does palpably feel more uplifting.
But he's a New Yorker. What can you expect 
But you also have to remember he has spent decades in the political wilderness. He has been in a place of frustration. For decades no one has listened to him and all the middle of the roaders have so often been wrong have scoffed at him like he is an idiot.
So I think he got used to yelling to be heard.
But now he is raising serious money and millions are listening. Now he is smiling and u can see his softer side.
So I feel good for him. Win or lose he is an old guy and I think this is some sweet vindication for taking the road less traveled.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)I really do think he wanted to be a mesage candidate. Now he might be getting delusioms he can actually win
I do hope whoever wins they don't give up on improving the safety, security, and well being of African Americans.
There is a lot of lip service to it right now in both camps.
Let's hope it's not forgotten.
By the way it makes me happy to connect like this. Thanks.
Just don't be surprised if I keep fighting here for a while... but I promise to not be critical of the nominee once the primary is over and the GE is started.
I do like to argue
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)caught 'red-handed' attempting to PLANT the old 'commie' smear against Sanders in the media, hoping to remain anonymous? And using Hillary's Corporate Funded Super Pac, ironically named 'correcttherecord' to do so?
This is what Citizens United, which Hillary claims to be against, had provided Billionaires with, only we are not allowed to know who they are or how much they are pouring into these negative campaigns.
I am very glad journalists refused to play his game and he was exposed for what he is and always was.
And it did help raise over $3 million dollars for Bernie.
However, playing the Red Card as I said, is part of the Clinton Campaign's strategy.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)It's almost unbelievable the flat out lies and bullshit, that people throw at Bernie and supporters.
No logic...no calm conversation...forget any true facts...just made up nasty, biting, phony lies. They want what they want and by any means, they hope to achieve it.
Pathetic.
Thanks again for the post.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against Sanders using the Red Card. That is a Hillary Corporate Funded Super Pac. He was exposed, but only because of his own arrogance, assuming that journalists would allow him to remain anonymous as he played his dirty 'red card' trick.
People like him would be unable to play their dirty tricks IF that money was made illegal. He works for MONEY. And would just as quickly return to his old buddies, if they would have him and pay him.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
the elder Zosima to Fyodor Karamazov:"The important thing is to stop lying to yourself. A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies, becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others.
...
A man who lies to himself, for instance, can take offense, for there are times it's rather pleasant to feel wronged---don't you agree? So, a man may know very well that no one has offended him, and may invent an offense, lie just for the beauty of it, or exaggerate what someone said to create a situation, making a mountain out of a molehill. And although he is aware of it himself, he nevertheless does feel offended because he enjoys doing so, derives great pleasure from it, and so he comes to feel real hostility toward the imaginary offender . . .
~Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
This makes me think of all the wailing and gnashing of teeth when anyone tries to bring up any of Hillary's policy stances they disfavor.
So Hillary supporters are victims, persecuted, because Hillary is not the favored candidate here on DU...so they have to make things up (mountains out of molehills) about Bernie and about his supporters to feel vindicated, and to enjoy the pain of being the victims. Like claiming "shiny object" is/was meant to be sexist, just as an example. So, of course Bernie supporters (and even Bernie himself) are sexist, because he said "all the shouting" and was not even referring to Hillary when he said it, but of course, she was right in turning it into a misogynist poke at her.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)their eyes. 'He nevertheless does offended because he he enjoys doing so'. Oh definitely, there are many people who enjoy being offended. But most people do not.
And yes, Bernie is hard to attack, he has been so right and so consistent for so long, it's very difficult to attack him HONESTLY.
So yes, they make stuff up and throw it all at the wall, hoping some of it will stick.
And they talk about the right wing smear machines!
But then Hillary's campaign is WORKING with one of the most notorious dirty trickster from the far right, David 'Blinded by the Money' Brock. I was stunned to read that Hillary and he are BFF now.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)are willing to go to extraordinary rhetorical lengths to wrap themselves in the Holy Shroud of Victimhood, one can only conclude that Dostoyevsky was a prophet.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)rings pretty hollow, if you ask me, but they are entitled to their misguided opinions.
As for Bernie telling the truth, I'm hoping I won't need to get HPV vaccines for my children since plenty of orgasms should take care of that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against Bernie, in the media? Hillary's Super Pac, which he runs, is funded by Corporate Money, made possible by Citizens United??
Got anything even close to that slimy smear monger getting paid to do this to Hillary?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It sure wasn't from Bernie Supporters.
Thanks for the reminder though.
I should have included that also.
A shameful ploy against a candidate, to question his loyalty, an old anti-semitic smear that was thoroughly disgusting.
Again, thanks I will keep that card in mind also.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and others, which they got from the Sewer Site, spoke quite convincingly for their disgusting selves.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)They can't and then scream like stuck pigs when they are hoist on their own petards by their own words.
Pathetic.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)I think he's right-handed so they can't use that against him, at least
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the bad guy category. Bill Clinton was Left handed wasn't he? So that's a plus, but what about Hillary? Lol, the lengths they go to try to make something out of nothing. It wouldn't surprise me of some of the 'geniuses' they hire, see Brock eg, to come up with this stuff, actually IS 'working on the right/left handedness of candidates and what it could mean for Hillary! Lol!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)C'mon, really?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)who might be hurt by it.
It's ironic that you being up hate when I talk about caring for someone. Maybe that serves up my point better than I can...
bye now.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)
And it is vomit-inducing in the extreme.
HRH is a corporatist down to the marrow of her bones, and a continuation of the policies of the last 35 years - demolishing unions, enriching the above-the-law billionaire class, the final destruction of the middle class, war, war, war, then now and forever - will continue absolutely 100% unabated if she makes it to the WH. Just as it will continue uabated if a Repuke is elected.
The two most important issues in ANY political campaign are war/peace and the economic well being of the masses. To measure the differences between HRH and the Repigs on these core issues you need a scanning electron microscope.
Jebus on a pogo stick - look at the people Obama appointed:
Geithner - one of the chief arsonists of the 2007 firestorm
Duncan - who can't destroy public education and shift money to the privatisers fast enough
Clinton - warmonger, student/BFF of War Criminal Henry Kissinger
Holder - completely covered for all of his bankster buddies/clients, prosecuted no one, let the thieves keep every dime they stole. Very actively went after medical MJ providers, however.
Emanuel - one of the biggest and most corrupt shitheels to ever set foot in the party.
Seriously, THAT is what these cheerleaders want MORE of?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)That's what we're trying to say, right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and where the candidates stand and have stood on the issues.
There is no need to go around calling people 'evil'.
Misguided, wrong, out of touch with the people. Seeing war as the solution. Lots of reasons why someone won't make a good leader. Evil is reserved for the likes of Dick Cheney. Don't use it so flippantly which would diminish its meaning when applied where it belongs.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Like anyone here is talking issues.
It's all sides all the time and circular firing squads.
Even worse than it has been for the last few years and that's saying a lot.
if you read through the OP, it basically paints her as evil incarnate. Which is what I said it comes across as.
I couldn't give a flying fig about this place anymore. It took fifteen years but the place has turned into an utter joke now.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)with those of Hillary, his voting record with that of Hillary and of the Clinton White House, and Hillary fans (and I saw this with my own eyes in a group of people yesterday) interpreted his remarks as "personal" attacks.
Discussing, even criticizing, another candidates past voting record and wavering on opinions on issues is precisely what this campaign should be about.
That is by no means a personal attack.
That is an issue-oriented attack.
I do not like where Hillary stands on the issues -- on many issues.
I do not like her record -- one of wavering, not considering carefully the pros and cons of something before taking a stand on it, not considering issues carefully and saying and voting according to what is right rather than what is popular. That is relevant to the campaign.
Where a person gets campaign funds is something we should consider in voting.
Personal attacks are off limits, but a candidate's voting record or the record of a candidate's spouse in the White House -- those are not off limits.
A person's religion is specifically under the Constitution not to be considered when voting.
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)Seriously. That's all it breaks down to. not policy discussion, just that she's wrong on absolutely everything, plays every card there is and is the worst. It's that simple.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)conveniently change her stance on certain issues -- timed just to match change in public sentiment.
The question is why Hillary has changed her mind on so many fundamental and very important issues like gay marriage vs. marriage is between a man and a woman?
Bernie was contrasting the fact that he has not had to change his mind on so many issues because he thought things through carefully in the first place, chose to support the right side, the fair side on these issues and then stuck to his true opinion even when it was not popular.
A candidate's judgment, honesty and character are important things to consider when choosing a candidate.
In those areas: judgment, honesty and character, no one is perfect, but Bernie comes much closer to wisdom and perfection than does Hillary.
It's just the way it is.
Hillary has been wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't mean she is evil.
It means that Bernie, who has been right on so many things would make a better president.
Sorry. But it would be a mistake to vote for Hillary. She just is not the best person for the job. She has shown poor judgment over and over. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be mean. It's just a question of the facts.
Hillary has not hesitated to criticize Bernie on his record on guns. Why should Bernie past hesitate to criticize her past stands on numbers of issues on which she has changed her mind or apologized for having been wrong, the TPP, the XL pipeline, the private server for her e-mails, same-sex marriage . . . . . . The list is too long to go into.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)necessary to be in a position where those two traits are necessary. Bad calls in that position effect the lives of millions of people.
Bernie was absolutely right. He has shown consistency, an ability to make right decisions at the right time.
That is one of the main reasons why I support him.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)good judgment. Hillary's statements about the TPP show very poor judgment.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)can't use that as a criteria when voting. Besides how would anyone know if you didn't tell them?
What is not allowed is banning a person from running for public office based on their religion.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)their candidate does in the service of identity politics.
As ostensible Liberals (that isn't too much of a stretch, is it, since they're posting on DU?), they should be at least concerned with the use of surrogates to engage in negative campaigning, yet they simply deny it.
Wall Street coziness, appointing private prison industry lobbyists as fundraising bundlers, IWR vote, gloating over the destruction of Libya, helping craft the TPP - all of these things would worry most Liberals, but each one is rationalized away by Hillary supporters.
They have an idealized vision of Hillary!(tm) in their heads, and automatically edit out all facts that run counter to the idealized vision. It involves some masterful instances of DoubleThink.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I pointed out the problems with Hillary's stance on the TPP. Hillary opposes it because of its labor provisions. I pointed out that the arbitration court provisions are a threat to our constitutional right to have a jury trial in civil cases in which the amount is over a certain limit.
She answered that "Hillary is presidential. Bernie is not."
She added that Hillary is a woman, and she wants a woman in the White House. Of course, I want a woman in the White House too, but NOT HILLARY! Hillary is wrong, wrong, wrong on too many issues. Slow to figure out right from wrong on the issues that are important to Americans.
I did not know how to answer to the claim that Hillary is presidential and Bernie is not. What in the world does that mean???????
Hillary is rich. Bernie is not. Is that what that means?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)I was working a food pantry, all the people there were talking about
voting for Hillary, because she is strong and will fight for the people.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)that HRH will "fight" for the interests of anyone but the billionaire class and the Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex? There's virtually nothing in her lengthy public record, particularly in the last decade, which indicates she would do so.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sorry that just won't work: She has been in public
service, that is why she is famous.
she BECAME famous for one and only one reason - she was married to a man who ran for and won the presidency. Had she been married to Joe Bloggs instead of Bill Clinton no one would have ever heard of her in the first place.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary was wanted all over Washington:
like a Lany Davis, or Cherl Mills. She was
given an opportunity to serve on the Watergate
panel: before that she was one cover of time
mag.
Granted not as famous as now!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to be quite interesting.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)She hid that shocking fact from even her closest friends for decades. She could have retaken the D.C. bar - but that would have meant people would learn she'd failed it once, and she couldn't handle that.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I never knew that, but it explains some things.
It's not an easy bar, but neither is it the growling bear the NY and Cal bars are, but a Yalie should have no problems with ANY bar. Especially if you take a decent bar review course.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary could have in Washington or New York, and
become very rich. She went into public service,
and really did have much money until she left
The White House.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I don't see how in the world Hillary can.
Hillary supporters see Hillary as strong because she withstood the attacks of the Republicans in the Benghazi, the many and repetitive and pointless, Benghazi hearings.
I view her having to go before repeated Benghazi hearings as a sign that Republicans will refuse to deal with her even more than they refuse to deal with Obama.
She will have a terrible, unproductive presidency if elected.
Bernie has been in Congress battling and befriending Republicans for close to a quarter of a century now.
Bernie is the one who can deal with the Republicans.
It isn't a matter of pushing sins of the GOP on anyone. It is a question of electing the person to the presidency who will best lead our country in a time when the Republicans are anti-government and unwilling to compromise at all.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What is the evidence that he cannot?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If Sanders was standing up to the GOP, he would
have been on the national stage long before he was 73.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But in spite of that, she voted their way on the Iraq War. She supported the Defense of Marriage Act and numerous Republican measures.
Bernie has stood tall for what he believes in no matter what the Republicans said or did for years.
Hillary is the one who has not been able to stand up to Republicans on issues like war and peace, LGBT marriage and the economy, especially banking.
Hillary has an incredibly weak and vague economic policy. She is a sell-out to her big donors and big money.
It is impossible to take as much money as Hillary has from the law firms and banks and Wall Street firms that represent the oligarchs and then raise taxes on the oligarchs and regulate them.
She will not be able to do that.
And it is those things that are necessary -- standing up to the oligarchs to stand up to the Republicans who represent the oligarchs. Hillary cannot do that. She is in their pay, in their service.
It's very sad that Hillary supporters do not understand that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 05:03 PM - Edit history (1)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)of courage. I prefer Sanders' caution and good sense.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary -- not so much.
If it were only that vote, I wouldn't be so hard on her.
But there are so many, many issues on which she has been flat-out wrong.
I cannot vote for her.
And then her constantly playing the victim card.
The Republicans smell blood and go after her.
She is not a good bet for getting things done in D.C.
Our candidate has to be strong, not into being the victim, focus on the issues and be able to talk to the American people so that all can understand.
That description of our candidate fits Bernie, not Hillary.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary state was actually hit by 911: Sanders state was not; many
New Yorkers wanted Hillary to vote yes: Also the Clintons were given
the power of use of force when they were in office. Hillary didn't vote
on war, nobody did for a reason.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)And then you play the "Yo Mama" card? What a perfect representative you are for HRC!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M NOT GONNA MAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)People who have been poisoned?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The antidote was about the kind of mindless support that Hillary gets from so many.
Start talking about issues and they cannot keep up. And she was a political activist. I don't know where she gets her information on the issues, but she isn't getting much.
I think it is sad that people support Hillary based on something as superficial as her appearing "presidential," whatever that means.
Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson were from the American frontier. Lincoln was, to a great extent, self-educated. Neither Lincoln nor Jackson graduated from Harvard or Yale. I wonder whether that Hillary supporter would think they were "presidential."
I wonder how she defines "presidential."
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)care about antidotes.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)That's as deep and profound as the cave orcs in the Repig party who support Santorum, Cruz or one of the other fly-eaters because they are "godly." 
Zero critical thinking functions. Good ol' Tom Paine described people like that:
RandySF
(58,884 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)heard from again. Same thing last time. I actually noticed the ABSENCE of 'concern' when the elections were over. Until the next one rolled around.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and we start to move this country in the right direction
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)
DDDDDDDrestorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
riversedge
(70,239 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)otoh, its a long road to the nom and four months before a single vote is cast. i am looking forward to it.
frylock
(34,825 posts)what exactly is that?
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Hillary smeared Bernie aided by the corporate-owned MSM, who is in the tank for Hillary, Goldman-Sachs, unskew the polls, I'm taking my ball and going home.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)some Right Winger. He is admired even by many Hillary supporters I know and it makes them uncomfortable that their candidate's campaign has already gone so negative. A lot of the support for her is not that strong, it is more 'habit' for many democrats.
I intend to push them over to Bernie using all these negative and deceptive and false attacks on someone I know they respect.
Let THEM spend the money. Let US use on Bernie's behalf, as we did when Brock played HIS card and failed so spectacularly. We turned it into $3 Million for Bernie. And we didn't have to spend a penny. Lol!
hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)Inquiring minds want to know.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)hedda_foil
(16,375 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)That needed to be said. The sophistry has gotten pretty ridiculous from some quarters lately.
olddots
(10,237 posts)and are eager to maintain a top down status quo.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)fanboys/girls right here on DU.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)On Mon Oct 26, 2015, 12:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
The Race Card, the Red Card, the Gender Card! All being played by the Hillary Campaign.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251728285
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calls Sec. Clinton anti-Semitic and a host of other slurs, with no quotes.
Ridiculous. Try Free Republic if you want that.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 26, 2015, 12:48 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the alerter disagrees with the assessment of HRC then he needs to debate the topic not press the alert button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter need some comprehension lessons, the OP never called Sec. Clinton any of those, he called her campaign guilty of it and that they were dooming her chances.
If you feel it's not true, please make your case in the thread, don't try so silence any criticism.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Over the top alert-stalking at its finest. Alerter ought to be ashamed of herself/himself.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Try again, alerter. This alerting for no reason nonsense has gotten silly at best, annoying at worst.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
moobu2
(4,822 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calls Sec. Clinton anti-Semitic and a host of other slurs, with no quotes.
Ridiculous. Try Free Republic if you want that.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 26, 2015, 12:48 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the alerter disagrees with the assessment of HRC then he needs to debate the topic not press the alert button.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter need some comprehension lessons, the OP never called Sec. Clinton any of those, he called her campaign guilty of it and that they were dooming her chances.
If you feel it's not true, please make your case in the thread, don't try so silence any criticism.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Over the top alert-stalking at its finest. Alerter ought to be ashamed of herself/himself.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Try again, alerter. This alerting for no reason nonsense has gotten silly at best, annoying at worst.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and spot on.
George II
(67,782 posts)Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Post removed
brooklynite
(94,587 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)
...I'll opine that this is why I'm of the opinion that there -are- people who viscerally hate Clinton, just not all on the Right.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)LEFT, in fact I'm sure of it.
Yet they come running to that very same Left begging for their votes every election, then proceed to smear and deride them afterwards.
HATE is a strong word. I know NOT A SINGLE BERNIE SUPPORTER who is even capable of that wasted emotion, What they do hate is to see the destruction of their country in every way over the past number of decades, and many are angry at their own participation in the deceptions, including me. I will no longer go along with the scare tactics or the bullying that if 'don't vote for this candidate' etc.
We many of us who used to do that, have had ENOUGH.
And it is comments like yours, and all the rest of the 'hate' coming from Hillary supporters right here that convinces me we are now on the right path.
You sure aren't getting any support for your candidate. But we are out there signing up new voters every day for ours.
No Super Pac of Sanders will be hiding their funders and smearing YOUR candidate as Brock tried to do by planting lies in the Media.
brooklynite
(94,587 posts)I'll start with the 18-20 Million Democratic voters (50% of the Democratic electorate according to current polling) and the leads in 49 of the 50 States (tell you what: I'll give you VT and we'll call it 48) and go from there.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But, I have Bernie finishing 3 in Iowa.
His ground game is awesome.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people here that I can't even comprehend.
No I didn't the hidden post in this thread. I guess your implication is that ONE person = millions of people, when it is not about your candidate?
Sorry, that won't fly with reasonable people.
emulatorloo
(44,130 posts)I admire your enthusiasm and energy!
My main goal is to persuade undecideds and soft HRC supporters to stand up for Bernie in the primaries so he will win the nomination. We share that.
If that is the goal, I believe it is a tactical mistake for that person to make posts equating HRC with Trump. I agree with brooklynite that it was hateful.
I have seen other posts by people that claim to be Bernie supporters who simply regurgitate RW Hillary hate memes. I don't know whether they are Bernie supporters or just pretending to be. I will never know so I guess I have to take them at face value.
Nonetheless they detract from Bernie and they have to potential to alienate undecided voters.
I too have seen hidden posts by HRC posters, and I think we both agree that they >>>detract<<< from their candidate. I am not much concerned about those other than to call them out. If they think that's a winning strategy they can knock themselves out!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)right away. A candidate is not responsible for behavior of millions of people who support them. The Hillary campaign has tried out many tactics.
ONE OF THEM was to DEMONIZE, not the candidate, they tried that it isn't easy to do with Sanders, but his SUPPORTERS!
I'm sick to death of playing nice with ruthless people. Not any more.
I've seen these tactics now for years, and they are DESTROYING our system of government.
They are CALCULATED to do that. To prevent good people from being elected.
Sorry, it's not my job to defend Hillary Clinton. She sure didn't defend us when WE were fighting on HER and her HUSBAND'S behalf for years against Republicans. On the contrary they were cavorting with those very Repubs we were, we thought, defending them from.
THEY have turned elections into WARs.
I am not interested in defending people who have done nothing BUT attack and smear Sanders and his supporters who when they finally RESPOND are the bad guys? No thank you
For far too long the Left in this country has been far too 'nice', me included. But enough with that, it got us exactly where?
I will point out the tactics and the talking points and the dirty tricks and the smears because I know my candidate will not stoop to the Level Hillary's Super Pacs and her surrogates and many of her supporters are doing.
But we do not have any obligation to try to be 'nice' to people who have been nothing but downright nasty from the beginning.
I'm no victim, unlike apparently their candidate. I fight my own battles and will do so on behalf of people I respect. But I will not let lies and deceptions and tactics against a decent man who is putting himself on the line for this country, knowing how brutal the system will be to him.
I did not read the hidden post, I did not write it, therefore I have no obligation to even comment on it, period.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)There is an unfortunate and large subsection of dems who are 100% corporatist.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that and the 'little people' will forget about them the next time they want our votes. I don't know who advises these supposedly 'brilliant' people, but I'm more and more astonished at the stupidity of it all. Now that we are paying a lot more attention to our OWN party.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Hillary Clinton has more CEOs supporting her than Jeb, Rubio, and Cruz combined.
That's not a smear, it's a fact. Hillary is a pro-corporate shrill. And I ain't voting for that shit. Someone has to take a stand for the middle class for once. I'm sick and tired of the rich buying every single election.
And no, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz does not control my vote. And neither does Democratic Underground.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Lots of truth there.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)See post 62.
this older woman was probably your mother
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
LexVegas
(6,067 posts)
betsuni
(25,537 posts)
Bucky
(54,014 posts)
Persondem
(1,936 posts)But I don't think they make blocks of cheese big enough.
For months I have seen exaggerations, lies and all kinds of rigged up attacks leveled at Clinton by Sanders supporters. So please, do not get all holier than thou and claim that "cards" are being played against Sanders.
You provide no quotes, no links, no proof of anything. Just a bunch of victimhood and some red meat for the true believers to chew on.
Your guy's campaign is in trouble, and adversity brings out people's true character. So far you Sanders supporters are not showing much character at all.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)Persondem
(1,936 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)No nagging allowed.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)if only she wouldn't do things that make it likely she might win! She should just let Bernie win by doing things the approved way!
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)to win for what agenda? I can guarantee it's not one to benefit the 99%
"First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature?"
arcane1
(38,613 posts)You know it's in the deck!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Card, but was reminded by someone in the thread who appeared to think it was Bernie who raised the 'dual loyalty' accusation. That had to be a particularly low part of this campaign. I did remind that poster that we do have links to who played that particularly vile card. And it sure wasn't Bernie supporters.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And you just reminded me of the other despicable post that basically said he shouldn't earn any AA votes because he's of the same race as the people who use the Jewish version of the n-word 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)She was meant to be the nominee with no challenges. Bernie stepped up to the plate and the PEOPLE responded to his honesty, his long, consistent record, a breath of fresh air in the murky world of politics. And they are panicing and when people panic, they show their true colors.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You didn't think they would hold onto anything did you?
arcane1
(38,613 posts)It's not about the needs of African Americans. It's about him personally.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Plenty of time to turn it around though!
bravenak
(34,648 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)whatever that advice was.
But from my conversation with you earlier in the thread, I hope you learned something about the topic you said you had no interest in.
I hope I helped you understand why that is one of the most important issues in this campaign and the implications it has especially for AAs.
Because you seemed woefully unaware of something that AAs in general certainly are aware of, as I pointed out and cited Black Activists who are in total disagreement with you on the importance of that issue.
Learning is always a good thing. I understand you spend time mostly on DU and that other awful cave imitation site where bashing DUers appears to be the main function of the site.
That would explain why you were so unfamiliar with the importance of that issue to AAs.
Maybe, and here's some advice, take it or leave it, you should start learning what issues matter to AAs rather than wasting time with people whose only interest is in bashing people on the internet they do not even know. That can be soul destroying. See the poor souls at the cave, years and years spent bashing DUers who actually have lives and have no interest in them or their 'advice'. Very sad, probably would make a good study for someone wrt what would prompt anyone to waste so much time hating people who have no interest in them ...
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I do not appreciate your condescension. I am well able to articulate, well, anything really.
You have no idea what I do with my time. They way you talk down to me is a sign that perhaps you feel as if I am beneath you, to me. It is unfortunate that you speak to strangers in this manner and I hope any outreach efforts or educating you do with minorities is not done in this manner. Often minorities complain of being treated as if they are stupid. As I have always been a gifted person intellectually, so these types of paternalistic attitudes do not phase me as much. I am usually far more intelligent that those attempting to condescend to me, and I see no reason not to come to the same conclusion whenever someone assumes things about me that they cannot possibly know.
Although I suffered a head injury a few years back, I have regained full function and have returned to my full intelligence quotient of between 132 and 140. Now you know. I have no need of any educating from any of those not quite on the same level, therefore, you may relax and not attempt to 'school' me in the future.
Race is a subject I am very well versed in, perhaps it would be best for you to take your education from me, instead of attempting the reverse.
I'd appreciate equal treatment and a lack of condescenion in the future if you should ever choose to address me again. I believe, no, I am certain that in a face to face communication situation you would never speak to me thus. I am sure we can agree on that.
I have class tomorrow. The very idea that a white woman is much better informed on race than a black woman who studies this subject intensely is actually quite laughable. I do enjoy observing these threads.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)There, that's better.
Put it this way, I 'learn' from people who actually know something. I am not interested in people who have an agenda. They tend, in my experience, to have a sense of self importance, but as we saw in this thread, not much information.
I appreciate the arrogant notion that you have the right to award prizes especially considering there was no contest here, just a conversation with someone claiming to speak for an entire group of people.
But clearly with no idea of what those people consider to be extremely important.
I provided that information. I hope they will be humble enough to acknowledge how wrong they were and try to do better in the future.
That I believe was the advice THEY were offering to everyone else rather arrogantly, actually.
It's good advice especially when it is offered in good faith.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Funny how some people know nothing about an issue but become lofty and rude when discussing such with an EXPERT.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in it, but become lofty and rude when discussing such with ANYONE.
Then make assumptions about who they are addressing. That is always funny to me.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)TRYING TO SPEAK FOR US. As if ANY of us would want her as our official, unofficial, or even play play spokesperson.
Even newbies can see what she is and wind up saying stuff within minutes of making her 'acquaintance' that the rest of us have been saying for years. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=730944
This behavior would be astonishing if it wasn't indicative of something truly insidious and revolting.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)The astonishing lack of self-awareness on display here is a sight to behold.
betsuni
(25,537 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)etc etc
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he is with my money, little though it is. Tells me he will be a great President, handling our money carefully as he is doing right now.
Of course if you can't get the people excited about your candidacy, then I guess you will lose. And that's how it should be, no?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Washington Post, July 15, 2015:
So imagine our surprise when a Sanders supporter seemed to miss that point and filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday a super PAC called “Billionaires for Bernie.”
link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/
And how is a six-figure Twitter hashtag frugal?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)
Ain't gonna happen.
It's just a matter of time, now.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)learned it. That's why I'm for Sanders.
See, even thought Clinton SAYS she's for stricter gun controls, I have a sneaking suspicion that she's saying that to get traction in the primaries. However, once in office, she will do nothing, because it isn't what her donors want.
This, you see, is the problem with weather vanes - they turn with the political wind but have no mind of their own.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the Repubs are watching this carefully. IF and it's a big IF at this point, she wins the nomination, the Repubs will go after her on this issue. 'Hillary is going to take away your guns'. Bernie's position on guns is mainstream, sensible and will appeal to voters across the board. Including all the Dems who are leery of politicians who they perceive to be threatening their rights.
I don't know who is advising her, but this is a losing issue for her. Bernie probably knows this, he's a savvy politician and way more in touch with the American people than Hillary.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Regarding the 'race card' accusation. In my opinion it should only be claimed with very clear & convincing evidence. I don't see where you've provided it.
From a recent editorial by Charles M. Blow for the NY Times entitled Stop Playing the 'Race Card' Card:
'The truth is that the people who accuse others — without a shred of evidence — of “playing the race card,” claiming that the accusations of racism are so exaggerated as to dull the meaning of the term, are themselves playing a card. It is a privileged attempt at dismissal. They seek to do the very thing they condemn: shut down the debate with a scalding-hot charge.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/opinion/charles-blow-stop-playing-the-race-card-card.html?_r=0
The entire editorial is worth reading.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about someone for political purposes, that is definitely using the 'race card'.
I do however, agree with this:
That is exactly what I am referring to. He appears to agree with me that it is revolting to use race 'to cast aspersions on the character of others'.
I agree, completely, revolting is an excellent word for it.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)that the 'race card' is being played. By whom? How? In what way? Can you give an example of it being used?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)They cannot win on the issues so all they have is shit tossing.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts) 
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...the right invented to distract from points made whenever someone dares to speak out on issues of race or gender. Some folks here on this forum are doing their best to legitimize those types of deflections, all in the name of defending a politician from criticism.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....no Gender Card.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...about it a "joke"?
Once again, if you can't answer I suppose you're admitting that those three claims are false.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
