HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » merrily » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 28,273

Journal Archives

Jorge Ramos asks "Hillary or Trump" on Facebook... and everyone says "Bernie"

Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:58 AM PDT


The facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/jorgeramosnews/posts/465629640289794

I'm Voting for Bernie Sanders Because He Answers Questions. Clinton 'Breaks Her Silence' Often

H. A. Goodman
I'm Voting for Bernie Sanders Because He Answers Questions. Clinton 'Breaks Her Silence' Often (LOL!)
Posted: 10/05/2015 10:01 am EDT Updated: 10/05/2015 10:59 am EDT

In April, The Economist ran a cover with the words, "What does Hillary stand for?" Essentially, that's why Bernie Sanders will win the Democratic nomination; Democrats no longer want a moderate Republican on issues like war, trade, and Wall Street. After 9/11, when Hillary Clinton's "mistake" helped the Bush administration merge patriotism with counterinsurgency conflicts, Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War. Long before Clinton evolved on gay marriage "just in time" for the presidential elections (the former Secretary of State had the same views on gay marriage as Kim Davis until 2013), Sanders voted against Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act and supported same-sex marriage. Sanders never had to wait until gay marriage was acceptable according to polls and never viewed his Iraq vote as a stepping stone to the presidency.

I'm voting for Bernie in large part because he is able to communicate his thoughts without consulting a team of advisers and without apologizing for his value system. Most importantly, Sanders never had to contradict himself because of political pressure, especially since the Vermont Senator has been on the right side of history.

For example, I analyzed Jeb Bush's bizarre claim that he'd still invade Iraq and subsequent reversal in viewpoint during one of my appearances on Ring of Fire. As for Dick Cheney and his role in destabilizing the Middle East, I explain in another Ring of Fire appearance that Cheney continues to defend his advocacy of the war even though he argued against invading Iraq during the Gulf War.

Unlike Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, Bernie Sanders recently won the Congressional Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars because he's always defended our nation's veterans. In contrast, George W. Bush charged a veterans groups $100,000 for a speaking appearance.


Much much more at link. Long, but Sanders's fans will enjoy, I promise.

Sanders Outperforms Clinton in General Election Matchups in IA, NH

I apologize if this has already been posted. I did not see it.

Meet the Press
Oct 5 2015, 7:03 am ET
Sanders Outperforms Clinton in General Election Matchups in IA, NH

by Mark Murray Hillary Clinton has always been viewed as the Democrats' best general-election candidate. But new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire show that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in those two general-election battleground states.

The NBC/WSJ/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire were conducted Sept. 23-30. In Iowa, 1,061 registered voters were interviewed (margin of error +/- 3.0 percentage points), and in New Hampshire, 1,044 registered voters were tested (+/- 3.0 percentage points).




Sanders 44% v. Jeb! 46%
Sanders 48% v. Trump 43%
Sanders 45% v. Fiorina 42%

Clinton 40% v. Jeb! 50%
Clinton 41% v. Trump 48%
Clinton 38% v. Fiorina 52% (wtf)

New Hampshire

Sanders 46% v. Jeb! 46%

Sanders 52% v. Trump 42%
Sanders 47% v. Fiorina 45%

Clinton 42% v. Jeb! 49%
Clinton 48% v. Trump 45%
Clinton 42% v. Fiorina 50% (wtf)

Sen. Sanders: on fleek on every TV show, incl. Larry Wilmore's Nightly Show


Also: the Nightly Show panel discusses Sanders


Gunning for Bernie? Or, how many random coincidences can you see in this OP?

For as long as I've been reading at DU, I've read how being a one-issue voter or a "purist" is just too stupid and heinous for words. Didn't matter if the one issue was race, GLBT, public option, torture, GITMO, fourth amendment, drone killings, or whatever. Of course, during all that time, I never saw many posters claim to be one-issue voters. But, no matter which issue was being discussed, anyone upset about it was arbitrarily, and usually falsely, scolded for being a one-issue voter and a "purist."

Now, however, that same segment of DU seems to have become a group of almost one-issue posters. As I understand them, I am supposed to reject Bernie Sanders because of any one issue that people are trying to use against him at the moment. Not only that, but at the end of last week, even President Obama told us to become one issue voters, the one issue being.... guns.

It doesn't matter if a candidate is great on every other issue said the President. Guns is the only issue I am supposed to vote on. Not social safety nets, Medicare for all, wars, empire building, torture, equal human rights for all humans, the bill of rights, etc., but guns. I am not sure what specifically about guns I am supposed to look for from a candidate. I just know that my President just told me that something related to guns is supposed to be the only issue on which I vote. Astounding. However, he apparently is not going to take another pass at gun control legislation. More astounding?

Even before Hillary declared she was running, media were speculating about whether the White House and the Hillary campaign were already coordinating or would coordinate after she announced. I have no clue where the truth of that lies. However, at the end of last week, the President told us to become one issue voters, and, on Monday, Hillary gave a talk about guns and Andrea Mitchell ended her coverage of that talk by declaring falsely that the NRA has "of course" long supported Bernie Sanders. So, I posted about that.

Next thing I know, my inbox got trolled with a link and a different Hillary supporter invited himself or herself onto my thread to post the same link, this link. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

Also on the thread, posts about how MSNBC repeated that whopper throughout the day and evening yesterday.

The story is about a single endorsement of Bernie Sanders by the NRA when Sanders first ran for Congress in 1990, 25 years ago, to represent a district in the largely rural and sparsely-populated State of Vermont. In that now long ago campaign, Sanders said only that it should be up to states to decide about a waiting period to buy a gun (all states not being alike, I assume). The story claims that made the NRA a--wait for it--tacit (unspoken) ally of Sanders. (Guess how much good an alleged ally who is silent does a politician? And, if one is a silent ally of a politician, how does a WAPO writer know one is an ally at all.) No mention that, through his years in the House and Senate, the NRA has rated Sanders D- to F. "With friends like that, who needs enemas?" (Apologies to The Road to Wellville.)

Now, if someone sent that link with a cleverly-worded cover letter to a Hillary supporter who is not all that clever, I can see how he or she might conclude that the NRA has been supporting Sanders for the past 25 years and say something like, "Bernie Sanders, of course, long supported by the NRA."

In addition to the NRA stuff, the story repeatedly refers to Democratic Socialist Sanders as a socialist, much as Hillary's campaign surrogates have been doing. Coming from WAPO, a rightist publication, I understand the dumbass red-baiting. But why is a rightist publication going after Sanders on guns?

Some choice quotes from the WAPO story:

That campaign also marked the beginning of Sanders’s complicated relationship with the ­issue of gun rights — the one area where Sanders’s Democratic presidential rivals have been able to attack him from the left.

“In every single race that I have run, with the exception of one, the NRA and the gun lobbies and the people who are most interested in guns supported my opponent,” he (Sanders) told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos this year.

But now, Cutler (current President of Gun Owners of Vermont) said, when he calls Sanders’s office to ask for a meeting, he never gets one. “I regret that it happened,” he said, “because, realistically, we have no input with him.”

No thank you. Mr. President and some on DU, I will not become a single issue voter on guns just because that is the ONE issue on which Sanders arguably can be attacked from the left; and I would not do that even if DUers had not been posting for years that I should not be a purist or single issue voter. However, since they have been doing that for years, I point out their unprincipled hypocrisy.

Okay, beloveds. How many odd coincidences did you see in my post

Andrea Mitchell just told a whopper about Bernie:

Wrapping up a story about Hillary's statement on guns, Mitchell gratuitously added, "Bernie Sanders, of course, long supported by the NRA."

The NRA has long rated Bernie either F or D-. That is NOT support.

Please, people, let Mitchell and MSNBC know how you feel.

What Bernie Sanders’ newfound money has just bought him, and us (astounding admission!)

What Bernie Sanders’ newfound money has just bought him, and us

Coverage. What ever-growing crowds and poll numbers failed to deliver, money has: coverage. Bernie Sanders nearly matched Hillary’s fundraising in the third quarter and all of a sudden the media takes notice that he’s out there.

We are supposed to keep up the pretense that a campaign is about ideas, but we don’t practice it. What we practice is poll-driven coverage, fake-controversy coverage, and worst of all, strategy coverage. Everyone is an armchair general pushing little plastic candidates around a tabletop map of the US. Great fun, no meaning. What really buys you credibility in the world of coverage is the same thing that buys you groceries at the supermarket: money. Money is the reason Jeb! Or Jeb; or Jeb? still is secretly considered the frontrunner. $100,000,000 buys you a lot of considering.

And so now it’s Heeeeere’s Bernie! I’m not sure whether the intent of this story was to play to the expected narrative that Bernie is a wild-eyed radical crank, but the lead paragraphs certainly suggest that. But I suspect the result will be different. It appears readers have been waiting for some bigger Bernie coverage, judging by the number of responses in the comments thread.

But here’s what coverage of Bernie is going to yield. Finally, the range of acceptable political discourse is going to broaden, to the left. It’s about time, you say? I’d say. What have long been considered taboo topics about income redistribution are in fact no more extreme than positions taken by EVERY SINGLE GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. They are ALL proposing vastly MORE tax cuts to the already obscenely wealthy, and MORE regulation-cuts of the sort that led to our recent economic collapse, all tied up in a ribbon of gigantic deficits. (Deficits are only reported as crazed when proposed by the left). Oh, and lest we forget, a continuation of the extravagantly irresponsible anti-science anti-planet climate position that they are STILL taking, thanks in part to the decades of respectful reporting they’ve received on the subject.


Bernie Sanders Holds Boston's Largest Democratic Primary Rally Ever

Before you read, I believe Bernie's campaign underestimated the size of the Boston crowd.

Election 2016
Bernie Sanders Holds Boston's Largest Democratic Primary Rally Ever
The event made history, topping the size of the Boston's biggest Obama rally.
By Zaid Jilani / AlterNet
October 4, 2015

On Saturday evening, Bernie Sanders finally took his campaign to Boston, Massachussetts, having canceled an earlier appearance there because they couldn't find a space large enough at an affordable price. The Boston stop was the second stop of the day, following a rally of 6,000 in Springfield, Massachusetts.

The Boston Globe noted that the rally in their city made history – topping the size of a 10,000-person rally Barack Obama held during the 2008 Democratic primary.

Sanders was introduced by several speakers, including both nursing students and a representative of National Nurses United, the large nursing union. Bill McKibben, one of the nation's most prominent climate activists, took the podium before the Senator, and praised his opposition to the Keystone pipeline, a project Sanders opposed first in 2011.

“We have raised substantial sums of money because 650,000 Americans made contributions averaging 30 dollars a piece,” said Sanders to a crowd of around 25,000 both inside the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center and more watching the event on screens outside who were unable to get in. The fundraising numbers have given renewed credibility to his campaign, with The New York Times noting that “Mr. Sanders was initially dismissed by political insiders as a fringe candidate running only to push Hillary Rodham Clinton to the left. But he has now demonstrated that he has the resources and the supporters, whom he has only begun to tap financially, to compete for the Democratic presidential nomination.” Indeed, the $26 million he raised placed him right behind Hillary Clinton's own $28 million haul (as of this writing Clinton did not release number of donors or the average donation).

It's worth pointing out that the crowd size Sanders generated tops where Obama was at this point in the campaign not only in Boston, but nationally. The Obama campaign went to a city more than ten times as large, New York, and spoke to 24,000 around this time in 2007.

much more http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-holds-bostons-largest-democratic-primary-rally-ever

Sanders is not Nader, is he?

I have not been able to relate much to Nader, especially since he lost all those elections. However, just from reading his wikipedia, I would bet everything that I own that he did more for people by the time he was 40 than most of his critics will even try to do in their entire lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

Despite that, the hatred and disinformation permeates any DU thread in which his name comes up is enough to make me reel.

Until recently, I read that his unforgiveable sin was running as a "spoiler," thereby resulting in the election of Dimson, which destroyed this country. That sentence is a lot to unpack. Maybe I or someone else will try to get help in unpacking it in the Populist Group someday. For purposes of this post today, however, let's take every bit of that sentence as unassailably true.

Senator Sanders has long been an ally of, and asset to, the Democratic Party. On his arrival in the House, he formed the House Progressive Caucus, now called the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even though Sanders is the only Senator who is a member. For the first eight years of its existence, he chaired it, too. It is the largest Caucus in Congress, other than the two main party caucuses.

When Dean was head of the DNC, he called Sanders an asset to the Party. Schumer, as head of the DSCC, did the same and decided not to run any Democratd against Sanders. Twice, Sanders was the nominee of the Vermont Democratic Party for the U.S. Senate, even though he did not run for the Democratic nomination. When a Democrat did challenge Sanders in a primary, the Democratic Party, including Bubba, supported Sanders against the Democrat!

When Sanders began contemplating a run for the Presidency, he said he would not run as a spoiler, as Nader had. True to his word, when Sander did decide to run, it was in the Democratic Presidential primary. From the very day of his formal announcement, however, the DNC has done whatever it could to undermine him. It attempted to raise money on the excitement of his announcement with an email that made it seem as though donations to the DNC would enure to Sanders' benefit. I have little doubt that diverted much needed seed money from Sanders' campaign. From that day to this, it's been one thing after another. Now, we hear that the DNC will weight debate audiences toward supporters of HRC.

WHY is the Party treating Sanders worse than it treated Nader?

Doesn't this encourage future challengers to the Party's anointed one (and, yes, there will be more anointed ones in the future) to run as spoilers?

Anyone want to help me make a list? What about Bernie's campaign and candidacy is newsworthy?

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 42 Next »