Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AM
Number of posts: 28,273
Number of posts: 28,273
Tue Oct 06, 2015 at 11:58 AM PDT
The facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/jorgeramosnews/posts/465629640289794
Posted by merrily | Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:41 PM (5 replies)
Much much more at link. Long, but Sanders's fans will enjoy, I promise.
Posted by merrily | Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:15 PM (1 replies)
I apologize if this has already been posted. I did not see it.
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)
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)
Posted by merrily | Tue Oct 6, 2015, 03:00 PM (4 replies)
Posted by merrily | Tue Oct 6, 2015, 09:58 AM (3 replies)
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
Posted by merrily | Tue Oct 6, 2015, 07:22 AM (24 replies)
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.
Posted by merrily | Mon Oct 5, 2015, 12:23 PM (178 replies)
Posted by merrily | Mon Oct 5, 2015, 09:08 AM (16 replies)
Before you read, I believe Bernie's campaign underestimated the size of the Boston crowd.
much more http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-holds-bostons-largest-democratic-primary-rally-ever
Posted by merrily | Mon Oct 5, 2015, 08:57 AM (22 replies)
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?
Posted by merrily | Sun Oct 4, 2015, 08:56 PM (20 replies)
Posted by merrily | Sun Oct 4, 2015, 04:34 PM (15 replies)