Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,210
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,210
- 2016 (49)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
It's not like Sanders message is particularly complex. He's repeated it ad nauseum. I dare say there are few people in this country who couldn't recite it by now.
I've done a lot of get out the vote activities and made phone calls to multiple states, and I have yet to encounter one person who doesn't know who Bernie Sanders is. On the other hand, I have yet to encounter a high-profile Sanders supporter on this site who has bothered to inform themselves about Clinton's policy positions. In fact, many pointedly refuse to look at her issues page. Instead, they habitually make up crap they project onto her.
Clinton is exponentially more qualified than Sanders. For you to attribute her success to her "husband's coat tails" is more of the gender-based condescension that is typical in this election. Considering her opponent has only one major legislative accomplishment in 25 years in federal office, the dismissal of her qualifications is absurd. It's not everyone who can boast the single lowest rating in bipartisanship of anyone in the Senate. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
But your claim is Americans voters are just too stupid to know how much better he is than Clinton.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:19 AM (1 replies)
When I post something negative about Sanders, I provide evidence, something Clinton's detractors rarely if ever do (internet memes and opinion pieces are not evidence), principally because they haven't shown enough interest in policy to even bother informing themselves on what she actually proposes. Sanders supporters use juries to hide that evidence, whether it is links to Sanders voting record, articles about his support for Lockheed Martin and big sugar, or they call people Nazis (as was done to me) for daring to post about his record on guns.
We haven't seen any concern from Sanders supporters about the disclosures that he has not been truthful about not having Super pacs http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
About the FEC citation of $23 million in excess campaign contributions http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
(whether you like the above source is irrelevant. It links to the actual letters from the FEC and from Sanders Campaign Treasurer in response).
Or his campaign manager's announcement of a strategy for him to seize control of the nomination against the popular will of the electorate. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452
Yesterday someone actually got a hide for criticizing Tad Devine. Apparently a political operative making huge amounts of money off campaign contributions is sacrosanct and that a lowly citizen has no right to criticize him without facing censure. The rich are to be protected at all costs, as long as they are affiliated with Bernie. The poor and working Americans must be punished if they fail to prostrate themselves before Bernie and the "progressives" convinced of their inherent superiority.
There aren't scores of articles about Clinton supporters bullying civil rights activists, super delegates, ordinary voters or progressive politicians. That is the reputation of another candidate whose run is coming to a close.
That said, this OP isn't about the awful reputation of Clinton supporters. It's about a rich person talking about putting a horrendous right-wing billionaire in office in order to spawn a "revolution." The responses in defense of Sarandon demonstrate that the rhetoric about the 99-1 percent we have heard for months and months now isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that rich people who support Bernie's career are just too important to be criticized. In other words, they expose hypocrisy of epic dimensions.
You choose to condemn Democratic voters, those who support the candidate will be the nominee. Not the neonazis, Islamophobes and homohobes who support Trump, but Democrats. That is who you despise, that is who some responding to this thread resent. Strip away the rights of the majority, no problem. Stump for a billionaire, no problem. But vote for a a Democrat, that is unforgivable.
I finally read a post in this thread that was actually persuasive in advocating for Sanders. Rather than insulting Democrats for disagreeing with him, he talked about his own life experiences and why Bernie's campaign meant so much to him. If more people had been doing that since the beginning of his campaign, they might have succeeded in attracting supporters. Instead, too many have spent the entire time insulting other Democrats, insisting they were inferior for caring about issues like equal rights, reproductive rights and voting rights. They have assailed one progressive public figure, advocacy organization, union, and civil rights activist after another for daring to endorse or speak favorably of Clinton. None of that has worked, yet they've continued to engage in it relentlessly, now taking their efforts to superdelegates to try to intimidate them into supporting someone who trails by 2.5 million in the popular vote. Yet never have they tried anything approaching positive persuasion. That is why they, and not Clinton supporters, have been the subject of scores of articles expressing alarm at their tactics. The reputation is theirs, and your post is oddly detached from that reality.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:04 AM (2 replies)
Susan Sarandon says Donald Trump would be better for America then Clinton because Trump will make it more likely for a revolution to occur. It would seem Sarandon doesn't believe the poor currently suffer enough to suit her, and that she wants to make their lives as miserable as possible to shock them into putting her guy into power. (Because revolutions really work that way. I suppose you've spent your life reading movie scripts you might think they do).
Why wait? I say we start the revolution right now. Not the revolution of campaign slogans that are about installing one man as head of the capitalist state. No, a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. I can think of no better place to start than one of Sarandon's many multi-million dollar homes.
Now, I'm not sure exactly how many she has. She has three apartments in New York City. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/open-house/Susan-Sarandon-Snatches-Up-Third-NYC-Property--138832289.html This sprawling $1.75 million estate in Pound Ridge, NY. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/susan-sarandon-tim-robbins-house/view/bing/
She has another home in Los Angeles. http://www.elledecor.com/celebrity-style/celebrity-homes/news/a6310/eva-amurri-martino-home/
There may be more, but I say the revolution should start at her $11.9 million California home here:
12 bathrooms. I think that is about the number of bathrooms on this side of my entire block. My entire lot would fit in her kitchen.
So what is a revolutionary doing with five plus homes, you might ask? Good question. How do you suppose someone in that position wishes for life to become more arduous for the most vulnerable Americans so that they do her political bidding?
Well, Susan. You say you want a revolution. I say we start at your $11.9 million dollar home and move on to the others. There is space to house hundreds of families there. That's what happens to estates in real socialist revolutions. People like you lose their wealth and are put to work doing honest labor.
So why wait for your guy Trump to start the revolution? Now is the time.
For the irony impaired, this is parody. I am not actually advocating violence. However revolution is in fact violent upheaval. The super rich like Sarandon ought to be careful what they wish for.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:36 AM (259 replies)
It is not illegal and it is not corrupt. If people actually gave a shit about corporate influence, they wouldn't defend Bernie's on again, off again support of blanket immunity for gun corporations, or the $1 trillion plus to Lockheed Martin.
They wouldn't ignore his fundraising from Wall Street investment banks or his claims to not have super pacs when he has them.
That people argue that Clinton is corrupt for earning money is in fact part of an atmosphere of vilification that is sexist. That they insist women who support her of voting "for the vagina," when Clinton is in fact an extremely well qualified candidate and her competitor has the second worst record in congress in terms of legislative accomplishments most certainly is sexist. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
Her detractors refuse to as much as look at her policy positions. That is how little they care about actual issues.
That Clinton is vilified more than Republicans and murderous dictators show that the vitriol against her has nothing to do with her actual record or policy proposals and everything to do with what she represents: a woman who seeks to be president, following on the heels of an African American president. A number of Democratic voters see what is going on, which may be why people of color and especially African American women are resounding supporting Clinton with their votes.
Then when we see people who claim to care about progressive principles argue that Trump would be better, it exposes precisely what their goals truly are.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Mar 29, 2016, 05:49 PM (0 replies)
The American left appears to believe democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders would be winning the race for the Democratic party’s nomination if not for the sinister machinations of the elite. The party is more liberal than former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the thinking goes, and she represents an era in US politics no longer recognizable today. . . .
All this might be convincing if not for the fact that Clinton is winning the popular vote.
I’m aware this is blindingly obvious, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to leftist voices on social media. But it’s true. Clinton is winning more votes than Sanders. The difference is not attributable to her institutional advantage among “superdelegates”, who are elite party members free to support any candidate they wish – it’s down to her popular appeal.
Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve.
Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:25 PM (34 replies)
sum +303 for HRC
+744 for HRC
2383 needed for nomination
653 for HRC to win nomination. 1437 for BS to win nomination
2129 remaining delegates. HRC needs 30.6% of the remaining delegates for nomination. BS needs 67.4%
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:08 PM (26 replies)
Voter disenfranchisement through lines and voting irregularities is indeed a concern, and I believe strongly in championing access to the voting whenever and wherever possible in all states. Yet democracy also includes respecting the will of the people especially when their vote differs from one's own choice. Democracy is not served by overturning elections that didn't turn out how we might like or by finding ways to discount those votes.
Much attention has been paid to the controversial superdelegates. Earlier in this primary season, the Sanders campaign argued they were antithetical to democracy. They imagined being in a position where they would win the popular vote and earned delegates but then might lose due to the superdelegates. Many of us doubted that would happen.
Fast forward to March, and Sanders is seeking to woo superdelegates. Suddenly they aren't so antidemocratic. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-surprises-controversial-superdelegate-strategy
Yet it doesn't stop there. Tad Devine has indicated that pledged delegates can also be flipped.
Despite being trounced by Clinton in five states Tuesday, the Sanders campaign told reporters this week that not only do they expect the second half of the primary to add to their delegate count, they also believe Clinton’s pledged delegate lead might start to erode if pledged delegates see Sanders doing well and decide to support him instead of Clinton. . .
Sanders senior strategist Tad Devine made the case Wednesday on a call with reporters that, despite pledged delegates getting their spots based on Democratic votes in primaries and caucuses, they are free to switch which candidate they represent based on personal preference. He pointed to the Jimmy Carter campaign in 1980 and said that before Carter won the Democratic nomination, the campaign was “deeply concerned about the defection of pledged delegates.”
“We don’t have a plan at the moment to be calling all the Clinton delegates, you know, once they get selected and try to persuade them individually to be for Bernie Sanders,” Devine said when pressed by a reporter. “But we do believe that if we can succeed in the second half of the process as much as Hillary did or even more so, that there will be enormous pressure on people who are going to be delegates at this convention to do the right, responsible thing.”
Pledged delegates, as we all know, are pledged as a result of elections and caucuses where voters cast their presidential preferences. Flipping pledged delegates means overturning the results of popular elections; it would require handing the nomination to someone who received fewer votes and fewer earned delegates.
Given the concern about infringement of voting rights through long lines and irregularities, I'm sure we can all agree that any effort to deliver the nomination to a candidate that receives a minority of the vote and with it the pledged delegate count would be antithetical to the will of the people and therefore antidemocratic. Sanders supporters will no doubt want to voice their concern to Tad Devine and tell him they do not support such a strategy because the priority must be on the democratic will of the people.
You can do that here at email@example.com Many of you may have better contact information for the campaign. I only have the email through which I received unsolicited and unwanted requests for donations, even after I subscribed. They do answer it, however. That much I know.
Join me in standing up for democracy. Tell Tad Devine you will not support efforts to overturn popular elections by flipping pledged delegates.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:20 PM (9 replies)
Frenzy of voters overwhelm caucus sites around Utah
(KUTV) Utah is experiencing a frenzy of voting activity for the Democrat and Republican caucuses Tuesday night. Long lines have been reported in Davis County, Salt Lake County and Utah County, among others.
Long lines, a shortage of ballots and crashing websites all played havoc with a voter turnout that seems significantly higher than political parties expected.
The Democratic website was down but returned to service Tuesday evening. It listed about 90 caucus locations for Democrats. The party didn't require registration to vote.
The Vote.Utah.Gov website also experienced errors, returning an error message when citizens tried to locate their caucus locations. Later in the evening Tuesday, that site also seemed to work.
Yesterday, CNN was reporting a mile-long line in Salt Lake City. Yet somehow the only state that causes concern today is Arizona.
I wonder why?
Does this mean the results of the Utah caucuses should be nullified as well? Is it DWS' fault? Hillary's?
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 10:03 PM (52 replies)
No one is entitled to hand pick a president in violation of the democratic will of the majority, whether young or just plain angry. Clearly millenials have no problem voting for Clinton in the general. You've been on a vendetta against Clinton since I joined this site over three years ago. It's obvious from your comments above that you aren't concerned about the issues enough to even bother looking at her policy proposals. Unions have endorsed Clinton. Clearly they see her as the best candidate to advance their interests. They speak for their interests, not you.
Bernie never advanced an alternative foreign policy. He didn't care enough to even engage substantively in the subject or even assemble a foreign policy team. As much as people like me might wish for a less hawkish foreign policy, no foreign policy is not a plausible alternative. I rather have someone who has some understanding around the world. It's too important to leave to someone who doesn't even care to engage with that aspect of the job of president.
Then there is the fact that his entire talking point about "not having a super pac" proved to be empty rhetoric. Staffers who just left his campaign are working for one in Alaska that started a year ago!. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ By the way, that's illegal, as were the $23 million in excess campaign contributions that went to his affiliated pac and his campaign, prompting a series of FEC inquiries (middle and end of Feb).
And again. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80999298/
That's more violations that any candidate in US history. You fell for it hook, line and sinker, all because you despise one woman who seeks to be president, on a platform to the left of any General Election candidate in thirty to forty years. Oh, the party has gone to the "right." Nonsense. Her policy positions show the very opposite. That is the doing of the American people. They have made clear to her what they want and she has listened, which is in fact the responsibility of elected representatives.
The chorus of cries against the "establishment" just so happens to correspond to the presidency of a black man and the first woman as a serious contender for the presidency. Voters who want "anti-establishment" have Trump as an option. Like Bernie, he hearkens back to a "great" American past, that just happens to correspond to a period when the majority were denied civil rights or economic opportunity. Unlike Bernie, his appeal is brazenly racist. That may be partly why independents and even some Democrats have crossed over to support him in larger numbers. Polling demonstrates that it is not the poorest Americans who are most angry but rather whites, even those far more prosperous than the majority; they see themselves as having lost out in comparison to the rest of society.
Voters will have a stark choice in the general election. Trump stands for everything that Clinton doesn't. She Clinton doesn't believe the white male bourgeoisie deserves more than the rest. She doesn't seek to restore them to what they see as her rightful place atop the capitalist world order, during the great years of American empire that ensured their comfort along with the subjugation of the majority at home and abroad.
The irony of decrying American foreign policy while also lamenting the decline of the middle class is that American prosperity was secured through coups and massive land grabs that maintained access to national resources for US corporations, whether American Sugar, United Fruit (La Fruteria in 100 Years of Solitude), ITT, or Kennecott and Anaconda Copper. An entire theory of economic inequality was developed around that geopolitical relationship: Dependency theory. People who have more than 99% of the world's population complain about how exploited they are because a few billionaires have even more, with no concept of how their lifestyle is made possible by horrific exploitation around the globe.
I see the same people who go on about corporatist this and that talking about their wardrobe of couture gowns, four bathroom homes, and how exploitative intern salaries of $70k a year are, like they can't imagine getting by on so little. It astounds me. I have been insulted about my so-called alliance with the rich by people who have never been depended on food stamps or welfare in their lives, who didn't grow up surrounded by drug dealing and prostitution, and have no idea what it's like to be poor. I know that isn't every Bernie supporter, not by a long margin. But I resent the construct of the 99% since it empowers those in the top 20% to pretend like their experiences have anything in common with people at the bottom. I've been in the very bottom 5% (US, not global) and in the 50%-55%, and the difference is monumental, completely life changing.
If you haven't yet voted in the primary, no one is stopping you from doing so. Bush, Fiorina, and O'Malley all got votes on Tuesday. I myself voted for Dean even after Kerry was the only one in the race. Your vote is your own, but it is only one vote. No one owes you, or your supposed concern for millenials, their vote. Democracy. One person, one vote. Deal with it.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:23 PM (1 replies)
A Bernie supporter posted a thread asking why Clinton supporters didn't believe Bernie. I responded quite substantively but got no response. Someone then suggested I post this as an OP, so I am doing so.
The great chasm between rhetoric and action
Immigration. On national television he announced he did not vote to protect the Minutemen. He insisted Clinton had pulled one part of a complex bill out of context. The fact is he voted for a designated amendment that did prohibit the Homeland Security from informing the Mexican government about Minutemen activity. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971/text
Roll call vote ( linked to on page with text of amendment) clearly shows his yes vote under independents: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml
His voting record in general on immigration differs dramatically from how he presents himself. http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/40/immigration#.VueLNJwrLWI
From the time he entered congress, he voted against every immigration reform bill until 2013, when, it appears, he may have been thinking about a run for the presidency.
In general I am suspicious of people who over-promise. I have seen Sanders make a number of promises (from overturning Citizens United, to within his first term making the US no longer have the highest prison population on earth, on and on) that are simply not within the purview of the presidency.
His statements about not "having" or "doing" Super pacs is particularly disingenuous to me. He said in a recent debate, "we decided not to do a Super Pac" and "Hillary Clinton has a Super Pac." Those statements play to the American public's ignorance about campaign finance law. Candidates do not "do" or "have" Super Pacs. They are legally separate entities. Yet Bernie has benefited from more super pac and dark money spending than Clinton, by a large margin. He also has affiliated PACs, which have, along with his campaign, been cited for repeated campaign finance violations. He pretends the issue is about personal virtue, ignoring all the spending done on his behalf, yet his campaign doesn't even follow the already existing and all to meager campaign finance law. He has been cited by the FEC for hundreds of violations, more than any campaign I know about. ( I link to a number of sources in this post that provide evidence for the preceding paragraph. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1258143. And https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/ $23 million is not a minor amount of money).
Another key argument for his campaign is corporate accountability, yet he applies that only to one area of the economy: Wall Street.
He voted to grant immunity to gun corporations. After first denying that vote in an early debate, then saying he would rethink the position, he championed his vote in the debate just prior to Michigan. In addition to being all over the map on the issue, I interpret his last debate statement on the vote as a message to the rural Michigan voters. The NRA tweet the next day expressing support for his position helped in that regard. He played the politics of it masterfully, but I find the position reprehensible, not only because of my views on gun control but because it contradicts his claims to stand as an anti-establishment candidate against corporate excess.
He denounces military spending while voting for pet projects for VT (the f-35). Again, a great difference between rhetoric and behavior.
Then single payer. After disclosing to the press in 2010 that single payer was a nonstarter in the Obamacare debates, he now has built a campaign around attacking Clinton for not embracing a policy he himself said would only have gotten 8 or 9 votes, and that was when the Democrats had a majority in both houses. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance
I think he believes what he says about a political revolution, but that doesn't make it any more convincing. Turnout is not up from 2008. There is no indication that Bernie would receive the kind of voter support that would transform congress, as he claimed in his last debate. He has no answer as to how he will work with the existing congress. In other words, he has no plan to implement any of what he promises. I judge him lacking in credibility.
I also find highly disconcerting the fact he hasn't even assembled a foreign policy team and that he thinks it acceptable to pivot away from questions on foreign policy. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-foreign-policy-deficit-218431
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article65064407.html That position might work for a candidate running to raise issues, but not for someone who seeks to actually be president. I want a president to be informed, engaged, and competent.
Another thing that really bothers me is his failure to take responsibility for his own votes. He blamed Clinton for mass incarceration but accepts no responsibility for his own vote for those laws. He announced it was a disgrace that Gitmo hasn't been closed, yet he himself voted on at least two occasions against closing it. How is it possible not to find that sort of thing questionable?
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 16, 2016, 07:23 PM (59 replies)