Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 11,330
Number of posts: 11,330
based on the lunatic ideas of 'Breitbart' / Alex Jones, etc.
It's difficult to imagine what all sorts of delusions that national officials would want to act on.
It seems the military would have to just refuse to cooperate. Stand down. etc.
It's unthinkable, really.
How these types of ideas could have so much traction with so many. ugh.
Posted by bloom | Mon Oct 17, 2016, 10:19 AM (0 replies)
"We rate this claim False." -Nevada Democratic Party leaders "hijacked the process on the floor",etc
"....However, there were no last minute rule changes sprung on convention-goers — the rules had been publicly available weeks in advance, largely unchanged for three presidential cycles, and given to both campaigns. The first major fight happened in the morning, with the convention being gaveled in nearly 40 minutes after the scheduled 9 a.m. start time.
In a voice vote, Lange approved adoption of a preliminary credentials report showing more Clinton than Sanders delegates. Immediate howls of protests from the Sanders contingent emerged, many of whom rushed the dais and started screaming insults and obscenities directly at Lange.
Although several videos from the event appear to have louder "nays" than "yeas," both preliminary and final delegate counts showed that Clinton supporters outnumbered Sanders supporters in the room. And trying to determine the outcome of a voice vote from a video of around 3,000 delegates is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. The only person with authority to call for a different voting mechanism is the convention chair: Lange.
Regardless, upset Sanders supporters rushed the main stage, hurling obscenities at Lange and other members of the party’s executive board and booing over remarks from California Sen. Barbara Boxer delivered on behalf of the Clinton campaign."
Sounds like the Sanders people wanted a fight - created a fight - are they denying they created a fight and are blaming the system - because they think they can score political points that way.
Posted by bloom | Thu May 19, 2016, 09:10 AM (18 replies)
Just because we aren't all going to all the rallies - does not mean that we are less passionate about supporting Hillary than others are about supporting Sanders.
We are just quieter.
I understand where Sanders supporters are coming from. And I think it's great that so many are behind his ideas. I am happy that he has pushed the country to the left and brought people out of the woodwork to vote. I hope more liberal democrats take notice and run for office - that we get more liberals in all of the State Houses and in Congress.
But I have Hillary's back. I think she has more than proven herself.
And I get tired of people trash talking her. I was tired of it in the 90's and I'm tired of it now.
I expect that she will be an excellent president and role model.
Someone wrote in a reply to me - that 'they' thought this was as important election - as if I did not. That person could not be more wrong.
Posted by bloom | Wed May 18, 2016, 10:13 AM (27 replies)
By Ed Kilgore
"Veteran Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston watched it all and came away convinced the Sanders campaign had deliberately fed supporters spurious grievances over the rules in order to rationalize what was actually a fair-and-square Clinton victory in organizing for the event, which after all, simply confirmed Clinton's earlier win in the February caucuses....
One thing is largely indisputable: Bernie Sanders himself could help clear the air by informing his supporters that while there are many things about the Democratic nomination process that ought to be changed, no one has "stolen" the nomination from him or from them. Perhaps a thousand small things gave Hillary Clinton an "unfair" advantage in this contest, but they were mostly baked into the cake, not contrived to throw cold water on the Bern. And the best step Sanders' supporters could take to promote their long-term interests in the Democratic Party would be to get a grip before they wind up helping Donald Trump win the presidency. And Bernie Sanders himself has a responsibility to talk his devoted followers off the ledge."
Posted by bloom | Wed May 18, 2016, 09:49 AM (21 replies)
Committed Fraud and this and that sound like Republicans.
Seriously. Freepers, even. And it doesn't get worse than that.
Posted by bloom | Tue May 17, 2016, 11:09 AM (41 replies)
By BILL SCHER May 16, 2016
"Bernie Sanders, for all his talk of revolution, never wanted to be Ralph Nader. He has a long history of keeping the Democratic Party at arm’s length, but he also has a long history of rejecting spoiler bids. Since 1992, he has always endorsed the Democratic presidential nominee, snubbing Nader’s four left-wing third-party campaigns. He became a Democrat to run for president instead of keeping his “(I)” and following in Nader’s footsteps. He has pledged to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination and has ripped Donald Trump at every opportunity.
But even if Sanders isn’t deliberately trying to replicate the electoral trauma inflicted by Nader in 2000—when he probably cost Al Gore the presidency—Bernie’s lingering presence in the Democratic primary threatens to produce a similar result in November: delegitimizing the eventual Democratic nominee in the eyes of the left and sending many critics, if not to Trump, then to the Green Party’s Jill Stein or the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson.
...One way would be to follow the lead of Jesse Jackson in 1988, who remained in the race for the entire primary. But when he came to the Democratic convention with 38 percent of the pledged delegates, he went to great lengths to keep his team focused on changing the party over the long haul rather than disrupting the election (though Michael Dukakis still lost). “I’m going to ask you to do a hard thing,” Jackson said to his delegates, “Put your focus on why we're here. If you're following my lead, then reflect my spirit, attitude and discipline. We don't have the time to fill up the media airwaves with pollution.”
...Jackson didn’t quit before it was officially over for the same reason Sanders won’t: more delegates means more influence at the convention. But that’s where Sanders faces a paradox. The potential of using his delegates to make her convention disorderly—forcing floor fights over platform language, nominating himself on the floor, withholding his endorsement—is what gives him leverage. But to unleash convention chaos risks a repeat of 1968, when efforts by Eugene McCarthy’s delegates to wrest the nomination from Hubert Humphrey and include an anti-Vietnam War plank to the platform failed on the convention floor, prompting a livid McCarthy to leave the convention without endorsing the ticket. He gave an extremely reluctant endorsement in the campaign’s final days, and his unwillingness to rally his supporters possibly tipped five states to the Republican winner Richard Nixon."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-sanders-2016-becoming-nader-2000-213893#ixzz48vPdU6J5
Posted by bloom | Tue May 17, 2016, 10:53 AM (13 replies)
by Dr. Ruth Nemzoff
"Politicians are beholden to those who vote for them. They are swayed by their concerns as they are the people who “brought them to the dance.” No, the superdelegates are not going to go against the majority of the Democratic voters to put someone else in because a subset of voters threatens to take their ball and go home if they can’t get their way. No organization could do that. So I am left wondering if the Bernie or Bust group is shooting themselves in the foot. They are well organized, they have some power, they can influence the course of the election—but not if they threaten to leave the party, or to support someone whose ideals are so different from their own....
Taking home your ball and refusing to play because you can’t get your way may seem like you are empowering yourself. But really, you are not. Those of us who consider ourselves progressives have watched, appalled, as Republicans have replaced scientific reasoning with fantasy and insisted it was true. We have seen them deny the existence of climate change, and hide behind freedom of religion to limit women’s access to comprehensive medical care. It is sad to see some who claim to be progressives online creating a different but equally fallacious fantasy of there being no difference between Trump and Hillary, or that Trump will help bring in the revolution.
Of course, in the online realm, we never do know who is creating this false fantasy. Are they progressives or Trump supporter,s who want you not to vote or to vote for their man, regardless of your reasons? Either way, fantasies may be fun to pass the time on a rainy day, but they can be dangerous, if you confuse them with reality. The fantasy that Trump and Hillary are the same is one such fantasy.
Don’t buy into the the fantasy that the Republicans have been creating for years, that Hillary is dishonest or weak. We have seen time after time, in one expensive and unwarranted investigation after the next, that she is neither. Bernie can have real influence now, but only if he can rely on those who have been his most vocal supporters to join him in supporting the Democratic candidate."
Posted by bloom | Tue May 17, 2016, 10:40 AM (24 replies)
....."Is feminism progressive? Is sexism political? I get the answer every time someone complains that Hillary Clinton’s supporters are only backing the most qualified and experienced Presidential candidate in memory “because she is a woman;” because Hillary Clinton, too, the politician who was a pioneer in the fight for universal healthcare, who has been one of the most visible advocates for women’s rights in the world since the mid-‘90s, who was one of the more liberal Senators on the floor, who was the second-most popular Secretary of State in history and whose incorporation of feminist priorities into foreign policy goals was so unprecedented that entire books have been written about it, is just “a woman.” Not a feminist, not a liberal, not even herself; just a gender, and the wrong gender, at that. I get the answer whenever, despite Clinton being almost ideologically identical to the current, male President, and for that matter to his equally male Vice-President, people looking to compare her to another politician can somehow only ever do so by comparing her to a woman — usually a dead woman, from an entirely different country, with entirely different, openly conservative politics, and who, by the way, was Margaret fucking Thatcher. Once again, Clinton is just a gender, and the gender is bad. I get the answer every time a guy defines “actual power” for me, and doesn’t include sexism on the list of what “actual power” is. I get the answer continually, as it happens, because somehow, no-one, anywhere, from any part of the political spectrum, will stop bringing up Hillary Clinton’s goddamned vagina." ......
Posted by bloom | Sun May 15, 2016, 09:02 PM (5 replies)
I suppose many Republicans could be like this - that they would not vote for anyone if it came down to Trump vs ?
I think that people underestimate the amount of vitriol that would be directed toward BS if he won the primary. There has not been any real opposition to BS, yet. It does really help Clinton much to oppose him - that mostly works against her.
Hillary has withstood a lot of crap from Republicans. To Republicans, Sanders does not even exist, in any real sense - so they ignore him. They will have to demonize some way if he wins the nomination.
The current poll numbers are based on / include all the crap that has been thrown at Hillary over the years. They do not include what will be thrown at Sanders. Basically - I do not share in the glee of the Sanders group - because we don't know as much about how this could go - as they seem to want to think.
Posted by bloom | Thu Jan 14, 2016, 12:43 PM (2 replies)
While there are, of course, discussion boards with more obnoxiously sexist individuals, this was a virtual place where I came to discuss issues of a political nature - and this is where I learned how sexist people (mostly men) could be. While people here do represent a range of opinions, I would have thought that one could expect liberal people to understand the feminism/sexism dichotomy. I found that that can not be assumed. And I did not start out as knowledgeable as I could have been.
In one forum or another, I learned about various women's experiences that led them to fight for abortion rights.
In other forums, I learned that some people are really clueless about male privilege - clueless about the rape culture - clueless about a lot of things.
I have been led to find people who uncover entrenched patriarchal concepts and I have also been led to find out more about women's suppressed histories. I have discovered concepts of goddesses that were buried, lest people have images of women as powerful archetypes.
I have noticed how women's issues are ignored, how women are made invisible. And I have also noticed many women (including some here on DU) who fight for visibility and equality.
I have come to realize how entrenched male-centered concepts are. There are the ideas about a male God, a male "Santa", and the male philosophers, priests and professors who like the keep the whole male-centered paradigm going. Going back to Hammurabi and Aristotle - these are people who have been and still are held up as human "gods" for various reasons, who were actually very misogynist - openly hateful of women, whose ideas laid much of the groundwork for limiting women.
I have not posted in awhile, but I do appreciate the sort of virtual experience DU offers, as well as the knowledge about what so-called liberal people think about these things - for good and for ill.
Posted by bloom | Tue Dec 31, 2013, 06:02 PM (5 replies)
Go to Page: 1