2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumstonecutter357
(12,682 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Many posts have been hidden on both sides why is DanTex given "martyr" status by some?????
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I also adopted the fly, but not because of Loonix...instead because of the obnoxious fly swatter that seemed to be goading people by laughing about him getting a pizza.
I have since removed that fly from my sig line because it was counter productive...and still is in the sig lines I see sporting it today.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)OK thanks for the reply
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Loonix knew what he was doing and he did it deliberately, knowing he would be banned for it.
You have no right defending him on that.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)anyone I thought you meant that DanTex was banned.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I misread the intent of your post.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)it happens
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,493 posts)be nice to us because the Primary is all but over and they will need us to win.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)They will only need us to blame her loss on.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)like voters you actually hate, just to get their votes'. Thanks for a perfect example of what people will no longer be a party to.
See the last two mid terms.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Just saying. And I've done my share of it.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Don't you know? Some folks cannot handle the truth, no matter how much you document it.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,154 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)from neoconservative third-wayers...
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Unlike Loonix and Manny and others who are no longer here.
We could start the same meme, but we'd have to change the word to resurrect instead of free.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)the comments that got hides were pretty nasty. When people get angry long enough they lose perspective and start losing their shit here. And, they either get a hide, or they get a pizza.
It happens to both sides, so I don't think your free Dantex meme is doing you any favors. I do see a lot of people whining about someone getting hides, or a pizza...but rarely do I see a case where it wasn't deserved.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Apples and oranges.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Maybe you haven't read that last part in awhile.
One more thing: Don't push your luck.
Violation of TOS can end in a time out, not just a pizza. Keep it up long enough and you could get the pizza.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)you are qualified for a time out (rules of the game...maybe you don't want to call them TOS). Do you think that Dantex did not deserve any of those hides?
People will occassionally get a hide for some off the wall comment...sometimes the jury even makes mistakes and misreads the message. Sometimes the jury just sides with or against a member.
But too many hides in a certain time frame is not a "mistake", and it's not a conspriacy. It is obvious that member is pushing the limits of what is acceptable here.
Trying to defend a person who has willingly broken the rules is a waste of time and it makes you look like you are OK with breaking the rules. You don't get to make up rules. The same rules apply to everyone.
I'm not just saying this to you. I'm saying this to all the people who whine and complain about someone getting a time out or a pizza.
We are adults and we should act like adults. Why should not deliberately try to stir up fights, like a troll does. We do get to reply to insults with smileys like winks or eyerolls, but when you go beyond that and deliberately try to egg people into a fight, you are breaking the rules. Dantex knew the rules and community standards, and knew he/she was breaking them.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #86)
BeanMusical This message was self-deleted by its author.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm pretty disgusted with the lack of civility on DU. I don't care which side does it. It's just ugly.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)I'll delete my post.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Who you support does not immunize you to be an ass.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)He made a lot of Sanders supporters angry because he told the truth and backed it up
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Lock, hide, ban and censor all that dare speak against the Hillary. They didn't violate the TOS, they were just a little too outspoken.
Logical
(22,457 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Autumn
(44,755 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You have a winning message there.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)But KICK!
0rganism
(23,855 posts)i'm starting to get used to people using "begs the question" when what they mean is "raises the question", but i haven't gotten there yet -- still find it annoying.
"beg the question" = to assume the truth of the very point raised in a question
although it may be appropriate, as the graphic does nearly as much to "beg the question" as it does to raise it.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)That is a good point, Organism but I'd suggest going with the flow you note in the first para. Language changes - it is inevitable and fighting evolution of meaning is one of the most pointless exercises I can think of (all IMO).
When it takes 300-500 words to explain how the term should be properly deployed, you are not only doomed to lose, but you are rightfully doomed to lose.
And in this specific instance of begging and questions, frankly I'm not even sure the purists are correct in the way its more common usage is being criticized. After all, the faulty, circularly reasoned construction does indeed "raise the question" of where the proof is, no?
From that slippery piece of logic pertaining to the way explanations of the term seem to be framed, it is a completely natural and legitimate (again IMO) application of linguistic prowess to bring the term to bear on other situations that raise some ignored question which undermines the validity of the original claim.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)'that doesn't JIBE' ... I can swallow the misuse of 'begging the question' ...
People who think Alanis Morrissette described the actual meaning of 'irony', though ...
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)"You'll fall in line".
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)bigtree
(85,917 posts)...sad to see you participate in something so base and derogatory.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)dchill
(38,321 posts)It's factual information that causes certain heads to plunge into sand.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)cozying up to Bernie when you put it like that.
Response to sufrommich (Reply #12)
Post removed
oasis
(49,151 posts)Response to oasis (Reply #13)
DUbeornot2be This message was self-deleted by its author.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)uses against anyone in their Party that dares to hold a different opinion. Congratulations.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)no one thinks anyone is stupid, just uninformed. She has been HORRIBLE on issues. She seems like a nice lady, but she always seems to get it wrong on the corporate side, against regular Americans, until after it's all over and the bad results start to hit and then she "evolves". That IS her history. And no rational thinking kind of person can figure out why Hillary supporters are OK with that.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)On what Hillary has done in the past that has made her a popular "known" entity for many voters who support her over Bernie.
Don't assume you know all the answers and that makes you able to discern whom people should be voting for.
I am not getting into the Hillary bashing any more. Yes, I'm against many things she has done and stood for and I'm still supporting Bernie, but I'm beginning to understand the perspective of Hillary supporters who are pissed off at the condescension of Bernie supporters (even if they don't know they are doing it). I know why they are pissed off and I wish they would stand up and express their reasons for supporting Hillary, because, just maybe, I'm not the only one who needs to learn something here today.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Ignorant means that one does not currently know the truth. Stupid means that they cannot comprehend the truth.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)she made $20 million on her book along with Bill Clinton's book.
They are well paid public speakers.
She's a lawyer.
But the fact that she's richer than Bernie means she did something wrong? This is the most blatant distortion I've seen today.
logic 101.
Roland99
(53,342 posts)Where are those transcripts? How long does it take to "look into it"?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)That's when she worked for the Rose law firm - re those mysterious lost billing records. And whatever salary she made there was long gone when they left the White House "dead broke", which was BEFORE they accumulated tens and tens of millions of dollars.
Nope, she's either lived off of Bill's income (a public official/govt. employee) or been employed as an elected official herself. Period!
She got paid those millions for book contracts and speeches in anticipation of quid pro quos if she got back to the Oval Office.
Care to try again?!?!
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)The republicans finally succeeded killing ACORN as ACORN was the group that registered a lot of new voters.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658801/I-never-trusted-polygraph-Hillary-Clinton-LAUGHS-recalls-helped-suspected-child-rapist-walk-free-prosecution-lost-crucial-evidence.html#ixzz41bBgdlFvFollow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook'I never trusted a polygraph again': Hillary Clinton LAUGHS in 30-year-old interview as she recalls how she helped a suspected child rapist walk free after the prosecution lost crucial evidence
Hillary Clinton defended Thomas Alfred Taylor, 41, in 1975 in Fayettville, Arkansas
Then aged 27, Clinton found a loophole in the prosecution case and Taylor walked free
Newly unearthed audio interview from the early 1980s has Clinton discussing the case with Arkansas journalist
Recordings throw into question Clinton's claim to be a champion of women and children's causes
Taylor died in 1992 and his alleged victim is now a drug addict still in Fayettville, Arkansas
The facts are these. In 1975, before she married Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham defended a 41 year old rapist of a 12 year old child in Arkansas court. She was not a public defender. No one ordered her to take the case. An ambitious young lawyer, she was asked by a friend if she would represent the accused, and she agreed. And her defense was successful. Attacking the credibility of the twelve-year-old victim on the one hand, and questioning the chain of evidence on another, Clinton got a plea bargain for her client. He served ten months in prison, and died in 1992. The victim, now 52, has had her life irrevocably altered for the worse. Sometime in the mid 1980s, for an Esquire profile of rising political stars, Hillary Clinton and her husband agreed to a series of interviews with the Arkansas journalist Roy Reed. Reed and Hillary Clinton discussed at some length her defense of the child rapist, and in the course of that discussion she bragged and laughed about the case, implied she had known her client was guilty, and said her faith in polygraphs was forever destroyed when she saw that her client had taken one and passed. Reeds article was never published. His tapes of the interviews were later donated to the University of Arkansas. Where they remained, gathering dust.Not long ago, in 2012, the Washington Post ran an extensive investigation into the troubling incidents of Mitt Romneys prep-school days, whereupon the media devoted hour after hour to the all-important discussion of whether Willard M. Romney had been something of a child bully. Here, though, we have a newly unearthed recording of Hillary Clinton laughing out loud over her defense of a child rapist and plenty of outlets have ignored the story altogether. The difference? As the Newsday editor said: It might have an impact.
No matter your view of Hillary Clinton, no matter your position on legal ethics, the recording of the Reed interview is news. It tells us something we did not already know. It tells us that, when her guard was down, Clinton found the whole disturbing incident a trifling and joking matter. And the fact that so many supposedly sophisticated and au courant journalists and writers have dismissed the story as nothing more than an attorney doing her job is, I think, equally disturbing. Dana Bash to the contrary notwithstanding, Hillary Clinton was not forced to take on Taylor as a client. It was her choice and not, for her, a hard one. Certainly that complicates our understanding of the former first lady as an unrelenting defender and advocate of women and girls. Lets even concede that Clinton was just doing her job. What makes that job exempt from inquiry and skepticism and criticism? Yes, Mumia, Bill Ayers, and child rapists have the right to legal representation. But that does not give the lawyers who represent them the right the entitlement to public office. If it is fair to attack a candidate because he used to travel with the family dog on the roof of his car or because he may have forcibly subjected a fellow student to a haircut, then it is entirely fair, it is more than fair, to attack a candidate for defending the rapist of a twelve-year-old girl, and for laughing about it a decade later.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380880/hillarys-child-rapist-defense-matthew-continetti
LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)that up from the bottom of the right wing flying monkey cage to fling at a democrat.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Clinton graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. The following year she moved with her then-boyfriend Bill Clinton to Little Rock, Ark., where she took a job at the University of Arkansas Law School. In 1975, at the age of 27, she took the case representing Thomas Alfred Taylor, 41, who was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Taylor, who was charged with first degree rape, had requested a female attorney. Hillary Clinton defended him and got him a lesser charge of unlawful fondling of a minor under the age of 14. According to a Newsday investigation, what should have been a five-year sentence, was reduced to four years of probation and a year in county jail, with two months taken off for time he had already served.
What has Hillary Clinton said about the trial?
Hillary Clinton wrote about the trial in her 2003 autobiography, "Living History." In the book, Clinton defended taking on the client, saying that while at first she "didn't feel comfortable," she realized that as an attorney she had "an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law."
Did Clinton take the case voluntarily or was she appointed by the court?
In "Living History," Clinton wrote that the criminal court judge appointed her, and that she "couldn't very well refuse the judge's request." The 2008 Newsday story quotes then-Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson who refers to her as being "appointed by the Circuit Court of Washington County." However, in the newly-released audio tapes Clinton says a prosecutor for the case asked to take the case "as a favor to him."
What else has been written about it?
In 2008, during the height of her presidential primary campaign, Newsday published an in-depth story about Clinton's involvement with the trial. Newsday argued that Clinton's account in "Living History" left out "a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim." She reportedly sent an affidavit during the trial requesting the girl undergo a psychiatric examination at the university's clinic, and without offering any source, alleged that the victim had often sought older men. The case, Newsday claimed, "offers a glimpse into the way Clinton deals with crisis. Her approach, then and now, was to immerse herself in even unpleasant tasks with a will to win."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/hillary-clinton-dogged-by-1975-rape-case/
Young Hillary Clinton heard laughing while discussing her defense of an accused child rapist in newly discovered audio tapes
Decades before she was a senator and Secretary of State, a 27-year-old Clinton was a court-appointed attorney who helped get an Arkansas man accused of raping a 12-year-old girl off the hook. In recently unearthed tapes, Clinton, who suggests she felt her client was guilty, is heard discussing her role in the controversial case with cavalier ease and laughter.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/young-hillary-clinton-heard-laughing-discussing-defense-acc
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,686 posts)Rose Law Firm is headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is the third oldest law firm in the United States and the oldest west of the Mississippi River.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)She of course had failed the DC bar, so any work she did for the Watergate committee was not as a licensed attorney. She passed the Arkansas bar exam, but with no advanced law degree, such as a LL.M, or any actual experience as a licensed attorney, she was amazingly handed a job on the faculty of the Arkansas law school. Still without any work history or actual experience as a licensed attorney, Rose hired her. And then promoted her to partner after only one year. For those who aren't familiar with the process, new attorneys are expected to put in at least 60 hour weeks and at least 5 years before being made partner.
Once she hooked her wagon to Bill's rising political star, she had everything handed to her.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)In prior threads I have posted the following:
"HRC rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law) like many, many woman from Seven Sister/Ivy League schools. After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's perhaps true... 20 years ago. But recall that Marians husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clintons Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. Has anyone heard from the Edelmans yet in this 2016 cycle? While they may tacitly support HRC... since they both worked with RFK, I hope they do not demean or disgrace themselves by engaging in the ugly tones of the surrogate chorus.
After leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women from my generation say could have done anything, been anything on her own
did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. He had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boys State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive remarks about baking cookies.
And when she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart that champion of women and children and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.
She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of women and children. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Act and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all...
Hillary is nothing, and would have been nothing, without powerful men around or behind her. Her experience is largely derived from having married Bill; and her judgment when she has wielded power has been awful."
However, the responses I got were rather harsh. Thus, I am so glad to see someone else who recognizes her as an empty suit with a horrendous record!
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)The resume she's so proud of is a list of positions she was handed because of Bill. Even her so-called feminism is fake.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I believe Bernie Sanders will win this primary and then the general electiopn through the strength of his convictions and by force of his personality, much as Shakespeare described the leadership of strong medieval kings like Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt.
Morale in the English line as they looked upon the overwhelming force of heavily armoured, highly skilled French knights must have been extremely low. King Henry, rising to the occasion, spoke words of encouragement that rallied the English troops and carried them to a victory. As a result of the victory the French Princess Catherine was betrothed to Henry V, and France and England were at peace for the remainder of Henry's life.
Although the speech below is a work of fiction, it is evocative of the spirit with which Henry--and all strong medieval kings--ruled through the strength of their convictions and by force of their personality.
St. Crispen's Day Speech
William Shakespeare, 1599
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
http://gonderzone.org/Library/Knights/crispen.htm
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)from the Corp Media and Hillary's campaign to try to make him quit. He never quits, good luck to those who are hoping to 'end this nightmare' so she can then 'reach out to Bernie's supporters who HER supporters have spent the past year attacking viciously'. Good luck with that also. I will be supporting him to the Convention and beyond and will never 'unite', was that her word, with people who have shown themselves to be so vile.
HubertHeaver
(2,520 posts)She was most certainly referring to the Stepford Wives type of personality. They have their gatherings, or 'Teas', where they each supply their very own signature cookie (prepared, no doubt, by a maid or nanny) that is tiny, intricate, and inedible.
I did not see her particular crowd but, from the derision in her voice, I think that is the type she had in mind.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)But then I was more of a Toll House - chocolate chip or Slice'nBake cookie, kind of working single Mom except at Christmas time when the kids and I made stacks of cut out sugar cookies, sat around the kitchen table, decorating the hell out of them, and then hung them on the Christmas tree to be eaten at leisure. Good times!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)angrychair
(8,593 posts)Her and Bill went from "flat broke" (their words) to taking in over $250,000,000 in 13 years. Mostly in the form of speeches and Bill working for a shady for-profit college corporation.
HRC has made more in speeches to Wall St organizations since she left the SoS position than Sanders has made his entire life.
This is awkward at best.
Raster
(20,996 posts)Jeezums! Those must be some POWERFUL speeches... and expensive to boot!
"HRC has made more in speeches to Wall St organizations since she left the SoS position than Sanders has made his entire life."
I am sure there is absolutely NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHATSOEVER!
amborin
(16,631 posts)to donations to her campaign and the Clinton Foundation
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)when you actually look at her record. Have none of you actually seen that old video of Elizabeth Warren telling the story about the bankruptcy bill? It is the most stark and clear example of the influence of money in politics and she is on the corporate side against regular Americans.
How can anyone look at that and keep making excuses for Hillary.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)Over the last decade, it's gotten really, really odd, and I can't be that. I also can't begrudge someone financial success.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And the Clintons weren't handed it like the Frump-a-dump-Trump. They earned it.
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)All this talk is not about begrudging anyone their financial success. The POINT is that they got that money by SELLING OUT the American people to corporations.
If you go out and invent a new gadget that makes your gas mileage double and get rich from that -- Hurray for you!
But if you go out and sell out your neighbors to defraud them. . it is a COMPLETELY different thing.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)My god, how the money rolls in!
Carolina
(6,960 posts)Cobalt Violet
(9,905 posts)That really does sum it up.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)her supporters probably see Judas as a misunderstood figure as well, and would find little wrong with the way in which he got those silver pieces.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)thank you
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)40RatRod
(531 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 29, 2016, 06:24 PM - Edit history (1)
thanks.
(this is in response to the 40 pieces of silver)
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Everyone knows that money in politics corrupts, but the Democrats think it doesn't corrupt THEM because they KNOW about it.
Yea, just like eating only makes THEM fat and doesn't make US fat because we know it makes you fat.
Does anyone believe that? I got a bridge . . . .
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)No...More...Clintons.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I'm picturing Bill as Indie in a fedora with a bull whip, and Hillary as Irina Spalko.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A0LEVjXK4NRWLU8AZJAnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=photo+warehouse+Indiana+Jones+Crystal+Skull&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dphoto%2Bwarehouse%2BIndiana
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)People don't pay you that kind of money for no reason.
I realize that some of the income is from book revenue, but where did the rest of it come from????
People don't pay that kind of money for no reason. They expect something in return.
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Trying to pretend that the OP is over the top and they would never say anything like this about Sanders.
I guess if their talking about factual posts their right, but they just lie and distort to do so.
kjones
(1,053 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)That, and riding coach.
No true Democrat would ever inherit money (like JFK or FDR) or make money for themselves (like, apparently, the Clintons and a few others we could name).
No true Democrat. But then, Bernie has proven himself pure by never being one until quite recently.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But apparently they can't figure out why he's not winning. Odd. Isn't it?
Carolina
(6,960 posts)We think Bernie is better. Big difference.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Lots of familiar names there.
And the headline at the top of the page is "The Idiocy of Bernie Sanders Supporters"
But hey, no condescension or moral superiority there, right?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)mountain grammy
(26,569 posts)You asked!
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)community was for Hillary, can I assume...........
???????????????
That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)Did you forget the sarcasm tag??????
The OP couldn't have anything to do with it being the day before Super Tuesday??????
Speaking only for myself, when I hear someone supports Clinton my first thought is why, not their race. The only people whose support for Clinton I don't question are Democratic voters who think $250,000 a year in income is a fingernail grip on the lower rungs of the middle class ladder, and Wall Street/finance industry types. I completely understand why they support her.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They just don't care.
Military coup in Honduras? Don't care.
Campaign soaking in corporate money? Don't care.
Destroyed the lives of millions of Libyans? Don't care. Gloated about it on national TV? Don't care.
Helped Bush invade Iraq? Don't care.
Helped prisons make a profit from incarcerated minorities? Don't care.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Back in the days when they were doves and anti-establishment and for the poor.
Sad, really.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I think their liberalism is nanometers thin. When the Other Tribe is in office, they get energized and righteous about "No War for Oil!" and "Tax the Rich!", but that's just convenient posturing to make the Other Tribe look bad.
When Our Tribe is in office, the wars for oil become "regrettable, but necessary" and taxing the rich turns into "you want free stuff!"
Our Tribe can do any despicable thing it wants, and they will cheer it and clamor for more.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)How so many here can now justify or excuse the exact things that they condemned during the Bush years is ridiculous.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There is a reason this propaganda has been catapulted so intensely.
This one phrase excuses the Democrats from ever actually doing anything.
When they turn the pages of history
when these days have passed long ago
will they read of us with sadness
for the seeds that we let grow?
We turned our gaze from the castles in the distance
eyes cast down on the path of least resistance.
-Rush, "A Farewell to Kings"
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)any questions about why they support those issues, or why anybody should vote for a candidate who supported them. I've seen OP after OP sink like a stone asking for a cogent defense of such villainy.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They don't believe that things can get better, and are only concerned with not making things worse.
They are political nihilists.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)Fracking? Don't care.
Expedience over principle? Don't care.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)and that's why I can never, and will never, align myself with people like that.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)she could run as a Republican, because her ideals and the ideals of her followers sound completely RW. And before anyone jumps on this both my parents were sane Republicans, I didn't agree on everything but I could see how their philosophy worked for them.
I totally believe that because that party imploded and there was a massive exodus to this party, we have had to experience being restructured to match the moderate Republican ideology.
In order that all Americans reclaim their voice is to find accurate representation to petition the government directly, right? So as an example, either the Social (FDR) Democrats form a group or the Third Way declare themselves an entity unto themselves (instead of forcing the party to conform to their ideology) we could get back to work on the problems of the day, like climate change and starving people and people being shot and stuff.
But we can't allow the PTB to restructure the party from the top to serve themselves, that is exactly backwards--it is us who tell them who we are. Because this is not working, the whole country just fighting it out in one party, this is nuts.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, Playinghardball.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)For the masses (that is, those of us outside the power circles), watching "Punch" beat up on "Judy" (or vice versa) is like watching James West rough up a bunch of outlaws. Our good guy is opening the whoop-ass on their bad guy(s)! But for the puppeteers behind the curtain, it doesn't matter whether Punch or Judy wins.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Along with anger and victimhood, they are the fuels of the Sanders campaign.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)street gambling with the American taxpayer there to bail them out when they crash the economy again, monopolies, charter schools, privatization of everything,etc I say, well, I say what the OP says.
You are the victim. Of the long con. They're laughing all the way to the bank...wait they own the banks...all the way to Monte Carlo on their yachts....dreaming of when they can replace us all with robots most likely. Everyone's got a dream!
dana_b
(11,546 posts)They never respond to responses like yours. Hmmmm...
INdemo
(6,994 posts)The Karl Rove way.....
David Brock, John Podesta,Bill Clinton..and there are many more ...that is where the hate is and they get paid well for it by Hillary
Amazing cycle.
The Nixon plumbers were Saints compared to these guys.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)
with Doug Hemwood, the author of "My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency" and my head is spinning.
She's got real blood on her hands, far beyond the Iraq war vote.
There's the way the Clintons profited form the (non)-rebuilding of Haiti. Worked to surpress the raising of the minimum wage for garment workers which was $5/ a day (not $5 an hourbut a day) because of corporations who were donating to the Clinton Foundation.
And the coup in Honduras.
As SOS she pressured Mexico to open its waters to oil companiesbreaking with its own Constitution which had forbidden that for one hundred years.
And then, back to Iraqshe refused to read the full briefing to Congress in which the final assessment was that Saddam did not have WMD. She instead made a speech linking him overtly with Al Qaida. Which was patently untrue. She. Would. Not. Read. The. Full. Briefing.
All this is well researched and sourced.
To hear the full interview go: to https://kpfa.org/player/?audio=225249
If that doesn't work, go to KPFA.org and look for UpFront. You can listen to the broadcast on-line. It's hair-raising.
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)is that all you got
facts just do not work when you are talking to republicans and some others
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)That included fly-by diplomacy of landing for an hour in some country on her bucket list, and meeting AT THE AIRPORT some clueless local officials driven in for the privilege of meeting with her.
And on her longer visits to various countries she preached and pushed for opening countries for Big Energy fracking or new trade partnership agreements. She was often acting as a Chamber of Commerce-type proponent for big corporations, rather than dealing with international crises or diplomacy.
Same for the Clinton foundation - in earthquake devastated Haiti, it "facilitated" (while skimming a percentage off the top of the financial support) building a luxury hotel, industrial parks, docks, roads, electric power sources for corporate manufacturing - i.e., infrastructure for international business investors - leaving tens of thousands homeless and hundreds of thousands more living in thrown together shanties with no electricity, water supply, plumbing.
When it comes to promoting corporate exploitation of dirt cheap labor sources in 3rd world countries, the Clinton Foundation is a full service operation. It's not enough to provide labor for under a dollar per hour, the Clinton Family Foundation will also "facilitate" schools and medical clinics - because it's good business to have minimally educated workers -have to be able to read directions and write up reports; and also healthy workers to reduce costly labor turnover. If there's a way to squeeze a dollar out of disaster, the Clintons are masters of the game.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)It's so true and so disturbing. The Clintons are really better than Rove at controlling their narrative.
Thanks for the information.
It needs to spread.
I have to say this again. Words don't adequately express how disappointing it is for me that the Democratic Party has pushed her candidacy on us. She is one corrupt republican.
We're supposed to be the transparent good guys with strong moral compasses.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)We expect it from the party of GoldwaterNixonReaganBush, but we're supposed to be the the party of FDR, the "good guys" as you say.
The hypocrisy and corruption is really painful.
Still sending money to Bernie, but it's depressing today.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)randr
(12,408 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)Thank you so much for opening my eyes to my ignorance with this utterly convincing post. I guess I didn't realize how ignorant I have been because I'm so ignorant!
You must be the wisest person on earth!