Sound of silence from Hillary supporters...

[Avalon Sparks]

Been reading posts a couple months, noticed silence from the Hillary supporters.


Why do t they comment on her war mongering ever? To defend or dispute....silence.

The other issue is Hillarys plan for Social Security - will she privatize, raise age limit or lower benefits, mean test? All of her non- supporters feel certain she will change it for the worse.

No comment from her supporters here.

[choie]

1. they never discuss her policies.

n/t

[Avalon Sparks]

2. Why do you think that is?

So I'm not the first one to notice that.

[beedle]

5. You can't strongly defend a policy

that she will likely completely flip on any second.

[Hortensis]

181. 1. If you guys didn't criticize HRC,

I'd have to because there are things I don't like. But, to put it mildly, there is no need for additional criticism here.

2. Defending Hillary to people determined to believe lies and to knee-jerk reject all possibility that the lies are not true is a complete 100% waste of time. Although I'm sure we've all invested some time doing just that before giving up.

3. Discussing policy. I refer you to Deedle's comment here, to my #2, and to Avalon Sparks on Social Security. I know I and others discussed that one issue alone many times, and I've posted her SS position here several times.

I like to think the many visitors who don't post made those not complete wastes of time, but presenting information to hostile BSers here absolutely is.

As productive as spitting into the wind.

September 19 (1 week): NY primary!

[Fumesucker]

6. The Hillary Group is where they discuss policy

I think you'll find it enlightening.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

[Avalon Sparks]

29. Ok thank you, hadn't thought of that

[SwampG8r]

60. More ops there about bernie than hillary

Odd
Almost every thread has some version of bern or bernie in the title
Its like a bizzaro bernie group on bizzaro du
No offence to the bizzaros intended

[highprincipleswork]

79. No policy at all that I see. Just hero worship and foe-bashing. Wishing for a wake-up call.

[bvf]

81. *snerk*

[Avalon Sparks]

94. Thanks for sharing

I read the exchange and see your point.

I clearly remember back in 2001 when every single DUer was horrified by Patriot Act.

I guess some were just agaisnt it cause the Pugs supported it and implemented it.

I'm interested in hearing why that changed for some Dems.

[U4ikLefty]

148. I guess they're not pretending to support Bernie anymore. nt

[Agschmid]

31. I've tried several times but the threads turn into a food fight.

IMO it's not worth it anymore.

[TheFarseer]

70. totally correct

I have asked several times for a reason to vote for her and all I get is "she's going to win" or "she has the most experience" Neither is a reason to vote for someone IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. policies?

yeah, good luck on that.

[Desert805]

3. This place has gone full Bizarro World.

Up is down, in is out, and war mongering and financial corruption are simply awesome.


Head in the Sand 2016!

[Avalon Sparks]

8. So they support her...

But offer no commentary on Hillarys policies.

Not quite a good idea if they want to sway minds.

[choie]

14. they feel it's "her turn"...

it's the cult of personality, truly. They don't give a shit about her policies, her lies or her corruption. Some, however, probably agree with her Neocon bullshit, which they know will not go over too well on this site.

[BreakfastClub]

168. No "they" don't. And do you know what projection is? nt

[NastyRiffraff]

180. Cult of personality? LOL!

That from a SANDERS supporter? Are you kidding? Should there have been a sarcasm smilie?

[cui bono]

196. No, because Sanders supporters support what he fights for, what he stands for. Hillary supporters

can't even list what policies they think she is better on than Bernie. And if they do they show how they have thrown all their principles out the window.

I don't know one Bernie supporter on here who can't list a bunch of issues they agree with him on, especially more than Hillary.

.

[HillareeeHillaraah]

24. There are minds to be swayed...here.....seriously?

ya, no...

[Avalon Sparks]

27. Any comments or views to share on the post topic?

[HillareeeHillaraah]

35. Discussing policy in GDP ....

Is just chumming the waters...

It rarely ends well and certainly doesn't change minds or Clinton's delegate lead.

Why bother at this point?

[Avalon Sparks]

48. Actually because I don't see anything that's more important then policy stances

And past political actions.

Everything else is just distraction.

Despite months of reading posts I wasn't able to tell whether Hillary supporters are for the war and what I see as possible harmful changes to SS, at least to my bottom line.

Or against war and detrimental changes to SS.

It sounds like the ones posting in this thread are the latter and you don't believe Hillary will promote these things.

[Kittycat]

127. She stood up to 11 hrs of Republican questions

So she doesn't have to answer for anything else.

Like why Bill seemed to earn commission on her arms deals. Or why they have 5 shell companies, while she claims she will put an end to "ultra rich" using them. I could go on, but what's the point really.

[Avalon Sparks]

149. I saw that and thought she did a very good job

I was impressed.

The Repug witch hunt was lame in my opinion, and unnessary.

I know you're a fellow Bernie supporter, but I am interested in hearing what her supporters believe about the two policies. I think I learned a lot on this thread.

Neither candidate is all bad or all good.

I've only recently learned about Third Wave and DLC, I've read Third Waves web site a couple of times. It seemed to have a lot of News Speak on it.

I usually held the belief that Repubs were gonna screw middle class and poor, and Democrats threw us some crumbs. I never thought to question why that is until recently.

I personally am doing alright, always have, although a little less so under Repubs. In fact when I watched the early Repub debates I was screaming at the TV how they were lying about his bad the country was.

Recently I stepped out of my bubble and started to realize how little thought I gave to the less fortunate, or what their struggles might be. Then Flint happened, and I was amazed at the reaction of are government leaders, namely not much.

If it could happen there it could happen anywhere in this country.

I've explored the claims of plutocracy and I simply can't find evidence to dispute it.

I actually wish I had just gone about unaware, because now I'm stressed and also angry about a lot of the things Bernie is talking about. I'll never look at our two party system the same way again.

[Zira]

157. +10000

And frankly, who wants to hear from them. After their all out defense of Reagan, it's par with listening to Reagonites.

[Buzz Clik]

4. HRC has explained her regret for the vote, but also has explained why she voted as she did:

Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

It will NEVER be enough for you, but we're satisfied with that answer. (I was leaning toward Sanders when she made that comment. I accepted it then, just as I do now.)

[beedle]

9. Poor judgement

and triangulation causes unnecessary flip-flops.

There's no sign she has changed her ways when to comes to these things.

[Avalon Sparks]

10. I don't worry about the past vote

Thanks for the comment, I'm talking about what she has said recently on continuing with the endless war strikes, bombing and regime change, and her comment about being like Kissinger.

As a Dem Buzz Clik, do you support war and if not do you think Clinton will stop the War on terror.



What about social security?

[Buzz Clik]

30. Well, okay:

1. Endless war strikes. This is so incredibly complicated. Yes, we are far too involve in these, but not all are unnecessary. Drawing the line is really, really. But, in my opinion, we need at least some. (vague answer -- sorry)
   
2. War on terror. Again, our policy appears to have a record of failure. But, if we are not pro-active and aggressive, the alternative is endless mourning over our losses.
   
3. Social security. She's not going to privatize social security. Ever.
   
4. Kissinger. Kissinger is my least favorite SoS in my lifetime, but it's also the crappiest job on the planet; they are blamed for every inevitable failure. I honestly don't think HRC ran the State Department in the likeness of Henry Kissinger. I'm not going to pillory her based on guilty by association.

[Avalon Sparks]

52. Thanks for the thoughtful response, I appreciate it..

Particularly on number 3......

What about her raising the age, limiting benefits and means testing.

I saw her campaign page and her thoughts on the issue. It doesn't have details, I was expecting for Dems to push to raise cap as a solution.... Any other option would mean I'm likely to get the shaft ...

I read an article today that said she promised not to raise age or cut benefit amount. The article claimed that might be true in a sense, but she could combine both solutions together calling it something else. I guess if she came right out and said she would try to raise caps, I'd be good with that.

I swear I'm not trying to convince you not to support her, however I do wonder what makes you fully trust she won't mess with SS in A bad way.

You're saying the same claims were made over and over about Obama? I wasn't here for that, but that does make me feel somewhat less stressed. He's had the repuke co gross for years if he wanted to push those kinda changes through.

[All in it together]

62. Well Obama did try to make cuts in cost of living increases for SS in a deal with Repubs

But he backed down when Democrats(the people) pushed back.

[Avalon Sparks]

65. Good, I wasn't aware of that

Wasn't paying attention then, thought Obama had my back

[Buzz Clik]

67. Lots of folks are worried about their SS. Something will have to happen to find the funds...

... but I think we will.

[Avalon Sparks]

71. It is an issue even Repubs don't want to push

So yah, were probably ok.

[Buzz Clik]

72. ..

It's been a pleasure.

[Avalon Sparks]

77. You too!

[bettyellen]

109. She actually has discussed expanding SS to be available for unpaid family care givers.

Never heard her talk about cutting or means testing it.

[Avalon Sparks]

113. I heard that..

The op-Ed I read that included that reccomended to be wary, questioning where the extra money will come from,

Claimed she might increase age and lower payouts through means testing and call it something else.

Her campaign we page about this issue says exactly what I agree with.

It is definitely my own problem for questioning the sincerity of not just her but most politicians.

I hope I'm wrong and she stands behind her statements on her web site.

[bettyellen]

116. I get being totally cynical. On the issues of lifting women and children out of poverty (and they

are the poorest among us, by far) she has a very good platform and from her prior work do believe she is sincere about doing as much as she can along those lines. Anyone telling you she is planning gone cutting it or means testing is basically putting out their own theories and presenting them as the truth.

[Avalon Sparks]

119. Thanks!

[bettyellen]

121. No problem. I usually do not bother replying because I have seen a load of crazy speculation

pass for facts around here. And no matter what you say, instead of a "thanks" you get 5-6 rude paragraphs cut and pasted as a reply. Not worth it.

Appreciate your civil demeanor. Truly I do.

[Avalon Sparks]

125. You as well

Thanks for posting!

[bettyellen]

126. You are welcome. I guess you can see a lot of people are fed up with the repetitive crap.....

these last few weeks it's all been about voter suppression. Something Hillary and other good Dems (including Bernie) have been fighting the GOP against for many years. And is basically a local issue. But you know how it is, Hillary's fault. Oh dear.

[choie]

17. Just the fact that she believed that asshole

shows poor judgment. She pandered to the patriotic masses who were hyped up with war fever at the time, even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

[leveymg]

143. If she can be snookered by the likes of Shrub on the IWR vote

that says something about her own lack of curiosity. Or else, she's just lying about that, and just wanted to go war but that little venture failed so she's had to pull back on that. Either way, disqualified from the Presidency.

[bvf]

166. Uh...

"...we're satisfied with that answer."

Was that the royal "we" you used there, or are you speaking for all Clinton supporters?

Seems either stilted or presumptuous, depending on your answer.

[JoePhilly]

7. She's not a warmonger ... won't cut SS ... next.

You guys run around making all kinds of wild accusations and then demand that we convince the perpetually disgruntled to support Hillary over "not-hillary" ... its a waste of time.

We focus on getting our people to vote.

You guys spend your time on ineffective, often rather silly, attacks.

btw ... the folks on DU who are SURE Hillary will cut SS are the same folks who spent every year of the Obama administration predicting that HE was about to cut SS.

[Avalon Sparks]

13. I'm not trying to slur...

Ok so you don't support those changes I mentioned to SS, you don't think she will implement any of them.

[JoePhilly]

20. Nope, won't happen.

The GOP will try to make changes ... and Hillary, like Obama, will allow them to construct the noose, and then dare them to try and hang themselves.

Bill Clinton dared the GOP to try. Obama dared the GOP to try. Did cuts happen ... no.

Its not happening. Dems daring the GOP to go after SS is an old tactic.

[Avalon Sparks]

32. Thanks for posting

I wish I could believe that, and I hope it's true.

I'll be hitting SS shortly right around 2030 so it's an important issue for me.

So is fracking because there are about 100 fracking sites all around me.

[All in it together]

66. Hillary wants to means test SS

Which will give Repubs an excuse to get rid of it, cause it's for the poor after that.

[senz]

134. Means testing SS turns it into a welfare program.

It would destroy it.

[yallerdawg]

34. And the next OP will be...

Hillary is a warmonger and wants to gut Social Security - and where are the Hillary supporters?

[msongs]

11. war mongering bernie is the one still voting to spend ever more on killing nt

[EndElectoral]

73. Wow....do you know what the difference is between voting for the AUMF and keeping troops alive?

[VulgarPoet]

172. Those people will never understand. I've yet to meet a serviceman who supports Hillary.

It's probably the great divide between military democrats and civilian democrats; and yes, in this instance? I mean "civilian" with every ounce of derision I can pack into each pixel.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. Hillary loves black people, even when her and her husband go out of their way to be racist.

The double standard is hard to watch.

[hill2016]

15. I don't think she will privatize Social Security.

However according to existing law, Social Security benefits are cut automatically when the trust fund runs out. This is estimated to be in 2034 at which point benefits are cut automatically by about 21%.

[Avalon Sparks]

19. Thanks Hill2016

So what woukd you reccomend to fix that?

I'm not trying to sway votes, I am curious.

For me it's a no brainier, raise the cap.

I make about 20k less then current cap, so of course it wouldn't effect me.

I can't see why anyone making less then current cap would argue against that.

[hill2016]

54. in my opinion it would take a combination of ways to fix it

I would support a combination of (1) raising the cap (2) raising the payroll tax rate (3) tweaking the benefits formula.

[Avalon Sparks]

64. I agree 100% with that

It's what her campaign site says too.

I wish I could believe her, the Third Wave and DLC allegations has me questioning if that's what she really means.

I think that is the biggest hurdle for Clinton to get support from Dems like me.
I agree with almost everything on her solutions for issues on her website, I just have a hard time believing it's what she really will fight for.

[All in it together]

68. What does tweaking mean to you?

[hill2016]

76. some people are going to have to

pay more and get less out of the system.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. No, I mean if Dubya couldn't pull that off, neither can she.

The question is more about the philosophical committment to the program.

Maybe if she took some of the billions of dollars we spend filling prisons with pot smokers, the numbers might add up better.

[Hoyt]

138. I think all Dems support Social Security. I agree too many folks in prison. BUT, let's be real.

Nowadays, someone who just smokes pot, is not imprisoned. No way. If true, I might consider stopping to look for someone who'll sell me some.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. The vast majority of the drug war expenditures go towards "fighting" pot smoking.

That is a simple, statistical, fact.

The idea that "oh, we really don't lock up most of the people who smoke pot" - no shit. They couldn't if they wanted to, even though some- like Debbie Wasserman Schultz- clearly DO want to put all the pot smokers in prison.

But it's not feasible, duh. What, someone wants a fucking medal for that?

There are like sixty million of them, or something. One is too many.



Meanwhile, legalization works AND increases tax revenue. Something to think about when people bleat on and on about how "there's nothing we can do for social security come 2030 or so except make old folks eat cat food"

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oregon-marijuana-idUSKCN0WL04I

[Hoyt]

142. I'm for legalization. But truth is, no one is imprisoned nowadays for simply smoking pot.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Keep telling yourself that.

It sure seems a lot of people are getting arrested for it.

http://norml.org/legal/item/war-against-marijuana-consumers

Our country's war on drugs places great emphasis on arresting people for smoking marijuana. In the last decade, 6.5 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana charges, a greater number than the entire populations of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming combined. In 2012, state and local law enforcement arrested 749,825 people for marijuana violations.

The overwhelming majority of those charged with marijuana violations in 2012 -- 658,231 Americans (87 %) -- were for simple possession.

But even if your point were true, or mostly true, or partly true, that only points up how wildly out of sync the law is with reality, and should make coming out for common-sense reform that much easier for those who purport to be our "leaders".

In Texas, before the Lawrence decision, I suspect there were lots of gay couples who engaged in consensual adult sex in the privacy of their own homes, despite the fact that it was then illegal. Did that make the law okay- ethically, morally- that it was unenforceable, or only occasionally enforced? No, it did not.

The drug war is a failure, pure and simple. Only one candidate has come out and called it such. Hillary Clinton's token approach to federal marijuana reform; to move it from Schedule I to II- will have little real world legislative impact other than to potentially make it easier for big pharma to patent highly profitable cannabis derivatives. Recreational AND Medical users will still be at the mercy of any future DOJ that decides to crack down.

And I suppose it's okay for granny to go to prison if she decides to grow her own plant to ease her chemo nausea, instead of buy a bag of weed on the black market? Because that DOES happen, with distressing regularity.

[Fumesucker]

162. Bullshit, the drug war in no way shape or form is a failure...

The drug war has done and is continuing to do exactly what it was and is designed to do. We have it straight from Tricky Dicky's henchman on that only a few days ago.

The drug war is a raging success at punishing minorities and those who don't buy into the Republican vision for America, that's all it was ever intended to do.

[Warren DeMontague]

163. Good point.

Although I think Ehrlichman (if that's what you're talking about) copped to all that stuff in reality in an interview in the early 90s, even.

It's just taken this long for the larger culture to be ready to hear it, I guess.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

[Fumesucker]

165. Thanks for not taking me the wrong way

Swimming in the septic tank that is GD-P leaves me a bit snarky and short sometimes.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Ha, I hear that.

But you're one of the voices that helps keep this place tolerable.

[druidity33]

198. That there's some BULL hockey!

Some states have "decriminalized", but people still go to jail for it, and in the South it will always be the "demon weed" to the Authorities. Sometimes you don't get busted for smoking pot but the pot got you noticed by the authorities and they found they could arrest you for something else...

[Matt_R]

175. I was able to listen in on a "police training" seminar in my city...

They are going after the pot smokers. In fact 3 pot arrests become a felony according to the speaker.

[SidDithers]

16. 1310 to 1094...nt

Sid

[Yurovsky]

23. You would think all that dirty corporate money could've bought a bigger lead....

but I guess if you're as thoroughly unlikeable as HRC, you can never have enough money.

[yallerdawg]

41. How about...

Hillary 1,787 - Sanders 1,132.

Counting ALL the delegates. How's that dirty corporate money for the unlikable candidate?

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-PU.phtml

[Avalon Sparks]

25. I have no idea what your post means

[uponit7771]

87. +1

[DanTex]

18. She won't cut or privatize SS, and she's not warmongering.

What happens is, Hillary-bashers post the same lies over and over, so one gets bored of responding to them 20 different times.

[Avalon Sparks]

21. Ok so you think she won't do those things

But you do not support them either.

[DanTex]

26. No, I don't support cutting SS or warmongering

[JoePhilly]

22. + 1

[redstateblues]

130. Ain't that the truth.

[RufusTFirefly]

203. Jeffrey Sachs says Hillary is the candidate of the war machine

Jeffrey Sachs: Hillary is the Candidate of the War Machine

Is he simply a "Hillary basher."?

His impressive credentials indicate otherwise

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He is the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership. He has twice been named among Time Magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time Magazine “the world’s best known economist.” A recent survey by The Economist Magazine ranked Professor Sachs as among the world’s three most influential living economists of the past decade

[seabeyond]

28. Why? The discussion has been had and you do not listen. How many times do you want the

discussion so you can ignore what is said and jump up and down yelling warmonger, baby killer?

[Avalon Sparks]

33. Thanks for posting

I'm going by her SOS actions and her comments about Kissinger.

Personally, I believe the War on "terror" has created more terrorists. I'm for covert solutions.

I think there is serious invoice padding, and the wot is a cash cow for defense industry.

What are your thoughts about it?

[seabeyond]

38. I think Obama and by extension, Clinton have diligently worked on this issue

and continue to this day in a measured, responsible and informed manner.

[Bohemianwriter]

111. Clinton's policies in the ME has cost the lives of thousands of women and children...

Their drone strikes policy is terrorism by definition since they kill far more civilians than "real enemies".

She is not a responsible person regarding wars, and have failed to see the total fiasco against Gadaffi and Syria.
She has attacked Obama (in the Hillary camp, the same as being anti-Obama if Bernie did the same) on Iran, having pondered war against Iran, and have gone behind Obama's back and secretly supported the illegal military coup in Honduras.
In this matter, she is not far off from being a republican.

Not measured, or responsible actions of someone who wants to be commander in chief. She is way too hotheaded in lack experience from real wars to make any educated decision about it.
Bernie might not have served himself, but at least he has been far more principled regarding wasted wars.

To put it like this, the one with the least blemishes and most consistent with their values on their resumes is the most qualified for the job as commander in chief.

[seabeyond]

132. Sanders said himself he too would use drones.

There hasn't been a military bill or action he hasn't supported but one. He is no dove.

[Bohemianwriter]

136. In comparison, he's a pure peacemongering hippie...

I would like to see any form of statement made by him supporting using drones against civilians.

I would like for you to either praise or condemn Hillary for the same.
Apparently, Bernie not dehumanising Palestinians, supporting a Reichwing organization like AIPAC will soon land him on the side of brownshirts I guess.
Apparently, RWers think that only Israelis hve the right to exist and defend themselves againt the people whose homes they stole and fathers they killed because they are brown Muslims.
When will the Hillary camp condemn Israel last mass killing in Gaza and the illegal settlements on the West Bank?
When will AIPAC condemn these actions?

[seabeyond]

137. You have no idea. That is purely a guess on your part. As far as votes, he is right there

With Clinton and Obama.

[Bohemianwriter]

141. Are you for or are you against the use of drones against civilians?

Where has Bernie expressed support of the use of drones against civilians?

Why don't you educate me with your own stances and principles and show some knowledge about Bernie rather than taking things out of your own arse?
Where has Bernie Sander supported warfare against civilians and use of drones for this purpose?

Is it typical of Hillary supporters not being able to answer simple questions?

We know that Hillary have celebrated the fiasco in libya with a vulturish cackle, now show me where Bernie shows the same enthusiams about wars and drones or stop pretending to be an adult.

[SisterSarah]

147. HRC Supporters

suffer from corporate induced comas (on a good day). Imagine not having the ability to experience a real reality. Freud is having a field day from the grave. This country and the world is at critical mass and we actually have a candidate who is committed to saving us from ourselves. Fracking War Hawk Hillary is highly qualified in maintaining the status quo. Imagine the luxury of having concern for issues that only affect you as an individual- they will out live us all.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

40. if we stop, will you stop posting links to that peoples choice blog?

[seabeyond]

42. Lol, you didn't like the article? Hey, I am cool not posting that site.

I pay attention to what is being written. I didn't even realize it until you all said something. I thought... Oh man, cause it seemed like I did one other time. Maybe not. Can't remember. But sure, without conditions, ya, I can.

But, I did think it damn good and needed to be said.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

57. I've called you out 3 times in the past 2 weeks, just myself for posting that blog. many DUers have

So excuse me if i don't don't believe you.

[seabeyond]

84. Firstly I do not lie. I was in good faith letting that one go, but no....

You gotta be snotty. I have posted from that blog three times in two weeks? Didn't even realize I made that many ops. Surely you are wrong. 3? I don't think so.

As I have said, I don't pay attention to the site but to the article.

Now, call me names, liar or what ever. I thought it pretty generous that I would allow sanders supporters to dictate what I post.

[cui bono]

36. And any racial slights/gaffes by her or her campaign. Silence.

They sure do like to play the gender card a lot though.

.

[VulgarPoet]

173. The Clinton Corollary to Godwin's Law...

...Soon as I'm off work I'm updating the UrbanDictionary entry for Godwin's Law to include it.

"As an internet discussion about politics progresses, the likelihood of a poster likening a negative post about Hillary to sexism, racism, or right-wing smearing approaches one."

[pdsimdars]

183. Can you imagine what that is like?

I mean, with almost each new day there is a new inspiration that comes from Bernie or Jane. . something to feel good and proud about.

And for them, with each new day, they get another embarrassment they have to hang their heads to until it passes over.

Must be hard.

[cui bono]

195. You're giving them credit for feeling some real 'emotion' there. They don't do that.

They must be trained ninjas because they lack embarrassment, empathy, principles... they have memes and they stick to them. Win at all costs, don't let your emotions get in the way, stone cold war attitude is what they have.

.

[Thinkingabout]

37. I would like to see a link where Hillary is wanting to privitize Social Security.

[Avalon Sparks]

61. It's speculation in some op-Ed pieces, you can google and come up with a bunch of articles

ive read her campaign sight several times on this issue, and I agree with what's there 100%

But considering Third Wave and past DLC solutions, where the proposal to raise the age is clear.

http://www.thirdway.org/report/saving-social-security

So do you think it's just conspiracy to claim Clinton is third wave?
Do you buy into the third wave stuff, and if not why?

i am leaning toward her being third wave, which is generally to the right on fiscal and "war" and to the left on social issues, which I honestly don't care about.

[Thinkingabout]

105. In other words, there is not anything which states she is for privatizing, Republicans was

attempting to privatize social security. She wants to improve Social Security and try to get the years extended by collecting FICA on wages $250,000 and above to assist in this happening.

[Avalon Sparks]

117. Well I agree with that

And what's on her website issues page.

I guess this thread made me realize her supporters support what's on her web page, so I don't need to wonder how they stand. Seems simple, but I didn't think of that...duh.

We Bernie supporters generally don't believe her or what is on her web page, for a number of different reasons.

We suspect she is Third Wave and don't agree with Third Wave solutions.

I guess m trying to figure out if Hillary supporters support Third Wave proposals or what's on her campaign site.

I'll admit I haven't looked at the variance between the two on that many issues, maybe I'll do that.

I do know Third Wave recconds different solutions on their web page, which include increasing the age since "we live longer"

At 51, I'm completely against that. A lot of crap runs in my genes and I don't think I'll even live much past 70.

[Thinkingabout]

124. Why not give her credit for trying to improve Social Security, to try and get it past 2036,

may not help you or I to get the extension but it would the younger people. We are still currently in the reform period which has provided from 2012 to 2036. Let the RW have their talking points, they are the ones talking about privatizing, namely George W. I don't even want to go into some of the unrealistic agenda items of Sanders.

[polly7]

39. Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Haiti, Syria, Ukraine ........... aggressive talk

towards Iran and Russia. What does peace, and the lives of millions of human beings matter when there's empire to be built, weapons to be sold and billions to be made.

[840high]

43. Yep - gotta take care of your generous friends.

[seabeyond]

46. You have them dead before Clinton has even been elected. So, ya, perfect example why we do not

Have conversation. War has broken out, everyone is dead, that is a fact.... And reality is? Just storytelling.

Who would waste time with tgat conversation.

And this is to the person who asked in the OP, not you Polly. An example why there is no conversation. Or intelligent, reasoned conversation.

[polly7]

47. This was DURING HER STINT AS SOS.

Get that???

FFS.





'When someone tells you who they are, believe them'.



And no, "I don't have anyone dead". I didn't choose to commit atrocities on millions of innocent people for profit and greed. Where ya been to have missed all this? I guess it just goes to show the propagandized MSM does work for those with little interest in anyone outside their borders. Best not lecture anyone who has watched it all closely about 'intelligent discussion'.

[Adrahil]

44. I've tried to have reasonable discussion here.

It devolves from useful discussion to spin and accusations rather quickly. I have determined that rational arguments about policy just don't work here. Too many emotions.

[Avalon Sparks]

69. Thanks for responding

You make a good point

[pdsimdars]

184. But I've never seen that. All I have seen is snide remarks, etc. Never rational discussion.

[sheshe2]

45. The sounds of silence?

We have been run off this board.

Anything we say gets a hide. Quote a member verbatim we get a hide for the filth they said, yet their post stands with the BS jury and rockets to the top of the page.

Why the hell should we comment when ANYTHING and EVERYTHING we say gets a hide. You don't want a discussion you want an echo chamber.

[Fumesucker]

50. The victim card Trumps everything...

[sheshe2]

63. Victim card my ass. For once step away and look.

Good to know you approve the filth that was said. It was gross and disgusting and does not belong on this board. No matter the candidate I would not have approved the content or reced it to the top.

Wait? Do you have a clue what was said? There were two ugly posts, they advocated violence against a DUer and HC. Do you have a clue what I am referring to? DO YOU KNOW WHAT WAS SAID! Makes me sad if you do and approve of it.

Your post to me is pathetic.

[Avalon Sparks]

82. Well I can only speak for myself when I say I don't have alert trigger finger

I didn't see the thread that you referenced.

[sheshe2]

93. Two threads.

Two hides for quoting an OP.

Two HIDES FOR QUOTING THEIR WORDS. I got two hides and they were reced to the top of the page.

[Avalon Sparks]

106. The hides Suck

[sheshe2]

122. Thank you Avalon.

The recs to the top of the page broke my heart. It Broke My Heart.

[sheshe2]

129. May I add this.

Tired and have to go.

It was not the hides that suck. I took one for a friend. I did, I knew I would get a hide on BU. I quoted them verbatim and got a hide. Verbatim!!!! It was a direct quote , he gets the top of the page and I got the hide, actually three others on that post did as well.

[Avalon Sparks]

145. That is really unfair

No one should get a hide for quoting some one else on a thread.

[pinebox]

169. That's odd

You got a hide for quoting someone? Aye, my head....

[Fumesucker]

164. I wouldn't take anyone here at their word as to what happened when

Not even me, maybe especially not me.

We are all the hero in our own story, yes?

Have you checked out the policy discussions in the HRC Group yet? I recommend visiting there if you would like to know what the Hillary supporters are all about.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

After that visit the Bernie Sanders group and check them out too and compare and contrast.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1280

Edited to add one more thing: Be aware that people get a reputation for niceness or nastiness and unfortunately juries tend to take that into account when judging a post, they will let a normally nice person "get away" with a comment that someone with a less pleasant reputation will get whacked for. It's not fair but it's human nature. There are Hillary supporters I have no problem with and Bernie supporters I think are over the top, I've called out people on my own side before for inappropriate behavior.

[pdsimdars]

185. Well, I don't think I have ever agreed with a Hillary supporter about anything but the hides

I'm with you there. There should at least be a way to appeal it, or discuss it. Rather than just the anonymous message which you can't reply to. This only says to me "you have been silenced"

[KittyWampus]

178. The list of Clinton v Sanders supporters who got forced vacations proves your post

is bogus.

Typical of a bully though, accuse the other person of what you're doing.

Maybe you can find a map of Moscow to illustrate that for me.

[potone]

95. That is a remarkable statement.

The fact that far more people have been banned from the Hillary group than the Sanders group indicates that your statement is wrong. I was banned from the Hillary group just for correcting, politely, a false statement made by someone. It was the first time that I posted in that group, and that was it: immediately banned. It is the Hillary group that is an echo chamber. What I find disturbing is the projection on the part of some Hillary supporters. And no, Hillary supporters do not discuss policy differences in any serious way; it is all snark and accusations of unicorns and rainbows. As for being run off this board, you post here, so how have you been "run off?"

[sheshe2]

114. Correction.

You posted in a protected group not in a forum. There are rules in every group here, you violate them you get blocked. We are a protected group, we come here to laugh and heal. No. Not an echo chamber, a safe haven.

As for our blocks, we have been here a very long time. Our group was created on an older version of DU. Bern just started. Lol!

As for.

What I find disturbing is the projection on the part of some Hillary supporters. And no, Hillary supporters do not discuss policy differences in any serious way; it is all snark and accusations of unicorns and rainbows.

There is no discussion here, nor do you really want one. What I find disturbing is the projection on the part of some Bernie supporters. You bait and hide. Ya'll did that shit to Obama supporters for years.

As for being run off this board, you post here, so how have you been "run off?"

If not for Skinners amnesty, I would not be here at all. You in fact tried to alert stalk us off this board, You are the echo chamber.

[pdsimdars]

187. But . . . . . if it is a "protected group" why do they have links on the main page?

If it is protected, shouldn't you have to go somewhere to find it rather than have links on the main page that anyone can click?
That is what I did, I clicked on a link from the main page and made a comment which was pretty innocuous but was immediately banned because it was supposedly "over the top" and "sexist".
I had merely said that of course the corporate media would endorse the corporate candidate.
That wasn't total fawning over Hillary, but I didn't see how anyone could call it 'sexist' or 'over the top'. That was a wake up call for me.
They should not have links on the main page if they only want certain people to enter.

[sheshe2]

200. This has been asked and answered by Skinner in ATA.

You are aware than the BSGroup posts are on the main page as well, correct? You need to be aware of your surroundings. There is a header on every post on the main page.

Also the posters in the BOG and HRC many times post something like this~

***************** THIS IS POSTED IN THE BARACK OBAMA GROUP**********

Want to know how many times I was sent mail saying they had no clue they were posting in said group with all those headers?

[Bread and Circus]

49. The have everything but favorable polls on ignore. It's a new DU feature.

[jimmy_crack_corn]

51. I prefer Bernie but

Exerts from Hillary's web site are below:

Note - I am scared of the phrases "Expand Social Security for those who need it most" & "reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty"


I am scared because currently the federal poverty level for 2 people is $15,930 & for one person is $11,770 and if comparable levels are used then her statements are misleading and a lot of social security couples are being feed false hope of not have a significant reduction in their standard of living. Bernie could well capitalize on a clearer commitment with out the "for those who need it most" wiggle words.

Now for the quotes from her site:

'"Defend Social Security against Republican attacks. Republicans are using scare tactics about the future and effectiveness of Social Security to push through policies that would jeopardize it. The real threat is Republican attempts to undermine the bedrock of the system. Hillary believes that Social Security must remain what it has always been: a rock-solid benefit that seniors can always count on—not subject to the budget whims of Congress or to the fluctuations of the stock market. She fought Republican efforts to undermine Social Security when she was a senator and throughout her career, and she will fight them as president. As president, she would:

Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.

Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.

Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.

Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.

Expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system—including women who are widows and those who took significant time out of the paid workforce to take care of their children, aging parents, or ailing family members. Social Security works well, but it should work better. Hillary will fight to expand Social Security for those who need it most and who are treated unfairly today. For instance:

The poverty rate for widowed women 65 or older is nearly 90 percent higher than for other seniors—in part because when a spouse dies, families can face a steep benefit cut. For a two-earner couple, those benefit cuts can be as much as 50 percent. Hillary believes that we have to change that by reducing how much Social Security benefits drop when a spouse dies, so that the loss of a spouse doesn’t mean financial hardship or falling into poverty.

Millions of women—and men—take time out of the paid workforce to raise a child, take care of an aging parent or look after an ailing family member. Caregiving is hard work that benefits our entire economy. However, when Americans take time off to take care of a relative, that can reduce their Social Security benefits at retirement, since those benefits are calculated based on their top thirty-five years of earnings. No one should face meager Social Security checks because they took on the vital role of caregiver for part of their career. Americans should receive credit toward their Social Security benefits when they are out of the paid workforce because they are acting as caregivers.

Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap, and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system."

[upaloopa]

53. You should go to her web site rather than try to play games here

You doing the "when did you stop beating your wife" thing.

[Avalon Sparks]

74. I've read everything on her web site several times

Understand your point though

It's really my issue of not believing what's there. I agree with every point she made on this issue on her campaign site. I should assume her DU supporters agree with what's there.

[upaloopa]

92. There is no homogeneous support group. We all are individuals.

[Baobab]

55. Portability of Social Security benefits between countries involved in Services Liberalization

There is some stuff about Social Security benefits portability for short term service providers in the LONG-pending WTO Services Liberalisations Trade agreements (5 to 7 years maximum so its non-immigration) See http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2016/ti160309.htm

[Avalon Sparks]

83. Thanks Baobab

I need to check that out and will

[calguy]

56. Most Clinton supporters voice their support

at the ballot box. Most don't waste time with the stupid and petty bashing points that BSers are shouting about. At the ballot, where actually matters, far more Hillary supporters voice their opinion than BSers. That is why she is so far ahead and that's why Bernie virtually has no chance.

[Avalon Sparks]

91. Nice

Trumps in the lead (for now) on Repub side

Which demonstrates that holding the lead in the primary does not necessarily validate that the lead candidate has the most appropriate or effective solution proposals.

But I have no problem with you taking the time to add a "We're winning and you're Not" post to this thread.

Reminds me of a team rivalry in sports though, and also the irrelavancy of such.

[pdsimdars]

188. apples and oranges.

[gollygee]

58. She is not going to change social security

That speculation is unfair.

I don't know if "warmonger" is a fair thing to call her. She certainly seems more hawkish than Bernie, which is one of the reasons I voted for Bernie, but she isn't a warmonger. She's just quicker than he would be to turn to that as a solution, and she's slower than a lot of other people would be (such as any Republican.)

Hillary isn't horrible. She is just not as far left on the progressive/conservative continuum. That goes for this as well as most issues.

[EndElectoral]

78. Then that's a problem. Soc. Sec does need to be changed

1. Cap raised for solvency and fairness.
2. The COLA calculation needs to be modified to reflect seniors actual spending
3. Adjustments need to be made for seniors living below the poverty level.
4. The age needs to be lowered not raised, yet Clinton has not pledged that.
5. There should be no means testing for Soc. Sec, yet HRC has left that door open.

So Soc .Sec does need some changing. It should be expanded.

[CharlotteVale]

99. ^^this^^

[gollygee]

171. I meant that she wouldn't change it for the worse

Though I doubt she'd change it for the better either, and I agree those changes would be wonderful.

[pdsimdars]

189. She has suggested some changes for the worse.

[chillfactor]

59. sorry...

most of us just get sick of all the Hillary bashing on DU....so we chose to ignore it. It really has become quite tiresome.

[timmymoff]

80. Imagine how we feel when examining her record!

That is a terrible record. At least three regime change failures. Two coups. Support of fracking. Coziness with Wall st. while refusing to release the transcripts. her inability to fight for minimum wage battles or health insurance battles. It's not bashing it's actually her record.

[Avalon Sparks]

85. Understood

Thanks for sharing

[w4rma]

86. But, she's inevitable and everybody who opposes her is sexist and racist.

I think that sums up her entire campaign. The Clintons are con artists.

[uponit7771]

88. You forgot "... and podium bird worshipers."... yeah, ... that's better

[w4rma]

96. Hillary would means test Social Security and bargain parts of Social Security away for peanuts.

This is part of why I can't stand Hillary. She also wants to means test Social Security, which - if implimented - would turn Social Security into welfare rather than the universal insurance policy that it is now.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-argument-free-college-bad-because-rich-kids-can-take-advantage-it-makes-no

[bettyellen]

110. Nope.

[Avalon Sparks]

100. To be honest and for what it's worth...

It was the frequency, target audience, and the amounts accepted into Clintons personal accounts that caused me to question the Clintons integrity and where their real support lies with regard to policy initiates.

Everything else, I mean everything (super pac money, foundation money, email server, and all the right wing smears since the 80's) did not give me pause for concern.

Just the speaking fees, and they lost me for good. ( sorry)

I've been a Compliance Officer for the last 8 years, my job is to help prevent the employees from breaking bribery (FCPA laws) and antitrust laws.

As a result of this position, I've had to become an expert on bribery and corruption all over the world. For me, it's impossible to look at the speaking fees as anything other than influence money.

For what it's worth not all of my compliance colleagues agree with me, one of them stated they believed it was just capitalism, another was only concerned with the legality, and stated they didn't appear to have broken the law. Two others agree with me. I make it a point to rarely discuss politics anyway with my work colleagues, so i don't know how the others feel. I have heard my global colleagues in Compliance express corruption concerns though.

For me personally, I can't unlearn what I know and again based on the frequency, the amount, and the industries the speaking fees came from, it's legalized bribery.

When government officials accept anything of value that benefits them personally, it's the definition of corruption.

I know my background and opinion won't change anyone's mind on DU, and I'm not trying to.

It is the reason I have a hard time believing her platform though. I was actually for Clinton until I heard Cruz claim that the Clintons were worth millions in one of the first debates. I thought that couldn't be right and hit the Google. It's all appears to be documented - all the speeches and fees, and has the blessing of the Congressional Ethics committee. I disagree with the committee.

It's just my opinion, and again it's based on studying bribes, corruption and the effects in other countries for so long now. I wish I could discount because the snide part of me woukd be routing for Clintons just to watch Repubs heads explode. Lol

[radical noodle]

151. A lot of people have that concern

I look at it another way. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have a lot of experience and knowledge to share. They are both very popular. Hillary has been most admired woman a number of years. So there are obvious reasons why a group would want to hear them speak.

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. They've had books and speaking engagements and a number of other things that have made them a great deal of money. But they pay a high rate of taxes and they donate a great deal of money to charities. Not all wealthy people are scum and I'm sure we have our share of wealthy people right here in DU.

I must say that I really appreciate your civility, Avalon Sparks.

[Avalon Sparks]

152. Thanks Radical!

Not that I'm some expert or anything. But if I hadn't gotten into this career I'd be saying the same thing you just wrote about the fees, I really would.

If Cruz is nominee, if I lived in almost any other state I'd probalbly vote for her in the end, but since I live in Texas, he'll take the state for sure, so I don't think I'll have to worry about casting a ballot.

[radical noodle]

155. Cruz is creepy

But yes, I'm sure Texas would likely vote for him. I'd love to see Texas turn blue someday, though.

[Avalon Sparks]

156. You and me both!

One day I think it will.

[creeksneakers2]

97. No privitization

no age limit raises. She hasn't supported raising the cap, because she says that people just above the cutoff aren't rich. Perhaps she'd support raising the cap if it kicked in again at a higher income.

I'm not surprised her non-supporters believe the worst. The stuff they believe is crazy.

[w4rma]

102. Elizabeth Warren Calls Third Way ‘Flatly Wrong’ In Social Security Fight

“It’s just flatly wrong,” Warren said of Third Way’s critique. “We could make modest adjustments and make the system financially stable for a century, and we could make somewhat larger adjustments and make the system pay more for seniors who rely on it ... The conversation for too long has been about whether to cut Social Security benefits a little bit or a lot. And that is flatly the wrong debate to have in mind.”

Warren made her comments in an interview with HuffPost as members of Congress on Third Way’s board faced questions about their support of the group’s attack. “The Social Security system is not adding to the debt at all,” she said. “More importantly, if we made no changes at all, Social Security would pay out at its current level for about 20 years, at which point it would drop by about 25 percent and pay out forever into the future.”

Warren responded to Third Way earlier this week by challenging Wall Street banks to be transparent about donations they have made to think tanks.

The Massachusetts Democrat said that Wall Street’s push to cut Social Security is part of a broader agenda. “It’s part of the larger issue about a rigged playing field. They don’t wanna pay more, they don’t wanna pay a fair share. I believe everybody should pay a fair share,” she said. “That’s how we make sure people can retire with dignity. That’s not what Wall Street wants to do.”

Third Way’s spokesman responded by saying that under Warren’s plan, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s CEO, would be entitled to a higher Social Security payout.

“Oh please. I’m out there working for Jamie Dimon the same way Dick Cheney is out there trying to save the environment,” Warren said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/elizabeth-warren-third-way_n_4393201.html

[creeksneakers2]

194. Is there anything about Hillary there?

Hillary is not synonymous with third way.

[ohheckyeah]

98. I think her experience and knowledge makes her by far the best candidate. Bernie is either delusiona

or just plain lying. Do I agree with all of Hillary's policies? Nope. But I don't think she'll screw people out of social security nor do I think she's warmongering. I wish she was further left, but it is what it is.

[Smarmie Doofus]

101. And the people bowed and prayed/ To the neon god they made.

In other words..... it's not Hillary Clinton they're in love with.

It's their IDEA of Hillary Clinton. The fantasy they have constructed.

And no.... there is no point in trying to reason with them.

[SFnomad]

103. It's far too difficult for you people to actually go to her website and find her positions ....

It's not like it was hard to find, It took all of about 2 minutes.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

•Fight any attempts to gamble seniors’ retirement security on the stock market through privatization.
•Oppose reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
•Oppose Republican efforts to raise the retirement age—an unfair idea that will particularly hurt the seniors who have worked the hardest throughout their lives.
•Oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.

Of course, you will next say that she is only saying this and she'll do differently when she is in office. And tomorrow you'll ask the same questions all over again. It's like Groundhog's Day with you people.

[Avalon Sparks]

108. Good point

I read her website.

Also read an article today that claimed she might raise the age and lower the payout concurrently and call it something else.

I'm not alone in being wary of campaign promises.

I guess ultimately in boils down to which candidate you trust more, which is based on prior record and also intangible gut feelings.

[SFnomad]

112. Now I know you're a waste of time ... thanks for the confirmation n/t

[Avalon Sparks]

120. Touche

[w4rma]

115. Clinton's website: Hillary Clinton refuses to rule out any and all benefit cuts to Social Security

Why Progressive Groups Have A Problem With Clinton On Social Security

Hillary Clinton refuses to rule out any and all benefit cuts to Social Security, angering leading progressive groups that have not endorsed a candidate in the Democratic primary — and prompting a new challenge from Bernie Sanders.

The issue has arisen as Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), her remaining rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, debate who has stronger progressive bona fides and progressive groups call for a red-line pledge not to cut benefits.

A Clinton aide instead referred The Huffington Post to the statement on Social Security on the campaign’s website, which says the former Secretary of State will “oppose closing the long-term shortfall on the backs of the middle class, whether through benefit cuts or tax increases.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-sanders-social-security_us_56b3f533e4b01d80b245c04e?x33anhfr

[SFnomad]

118. And this is exactly what I expected

You can believe Secretary Clinton or you can believe what other people say and what they get their stenographers to write. Being that you people look for any excuse to slam her .. we know what you will and won't believe.

[w4rma]

123. The problem is that I *do* believe Hillary's lawyerspeak. And the omissions are telling.

Hillary is lying through omission.

[SFnomad]

133. Whatever man ... I know you're a waste of time now too n/t

[w4rma]

135. I'm not so easily conned as your usual patsies? (nt)

[SFnomad]

139. And I always find people like you to be too clever by half ... adios n/t

[Zynx]

104. You're just making shit up on Social Security.

She's never supported privatization at any time in her history and she doesn't now. This is something deeply dishonest people have put out there because they know if they make the accusation enough times it becomes part of the discussion. Piss on them and their kind. They have no place in polite discourse.

[SFnomad]

107. I've never met a group of cheerleaders more dishonest than the ones for Sanders n/t

[redstateblues]

128. More condescension from Camp Pinocchio

The Purity Party accepts nothing but strict obedience to St. Bernard's dictates.

[w4rma]

131. Psychologically project much?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[senz]

144. I've appreciated your comments on this strange thread. nt

[Zira]

146. good.

[Onlooker]

153. I don't think all that many Hillary supporters participate in DU

When you see a dozen threads on the same anti-Hillary topic, when an anti-Hillary poll is posted and gets at least 10:1 for Sanders, and when you have a group of mods that appear to favor Sanders, it basically has driven many Hillary supporters away. There are other liberal online forums where there is a better balance (I won't name them, but I think many people know which ones I'm talking about), but DU has become a place for fierce Sanders supporters and for right wing trolls to manipulate them into swearing they will never vote for Hillary. DU is pretty much a place for Sanders supporters. A few Hillary supporters stick around. She's pretty easy to defend, but really what's the point. On Iraq, she voted wrong, but let's not forget that in 1999 Sanders voted to topple Saddam and in 2001 he voted for the war appropriations to overthrow him. On Social Security, Sanders is better, but not by much. Your lie that Hillary will privatize it is hardly worth debating since I doubt facts really matter to you.

[w4rma]

154. The demographics of the entire internet favor Bernie Sanders supporters.

Also, supporting Bernie Sanders is what happens, more often than not, when folks don't get all of their news from the TV.

[Onlooker]

158. I agree with you to some degree

The internet is very pro-Bernie, but DU is pretty exceptional in that regard at least compared to a number of other sites. I also don't think it's tv. I hardly know anyone who watches much tv other than Netflix, and the people I know are pretty evenly split between Bernie and Hillary, but the people I know are mostly over 40. I don't know anyone who gets their news from tv, but honestly tv news is less accurate than any other kind of news, it just has a more establishment bias. Progressive news sources (which I read a lot) are great, but they certainly have biases too. The challenge is to see through all the b.s., and try to find the truth. If you do that, Bernie still comes out better, but Hillary's not bad either. There's a reason she has so much support in various minority communities. She's done more good and bad than Bernie. Bernie has done less bad and less good. He really hasn't done much at all to tell you the truth, until this election. He hasn't really had to (or even been able to), since he's from such a homogeneous liberal state.

[w4rma]

159. Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You

The Amendment King

Congress is not known to be a progressive institution lately, to say the least. Over the past few decades, the House of Representatives was only controlled by the Democrats from 2007 to 2010, and a flood of corporate money has quieted the once-powerful progressive movement that passed legislation moving the country forward between the New Deal era and the Great Society. Yet, as difficult as it may be to believe, a socialist from Vermont is one of its most accomplished members.
…
Here are a few examples of the amendments Sanders passed by building unusual but effective coalitions:

• Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”



• Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.



• Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.



• Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.



• Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.



• Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.



• Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.

Once Sanders made it to the Senate in 2006, his ability to use amendments to advance a progressive agenda was empowered. Here are some of the amendments he passed in the Senate:

• Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.



• Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.



• Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.



• Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.



• Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.



• Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.

Using the Power of a Senator

While Sanders was an amendment king who was able to bring bipartisan coalitions together to make serious changes to laws, he also knew how to be a thorn in the side of the establishment until it offered up something in return. Sanders was able to get the first-ever audit of funds given out by the Federal Reserve, which made transparent over $2 trillion of funds handed out by the secretive organization. This was a cause that Republican congressman Ron Paul (TX) had been pursuing for decades, but Sanders was able to get the votes to do it by forging a compromise that required an audit for the bailout period alone.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

[Onlooker]

160. You're posting political fodder ....

... You think the same can't be found for Hillary? Of course it can. I mean, really, where has Sanders made a difference? If you look at Sanders record prior to running for President, it's a record of good votes, some good speeches, and few good attempts, but not much of a record at all. Even your examples show small little initiatives that represent very little for his over 20 years in Congress, and virtually none of them have to do with civil rights (which is why I think he has underwhelming support from most minority groups). As a one man show, he hardly even influenced the Democratic Party. He should have been inside the Party pushing it to the left. Instead, he simply sat it out.

[w4rma]

161. To really tell you the truth, Bernie has done quite alot of good.

I'm very simply correcting a falsehood, for folks who might read this, that you asserted in your paragraph.

[GreatGazoo]

170. they lose on issues

They won't say or don't know what her position is so they strawman Sanders' positions instead.

[Avalon Sparks]

179. A number have stated their opinion in this thread

And I appreciate that.

The consensus seems to be that Hillarys website s clear on her position and solutions.

Fair enough, as I've directed folks to Bernies site in the same way.

Thanks for posting Gazoo, I like your name!

[Vinca]

174. If your chosen candidate has few pluses, what are you going to say?

She "probably" won't get us mired in a war? She "probably" will help your kid get out of college debt in 20 years rather than 30? She "probably" won't limit abortion much more? Grandma probably won't miss the few bucks in her Social Security check?

[George II]

176. You can find just about everything* you want right here:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

*Nothing about "warmongering" though, since it's blatantly false.

[Avalon Sparks]

177. Thank you

At least in this thread that is the recommendation of her supporters - to go to her website.

Fair enough. At least on social security I agree with what her website says on the issues.
It seems most supporters of Hillary believe her position, non-supporters don't trust that is was Hilkary will push for, based on various opinions and maybe DLC solutions they have read about.

It is good I think to know that most DUers seem to agree on SS solutions.

[pdsimdars]

182. And Bernie has been clear on BOTH of these issues, as with all issues

He wants to EXPAND Social Security and wants to get us out of these stupid, wasteful wars.

I would like to hear the reasoning from those who support the opposing position on these?

All we get is nonsense, and deflection . . . . "Bernie is mean." What is that?

Can't they discuss ACTUAL ISSUES?

[auntpurl]

186. DU GDP is literally the last place I would go to discuss policy.

What a waste of time that would be. This place is a cesspit of vitriolic hate speech - there is no rational discussion to be had here.

NO ONE is going to change their minds on this website. It's a useless echo chamber of filth and it will be until the primaries are over. Not a minute too soon in my opinion.

[hamsterjill]

191. Honestly, I don't feel the need to jusify my choice of candidate.

I'm a Hillary supporter. My state has already had its primary and I voted for Hillary. There's nothing more that I choose to do until the nominee is known for the general election.

Arguing with Bernie supporters is a total and complete waste of time in my opinion.

[BainsBane]

192. How many times have you been pointed to her positions on Social Security?

and have refused to as much as look? https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/

These games about why Clinton supporters don't perform for you on command are ridiculous. You have a responsibility to inform yourself as a voter. Clinton's positions are laid out on her website. What some random supporter says may or may not accurately reflect those positions, which is why people who actually care about issues take the 10 minutes or so necessary to read the policy statements on candidate's websites. You, however, are clearly more concerned with your antipathy toward voters who do inform themselves and therefore vote as they see fit voting as you insist.

The typical response I get when posting the link to Clinton's issues page is that they don't care because, they insist reflexively, that she's a liar. Naturally they never bother to provide evidence and rather ignore or insult those who do. In doing so, they reveal their opposition has nothing to do with issues.

I am beyond bored with these disingenuous games. I'm sorry you have such trouble coming to terms with the fact that the majority of Americans exercise their votes independently rather than voting as you insist they should. I am also sorry that you are more concerned about fighting with those voters than informing yourself on issues you claim to care about yet refuse to actually look into. There is nothing I can do about any of that, other than again take time to provide links to policy positions that you and others will once again ignore.

No voter owes you a damn thing. Our democratic rights are guaranteed by the constitution. We owe you no explanation for our votes. None of us have any responsibility to provide you with entertainment or to feed into your anger at the Democratic majority who does not support Bernie. I suggest you devote more attention to informing yourself and less on what you think Clinton supporters owe you.

[Avalon Sparks]

193. I'm so sorry you're bored, makes me wonder why you felt compelled to comment

If you'd read through the posts you'd be aware I have confirmed reading her website numerous times, prior to creating this thread. So your post is based on a false premise.

But, I know, I know you weren't interested, don't have the time, or whatever to read through the thread, or even scan through it quickly, before jumping in full speed ahead with your important opinion

For what it's worth, cute little indignant and chastising posts originating from assumptions are silly to me.

I hope it was enjoyable for you though.


I think Clinton is likely DLC/Third Wave. I've read OpEd after OpEd that suggests as much, sone supportive of her as such.

I think she spun left when Bernie gained some momentum, early on.

What it really boils down to is you trust her words on a website, and I don't.

It's rare to trust any political candidate, I wrote about me reasons for ceasing to support Clintons further up in this thread.

But I'm sure it would only bore you.

Cya

[Cary]

197. You've got to be kidding.

[ThePhilosopher04]

199. Blind loyalists and no command of the real issues. They support Hillary just becuz

it's her turn.

[redstateblues]

201. Ah -more Sanders supporters' condescension

You Bernie people are so superior. It must be quite a burden. Bernie is just not ready for prime time-he couldn't even remember how he was going to break up the big banks.

[ThePhilosopher04]

202. Yes we are. We are right on the issues for the American people. You know it's true.