Uppity Liberals

[MannyGoldstein]

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

For several decades now, most Liberals have been afraid of our own shadow. Hell, most of us have even been afraid of the word Liberal. A new word had to be substituted, Progressive, so some of us wouldn't have to say Liberal in polite company.

And our country has rocketed into the sewer.

And Americans are figgerin' out that Republican/Third Way economics are a disaster for the 99%, that we're getting reamed. Things are starting to change; Bernie Sanders is surging in the polls, and suddenly everyone's a Lefty. Even the DLC Doyenne now claims she's the most progressive Progressive in all Progessivedom.

This is all amusing and it is good.

But what's not amusing nor good is the belief held by the Third Way crowd that Sanders supporters pointing out Third Way garbage is somehow attacking or bashing Democrats. Saying that a dung beetle eats crap is not bashing dung beetles, it's stating a fact. Likewise, pointing out the clever ways in which Third Wayers steal our stuff is simply stating facts. It may discomfort that crowd to use simple phrases like "putting people in poverty", "children going hungry", or "impoverished elderly people freezing to death" instead of whatever assinine euphamism Larry Summers uses, but we uppity Liberals really don't give a @#$& anymore.

We will call it like it is. We will fight like hell for Bernie, and against lies. And we will take the Party of the 99% back for the 99%.

Deal with it.

UPDATE: Sorry, I @#$&ed up, got a post hidden, and am now locked out of this thread. So don't take it personally if I don't respond to posts.

[cantbeserious]

1. Why Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[MADem]

2. Manny, Get Your Gun....!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/07/why-we-shouldnt-call-bernie-sanders-a-liberal/

...Over the weekend, Sanders spoke on gun control and the tax-exempt status of churches, and if you were hearing him for the first time, you might think he was a Republican. He defended gun owners on CNN's "State of the Union," saying 99.9 percent of them obey the law and that gun manufacturers shouldn't be held responsible for murderers "any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer."

On removing the tax-exempt status for churches that don't recognize same-sex marriage, he said he didn't know that he'd "go there" and that he respected "people who have different points of view."....But there are certain things that might complicate Sanders for those on the left -- and it wasn't just this weekend, either. In 1993, as a member of the House, he voted against the Brady bill, which required federal background checks for most gun purchases. He also voted to allow people to transport guns on Amtrak, and he previously said he didn't think stricter gun control would end mass shootings. (Sanders's home state of Vermont, while generally quite liberal, is also very pro-gun rights.)

His history with immigration reform is similar, with a mixed record of supporting things like the Dream Act and the 2013 bill, but in 2007 helping to kill that comprehensive immigration reform deal by teaming with conservative Republican Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) on so-called "poison pill" amendments. Other Democrats opposed the final bill, as Sanders did, but almost all who did so came from the more moderate wing of the party.

Sanders might just become some GOP-leaning voters' favorite 2016 Democrat -- and not just because he's giving Hillary Clinton a tough time. It's not hard to see some of his positions appealing to more libertarian voters like former Ron Paul fans who prefer Sanders over Rand Paul. His arguments for a middle ground on some of our most controversial social issues also could appeal to voters frustrated by hyper-partisan politics......Sanders is a socialist who championed progressive issues before they became more mainstream, but it's also clear that he's an independent and not a Democrat for a reason. He's beloved by liberal Democrats who feel Clinton is too moderate, but as his vision for a 50-state campaign and gun and tax-exempt comments show, he's making a play for people who might not describe themselves as "very liberal."

[bahrbearian]

4. Let all vote for War in Iraq.

Or a coup in Honduras

[MannyGoldstein]

6. The only gun humper to get an F from the NRA

What's sadder, MADem, a gun humper getting an F from the NRA, or your attempts to portray Sanders as a gun humper?

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[MADem]

18. Ah, that old canard! They preferred him to his first opponent!

Someone who agrees with most of the NRA's provisions is, as you call 'em, "a gun humper." The NRA is a nutty, all-or-nothing, with-us-or-agin-us, outfit. People who are with 'em ninty percent get an F.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-exception-bernie-sanders-liberalism

In fairness to Sanders, the senator does not always see eye to eye with the far-right gun group, but over the course of his congressional career, the Vermont independent has generally sided with the NRA on most of the major legislative fights regarding gun policy.

And he's barely passing with the paranoid nuts at the NRA--but he doesn't have an F:
http://tinyurl.com/okmfs7d

Although the NRA was thus willing to fund a campaign against one of Sanders’ opponents (who supported an assault weapons ban) in a 1990 congressional race, it has subsequently fluctuated in grading him; he reached his peak in 2006 when they gave him a C-, but after his support for President Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful proposed gun control law in 2013, Sanders now sits at a D-minus.

Sanders, the legend goes, came to Congress because of the National Rifle Association. It’s not quite as simple as that — Vermonters remember Republican Peter Smith, who lost in the 1990 rematch after beating Sanders in 1988, as an awkward candidate poorly-suited for politics.

But after Smith came out in support of an assault-weapons ban after opposing it in his successful 1988 campaign against Sanders, the NRA invested heavily in defeating him — an opposition campaign that likened Smith to Pinocchio for his flip-flop and featured bumper stickers: “Smith and Wesson — Yes, Smith in Congress — No.”....“The easy position would have been to be against the assault weapons ban,” said Weaver, pushing back on the idea that Sanders catered to the NRA for political purposes. (Weaver made the comments before the Charleston shooting.)

Still, people recall that Sanders, then the four-term mayor of Burlington, was cautious not to step in. “Bernie let the NRA do his dirty work on that one to sink Smith. He played it very close to the vest,” said Garrison Nelson, a professor at University of Vermont who has known Sanders for around four decades.
Instead, Sanders said that he didn’t support the proposed Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks and a five-day waiting period, and vowed that he wouldn’t flip-flop on the issue. He won the election by nearly 20 points.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185.html#ixzz3hcmmxBDl

[beam me up scottie]

23. Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Puzzling evidence!

I guess Sanders even sucks at being a gun humper.

[beam me up scottie]

31. LOL!

And some of Hillary's supporters suck at bashing Bernie.

[MADem]

57. No, he doesn't. Post 55. He's got it down--and it's on tape, too. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Why can't the NRA give him the A rating he deserves?

Only reason I can see is his hair.

Bastards. Everything is fashion with that crowd.

[MADem]

63. Because you have to vote with them 100 percent of the time to get that. You know that, Manny.

Not sure why you're coyly asking me.

[HooptieWagon]

75. Does MIC give Hillary an A-rating...

For being a warmonger and voting to drop cluster bombs on children?

[MADem]

84. I'll bet Lockheed - Martin gives an A to Sanders!

After early spats, apparently long forgotten, they're closer than lovebirds.

[BeanMusical]

168. That's all that you have? Pathetic.

And don't forget to alert on this post.

[MADem]

212. Sorry you feel that way, and that is not my style.

I think it's best to let your posts stand in the full light of day!

[BeanMusical]

257. "it's best to let your posts stand in the full light of day"

Lol, so you saw a shrink and got cured of your compulsive alerting problem? Well I'm proud of you for overcoming this.

[MADem]

258. I think you're referencing someone else--I don't compulsively alert--do you want me to?

Sounds to me like a case of "Whoever smelt it, dealt it."

[BeanMusical]

261. "I don't compulsively alert"

Bwah ah ah ah! I got a 10 days vacation because of you, sweetie, if you deny it then you're quite the hypocrite.

[MADem]

262. Sorry--it wasn't me that sent you on your way, much as you seem to want to target/blame me.

And it sure does look like you want or need someone to blame:

BeanMusical
261. "I don't compulsively alert"
View profile
Bwah ah ah ah! I got a 10 days vacation because of you, sweetie, if you deny it then you're quite the hypocrite.

Here's a thought you might want to chew on--while you're barking up the wrong tree, here, hollering at me, there's someone else out there who really doesn't like you.

I'm not your "sweetie" either--obviously. Do you think that using "put-down" language like that empowers you? It actually does the opposite.

[BeanMusical]

264. Then you're a liar.

Since when you don't reply to someone and then this poster get's hidden? Never. I can post screenshots if you like. I was really surprised that you didn't reply to me, in fact it was a first. That someone there who really doesn't like me is you, and frankly is a coward. Alerting on me twice within 20 minutes? Priceless.

ETA: No wonder you're rooting for a Chicken Hawk.

[MADem]

266. I have a life. I actually do leave my keyboard on occasion.

I also participate in more than one thread when I do visit DU.

Maybe you should start to understand that a lack of an IMMEDIATE reply might be indicative of the fact that you aren't quite as important in my--or other people's, for that matter-mind as you seem to believe. And when you're flinging crap, what's the point of replying to you? So you can fling more?

And calling someone a liar is pretty rude, but you're starting to demonstrate that kind of behavior in a rather unrestrained fashion, aren't you?

[BeanMusical]

274. You have a life? No problem with this.

What's funny is that you replied to this post real fast, as usual. But you didn't say a thing when I told you this last month (I admit that I was blunt but it never prevented you to reply before, lol.):





You alerted on both posts but didn't reply at all. Which makes you a liar.

Have a nice day! (I bet that you'll either reply or alert on this one though. lol.)

[MADem]

275. No, I did not--I did observe that a post either got hidden or deleted (can't tell, since you don't

provide links).

Just because I observe something doesn't mean I caused it.

That's the sort of thing that puppies and infants believe.

FWIW, if MIRT "took out the trash" on one of your posts, you'd be GONE. Forever, or at least until you socked up. That's what MIRT does. They permanently delete posters.

So, yeah--fail. I can't be bothered to alert on you--I want everyone to see your sad game.

[BeanMusical]

276. Lol! Fail? Yes, on your part.

What, screenshots are not good enough for you? You can always do a search the posts have plenty of keywords. BTW it's interesting that you can't help replying again and again but in these 2 cases... Silence and alerts.

[MADem]

283. I'm sorry for you. You try like hell to goad and bait me, but it doesn't work.

It's because you try too doggone hard--you end up looking a bit sad, rather than mad.

Maybe one day you'll realize that adult people can have differences of opinion without needing to call people liars and worse on the internet. You'll be happier when that day arrives.

[BeanMusical]

287. Yes, I love you too.

[Fast Walker 52]

176. Ha, indeed

you said what must be said

[BeanMusical]

280. Oops, sorry.

I thought that you had replied to me.

[passiveporcupine]

99. Well then a B rating?

Why does he deserve a lowly D- rating?

Sorry MADem, but some of the points brought up here are pretty flimsy. For instance. On the issue of voting to carry legal guns in "baggage compartment" on Amtrak...why the hell not? You can carry them on Airplanes as long as it's not carry on and is unloaded, so why not the same for Amtrak? I agree with Bernie on that.

And the issue of voting against forcing churches to marry gay people? I agree with Bernie on that too. I believe that if a church does not believe in gay marriage, they have the right not to marry a gay person. If they are Catholic and don't want to marry a presbyterian, they have that right as well. Those are religious ceremonies, so if a gay couple wants a religious ceremony to join them together in marriage, they need to find a church that accepts and supports them. There are churches who do accept gays and will marry them. It's the church's right to perform religious ceremonies (or not) that follow their beliefs. I think it would be a true "attack" on religion to force that on them. I think they are wrong to exclude gays, but it's their religion, not mine. There are actually a lot of reasons why a church may refuse to marry you. Now city clerks who won't issue licenses...that's a whole different ball of wax, or civil officers who refuse to marry them...Government officials and employees cannot discriminate.

Personally, I see Bernie as pretty open (and evolving) to making changes that will help keep guns out of the wrong hands. There is one thing I'd disagree with him on. Gun sellers should be held accountable for selling automatic or semiautomatic weapons that are designed specifically to kill men, and look like war guns or assault weapons. If they are rifles or shotguns designed just for hunting that's different. It isn't often you see a mass killer using a hunting weapon like a deer rifle. Making guns that look like war weapons should not be legal (you certainly don't need that to go hunting). Making guns semiautomatic is not necessary for hunting. We've gone way over the line on advancing gun technology for public use, and encouraging violence in this country with our games, our movies and our guns. I would like us to go back to only allowing real hunting weapons that you have to know how to shoot right because if you miss the first time, you don't get another chance. And long guns are a hell of a lot harder to sneak into public places than a smaller gun is. So I don't agree with Bernie in full on his gun stance, but I do hope he will evolve over time.

[MADem]

101. He got a C in 2006. He dances with them some years, and other years, not so much. nt

[artislife]

106. Hillary 2008 and guns

Here's your precious Hillary trying to still win in 2008. She would lose the nomination two months later

VALPARAISO, Indiana (CNN) - Hillary Clinton appealed to Second Amendment supporters on Saturday by hinting that she has some experience of her own pulling triggers.
“I disagree with Sen. Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration,” she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.
She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.
“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.
“You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter.”
Minutes later, in a slightly awkward moment, Clinton faced a question from a woman in the audience whose son had been paralyzed by a gunshot. The woman asked Clinton what she would do about gun control as president.
Clinton touted her husband's record on gun control during his administration, and said "there is not a contradiction between protecting Second Amendment rights" and the effort to reduce crime.
Noting that many hunters and gun collectors want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, Clinton referred to her positive childhood experiences with firearms.
"As I told you, my dad taught me how to shoot behind our cottage,” she said. “I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting."
Clinton said she has hunted ducks.



Now she is for more control.

[MADem]

110. Oooooh, the pain! The ANGER!!!

"Your precious Hillary!!!"



Not too subtle, there!

Not sure what your point was, there.

I like gun control, and I have relatives who hunt. The two concepts can co-exist.

And...pro tip: you are MISSING a link to your article. You have to cite your sources. It's in the TOS:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Don't willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights.
To simplify compliance and enforcement of copyrights here on Democratic Underground, we ask that excerpts from other sources posted on Democratic Underground be limited to a maximum of four paragraphs, and we ask that the source of the content be clearly identified. Those who make a good-faith effort to respect the rights of copyright holders are unlikely to have any problems. But individuals who willfully and habitually infringe on others' copyrights risk being in violation of our Terms of Service.

[artislife]

111. Here you go

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/


Don't you remember that speech? I assume you have been a Hillary supporter for a while.

This speech made an impression on me.


I didn't support her, but there you go.

[beam me up scottie]

113. Obama called Hillary "Annie Oakley" after that speech pandering to gun owners.

She wanted them to think Obama was an anti-gun nut.

[artislife]

117. That was funny when he said that

But I loved him. I had people hurling Obambot at me, asking me if I drank the Kool Aid..


Wasn't it the H campaign that came up with the hopey change smear?

[beam me up scottie]

122. I don't know. I do remember the PUMAs though.

Everyone who criticized Hillary was a sexist.

They're trying to do the same thing this time around but DU's Sandernista Feministas aren't letting them get away with it!

[artislife]

130. I was on the feminists sites in 2008

That's why I know her campaign so well. I was excited about Obama and found out that the majority of PUMAS were white and told me my gender was more important than my race. I didn't know why they did not like Obama AT ALL. The stuff I read and entered into debate makes this site right now look very polite and pedestrian.



And they were the angriest people I have ever encountered.

One woman I still have nightmares about, threatened to vote against every woman's right in the future so the young, stupid girls would have to fight all over. She vowed to turn on every light and to run water to help use up all the natural resources so the young would have nothing. There were so many.

[beam me up scottie]

133. That was ugly, I tried to forget how they treated their sisters.

And a lot of women who support HC are turning on us again.

They've learned nothing.

[artislife]

135. I am finding it hard to understand how former Obama

supporters are now Hillary supporters.

I don't get it. I can't forget what Hillary did. Sure the PUMAS were what they were, but Hillary did some things. She and her surrogates.

Bernie hasn't done anything, while there is a faction of his supporters that I would love to shut up, he hasn't done anything that could even be considered impolite towards Hillary or her supporters.

Odd.

[beam me up scottie]

136. I was just discussing the Clinton dog whistles in another thread.

I don't get it either, artislife.

Bernie hasn't done anything, while there is a faction of his supporters that I would love to shut up, he hasn't done anything that could even be considered impolite towards Hillary or her supporters.

Exactly. I'm responsible for my behaviour and no one else's, and I have to live with myself after the primary.

After seeing Bernie repeatedly swift boated by the same people I doubt some of them can feel shame.

[artislife]

138. I don't expect self reflection

I did, but I have grown so much since 2008.

Good night! I am up early in the am!

[beam me up scottie]

139. So have I.

G'nite!

[MADem]

148. Who became the first SECSTATE in the Obama administration? Anyone? Buehller?

They get along just fine. Not "odd." It's what adults do.

?w=1000&h=667

[ieoeja]

256. Secretary of a State department stripped of its single most important responsibility.

Special Envoy to the Middle East reported directly to the White House during Obama's first term. Immediately after Kerry's confirmation as Hillary's replacement, the Special Envoy was returned to State control.

And, of course, the White House had to disavow Hillary's comments on more than one occasion. I do not know of another SoS in the entire history of the United States who had to be disavowed more than once.

Appears that getting along is just pretense.

[MADem]

265. If you need to believe that massive, honking fiction, you go on ahead.

The reality is far more nuanced. You do realize (or maybe you don't) that Obama named his (more than one, actually) "special envoy" before his SECSTATE was confirmed? And that the choice was made by the both of them? I'm guessing you DIDN'T realize that, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to float that lead balloon:

On January 22, 2009, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed Mitchell as the administration's Special Envoy to the Arab-Israeli peace process, formally known as the "Special Envoy for Middle East Peace".[30] The appointment was seen as an indication of the new Obama administration's increased focus on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The choice of Mitchell allowed Obama to demonstrate the seriousness and sincerity of his intentions regarding the peace process, without forcing him to immediately embark on a specific initiative before conditions were yet ripe. An analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said Mitchell's appointment "says to the world, 'I care about this issue; be patient with me.'"[30] Abraham Foxman, the National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, has stated that, "Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed".[31]

Cough.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2009/1029/p02s25-usfp.html

And cough.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0513/Sen.-Mitchell-steps-down-as-Middle-East-envoy.-Was-it-a-mission-impossible

You might want to examine the sources where you're getting these ham-handed claims. They sound a bit "off" for this website, if you know what I mean.

ieoeja
256. Secretary of a State department stripped of its single most important responsibility.
View profile

Special Envoy to the Middle East reported directly to the White House during Obama's first term. Immediately after Kerry's confirmation as Hillary's replacement, the Special Envoy was returned to State control.

And, of course, the White House had to disavow Hillary's comments on more than one occasion. I do not know of another SoS in the entire history of the United States who had to be disavowed more than once.

Appears that getting along is just pretense.

[ieoeja]

268. I stand by my statements.

I'm not getting my claims from anywhere. I am not so stupid as to think they do not make deals behind closed doors that they will never tell us.

Fact: Obama may have "replaced" the Special Envoy, but the position pre-existed his presidency and reported to the State Department.

Fact: that changed when Obama got into office.

Fact: that changed BACK when Hillary was replaced by Kerry.

Opinion: Hillary was given State as a deal around the time of the Democratic National Convention because Obama did not really want Hillary, but did need her supporters. As part of the deal, State was stripped of its single most important responsibility because Obama did not want Hillary in the way.


It is sort of like Benghazi. It was a CIA office, not a State office. Stevens was accompanied by CIA mercenaries, with no other embassy personnel present. CIA security forces were the only US forces sent to the rescue.

I do not have a single source anywhere that says Stevens was effectively killed as a CIA operative in the field. I would have to be pretty fucking stupid to not believe that. But if you ask I won't be able to produce a single source making that claim.

Thinking is the enemy of propaganda. And it has become clear that a certain political operation underway relies pretty much exclusively on propaganda. So I can see why they might not want people thinking. "Got a link?"

[MADem]

270. You aren't the Oracle at Delphi, you are obviously getting your statements from somewhere.

I think your sources are not doing you any favors.

Ever heard of the phrase "consider the source?" I think you need to start doing that. Your "facts" are totally out of order.

[ieoeja]

271. YOUR sources agreed with my "facts". n/t

[MADem]

272. No, they didn't.

It's impossible for a person to make an governmental appointment when they aren't yet holding the job that would enable them to do that, because they haven't been confirmed to the position.

You might read fully, and not cherry-pick, too. It helps to see the full picture.

Your strong "wanting" is overriding your analysis.

[maddiemom]

180. PLEASE. It was Sarah Palin.

The U.S. of Amnesia indeed!

[artislife]

181. Was it?

Probably.


That is kind of funny that I thought it was Hillary. And probably just for me.

[maddiemom]

183. The quote from Palin was something like:

"How's that hopey, changy thing workin' out for ya....?" Don't remember which of her word salad speeches, butting in in 2012, it was.

[artislife]

186. That interview with Couric...

Oh yeah, we were afraid the republican women were going to back her 100%. Or at least I was. I remember when McCain announced her as the running mate, before we all got to know her, and thinking...wow, they just upped the ante.

Saw a lot of McCain/Palin bumper stickers on cars in the Puget Sound...wow.

[MADem]

213. Don't expect accuracy when there's a disparagement to be made!

Here's a link to buttress your claim--and it's from NPR, too!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123462728

[MADem]

132. That's nice. It's irrelevant, but nice. nt

[passiveporcupine]

214. That's nice. It's dismissive, but nice. nt

[A Simple Game]

185. I don't know about the poster in question but don't assume present Hillary supporters

were Hillary supporters in '08. I know a few on DU that were viciously anti-Hillary back then. You wouldn't know it now.

My theory is that these people just want a minority President, they don't care what minority, they don't care how good a President they would be, they just want a minority President.

Personally I'm glad we finally had a Black President and and despite some disappointments over all give him a passing grade. I would like to see a woman President and think one could bring new and much needed qualities to the job. I could vote for a lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual, anything at all for President. I do not consider gender, past or present, or sexual orientation, a qualification for or against the job. But I will not vote for anyone pro-war to be President no matter what else they may bring to the table. Especially one that was pro-war for political reasons.

[artislife]

187. That is what I am guessing

I am puzzled by the jump from Obama to Hillary. Don't they remember her, the onslaught, the not turning over her delegates, the screams of wrong doing and the threats?

I guess not.

[A Simple Game]

189. Selective memory, very selective it would seem. n/t

[MADem]

215. Some people don't understand the concept of SECOND CHOICE here at DU. That's the problem.

HRC was my first choice in 08. Obama was my 2nd choice. When HRC lost the nomination, I voted for BHO in the general. She bacame his SECSTATE and they did great things together. They 'got over it.' I liked the job the entire administration was doing and supported the team's goals so I voted for them again in 12. Now, I'll vote for Obama's first SECSTATE to continue his legacy.

HRC is my first choice again--Sanders was 2nd, but the more I hear from his supporters (not him--he's completely drowned out by them), the less I am liking him. He was on tv this morning and specifically refused to trash HRC, but that doesn't stop his "crew" from continuing the relentless, personal, pointless disparagment of a Democrat who has an outstanding record of public service. People do get known by the company they keep--and sorry, many of BS's supporters look like bad company to me. O'Malley, even though he doesn't have much of a chance, is quickly moving into 2nd place in my heart simply because his supporters aren't incessantly vicious about my candidate and her husband.

Bernie's supporters (and the libertarians who help incite the bad behavior) waste no time in doing the GOP's work for them--and that is unfortunate.

I think Barney Frank's assessment of the lay of the land is valid:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484_Page2.html#ixzz3giwZB72j

[bjobotts]

245. He represents the constituents of Vermont where there are few gun control laws. If it were

NY he represented he would vote differently. These are wedge issues used to divide and we really don't give a shit. Overall he's the best that can be achieved so stop with the NRA crap cause we really don't give a shit. Now Wall street Corporatism we do care about as our whole economy and way of living is involved.

[MADem]

260. What a lovely post!! "Stop with the NRA crap cause we really don't give a shit" -- you are

a perfect example of why Sanders is having trouble growing his base!

Thanks so much for your contribution to this thread--you make the issue all the more clear!

bjobotts
245. He represents the constituents of Vermont where there are few gun control laws. If it were
View profile
NY he represented he would vote differently. These are wedge issues used to divide and we really don't give a shit. Overall he's the best that can be achieved so stop with the NRA crap cause we really don't give a shit. Now Wall street Corporatism we do care about as our whole economy and way of living is involved.

[BeanMusical]

169. "Only reason I can see is his hair. "

Lol! Good one.

[dsc]

192. actually among other things

the NRA scored votes for both Sotomayor and Kagan and the Surgeon General all of which Sanders voted against the NRA on.

[bjobotts]

243. Liberals don't know they're liberals eh. Oh give it up with the Bernie /NRA crap.We don't give a sh

[sabrina 1]

114. Why don't you promote YOUR candidate? This is primary season and we don't much about

where she stands on:

The TPP, now about to become a huge issue in this campaign due to the breakdown in what was supposed to be the final talks.

Welfare Reform. Has she changed her mind on this legislation?

The wars that began when Bush got what he wanted to go invade Iraq and since then we've been at war everywhere ever since.

Has she changed her mind about 'tough on crime' policies, which has disproportionately incarcerated more AAs along with other Americans than all other civilized nations COMBINED and some not so civilized.

Fortunately the SC overturned one other piece of legislation she supported, three strikes and you're out, so we won't have to deal with that, thank the gods. A horrible, anti-Constitutional policy that caused so much injustice it will go down in history as a stain on our system of justice.

There is so much to talk about, which is what primaries are for.

So why do you spend your time talking Bernie but never about ISSUES?

[MADem]

115. I do. Why don't you stick to your own knitting? nt

[sabrina 1]

121. Lol, knitting? Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I should stick to knitting!

I know, women ought to be quiet and stay in the kitchen or something, no? Well, sorry this is the 21st Century and I can't say I know a single woman who even knows how to knit.

Funny how things slip out every once in a while.

[MADem]

125. Your failure is assuming only women knit. You couldn't be more mistaken.

Americans have the oddest prejudices!

http://www.menwhoknit.com/community/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-bucior/men-who-knit_b_3860427.html

[beam me up scottie]

123. Wow. Sexism is alive and well on DU.

Keep it classy MADem.

[MADem]

124. Wow -- sexism IS alive and well! I still have a scarf knitted by my very late grandfather, AND

my house is full of his needlepoint work, in wall art, pillows, hassocks, and other items, which he learned, in the days before TV and even radio were all that common, from his mother.

This guy was big on needlework, too:



You should not ASSUME. It's poor form. And very sexist, too!!!

[beam me up scottie]

129. So you would give the same advice to male posters?

Somehow I doubt it.

[MADem]

131. Absolutely. It is a common expression. I don't know most people's genders here, anyway.

If you seriously think "Stick to your knitting" is a sexist expression, I have a bridge to sell you.

Maybe this link will help you: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/stick+to+knitting

stick to (one's) knitting Informal
To mind one's own business.
See also: stick, to
stick to your knitting
if a person or company sticks to their knitting, they continue to do what they have always done instead of trying to do something they know very little about He believes the key to a company's success is to stick to its knitting rather than trying to diversify.

Or this one:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/stick-or-tend-to-the-or-one's-knitting

stick (or tend) to the (or one's) knitting
Definition of stick or tend to the or one's knitting in English:
informal (Of a person or an organization) concentrate on a familiar area of activity rather than diversify; mind one’s own business.

[Ed Suspicious]

240. Not so common.

[MADem]

241. To anyone with a fair command of English, it is.

I've provided two dictionary references. There are more online if you need them.

[Blue_In_AK]

295. It must be an East Coast phrase.

I've never heard it used.

[passiveporcupine]

216. Aren't you being dismissive here again?

Why are you trying to shut up anyone who brings up the truth about Hillary?

[MADem]

218. No. If I had the power to "shut up anyone" on this board, I'd be getting

requests like Dick Clark on Bandstand.

[senz]

246. One thing I do like about you MADem --

That little kitty who pulls down the red "X" in the box. Very nice gif, have always admired it.

[BeanMusical]

288. Knitting? What a load of misogynist crap!

[sabrina 1]

253. Sanders also votes/voted against Neocon Wars (speaking of guns, how about WMDS killing

untold numbers of innocent people)

He voted against Doma, FOR Marriage equality from the moment it became an issue.

He is against the TPP, the Keystone Pipeline, voted AGAINST the draconian Welfare Reform Bill.

Does anyone know Hillary's position on any of these issues, other than her evolvement which took an awfully long time, on Gay Rights?

[uponit7771]

203. I don't like Beries stance on guns so far

[pocoloco]

224. One of my heroes was a "gun humper"!!

Taking a little bit of responsibility for her own safety!
?2

[Ken Burch]

277. You'd rather have seen a Republican win that race...

...even though Bernie being defeated would have meant Vermont would never elect another progressive to the Senate?

[MADem]

278. Hell no!

Why even say such a thing? This is one issue we are discussing. You're always going to get a right wing gun attitude out of VT, the same way you're going to get a kind attitude towards Wall St. from NY, and a sanguine view of credit cards from DE, and a happy attitude about corn from IA and NE. All politics is local.

But let's not pretend that Sanders is not to the right of every Democrat either currently running, or contemplating running, save perhaps Webb, where if anything they're probably on the same page, WRT this matter.

[BeanMusical]

167. Lol, that poster is always on the wrong side.

What a shame.

[MADem]

219. "That poster" just doesn't agree with you. I happen to prefer my POV to yours. nt

[BeanMusical]

259. That poster is more often wrong than right.

Oops scratch that. Right she is. And like most people here I happen to prefer my POV to yours.

[Armstead]

12. And that's one reason I like him

First of all he's not a gun nut or NRA stooge.

But he does take something slightly different because, as he correctly has stated "We can continue to argue about gun control for decades and get nothing done. or we can look for solutions that work and get put in place." (paraphrased)

He also -- without sacrificing principles -- realizes the "Whats the matter with Kansas" question ablout why so many conservatives vote against their own interests. You get a little less dogmatic about an issue like guns -- again without sacrificing principles -- in order to weaken that as an issue that turns off the peope who should be supporting liberal economic and social policies.

That not that far removed from the "pragmatic" approach that DLC Centrists claim to support too. Except in this case, sandrs is attampting to do it to gain suopport for actual reform in the economy and related social policies.

[MADem]

19. Yes he is--post eighteen. nt

[beam me up scottie]

27. No, he's not: Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm#Gun_Control

[MADem]

36. Your link is old/inaccurate. His present rating, as the Jul 9 link I provided shows, is D MINUS. nt

[beam me up scottie]

37. Indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

Some gun nut!

[MADem]

62. That's not accurate. It means he didn't vote with the NRA on every single issue. nt

[beam me up scottie]

87. He's still pro-gun control and the NRA still gave him a bad grade.

[MADem]

89. Anything less than slavish adherence will get a politician a bad grade. He got a C in 2006. nt

[beam me up scottie]

92. And he's still a pro-gun control "gun nut".

[MADem]

100. Cough Brady Bill cough.

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.

Experts agreed that on guns, Sanders’ views are to the right of his Democratic rivals.

"When it comes to guns, he’s not Ted Cruz, but he believes federal policy should be less intrusive than Martin O’Malley or Hillary Clinton," said Eric Davis, who studies Vermont politics at Middlebury College.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

[beam me up scottie]

107. "Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban"

Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban
Wednesday, April 17, 2013

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban

[MADem]

142. He's a good vote counter, I'll give him that. He threaded the needle well on that transaction.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it.

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

[beam me up scottie]

144. Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban = #Not Good Enough Bernie!!1!

Et tu immamisssmartypants?

[MADem]

145. It's easy to vote for things that don't pass, and you know they aren't going to pass, especially if

you want to blunt your hard edge on a particular interest area.

It's not about "not good enough" -- it's just political calculation. Everyone does it. Even Saint Bernard of Burlington.

[beam me up scottie]

147. Right because Bernie's a liar and couldn't possibly have voted his conscience.

We all know he really loves his gunz!

Bernie once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.

[MADem]

149. I am not making those characterizations--but you are going out of your way to say nasty things about

your candidate and then try--and fail when I won't let you do that--to ascribe them to me.

Curious. Why would you even invent such a "Bernie is a liar" trope? It serves no purpose.

[beam me up scottie]

153. Sure you did, right here:

It's easy to vote for things that don't pass, and you know they aren't going to pass, especially if

you want to blunt your hard edge on a particular interest area.

It's not about "not good enough" -- it's just political calculation. Everyone does it. Even Saint Bernard of Burlington.

And here's what Bernie actually said when he voted for gun control:

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,”

“To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

You claimed he voted for something he knew wouldn't pass because he wanted to "blunt his hard edge on a particular interest area".

So, yes, you're saying he lied about why he voted for it.

[MADem]

155. It's not my fault you don't get realpolitik.

If you don't think every politician does this, I do have a bridge for sale.

This is just an issue where BS does it. He's clever enough to vote "liberal" when it doesn't count, and vote for the guns when it has a shot at passing.

He's a good vote counter, and he has a POV about guns. His POV, like it, or not, is to the right of every other Democratic candidate. That's just the truth.

[MADem]

157. Wow--that was an ugly post. Proud of yourself that you lost it so much you had to say that?

Damn!!! You really lowered yourself with that one.

I think someone needs another link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

Happy reading.

You're getting bitter and personal, so I'ma gonna leave you be. Hope you get over it.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Aw, you mad, bro?

I don't need to "get over" anything because I didn't even bat an eyelash when you claimed Bernie lied in his statement.

[MADem]

160. Keep digging--you are really letting it all hang out!

You reveal your true personality with every sentence you post. So...do go on.

[beam me up scottie]

161. Mwah!

[Agony]

174. Eggzacktilly!

Swiftboating is in full swing.

[Armstead]

162. But wait a minute....I thought Bernie is an unrealistic ideologue

He's just an "ideological purist" who doesn't understand politics and the way things get done in our system.

I thought the mantra was:

"We have to compromise.You Bernie supporters are just ideological purists who want unicorns and don't understand the need to compromise and bargain. Bernie doesn;t know politics. Hillary knows how the system works. "

I wish you all would get your stories straight.

[MADem]

221. I'll let Barney Frank explain it to you. There is no "mantra." There's just simple reality.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484_Page2.html#ixzz3giwZB72j

[passiveporcupine]

226. interesting isn't it? nt

[sabrina 1]

191. I think we should let them keep pushing this. They THINK it's a winning issue

but the Dem Leadership knows it isn't and has been very 'pragmatic' when it comes to the gun issue.

Because they know despite the stupid rhetoric from Rush Limbaugh et al, that Democrats own guns just like all Americans and the Bernie's position on guns is pretty much that of most Americans.

But think of it this way, political insiders never worry much about what is good for the country, they care mostly about 'winning' and will and have compromised on pretty much everything for that.

So with the Third Way attacking Bernie on this issue, think of all the Votes he will get BECAUSE they are attacking him.

I mean we may as well be 'pragmatic' once in a while also.

[passiveporcupine]

220. Why do you dismiss Hillary's past record on issues

But Bernie's is fair game?

[MADem]

222. I don't. I look at the big picture--her record is stronger and better than his. Here, read this.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484_Page2.html#ixzz3giwZB72j

[passiveporcupine]

229. Consider the source.

from your link

especially those who, like me, share most of Sanders’ policy views and do not have an allergic reaction to the word “socialism,” even if we disagree with it as an economic theory

He's attacking Bernie with the very same term that makes Bernie a favorite. Only he's eliminating the democratic socialist.

is that one clear result of a long Clinton-Sanders nomination contest would be that some of his vulnerabilities will accrue to her.

Bull pucky!

This article speaks of Hillary blinders and cowardice to me.

[MADem]

233. You are having some trouble with the written word. YOU need to read that again.

That is not an "attack" -- it is the opposite, actually. Read carefully.

those who, like me, share most of Sanders’ policy views and do not have an allergic reaction to the word “socialism,”

Let's review:

He shares his policy views.

The word "socialism" doesn't freak him out.

He simply disagrees with him on economic issues. That happens with Democrats, it happens with Republicans, it happens intra- and inter-party.

What "some of his vulnerabilities will accrue to her" means is that his weaknesses on the campaign trail will rub off on her. It's a valid argument--whoever is the standard-bearer at the end of a primary has to respond to any "unanswered" or "unresolved" questions with regard to their primary contenders' POVs.

I guess that lumpity-lump I'm hearing is you tossing one of America's greatest liberals, and one the Democratic party's most dynamic former legislators under the bus.

[passiveporcupine]

234. Oh dear me

I left out the most important part of what he said:

those who, like me, share most of Sanders’ policy views and do not have an allergic reaction to the word “socialism, even if we disagree with it as an economic theory

[MADem]

236. No--you didn't leave it out, and I commented about it in my post, above.

Re-read, and search hard for the economic word in my previous post, mmkay?

Let's review:

He shares his policy views.

The word "socialism" doesn't freak him out.


He simply disagrees with him on economic issues. That happens with Democrats, it happens with Republicans, it happens intra- and inter-party.

Look--if you can't be bothered to read, there can be no conversation. In fact, this exchange is rapidly hurtling towards pointless, if it's not there already. We might as well wrap this up.

Barney doesn't have a problem with most of Sander's views, he doesn't mind the "S" word, but he doesn't agree with the economic end of Sanders' philosophies. Most people in America don't, at least not the full-bore version. So what? Barney's sure as hell not alone in this view--otherwise, we'd have 435 socialists sitting in the House of Representative--but we don't have that, do we?

Now, you don't have to like Barney Frank anymore, even though he has been a stalwart liberal for many, many decades. Disregard his views, his experience, his long history. Whatever!

[ybbor]

190. He got a C-

Not a C, your own post says so. There is a difference you know.

So how does one get better than a C-? If he is just barely not in lockstep with them, how does one earn a C+, or a B?

C- minus is still pretty poor.

And on a totally different topic, why can't Hillary supporters ever post about her good stances on issues, and only defend her poor ones?

Whenever Bernie supporters tout his issues we are called unicorn and rainbow dreamers. What are her positive positions?

[MADem]

211. Quite right! C MINUS it is!!!! I do beg your pardon!!

This might help: http://www.salon.com/2015/07/09/bernie_sanders_has_a_troubled_record_on_gun_control%C2%A0but_the_nra_still_hates_him/

So what gives? Why is it so hard for so many online conservatives to give Sanders a modicum of credit for agreeing with them, especially when he has peeved liberals from Mark Joseph Stern of Slate to fellow 2016 presidential candidate Martin O’Malley in the process?

The main problem is that, for a large number of pro-gun advocates, support for their interpretation of the Second Amendment is an all-or-nothing deal. “For more than three decades, the NRA has consistently argued that pretty much any new regulation of firearms would move the country a step closer to more draconian regulations, like gun registration and confiscation,” writes Michael Scherer of Time magazine, adding that “in the longtime logic of the Second Amendment activist, all gun regulations are suspect because of what might happen next.”

As Alan Berlow explained here at Salon, the NRA is “an organization whose Web pages are replete with paranoid conspiracy theories” and “whose top leaders are quite literally predicting—based on not a scintilla of actual evidence—that all Americans will be disarmed by the end of President Obama’s second term and that the Second Amendment will be ‘excised from the Constitution.’”

Hence, even though Sanders opposed the Brady Act of 1993 (one of the earliest gun control bills), supported prohibiting lawsuits against gunmakers and manufacturers, voted in favor of allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, and defended gun owners from liberal critics by asserting that “99.9 percent of [gun owners] obey the law,” he is distrusted because he hasn’t always toed the NRA line. As former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman explained to the Trace, the organization views voting in favor of any kind of firearm ban or regulation as irredeemable “unless you vote the other way later on.”

Although the NRA was thus willing to fund a campaign against one of Sanders’ opponents (who supported an assault weapons ban) in a 1990 congressional race, it has subsequently fluctuated in grading him; he reached his peak in 2006 when they gave him a C-, but after his support for President Obama’s ultimately unsuccessful proposed gun control law in 2013, Sanders now sits at a D-minus. .... Even though most polls find Americans closely divided on the broader issue of gun regulation (a CNN/ORC poll from June 2015 found Americans split 49/49 on whether we should have stricter gun control laws and believing by a 3-to-2 margin that stricter gun laws wouldn’t reduce the amount of violence or gun-related deaths), there are specific gun-related reforms that receive overwhelming support....

People post about HRC's POVs all the time--the threads usually get trashed pretty quickly in GD-P by her opponents who do the very thing you decry. Even though HRC supporters are in the majority IRL, here on DU they are a minority and the regulars (plus the people who only show up every four years, and a fair percentage of the newcomers who will surely disappear--as they have done since this site was founded--at the end of the election season) are doing a pretty good job bigfooting us out of most discussions. That's not an opinion, a quick look at GD-P will tell you all you need to know.

It's not a kind or welcoming place, it's a battlefield. That's why positive discussions are usually better held in the protected groups, and there are plenty going on in there.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. How sad is it

that you're reduced to relying on a D- vs an F to prove that Bernie's a gun humper?

[MADem]

72. It's all or nothing with the NRA.

[beam me up scottie]

171. So it's either an A or an F? What about the C and D ratings you cited earlier?

I sure hope you're not a teacher.

[MADem]

55. But he is.He's right with the NRA on most issues--he gets a D MINUS ONLY because he's not 100 %.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-control-activist-confronts-bernie-sanders-for-sounding-like-the-nra/


Bernie acknowledges his D MINUS (not "F" as reported in this thread) in the second video.


Some tough film at that link, the first video especially, with BS shouting at a questioner....the problem is all those "people in urban areas..." In the second video, he singles out those "gang members" in Chicago. Hmmmm.

It wasn't those cough-urban-cough types who have been shooting up movie theaters and bible study groups, though, was it?

SMH.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Here's what Bernie Sanders had to say after the Charleston massacre:

Sanders: Charleston Shooting Reminder Of 'Ugly Stain Of Racism' In US

Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Thursday condemned the shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C. as a "tragic reminder of the ugly stain of racism" tainting America.

"This senseless violence fills me with outrage, disgust and a deep, deep sadness," Sanders tweeted.

In a longer statement, the Democratic presidential contender said the killings, which were blamed on a white suspect whose victims included state Sen. Clementa Pinckney (D), showed that the U.S. had a long way to go in escaping its history of racial violence.

"The hateful killing of nine people praying inside a church is a horrific reminder that, while we have made significant progress in advancing civil rights in this country, we are far from eradicating racism," he said.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and their congregation," Sanders added.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/charleston-shooting-bernie-sanders-racism

Now here's what President Obama said after Sandy Hook:

"I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations and I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake."

His comments come in the wake of the shootings last month in Newtown, Conn. The killing of 20 children in the town has spurred gun-control advocates to seek restriction on the ownership of certain firearms such as military-style assault rifles.

"Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family's traditions, you can see why you'd be pretty protective of that.

"So it's trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/27/170393072/gun-control-advocates-should-listen-more-obama-says

Are you saying neither Obama or Bernie understand the difference between gun use in urban areas and rural states?

[MADem]

103. Obama is not on the ballot. And how many shootings have we had since Sandy Hook?

Bridging gaps isn't going to cut it.

We need law.

[beam me up scottie]

112. "It wasn't those cough-urban-cough types who have been shooting up movie theaters"

You tried to make Bernie out to be a racist for noting the differences in gun use and I posted a quote from Obama proving that he's not the only one.

Now you're trying to back pedal by saying we need law! like Bernie disagrees.

He's pro-gun control, always has been.

[MADem]

116. He was the one who MENTIONED THEM specifically in his TV comments.

Here--watch, learn:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-control-activist-confronts-bernie-sanders-for-sounding-like-the-nra/

[beam me up scottie]

120. It doesn't matter what spin you put on it, Bernie is pro-gun control.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=488373

[MADem]

126. If you leave off the last word, I could agree with you. nt

[beam me up scottie]

127. Good thing I don't care if you agree with facts.

[MADem]

140. ...but other types of guns used less exclusively? Have at it!!! nt

[sabrina 1]

119. Bernie's position on this issue is mainstream. I'm not worried about it all. Rural and urban areas

of the country are completely different and he is right about the difference.

Also, the Drug War needs to END as it is the cause of much of the gun violence in urban areas.

He has fantastic solutions for all these issues, but anti-Bernie people can't find much in his record on the issues, so they are trying to make an issue of this and it simply won't work

[beam me up scottie]

128. Yes it is, as is Hillary's.

I'm a pro-gun control vegetarian who won't even kill spiders and I agree with Bernie on the issue.

I just bristle when I see someone trying to tar him with racism and memes about gun nuts.

They know what they're doing and so do we.

[beam me up scottie]

15. Let's have a look at your candidate's record on same sex marriage, shall we?

I mean since your article brought it up it's only fair to compare the two candidates, right?

Hillary opposed same sex marriage throughout her career including when she ran for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Had she been elected she would have been a president who opposed equal rights for lgbt people.

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,” Mrs. Clinton told The San Francisco Examiner.

2000: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Mrs. Clinton said while running for the Senate in New York.

2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.

2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.

2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,” Mrs. Clinton telling Gay City News that she would not block legislation supporting gay marriage in New York.

2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to states.

She finally came around in 2013.

2013: “L.G.B.T. Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones, and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage,” Mrs. Clinton said in a video released by Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/




Now let's take a peek into Bernie's background to see how he felt about equal rights for lgbt people:

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.

Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.

“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”

...

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

I think it's obvious who is more liberal.


You're welcome.

[MADem]

30. No, let's not. This thread isn't about "my candidate." Why don't you start one instead of

bigfooting all over Manny's thread with a TLDR cut/paste and changing the subject? You going to do a deconstruction of the political careers of O'Malley and Webb and Chaffee, too, while you're at it?

Manny is insisting that Sanders is a liberal--and even SANDERS says he isn't. So....there's that, too.

“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.” -- Bernie Sanders

[beam me up scottie]

34. Oops! Too late.

My bad.

Your article brought up same sex marriage, I can't help it if Bernie's record makes Hillary look conservative.

[George II]

26. Bazinga!

[Enthusiast]

74. No Bazinga. Not even.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Bobbie Jo]

232. + a whole bunch and stuff.

[azurnoir]

40. Google Hunter Schwarz Hillary Clinton -it'll be informative :)

[MADem]

50. I thought this thread was about Liberal Bernie Sanders.

Why can't you focus on that, I wonder?

[azurnoir]

51. pointing out that a Bernie bashing article was written by a Hillary supporter adds perspective

and does not take away from the subject

[beam me up scottie]

53. Why can't you focus on more than one thing at a time?

You're posting links all over the thread trying to prove Bernie isn't liberal but azurnoir's request confused you?

[MADem]

146. Why can't you stop changing the subject? See how that works? nt

[artislife]

60. We still have the right to bear arms in this country

But believing in control is where we can effect change in how guns are used.

However, the idea of what control is, has a wide range of what is deemed suitable for some and not deemed the same for others.

For the record. I believe in the right to bear arms. I have never has a gun and nor do I foresee ever owning a gun. But I do want there to be strict controls on what kinds of guns, who can get guns and full responsibility if your gun is used. I want there to be dire consequences when a gun is used for other than hunting or sport. Even I cringe at the word sport, but there are people who go to gun ranges for fun and learn to use a fire arm.

Do I think children should be able to shoot their instructor in the head. No.

Do I think Sandhook was was a terrible tragedy? Yes.

A mentally unstable person had very easy access to guns. With that statement it can be applied to the parent of the child and to the shooter of Sandy Hook.

This nuance of my stand might be to subtle for such a site to ponder, however.

[BKH70041]

3. Won't happen.

Sanders supporters and the like will never be happy within the Party. The Democratic Party is exactly as it should be and will remain. Those who view it as "too corporate" need to go form their own party.

A year from now you'll have a better understanding.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Oh, it's Paradise

For Wall Street.

And the CEOs have their party, the elephant guys.

Nobody represents the people who don't get carted around in limos. But that will change. Either we take our party back, or a new one will be created. It's either 1932, or 1862.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

86. Do you really not understand what "corporate contributor" means?

By this text, it sure sounds like it.

By federal law, no Corporation can donate to a political candidate. The "corporations" that are breathlessly listed as being so "evil" that are supposedly contributing to candidates, are actually the aggregate contributions from the U.S. based employees of those firms. Every time you make a donation, you have to write down who you are employed by. So, far from "CEOs" and people who "get carted around in limos", if you're a back TELLER at BofA, your contribution is tossed in the pile of "Contributions from BofA".

Which means that to receive absolutely no money whatsoever from the financial industry, absolutely everyone, even the Democrats who works in the industry (down to the bank tellers) has to think a candidate is going to be terrible for the economy.

Hillary has run a pretty balanced campaign so far. She's friendly with the moderates and liberals on Wall Street, as she should be. But she continues to push for reforms. And her funding sources are quite diverse.

I'm not expecting to persuade you about this, Manny. Over the decade I've seen you writing, I've seen you become increasingly unhinged, to the point where you bash President Obama as a matter of routine. But when Secretary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I think you will be pleasantly surprised that she really is a Democrat, and not this obscene caricature you've invented in your own mind.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[raouldukelives]

175. Just a quck point. There are no liberals on or in Wall St.

Not saying there aren't some who consider themselves to be. I am sure many do. Just as there were many slave owners and traders who thought of themselves as friends to humanity while they heaped suffering upon others. And by modern Wall St standards, they still would be.

I've always considered a big part of liberalism for myself was in not only in trying creating a better world for all but doing all I could not to make it worse for all because of my short existence.

For others, there is money by any means necessary. No matter the harshest of consequences to others.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

239. Google "socially responsible mutual funds"

You might be surprised.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[raouldukelives]

250. Oh yeah, those have been around awhile now.

Sadly any support of Wall St is still overall support. That is reality. It will either have to be changed electorally or as slavery was changed, by those who refuse to profit themselves from the assured suffering of others.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

251. It sounds like you believe that "liberal" means anti-capitalistic

And in that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[raouldukelives]

284. I believe it means not making things worse for others by my actions.

Just as I believe being a democrat means being pro-democracy. Not anti.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

286. Again, you clearly think business is anti-democracy and "makes things worse"

The overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with you on that point; the overwhelming majority of liberals do too.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[raouldukelives]

290. Who said anything about business?

I'm talking about Wall St, not Main St. If they disagree, that is fine. Doesn't change the facts.

And again, there are no "liberals" in Wall St. The very act of destroying democracy for others precludes that distinction.

For most, it is no loss.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

291. What do you think operates on Wall Street?

Here's a clue. It's the business capitol of the U.S., at least for the eastern half of the United States.
Or, in other words, "business" isn't just limited to hot dog vendors. It applies to larger enterprises as well.

Oh, and insofar as that silly "destroying democracy" charge, businesses don't keep people from voting. Governments often do.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[raouldukelives]

292. Wall St is organized, legalized, crime.

And it may sound silly to some, generally assistants to the cause, but I am convinced the more wealth corporations have, the less democracy we all live under and the less time we will all have remaining.

Nobody does more to get republican and conservative ideals and individuals into office than those who financially back them. Those who labor for them. They are no friends of democracy, they are no liberals, just people who place personal wealth above doing the right thing. And heck, they ain't nothing new.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

293. Legalized crime?

Isn't that what people who are in favor of getting rid of our absurd drug laws are also advocating for? Rightly so?

Wall Street is not a single monolith as you imagine it, and your vision of liberalism, that excludes the idea of liberals being able to do business, is in fact not a popular vision among liberals.

Modern day social liberals are social capitalists. They're not communist. If Democrats really were communists, I wouldn't be one.

And this for a very good reason: if fascism is the merger of State and Corporate power, then having the State take over corporations (communism), is just as dangerous as the reverse.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ I'll be happy to concede that the majority of players on Wall Street lean conservative. This hardly means all of them.
// You're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that someone who donates money to Democratic candidates is really trying to get Republicans elected.

[raouldukelives]

296. If we could practice capitalism that might help.

It is an corporate oligarchy. I myself strongly believe in the idea of democratic capitalism and the ideals of democracy, just as others strongly believe we already exist with the best we can do in that department, and thanks to them, we do.

As a liberal, my main charge for myself has always been living a life that doesn't make others assuredly worse. That I am not a conduit for hate and for those who care not what world they leave behind. If I were in Wall St, I would throw that all away.

I don't want communism, I want Adam Smith capitalism. I could just as easily say you wish oligarchy. And really, when I look around me, I see communism. Wall St has destroyed real America.

When I was a kid they would warn me if we ever became communist we would all line up a giant, square grey buildings that all looked the same to get our toilet paper and onions. A land of uniform conformity and sameness. When I look out across America now. I see those buildings. The Walmarts and Depots. Each one the same as the last, each one the same color, each the same floor layout, each one the same toilet paper.

This wasn't accidental. It was the desires of Wall St. They killed Mom and Pop America.

There are those who take issues like democracy and freedom seriously. Seriously enough to even enlist and kill poor people overseas they envision as a threat. And while I may lack the belief they are the ones stifling our freedoms, and not the corporations, one must appreciate the sacrifice they make.

I don't know that I could ever kill for democracy, but I can certainly suffer for it. And I do, in the best way I can as a liberal.

Thanks for at least conceding the point about our decent into the conservative corporate maelstrom. We literally have to exist in the most democracy they will allow.

As for those who increase the power of corporations and then use a little of that money to support a "liberal" candidate. It is, at its very best, a one step forward, two steps back situation.


I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

[L0oniX]

198. Yea that ol "corporations are people too" thing means nothing.

[bahrbearian]

9. Your saying FDR Democrates need to find a new party

Because its bought and paid for now.

[jwirr]

17. That is the way I took it also. My first historical memory was setting on my mothers lap crying as

we listened to FDR's funeral on the radio. My first vote was for JFK. I worked for many candidates over the years and have been DNC donor until this year.

And s/he has the guts to tell us to find another party. S/he should just give us our party back. We built it. We did not turn it over to the corporatists. We are not the ones who are trying to kick someone out of the party now. We have always been inclusive. We are not the ones who sold it.

We are Democrats.

[Hatchling]

206. FYI

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~BKH70041

[2banon]

254. It's good to have instincts verified which seemed obvious just from a posting

up thread. Yep. thanks for that!

[senz]

248. + 10000

Thank you, jwirr. Well said and true.

[sadoldgirl]

10. You are talking about people, who liked FDR

and his social policies, you are talking about the
millenials, you are talking about the very young
people.
Be honest, without the old and the young dems
you really think you can win the GE?

I doubt it very much, but those are the ones
you want to fight. Good luck to get even a quarter
of their votes.

[zeemike]

29. Well I guess we had better give up and submit.

It's hopeless and the party is owned by the few and we have to get over it...give up on democracy because it was sold and we no longer own it.

[haikugal]

39. Wow, love it or leave it..... nt

[Enthusiast]

77. I know. Incredible!

[Ed Suspicious]

42. Good lord, Man.

"The Democratic Party is exactly as it should be and will remain. Those who view it as "too corporate" need to go form their own party."

[MADem]

44. His strong appeal with Libertarians will probably be the end of him. That's what's alienating

people.

It's no good if you have supporters who can't vote for you in the primary because they're attending your rallies, but they're going to cast their votes for Rand Paul.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-08/meet-the-voters-who-can-t-decide-between-rand-paul-or-bernie-sanders

....They approached the entrance to the Bernie Sanders speech, and the libertarians were waiting. On Saturday afternoon, before 750 or so liberal voters could hear the Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate at a Keene, New Hampshire, rec center, smiling members of “the Shire Society” handed them fliers.

“Something to read while you wait,” chirruped local libertarian activist Derrick J. Freeman, as he grabbed another flier from his stack. “I just think anyone could be interested in the ideas of liberty.”

He was not baiting liberals, or trolling them. He was being serious. .....As most presidential contenders fight for segments of a reliable, partisan base, Paul and Sanders are both courting the voters who want to rebel. Paul, seeking the Republican nomination, identifies as “libertarian-ish.” Sanders, who jumped into the race for the Democratic nod, is a proud “democratic socialist.” ....In New Hampshire over the weekend, there were voters who seemed to be listening to both men. In a state where the first primary of the 2016 presidential campaign will be held, and where voters can decide on the day of the election in which primary they want to vote, that could turn out to be a difference-maker.

Just as there were some Paul admirers at the Sanders event in Keene, some kudos for Sanders could be hears about 60 miles east, as Paul opened his New Hampshire campaign office in Manchester on Friday. More than a few people waiting for the Kentuckian stuck up for the blunt-spoken senator from neighboring Vermont—especially in comparison to the rest of the Democrats.

That's the big problem he's got. The "I'm not a liberal" is the least of his worries!

[ibegurpard]

46. Maybe not this election cycle

But 3rd-way days are numbered. We are taking over the local infrastructure.

[Enthusiast]

80. We need to pull them out by the roots.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[jeff47]

59. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Perhaps you could explain in detail how the Democrats win when all the "crazy liberals" leave the party.

The most optimistic projections for you would mean losing about 20% of the Democratic vote. Which means losses to the Republicans everywhere.

You want to win, you have to deal with us. Just as much as we have to deal with you.

[artislife]

65. Hillary 2016----Because you don't want things to change

[SoapBox]

79. Exactly!

[beam me up scottie]

141. Hillary 2016 - Because she's better than a Republican!

[ctsnowman]

178. lol NT

.

[Armstead]

163. I suppose you defended Ralph Nader and suppoters for doing that in 2000?

I'm sure that back then -- and in the post mortims since then -- you'd always defended Ralph and the people who supported his third party run for the White House.

I suppose you said, "Great. You didn't feel at home with the Democrats so you formed your own party. That's how our system is supposed to work. Good for you."

Somehow I doubt it.

[Hatchling]

208. See my sig line.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Armstead]

209. Yep, simultaneously all-powerful and irrelevant

kind of makes the head spin

[Thinkingabout]

5. I am liberal as is Third Way who supports minimum wage increases for one thing.

We have candidates talking about minimum wage increases, does this make them Third Way. Oh, BTW, they are Democrats.

[Armstead]

7. Where were they when it wasn't the flavor of the month?

The minimum wage has been declining in value for decades.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Ending Glass-Steagall and putting more PoC in jail.

E.g., http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maia-szalavitz/hillary-bill-and-obama-on_b_90062.html

[Scootaloo]

22. don't forget "blowing up Arabs right and left"

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Shock 'n Awe, baby!

What a power trip for that crowd.

[Vattel]

285. The geopolitical chess moves, the destruction and creation of regimes, the mass slaughter,

Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

man, it makes them feel god-like, almost like Kissinger Himself.

[George II]

32. Bernie voted for the legislation that put more POC in jail. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Bernie Sanders on Crime:

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Bernie Sanders on Crime

Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted NO on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted YES on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 78% by CURE, indicating pro-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (Apr 2001)
Require DNA testing for all federal executions. (Mar 2001)
Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (Jan 2007)
Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance. (Mar 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm

You're welcome.

[MADem]

58. Got ANYTHING more recent than eight years old? Hmmm. And your link is bad.

[beam me up scottie]

69. It's from ontheissues.org, if you want something more recent talk to them.

[MADem]

73. Thank you for fixing that broken link. The reason your information is old is because it's from his

Senate race. His Presidential OTI page has more detail: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

Mixed approach to gun control vs. gun rights

On Guns: A mixed approach. No federal handgun waiting period. Some protection for gun manufacturers. Ban assault weapons.
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Apr 30, 2015

More at link...they still haven't updated his F to a D-...which he acknowledges is his current grade.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Remarks by Senator Sanders at the Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Across the nation, too many African-Americans and other minorities find themselves subjected to a system that treats citizens who have not committed crimes like criminals. A growing number of communities do not trust the police and police have become disconnected from the communities they are sworn to protect.

Sandra Bland, Michael Brown, Rekia Boyd, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice. We know their names. Each of them died unarmed at the hands of police officers or in police custody. The chants are growing louder. People are angry. I am angry. And people have a right to be angry. Violence and brutality of any kind, particularly at the hands of law enforcement sworn to protect and serve our communities, is unacceptable and must not be tolerated.

We must reform our criminal justice system. Black lives do matter. And we must value black lives.

We must move away from the militarization of police forces. We must invest in community policing. Only when we get officers into the communities, working within the neighborhoods before trouble arises, do we really develop the relationships necessary to make our communities safer.

We need a federal initiative to completely redo how we train police officers in this country and give them body cameras. States and localities that make progress in this area should get more federal justice grant money. Those that do not should get their funding slashed. The measure of success for law enforcement should not be how many people get locked up.

For people who have committed crimes that have landed them in jail, there needs to be a path back from prison. The federal system of parole needs to be reinstated. We need real education and real skills training for the incarcerated.

We must end the over incarceration of non-violent young Americans who do not pose a serious threat to our society. It is an international embarrassment that we have more people locked up in jail than any other country on earth – more than even the Communist totalitarian state of China. That has got to end.

The war on drugs has been a failure and has ruined the lives of too many people. African-Americans comprise 14 percent of regular drug users but are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2007, about one in three adults arrested for drugs was African-American.

It is an obscenity that we stigmatize so many young Americans with a criminal record for smoking marijuana, but not one major Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for causing the near collapse of our entire economy. This must change.

We need to end prisons for profit, which result in an over-incentive to arrest, jail and detain, in order to keep prison beds full. We need to invest in drug courts and medical and mental health interventions for people with substance abuse problems, so that they do not end up in prison, they end up in treatment.

But we have to go beyond just violence perpetuated by the state. As we saw so horribly in South Carolina, there are still those who seek to terrorize the African American community with violence and intimidation. We need to make sure the federal resources are there to crack down on the illegal activities of hate groups. We need a new social movement to let all the racist haters out there know that they will no longer be accepted in a civilized society.

...

Let’s go to an issue that is rightly on everyone’s mind, the continuing struggle for racial justice in America and the need to combat structural racism. Let’s start with the facts. The horrible facts.

* If current trends continue, one in four black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during their lifetime. This is an unspeakable tragedy.

*Blacks are imprisoned at six times the rate of whites.

*People of color are incarcerated, policed and sentenced to death at significantly higher rates than their white counterparts.

*One in every 15 African-American men is incarcerated, compared to one in every 106 white men.

*A report by the Department of Justice found that blacks were three times more likely to be searched during a traffic stop, compared to white motorists.

*African-Americans are twice as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.

*African-Americans make up two-fifths of confined youth today.

*African-American women are three times more likely than white women to be incarcerated.

*Once convicted, black offenders receive longer sentences (10 percent longer) than white offenders for the same crimes.

*Thirteen percent of African-American men have lost the right to vote due to felony convictions.

more... https://berniesanders.com/remarks-senator-sanders-southern-christian-leadership-conference/

That Bernie, he's all about putting poc in prison.

[MADem]

81. It's not black people who are gunning people down in schools and movie theaters.

Yet his focus was "urban" when asked.

He's tone deaf.

Also, I edited upthread--you were using an old link.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Obama and Bernie have both noted the difference in urban and rural gun use.

As I posted upthread in #66

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=488230

But keep digging.

[MADem]

91. Obama's not on the ballot in 2016. And people keep getting killed in movie theaters, churches,

schools, colleges, etc.

And it's not "urban people" doing the killing.

[beam me up scottie]

96. So Obama was wrong to note the difference right after Sandy Hook?

Good thing Bernie is pro-gun control or you'd have a point.

[MADem]

98. "So" have they changed election law, and Obama's on the 2016 ballot? This thread isn't about Obama.

Obama's views are his. The topic here is Sanders. All this "So this one" or "So that thing..." is just distraction. Sanders has a record, and way too many posts seem to want to do anything save discuss it.

Even when he says he's not a liberal, no one wants to listen to the poor guy!

They don't want Sanders as he is, they want an IDEA of Sanders--and they will be disappointed.

[beam me up scottie]

105. Bernie is pro-gun control, no amount of spin from HC supporters will change that fact.

You decided to try to paint him as racist for stating that gun crime in urban areas is different than in rural ones and I body checked you with a quote from Obama saying the exact same thing.

Hillary is also pro-gun rights by the way.

She's a hunter who pandered to gun owners in 2008.

[MADem]

152. Mmmm hmmmm.

Bernie has gaps in his gun portfolio, and he doesn't seem to appreciate that it's not just an 'urban' problem. He ties himself up with his own words--blame him if you don't like what he's saying.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0716/Bernie-Sanders-s-gun-control-record-gives-Hillary-Clinton-an-opening

Bernie Sanders's gun-control record gives Hillary Clinton an opening

[PoutrageFatigue]

230. Kinda like HRC's equivocation on just about everything else then, yes?

I happen to think his position on guns as it relates to urban vs rural is spot on.

I have no clue, literally none, from day to day what Mrs Clinton's are on just about anything substantive.

[MADem]

231. No. nt

[Thinkingabout]

13. The same place we have been, begging for a raise.

[Ed Suspicious]

45. You can beg. I'm going to demand.

[Thinkingabout]

56. Well, I see how this has worked so far.

[rhett o rick]

16. I can see why you might be confused. Some think that if they say the support same sex marriage

they are liberal. If you bowed down to Bush the Boy King and authorize him to kill a million innocent Iraqi's YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL.
If you bow down to Goldman-Sachs YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. If you are willing to look the other way with regard to war crimes YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. If you support the TPP, YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. If you think that fracking is the bridge to the new energy, YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. If you don't want to re-institute a new Glass-Steagall, YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL. These are all conservative stands. Admit it.

There are two sides to this class war. The people's side, the 99%'s side, and the corporatist/conservative side. I dare you to tell us which side you are on.

[Scootaloo]

25. Oh, oh, depends on WHEN you support same sex marriage

see, if you supported it before it gained momentum, you were a radical, and you HATED obama, and you wanted to damage the Democrats' chances!

According to a few DU'ers who are - to her them speak now - the sole saviors of LGBT people - gay people "had more than enough rights already"

That's a line posted by a guy whose name is very Christmas-y who now is host of one of the more popular DU groups.

[MADem]

33. If you say "I am not a liberal" .... are you a liberal?

“I’m not a liberal. Never have been. I’m a progressive who mostly focuses on the working and middle class.”

--Bernie Sanders

[beam me up scottie]

35. Is someone who opposes same sex marriage more "liberal" than someone who supports it?

[MADem]

49. Who opposes it now, in 2015? Mike Huckabee?

It's the law of the land.

I'd say someone who authorized, from discretionary funds, benefits for same sex couples at State well before SSM became law of the land is on the right side of that issue. Actions speak louder than words. Who put their discretionary funding where the mouth was, back in 2009?

Not just talk, but walk.

[beam me up scottie]

52. I'd say the one who opposed same sex marriage until 2013 is less liberal.

So she wanted same sex couples to get benefits, big fucking deal.

Hillary also marched in gay pride parades while opposing lgbt rights.

The fact that she needed to evolve at all on civil rights is another reason not to trust her.

[jeff47]

64. Yes, it's not like "separate but equal" has any sort of negative history in our country. (nt)

[MADem]

82. How about "no benefits" vs. "benefits--we can't wait for the law to catch up with what's right."

Way to claw desperately to pick a negative out of someone leading the way.

[jeff47]

83. "Leading the way" on 'gay marriage' by opposing it.

Yeah....makes perfect sense.

[MADem]

88. Opposing it by funding benefits for partners of LGBT diplomats and foreign service personnel.

Six years before the Supreme Court made that law of the land. Yeah, whatever.

I don't think you're very convincing, but do carry on! How about a few ancient quotes from way back in the day!

Who talks, and who stepped up and did something? That's the bottom line here. Talk, as we all know, is cheap.

[jeff47]

93. So you're saying she's a liar then?

'Cause she spoke against same-sex marriage until 2013. If she actually supported it, that would make her a liar.

What Clinton supported before 2013 was separate-but-equal. Her setting up separate-but-equal at the state department does not actually contradict that.

[MADem]

95. Are you having trouble with the written word? nt

[jeff47]

97. Not at all. Are you?

You seem to be, since you're having a lot of trouble reading her own statements on the subject.

She supported separate-but-equal until 2013. She set up separate-but-equal at the state department.

You are now claiming that she was lying when she said she supported separate-but-equal, and actually supported marriage. As evidence, you point to her setting up....separate-but-equal.

[beam me up scottie]

108. By opposing same sex marriage until 2013.

Ancient quotes you say?:

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,”

2000: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,”

2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,”

2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,”

2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,”

2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to state



Yeah buddy, that was ages ago!

Who talks, and who stepped up and did something?

Not Hillary, well, not until 2013 anyway.

Bernie on the other hand stepped up decades ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=488363

[beam me up scottie]

90. Bernie always supported lgbt rights: benefits, marriage, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

He didn't need to "evolve" to know that discrimination is wrong.

Your candidate didn't "lead the way", Bernie did.

[MADem]

94. And where did he put his money where his mouth is? Did he ever pay benefits to same sex partners on

his staff? That would be helpful...if he did do that, of course.

He does have some "evolving" to do on gun control issues. He also has some "evolving" to do on immigration and foreign policy.

Only the hubris laden and stupid don't "evolve."

Liz Warren "evolved" from being a Republican in the 1990s to being the charming progressive she is today.

What's wrong with evolution? The alternative is fundamentalist, never changing beliefs that don't adapt to a changing environment or society.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Some light reading for inquiring minds who actually care about lgbt rights:

On LGBT Rights, Bernie Leads and Hillary Follows

Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.

On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.

But she isn't the only option.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.

Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html

Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.

Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

...

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.

Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.

“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.

“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.

...

But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.

Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders on Civil Rights

Equal pay for equal work by women. (Mar 2015)
Bush’s tracking citizens’ phone call patterns is illegal. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
Rated 93% by the ACLU, indicating a pro-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery. (Jun 2008)
ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)
Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools. (Mar 2011)
Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights. (Aug 2012)
Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jan 2013)
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools. (Jun 2013)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm

He walks the walk.

And there's nothing wrong with evolution, but if you need to "evolve" on civil rights you're no liberal.

[MADem]

154. TLDR--more is not better. HRC provided her federal employees with SSM benefits ahead of

federal law. Can you show me Sanders doing the same?

No?

[beam me up scottie]

158. That's okay. I wasn't referring to you, I meant people who care about the issue.

The ones who do will want to read Hillary's quotes when she was opposed to equal rights for lgbt people:

“My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children”

Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman”

“Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is"

She was "leading the way" all right. For religious bigots who wanted to protect and defend "traditional" marriage from teh gays.

[Armstead]

164. If Elizabeth Warren had decided to run....

would she still be the "charming progressive she is today" in your view?

Or would you be digging through the Internet looking for examples of her "hypocricy" and her "right wing positions" and inensitivity to minorities?

[beam me up scottie]

165. So what? How many of those same sex couples couldn't get married?

You seriously think that throwing some bennies at a few couples makes up for trying to deny others the right to marry?

Don't make her out to be some sort of lgbt rights champion, she was on the WRONG side of the issue until 2013.

If you need to "evolve" on civil rights you're no liberal.

[NCTraveler]

173. I think they are missing something in their line of attack.

They are going after one of our strongest and most influential allies in this area today. She wasn't years ago, she is today. And when she made her change, she did so full on. To the point of actually changing regulation for the better to speaking openly and bluntly on the issue. There is very little equivocation on her part at this point in time.

Why would these people attacking have ever been a part of this amazing grassroots movement to change societal opinion, just to trash those who truly listened to them and were willing to become better. And if it is completely political, she is still one of the best allies and a voice I won't trash for some quick points in other areas.

[Armstead]

14. OH Manny, Manny, Manny....You;re making too much sense

[JaneyVee]

20. I'm glad you feel this way.

We need people like this in the Democratic party, but the Democratic party is also a big tent party and we should also welcome people of a broad and diverse coalition.

[MannyGoldstein]

28. But not so broad as to hold Neoliberals.

Any true friend of the 99% should be welcome.

[JaneyVee]

199. The 99% includes a lot of people...

And they won't all get on board by only appealing to 30% of the citizens.

[R B Garr]

202. Exactly! And I can't help but note that the biggest name-callers on this

board (neo-liberals, corpo-dems, third-wayers) are an ex-Republican and a former Ross Perot voter, just to name a couple.

Another one with a hidden post in this thread said about Hillary Clinton: 'Where's the outrage'. That was Bob Dole's campaign slogan about Bill Clinton in 1996. Hmmm.

[hedda_foil]

281. That's an interesting observation. How about links for those.accusations.

Otherwise, you might be in violation of the TOYS.

[R B Garr]

282. You just posted in one of the "links", and you're not going to tell me

you haven't seen the names that people are called here, only some of them I quoted.

And, omg, I would never by in violation of the "TOYS", lol. I love those things!

[PoutrageFatigue]

227. Like readers of Stormfront?

You know, the folks you like to use for links?

[MrMickeysMom]

21. I suppose what you're describing is also called "the big lie"...

There are many ways of squashing liberalism all the way from what you described to killing a president.

The thing about killing off JFK and what dreams were almost reignited before killing off RFK is that it results in the total giving up of the dream of liberalism and true social contracts across the globe. Before you know it, you have another brand of what used to pass as the dream. Being "liberal" is a condition that has been dragged through the mud for long enough.

Enough is Enough.

[haikugal]

47. Yes! Thanks for saying this and saying it so well! nt

[beam me up scottie]

151. ^^Kicking and reccing this post^^^

[azurnoir]

43. effing right can't say it enough

[Kelvin Mace]

67. I am a liberal

a bare-knuckled liberal who wears the term as a badge of honor. These days, few Democrats are actual liberals. HRC sure as hell isn't.

[Paka]

68. Brief and to the point.

It's a fight we must and will win. Once again, thank you Manny.

[Geronimoe]

70. Hillary is like a box of chocolates

You never know what you are going to get.

She supports TPP and then pretends she doesn't, asking Unions to be her partner.

She tells petroleum industry they have a messaging problem. As Sec of State she allowed TransCanada lobbyists to write the Departments environmental impact study. Now she is running to environmental groups saying she is for green energy.

While in the Senate she was a disaster, supporting Bush & Cheney illegal wars.

A real turn off is running as the inevitable candidate as if only she is qualified.

Hillary won two campaigns and lost one. Bernie won 14 campaigns and lost two. Bernie has the superior winning record.

[Enthusiast]

71. Kicked and recommended! In the long term the corporatistas cannot win.

One way or another the people will rise up. The corrupt establishment has pushed us about as far as they can. Unfortunately they exist in a tight bubble which doesn't allow them to consider reasonable alternative possibilities.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[m-lekktor]

78. We're the Progressive Unicorn Brigade !11

[beam me up scottie]

143. Pink Unicorns for Bernie!

Bernicorns!

[m-lekktor]

195. "who want fabulous pink ponies"

i forget the name of the now tombstoned homophobic Obama (and most likely now Hillary) loyalist who said that.

[udbcrzy2]

102. If we stick together, there is nothing, nothing, nothing that we cannot do n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

134. love you, manny!

preach it!

[beam me up scottie]

137. 82 recs and counting!

Looks like it doesn't matter that you were locked out, Manny.

Way to go!

[BeanMusical]

172. 105 now!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

150. There's GOT to be a special award for getting locked out of your own OP.

[BeanMusical]

166. Hey, I'm sorry that you are locked out of this thread.

But your OP is great.

[Fast Walker 52]

177. but but but socialism! He's unelectable poison! He's ruining the Dem chances!

or something like that

[Scuba]

179. Rec for the subthread in which a Hillary backer gets his ass handed to him.

[Puglover]

197. And a big ole rec for you.

For actually slogging through that dreck.

I'd rather stick hot pins in my eyes.

[LWolf]

182. One thing that the neoliberals have done

is made the terms "liberal" and "progressive" both meaningless.

They promoted the concept of "socially liberal, economically conservative," which was bullshit anyway, because they are economically liberal, not conservative.

By promoting some social liberalism, while also promoting economic policy that devastated most of those social liberalism is supposed to fight for, they got to call themselves "liberals." They still do. They also co-opted the term "progressive." The DLC's think tank, which is still going strong? The Progressive Policy Institute. Progressive in that they are working hard to make progress on their neo-liberal agenda.

America doesn't really have a clear, defined understanding of "liberal," or "progressive," any more. That's why I started calling myself part of "the left," even though I'm not really a leftist. In the U.S., though, it sure as hell looks that way. The neoliberals have worked hard to marginalize the "fringe left," "loony left," etc., and either hold us down under the bus or purge us from the party entirely.

I'm guessing, even though I haven't read any responses in this thread, that there are a bunch lecturing about how "liberal" HRC is. Manipulating that term to manipulate people.

I'll just stick with, for now, the 99%. Liberals, leftists, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, conservatives...the 99% is all-inclusive.

Sanders gets that, and his campaign can use that to pull in votes that aren't going to count for a corporate machine candidate. All while having the best record and positions on issues overall; a record and position on many issues that the Democratic machine has abandoned in favor of selling itself to big corporate $$$.

[Autumn]

184. Manny has been silenced.

[Puglover]

193. ...

And I'd post a candle for BMUS too but I can't find the damned emotican.

[Autumn]

194. Oh no! BMUS too?

I did get a message from Manny. He takes complete responsibility for his hide by the jury.

[Puglover]

196. He's a very brave guy.

[Babel_17]

188. I often avoid recommending even the best venting/rants

I often avoid recommending even the best venting/rants as they tend to be more about justifying their existence rather than advancing an argument.

Seeing Sanders voting record on gun control being mislabeled kind of forces my hand. Recommended so that others can see how well that distortion is dealt with and put away.

[Zorra]

200. "We will call it like it is. We will fight like hell for Bernie, and against lies."

And if we lose, we will hear the inevitable excuse, "But we didn't know", or "I made a mistake" once again, as the body count comes rolling in after all is said and done.

[lewebley3]

207. We progressive will fight like Hell for Hillary!

[Comrade Grumpy]

201. Pretty impressive job of trying to trash Bernie Sanders by one poster on this thread.

He managed to get two people so pissed off they got hidden posts.

Watch out for provocateurs.

[Hatchling]

210. I must have them on ignore.

I missed it. And am very sorry that Manny got locked out.

[truebrit71]

225. Me too. Typical thin-skinned HRC fan?

I have so many of them on ignore I wouldn't know where to start figuring out which one it was...

[Hydra]

204. You go Manny!

And the truth shall set you free.

[lewebley3]

205. Just say no to Bernie: we need a real leader like Hillary!

[lark]

217. Sorry, don't buy it.

Just last week you were declaring that the Justice Dept. was indeed investigating Clinton for criminal charges and that that anyone saying otherwise was lying. Funny, it turns out you were the one not in touch with reality and aiding and abetting RW attacks. So, cry me a river.

Bernie deserves way better than you, he doesn't promote RW lies.

There actually are Bernie fans who love him and support him but don't tell lies about his opponents. Bernie would be the first to condemn what you were doing.

[bettyellen]

235. Ugh, yeah. Reminds me of an ill informed friend who brought up Vince Foster last night....

Funny that when it comes to everything about Hillary, she is now quoting RW bullshit left and right. I told her she ought to be ashamed.
People are getting turned off from voting because of years of this nonsense. It's so foolish- unless that is the intended effect.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

223. i found another 'Bernie!'

I in the UK at the moment and I have found another Bernie! Bernie campaigns for regukar needs and rights such as healthcare for all so I am excited by Jeremy Corbyn who is leading the race for Labour Lparty. Leader (a kind of primary). I think we need more 'BERNIES in congress.

[polichick]

228. Well said. The propaganda that has destroyed our democracy is...

finally being seen for the shite it is.

[navarth]

237. sorry you got locked out, manny

I look forward to scanning the thread but wish you coulda stayed the whole time.

[ffr]

238. I make no bones about it. Proudly boast that I'm a liberal

Any jackass that boasts they're a conservative usually gets this reaction from me. "You know you tanked the economy, right? And for that you're proud?"

[emsimon33]

242. Go, Manny, Go!

Third Wayers are just Republicans who have wrapped themselves in Democratic cloth. I find them despicable! They need to be honest and join the Republican Party just as Southern "Democrats" did in the 60s.

[bettyellen]

244. Love you co-opting offense over be called "uppity". Especially since it had nothing to do w/your OP

Seems to be you'd like to claim offense at being called uppity for some reason? Interesting.

[zappaman]

252. Caught that too?

[bettyellen]

267. Next up- to accuse people of thinking he is "shrill", LOL...

It's pretty creepy, I feel like people who have no skin in the game are overusing certain terminology in an attempt to co-opt and render it meaningless. See: race card. Half the time you see it on DU it's used to describe a POC talking about racism. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.

[zappaman]

273. Don't you sass me!

[msanthrope]

279. I heard the whistle. Dogwhistle, that is. nt

[ericson00]

247. who is the "DLC Doyenne?"

if you're referring to Hillary, that strikes me as sexist.

[senz]

249. I didn't see much discussion of liberals vs. progressives

Just a bunch of Bernie-bashing by the usual suspects. Much of it very trivial and repetitive, to boot. And then two nice people got locked out of the thread.

Can't they find anything nice to say about their own candidate?

[arely staircase]

255. Most liberals are for HRC not Sanders

So there is that.

[Cheese Sandwich]

263. I like liberals when they created Social Security but when then did mass incarceration it was a bad

move. Opening trade with China also a flop.

[artislife]

269. Remember this plea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marianne-williamson/an-open-letter-to-hillary_b_5606437.html

STOP NOW. Stop cozying up to the banks, to the chemical companies, to the military-industrial complex, to the party machine, and to all the various financiers who make up the plutocracy now ruining this country. Yeah, I know a lot of them are nice people and that's cool. But they should not be able to turn the elected representatives of the American people into mere inconveniences they can buy off election after election. And if we have a sense that you'd be just another puppet of the elite, then I don't believe that you will win. We were fooled once, but I don't think we're going to be fooled again.

I want to hear what's true from you. I want you to rail against the chemical companies and their GMO's -- not support them. I want you to decry the military industrial complex -- not assure them you're their girl. I want you to support reinstating Glass-Steagall -- not just wink at Wall Street while sipping its champagne. In short, I want you to name the real problems so we can trust you'd provide some real solutions.

None of that has been addressed in a way that puts our minds at ease.

[MoveIt]

289. Bernie Sanders has always opposed the third way

[Ron Green]

294. Happy to push this to 200 rec's.