Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrWendel
MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
March 25, 2016
by Tommy Christopher
The Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has thrust the issue of Supreme Court nominees squarely into the 2016 presidential primaries, and this week, that issue got a little bit more interesting. In an interview with All In host Chris Hayes, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pointedly declined to make the individual right to own firearms described in District of Columbia v. Heller into a litmus test for his potential Supreme Court picks. At first blush, it seems like Sanders is just skirting the question, but a closer listen makes clear this is pretty much a “no,” since after he says he doesn’t “come up with litmus tests every other day,” Sanders does list his one and only litmus test:
(Rest in link)
Bernie Sanders Won’t Make Gun Control a Litmus Test For Supreme Court Nominees
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-wont-make-gun-control-a-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees/by Tommy Christopher
The Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has thrust the issue of Supreme Court nominees squarely into the 2016 presidential primaries, and this week, that issue got a little bit more interesting. In an interview with All In host Chris Hayes, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pointedly declined to make the individual right to own firearms described in District of Columbia v. Heller into a litmus test for his potential Supreme Court picks. At first blush, it seems like Sanders is just skirting the question, but a closer listen makes clear this is pretty much a “no,” since after he says he doesn’t “come up with litmus tests every other day,” Sanders does list his one and only litmus test:
(Rest in link)
March 25, 2016
by Tommy Christopher
The Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has thrust the issue of Supreme Court nominees squarely into the 2016 presidential primaries, and this week, that issue got a little bit more interesting. In an interview with All In host Chris Hayes, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pointedly declined to make the individual right to own firearms described in District of Columbia v. Heller into a litmus test for his potential Supreme Court picks. At first blush, it seems like Sanders is just skirting the question, but a closer listen makes clear this is pretty much a “no,” since after he says he doesn’t “come up with litmus tests every other day,” Sanders does list his one and only litmus test:
(Rest in link)
Bernie Sanders Won’t Make Gun Control a Litmus Test For Supreme Court Nominees
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-wont-make-gun-control-a-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees/by Tommy Christopher
The Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia has thrust the issue of Supreme Court nominees squarely into the 2016 presidential primaries, and this week, that issue got a little bit more interesting. In an interview with All In host Chris Hayes, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) pointedly declined to make the individual right to own firearms described in District of Columbia v. Heller into a litmus test for his potential Supreme Court picks. At first blush, it seems like Sanders is just skirting the question, but a closer listen makes clear this is pretty much a “no,” since after he says he doesn’t “come up with litmus tests every other day,” Sanders does list his one and only litmus test:
(Rest in link)
March 24, 2016
Liking one doesn't have to mean hating the other.
The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump–and I’m using that verb deliberately–her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?
Clinton’s stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thing–or something much less.
This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a “career politician” and an “insider” when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.
I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.
(More in link)
NEVER TRUMP: Privilege is what allows Sanders supporters to say they’ll “never” vote for Clinton
http://qz.com/644985/privilege-is-what-allows-sanders-supporters-to-say-theyll-never-vote-for-clinton/Liking one doesn't have to mean hating the other.
The latest installment of “The Internet Explodes with Hatred for Hillary Clinton” happened earlier this month. The Democratic presidential candidate, whose own record on AIDS research and funding is better than any other candidate, mistakenly said that former US first lady Nancy Reagan was a key supporter of AIDS research. Reagan was, in reality, horrible about AIDS in every possible way. Clinton immediately apologized, then apologized again, at length. Yet we’re still seeing a wagonload of “I’ll never vote for her” claims from progressives, as if her words about Reagan trump–and I’m using that verb deliberately–her actual record on AIDS research and funding. Why?
Clinton’s stellar record on AIDS is ignored while people indignantly attack her for making an inaccurate statement. I like Bernie Sanders. I really do feel the Bern. But I see Democrats brush aside things that he and other male politicians have done while raining fire on Hillary for the exact same thing–or something much less.
This happens all the time. Clinton is flamed for being a “career politician” and an “insider” when Sanders has been in political office much longer than she has. (Clinton was first elected to political office in 2000; Sanders was elected to his first office in 1981 and his first national office in 1991.) People flame Clinton for speaking in favor of the omnibus crime bill in the 1990s when she was first lady, a position with no political power. But Sanders, as a member of Congress, actually had the power to enact it into law, voting in favor of it despite the fact that many of his colleagues did not.
I’m not here to argue about Clinton versus Sanders. I genuinely like them both. I’m here to say that I’m sick of seeing her reviled for the same things people forgive easily when they’re done by men, and that the stakes are too high this election cycle to indulge that or leave it unexamined. If you’re reviling Clinton for saying something racist and stupid in 1994 in favor of a crime bill that turned out to be a very bad idea, but you’re not reviling Sanders for actually using his political power to pass that very bad crime bill law, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is. If you’re reviling Clinton for campaign contributions made by banks, but did not revile Barack Obama for the same thing, I want you to take a long, long think about why that is.
(More in link)
March 23, 2016
By Scan
Hillary Clinton has held onto and enhanced her strong lead over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary according to a new national poll from Monmouth University:
Clinton continues to crush it among older voters and solid Democrats, with Sanders having his own strengths. However, there are warning signs for the future that need to be addressed:
That's a whopping 31% of current Sanders supporters who say they won't or probably won't get behind Clinton as the nominee. Maybe the thick of the primary season isn't the best time to ask this question, but it's still a troublingly high number.
Additionally, the new Quinnipiac national poll has Hillary up by 12...but this arguably an even better result for her as their previous poll from six weeks ago had her up by only two points.
With the delegate math looking like it does, and with Hillary's national lead not budging, the time for Bernie to change the tone of his campaign to one of progressive unity is fast approaching.
We've got a White House to win and a future to save. Together.
.
UPDATE: This is turning into a huge polling day. A brand new Fox News poll has Hillary leading Bernie 55%-42%. This is a 16-point shift in her favor since their poll from about a month ago which had Bernie leading by 3!
Originally posted at HillaryHQ.com
Monmouth National Poll: Clinton 55% Sanders 37%
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/23/1505447/-Monmouth-National-Poll-Clinton-55-Sanders-37By Scan
Hillary Clinton has held onto and enhanced her strong lead over Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary according to a new national poll from Monmouth University:
Turning to the Democratic nomination contest, the poll found that a majority of voters (55%) who identify or lean toward the Democratic Party prefer Hillary Clinton as the nominee, compared to 37% who support Bernie Sanders. These results are basically unchanged from January when Clinton held a 52% to 37% lead over Sanders. Clinton has the advantage among both female (59% to 32%) and male (51% to 44%) Democrats. She also enjoys solid support from traditional Democratic identifiers (61% to 31% for Sanders) and voters age 50 and older (69% to 22%).
Clinton continues to crush it among older voters and solid Democrats, with Sanders having his own strengths. However, there are warning signs for the future that need to be addressed:
Sanders is still getting more support than Clinton from leaning Democratic voters (56% to 37% for Clinton) and voters under 50 years old (54% to 39%). Two-thirds of Sanders supporters say they Monmouth University Polling Institute 3/23/16 3 would definitely (28%) or probably (37%) vote for Clinton in November if she became the nominee, but with their candidate still in the hunt, another 11% say they probably would not vote for Clinton and 20% say they definitely would not vote for her if she became the nominee.
That's a whopping 31% of current Sanders supporters who say they won't or probably won't get behind Clinton as the nominee. Maybe the thick of the primary season isn't the best time to ask this question, but it's still a troublingly high number.
Additionally, the new Quinnipiac national poll has Hillary up by 12...but this arguably an even better result for her as their previous poll from six weeks ago had her up by only two points.
With the delegate math looking like it does, and with Hillary's national lead not budging, the time for Bernie to change the tone of his campaign to one of progressive unity is fast approaching.
We've got a White House to win and a future to save. Together.
.
UPDATE: This is turning into a huge polling day. A brand new Fox News poll has Hillary leading Bernie 55%-42%. This is a 16-point shift in her favor since their poll from about a month ago which had Bernie leading by 3!
Originally posted at HillaryHQ.com
March 23, 2016
by Tommy Christopher
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is constantly bragging about his “great brain” (among other things), but is it possible that he owes that staggering intellect to a “brain-booster” pill like the one featured in the film (and now hit TV series) Limitless? Well, if you believe Fox News’ James Rickman, he did. According to an article credited to Rickman, Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he owes it all to something called CogniMaxx XL:
The only problem is, there is no “Fox News’ James Rickman,” and that website, although mocked up to look like it, is not Fox News’ website. The article is a fake, parked there to buttress an email solicitation that’s going around, and which my mom forwarded me this morning. This scam has, apparently, been running for years using other fake celebrity “endorsers” like Tiger Woods, Jamie Foxx, Denzel Washington, Jay Z, Bill Gates, Kanye West, Will Smith, and, of course, Limitless star Bradley Cooper. Snopes has previously debunked the exact same scam, only the pill was called “Alpha ZXT,” but both used the same fictitious reporter’ s name, and promised results similar to the drug “NZT” that’s featured in Limitless.
None of which is to say that Donald Trump shouldn’t try CogniMaxx XL. It couldn’t hurt, could it?
Did Donald Trump Really Credit His Great Brain to Limitless-Style Brain Booster Pill?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/did-donald-trump-really-credit-his-great-brain-to-limitless-style-brain-booster-pill/by Tommy Christopher
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is constantly bragging about his “great brain” (among other things), but is it possible that he owes that staggering intellect to a “brain-booster” pill like the one featured in the film (and now hit TV series) Limitless? Well, if you believe Fox News’ James Rickman, he did. According to an article credited to Rickman, Trump told Fox News host Bill O’Reilly that he owes it all to something called CogniMaxx XL:
Trump shocks Bill O’Reilly by revealing his secret to working longer and more productive hours (10 extra years to be exact). Now, he’s running for president so this pill’s importance is tremendous says O’Reilly.
By James Rickman – Fox News
Trump is a big fan of creating jobs, reading books, and doing puzzles, but according to O’Reilly, he also credits his success to an IQ boosting, brain pill that helped him with memory, and recall. “This pill is the real magic,” says Mr.Trump, referring to CogniMaxx XL.
“This brain booster is not heavily advertised but that’s what’s great about it– CogniMaxx XL puts all their money into finding the most organic, pure all natural ingredients and that it, it all goes into the formula, so you kind of have to be ‘in the know’ to get your hands on it, but I tell everyone I meet my ‘secret’ so I guess it’s not really a secret anymore.”
The only problem is, there is no “Fox News’ James Rickman,” and that website, although mocked up to look like it, is not Fox News’ website. The article is a fake, parked there to buttress an email solicitation that’s going around, and which my mom forwarded me this morning. This scam has, apparently, been running for years using other fake celebrity “endorsers” like Tiger Woods, Jamie Foxx, Denzel Washington, Jay Z, Bill Gates, Kanye West, Will Smith, and, of course, Limitless star Bradley Cooper. Snopes has previously debunked the exact same scam, only the pill was called “Alpha ZXT,” but both used the same fictitious reporter’ s name, and promised results similar to the drug “NZT” that’s featured in Limitless.
None of which is to say that Donald Trump shouldn’t try CogniMaxx XL. It couldn’t hurt, could it?
March 23, 2016
By Lysis
Today’s edition of Hillary News & Views begins with coverage of Clinton’s big victory in Arizona, the latest evidence that a diverse electorate favors our likely nominee.
Politico reports:
(More in link)
Hillary News & Views 3.23: Arizona, Brussels, Ed Murray, ANA, Rolling Stone, a Brief Hiatus
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/23/1505226/-Hillary-News-Views-Arizona-Brussels-Ed-Murray-ANA-Rolling-Stone-and-a-Brief-HiatusBy Lysis
Today’s edition of Hillary News & Views begins with coverage of Clinton’s big victory in Arizona, the latest evidence that a diverse electorate favors our likely nominee.
Politico reports:
A week after scoring a five-state rout against Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton widened her already daunting lead over the Vermont senator by crushing him in Arizona.
But Sanders easily dispatched Clinton in Utah and Idaho, the other two Western states that voted Tuesday. Both states held caucuses, a format that has favored the Vermont senator.
Clinton, speaking to supporters in Seattle, said she was "proud" to have won Arizona before turning her focus to the Republican race.
The terrorist attacks in Brussels, she said, underscored the importance and gravity of the presidential election. "The last thing we need, my friends, are leaders who incite more fear," she continued.
“We can’t throw out everything we know about what works and what doesn’t and start torturing people," she remarked, in alluding to to Ted Cruz's call for more stringent policing of Muslim communities and Donald Trump's insistence that torture could have prevented the attack in the European capital that killed 34 and wounded hundreds.
"What Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and others are suggesting, it’s not only wrong, it’s dangerous. It will not keep us safe. This is a time for America to lead, not to cower. And we will lead, and we will defeat terrorists that threaten our friends and allies," she said.
(More in link)
March 23, 2016
By Matt Bors
Cartoon: Shout, Shout, Let it All Out
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/23/1504938/-Cartoon-Shout-Shout-Let-it-All-OutBy Matt Bors
March 23, 2016
By Matt Bors
Cartoon: Shout, Shout, Let it All Out
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/23/1504938/-Cartoon-Shout-Shout-Let-it-All-OutBy Matt Bors
March 22, 2016
By Mudiaga Ofuoku
Not long ago, it used to be the case that Hillary Clinton's political enemies --- let's call them that --- were to be exclusively found on the Right. Not so any more. Today, you have just as many, if not more visceral, Clinton haters on the Left, too. Thinking about it, I sometimes don't know whether to laugh or cry.
This second anti-Clinton group first appeared on the political horizon eight years ago during the spirited, and at times brutal, primary contest between her and then Senator Barrack Obama. Today, this very group has morphed into a deadly species, has even become infinitely more dangerous than her foes on the Right, and I'm hard put to justify the hatred. I often gasp in disbelief when I read some of the ugliest things said about her today by many of those who call themselves Liberals , especially as the primary fight between her and Bernie Sanders is turning overtly desperate with Sanders becoming ugly and nasty in his denigration of her character. The septuagenarian once promised not to run such a campaign.
A.H. Goodman, an archetypal Clinton hater whose pathetic case I intend to address in detail perhaps soon, has managed to appear as the leader of Clinton enemies on the Left. Like Sanders, he calls himself a "social democrat". Demented in his view of the Democratic front-runner, Goodman hops from one publication to another willing to accept itself as a receptacle for his unceasing garbage about Clinton to dump it there.
For Goodman and the rest of his fellow travelers on both sides of the aisle, the overarching aim is to keep Clinton from getting the nomination even though the individual objective for each side is markedly different. Goodman and many like-minded Liberals delude themselves into thinking that Sanders is a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, whereas her Republican traducers believe the opposite is overwhelmingly the case. I hate to say that the Republicans have it right in this case, which explains their unflagging campaign against Clinton while ignoring her primary opponent.
(More in link)
Just Too Bad for Hillary Clinton's Enemies
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/22/1505006/-Just-Too-Bad-for-Hillary-Clinton-s-EnemiesBy Mudiaga Ofuoku
Not long ago, it used to be the case that Hillary Clinton's political enemies --- let's call them that --- were to be exclusively found on the Right. Not so any more. Today, you have just as many, if not more visceral, Clinton haters on the Left, too. Thinking about it, I sometimes don't know whether to laugh or cry.
This second anti-Clinton group first appeared on the political horizon eight years ago during the spirited, and at times brutal, primary contest between her and then Senator Barrack Obama. Today, this very group has morphed into a deadly species, has even become infinitely more dangerous than her foes on the Right, and I'm hard put to justify the hatred. I often gasp in disbelief when I read some of the ugliest things said about her today by many of those who call themselves Liberals , especially as the primary fight between her and Bernie Sanders is turning overtly desperate with Sanders becoming ugly and nasty in his denigration of her character. The septuagenarian once promised not to run such a campaign.
A.H. Goodman, an archetypal Clinton hater whose pathetic case I intend to address in detail perhaps soon, has managed to appear as the leader of Clinton enemies on the Left. Like Sanders, he calls himself a "social democrat". Demented in his view of the Democratic front-runner, Goodman hops from one publication to another willing to accept itself as a receptacle for his unceasing garbage about Clinton to dump it there.
For Goodman and the rest of his fellow travelers on both sides of the aisle, the overarching aim is to keep Clinton from getting the nomination even though the individual objective for each side is markedly different. Goodman and many like-minded Liberals delude themselves into thinking that Sanders is a stronger general election candidate than Clinton, whereas her Republican traducers believe the opposite is overwhelmingly the case. I hate to say that the Republicans have it right in this case, which explains their unflagging campaign against Clinton while ignoring her primary opponent.
(More in link)
March 22, 2016
By First Amendment
Pledged delegate totals: Clinton 1,176 - Sanders 855
Clinton’s national lead remains a healthy +12.
www.nbcnews.com/...
Sanders gained +1, but he didn't increase his overall support. His +1 gain came at the expense of Clinton’s -1 loss from last week’s tracking poll.
Clinton 53% - 41%
Since Clinton’s 5-state sweep last week, more Democratic-leaning voters now think Clinton will be the nominee. That’s a +7 increase since last week.
(More in link)
NBC/SM National Poll: Clinton Leads 53% - 41%. Pledged Delegate Lead, +321. AZ, ID & UT Tonight.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/22/1504820/-NBC-SM-National-Poll-Clinton-Leads-53-41-Pledged-Delegate-Lead-321-AZ-ID-UT-TonightBy First Amendment
Pledged delegate totals: Clinton 1,176 - Sanders 855
Clinton’s national lead remains a healthy +12.
www.nbcnews.com/...
Sanders gained +1, but he didn't increase his overall support. His +1 gain came at the expense of Clinton’s -1 loss from last week’s tracking poll.
Clinton 53% - 41%
Since Clinton’s 5-state sweep last week, more Democratic-leaning voters now think Clinton will be the nominee. That’s a +7 increase since last week.
Though Clinton did not see a rise in those committed to voting for her, nearly eight in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters now think she will win the Democratic nomination for president, which represents a 61 point margin over Sanders. This is a 7-point increase from the previous week before her string of victories on March 15.
(More in link)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 01:19 PMNumber of posts: 1,881