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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(7,318 posts)
127. An election held by a private corporation such as the Democratic Party is NOT
Mon Feb 22, 2016, 03:55 PM
Feb 2016

subject to federal or state election laws! If it were:

1. there would have been no campaigning or electioneering allowed in the voting area, by anyone, including Dolores Huerta;

2. we could not be forced to vote publicly in this insane caucus process--instead our vote would be private;

3. representatives of one candidate would not be the only people registering voters at each precinct, instead both candidates would be allowed to register voters;

4. none of the people voting or registering would be allowed to wear any kind of campaign paraphernalia, like what happened here;

5. no one would be allowed to vote unless they were registered, which video evidence shows not only did not occur in some precincts, but was expressly encouraged by Clinton supporters;

5. voters would be required to vote in their precinct of residence instead of being encouraged and allowed to vote at precincts caucuses held in the casinos in which they worked; and

6. and neutral translators and translated materials would be prepared ahead of time and voters could request them in private.

We thought the Iowa caucuses were awful, but the Nevada Dem caucuses were 10 times as bad.

The caucus process should not be allowed to be any part of our actual US voting process. And not just because of the embarrassment we heap upon ourselves with the use of this antiquated process, but because it disenfranchises our OWN Democratic voters!

The Hypocrisy of Susan Sarandon [View all] lunamagica Feb 2016 OP
This is only one of the reasons I take what she says with a grain of salt. leftofcool Feb 2016 #1
I have to watch my salt intake ... so it's probably best for me to just ignore her completely. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #17
Today is mercuryblues Feb 2016 #119
Welll ... maybe just one ... NurseJackie Feb 2016 #121
Don't put it mercuryblues Feb 2016 #122
Mmmm.... biscuits! NurseJackie Feb 2016 #129
LOL. n/t mercuryblues Feb 2016 #130
Here's Demi Lovato shilling for Loreal Paris--Lovato campaigned for Clinton in Iowa CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #94
I'm sorry, you are in an irony-free zone, please move along :) / FlatBaroque Feb 2016 #111
Since when do Sanders supporters HATE the 1%? Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #2
Mainly because Bernie has used the 1% meme as a cudgel to redstateblues Feb 2016 #4
Not really. If you actually listen to him he says he wants them to pay their fair share Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #12
Baloney. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #64
so the latest hillary meme is to DEFEND the 1%? WOW! roguevalley Feb 2016 #67
I know, I would expect this from republicans, but democrats? n/t TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #70
I think that quite a few enjoy vast wealth. frylock Feb 2016 #74
If you go by the rhetoric of certain posters, the list of those JimDandy Feb 2016 #115
Those poor poor successful people? How will they go on Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #100
+1 btrflykng9 Feb 2016 #42
Because It's Simple.... LovingA2andMI Feb 2016 #71
... Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #139
Is that supposed to override my hatred for war and fracking and the Third Way and the TPP? djean111 Feb 2016 #3
+1 n/t ejbr Feb 2016 #109
We don't hate the wealthy! Sick of that lying meme. RiverLover Feb 2016 #5
So we can hold all 1%ers to that standard? Even the ones that support Hillary? Motown_Johnny Feb 2016 #6
but..but... workinclasszero Feb 2016 #7
FYI Armstead Feb 2016 #36
Ai-yi-yi . . . I opening that link and . . . Petrushka Feb 2016 #116
Bwahahaha! There goes that meme! n/t ebayfool Feb 2016 #132
"That's all I got" Phlem Feb 2016 #86
Sigh. You start with a dumb false claim cali Feb 2016 #8
OK, what about the rest? The part after my "dumb claim"? lunamagica Feb 2016 #21
Interesting Kall Feb 2016 #31
I was just quoting you. But keep deflecting lunamagica Feb 2016 #38
No, you weren't Kall Feb 2016 #46
I'm addressing that right now Trajan Feb 2016 #48
Isn't this the point where I make some snide under the bus comment? Goblinmonger Feb 2016 #9
Only thing is cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #10
Oh and this: cannabis_flower Feb 2016 #142
You really don't understand what Bernie is fighting. aikoaiko Feb 2016 #11
This thread is about SS and L'oreal. Why iis everyone ignoring that? lunamagica Feb 2016 #39
Maybe because your thread title is: The Hypocrisy of Susan Sarandon aikoaiko Feb 2016 #56
See my responses below -- Clinton likes L'Oriel just fine Armstead Feb 2016 #73
This is part of the destroy all threats strategy Cheese Sandwich Feb 2016 #13
So, a 1%er is harassing a civil rights hero and being cheered for doing so. Nice. nt. NCTraveler Feb 2016 #14
But wait, there's more--she had NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!!! MADem Feb 2016 #18
Trying so hard melman Feb 2016 #41
Your confidence is misplaced. MADem Feb 2016 #47
An election held by a private corporation such as the Democratic Party is NOT JimDandy Feb 2016 #127
The Democratic Party is a political party, not a corporation. MADem Feb 2016 #146
What state is Huerta a resident of? Chakab Feb 2016 #99
So, a 1%er is harassing a civil rights hero and being cheered for doing so workinclasszero Feb 2016 #22
At what point in that conversation did Ms. Huerta attempt to break free? frylock Feb 2016 #80
Haven't you heard? Civil rights leaders are fragile eggs. Must be treated with kid gloves. Hiraeth Feb 2016 #91
How strange to call a civil discussion of issues harassment? aikoaiko Feb 2016 #57
I was wondering the same thing eom passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #128
Except neither of that ever happened. frylock Feb 2016 #76
She claims that she can't support Clinton because of her IWR vote. MADem Feb 2016 #15
Well good thing she isn't running for President. Wow such scrutiny of a surrogate! Nanjeanne Feb 2016 #19
Dolores Huerta certainly got the once-over, didn't she? As did John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, et al. MADem Feb 2016 #27
Ms. Huetra got the once over for her uhhhh misrepresentation of factual events. frylock Feb 2016 #81
Church ain't out on that yet, much as some want to close the book. MADem Feb 2016 #150
Polite. And accurate. NurseJackie Feb 2016 #20
Thanks! Funny everyone is stuck on the first sentence lunamagica Feb 2016 #24
Ha! Really you're surprised? Phlem Feb 2016 #92
The hypocritical Clinton Foundation likes L’Oréal too Armstead Feb 2016 #16
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #32
Make this an OP Lordquinton Feb 2016 #77
No limit to the slime factory from you people. CBGLuthier Feb 2016 #23
Are you saying the facts in the article are lies? lunamagica Feb 2016 #25
The Clinton Foundation likes them Armstead Feb 2016 #34
This thread is not about the Clintons. Stop deflecting, please. lunamagica Feb 2016 #35
Sauce for the goose..... Armstead Feb 2016 #37
Oh, no, luna. All of it is about the Clintons mikehiggins Feb 2016 #75
Do you know WHY they did this? jmowreader Feb 2016 #114
No, it's about Loreal Lordquinton Feb 2016 #79
This thread is about hypocrisy. frylock Feb 2016 #84
Susan Sarandon is not a hypocrite. mmonk Feb 2016 #26
Please, then, explain how she could overlook Edwards' IWR vote, but said that she couldn't MADem Feb 2016 #62
Touché Beacool Feb 2016 #113
Susan lives in a glass house yet throws stones. ha ha riversedge Feb 2016 #28
I never cared for her. NaturalHigh Feb 2016 #29
Finally ... Trajan Feb 2016 #49
wait wait EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #30
+10,000 nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #33
Nice deflection lunamagica Feb 2016 #40
It's not a deflection EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #43
It's not hypocrisy when Clinton does it. Dr. Strange Feb 2016 #59
Here's a deflection mikehiggins Feb 2016 #131
Oh wait -- Hillary likes L'Oreil too Armstead Feb 2016 #44
Someone who used to work for Hillary works for L'Oreal dlwickham Feb 2016 #61
As relevant as Susan Sarandon Armstead Feb 2016 #65
She actively campaigns for sanders dlwickham Feb 2016 #104
Let me say this slowly....I.....don't....care Armstead Feb 2016 #105
Why should you care dlwickham Feb 2016 #106
Yeah a real phony UglyGreed Feb 2016 #45
Lame. It's not the rich being rich. It's the rich not sharing. nt valerief Feb 2016 #50
I was very disappointed to learn she was hectoring octogenarian civil rights leaders. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #51
Yes, that was a low point in her career as a public person ismnotwasm Feb 2016 #55
I prefer to remember her as Sister Helen. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2016 #93
she was hectoring octogenarian civil rights leaders. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #69
No, the information was BlueMTexpat Feb 2016 #83
you are treading on very thin ice. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #151
Yes, Ms. Huerta must be approached upon bended knee. frylock Feb 2016 #87
Hey! No hatin' on Susan! KamaAina Feb 2016 #52
Susan Sarandon isn't running for the office of the Presidency. notadmblnd Feb 2016 #53
Yes, nobody should abuse and exploit children Trajan Feb 2016 #54
Go Susan! Fearless Feb 2016 #58
But Susan is worth it dlwickham Feb 2016 #60
yeah well mgmaggiemg Feb 2016 #63
More artful smear Wibly Feb 2016 #66
She's one of the 1% the Sander's supporters say they despise. AlbertCat Feb 2016 #68
Another GOTCHA!fail frylock Feb 2016 #72
How so? Isn't SS receiving millions from L'oreal? Doesn't L'oreal expliots children and abuses lunamagica Feb 2016 #140
Not to mention L'Oreal tests on animals. catbyte Feb 2016 #78
You might want to mention that to Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato-- CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #95
I'm NOT a Bernie supporter. I'm NOT a Hillary supporter. I think it's despicable of all of them. catbyte Feb 2016 #97
No, they don't passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #133
I wish Sarandon had said to Huerta, MisterP Feb 2016 #82
Susan has a permanent pass with me Tab Feb 2016 #85
If you disagree with Hillary Clinton--here comes the Rovian hit machine! CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #88
The Stepford voters. n/t PonyUp Feb 2016 #89
All she does? She said we vote with our vaginas. Don't you find that terribly insulting? lunamagica Feb 2016 #141
Sarandon should still be in hiding for her part in "Stolen Election 2000". oasis Feb 2016 #90
more propaganda to encourage UglyGreed Feb 2016 #120
Sarandon has no business calling herself a Democrat, and therefore oasis Feb 2016 #134
Is she under the bus now? I know that seems to be the Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #96
Pretty soon, Hillary Clinton supporter Demi Lovato will be under the bus too--She shills for L'Oreal CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #102
All I know is that I look forward to a few days and about Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #103
I'm sure they'll be attacking her like wildfire! Any minute now!! (nt) CoffeeCat Feb 2016 #108
Still waiting. This is confusing. It almost feels like Ed Suspicious Feb 2016 #117
WTF greiner3 Feb 2016 #98
Don't forget the Billionaires! PeterGM Feb 2016 #101
More politics of destruction. blackspade Feb 2016 #107
your people don't get to harrass our leaders with impunity bigtree Feb 2016 #112
. melman Feb 2016 #118
Harass in what way? blackspade Feb 2016 #124
Is this a religous thing ? TheFarS1de Feb 2016 #136
WHY didn't you know that, Sarandon?! bigtree Feb 2016 #110
Oh noes, they are throwing her under the bus passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #123
The entire episode is sickening. yardwork Feb 2016 #125
REC! bravenak Feb 2016 #126
Hmmm...The more you know. passiveporcupine Feb 2016 #135
Under the bus, Sarandon! Warren DeMontague Feb 2016 #137
Don't miss out on your own hypocrisy: Live and Learn Feb 2016 #138
My own Hypocisy? I've never given a holier-than-thou lectures against Wall St. lunamagica Feb 2016 #144
I know. Neither has Hillary! Where are those transcripts? nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #145
Not good enough, PSU AESE! SMC22307 Feb 2016 #143
You mean the same Susan Sarandan who campaigned for Ralph Nader??? Jitter65 Feb 2016 #147
That's the one! lunamagica Feb 2016 #148
I really dislike her. What put me over the edge BreakfastClub Feb 2016 #149
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Hypocrisy of Susan Sa...»Reply #127