Attn: Hillary Supporters

mrussel1

tonifig8 said:

mrussel1 said:

Kat said:

Rousseff might just be a scapegoat...a distraction. Anyway, info in this article to consider.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/opinion/dilma-rousseffs-impeachment-isnt-a-coup-its-a-cover-up.html?_r=0

Exactly... Amazing how two opinion pieces from fairly liberal media outlets view a situation so differently. There are no easy answers and the answers are much more difficult when dealing with foreign issues. There are so many factors that we Americans simply do not understand. FWIW, the Daily Beast article appears to be written not as an analysis of the situation, but an effort to damage Hillary based on one thing she said as SOS. That's politics I suppose.

There are so many dark clouds surrounding Hillary. I really don't understand how true progressives don't come out for the real progressive in the race.these progressives supporting her are use statements like, "she'll be able to negotiate deals with congress to get things done, etc", well what does that really mean?
It's disappointing that so many progressives are falling in line behind a candidate that has such a negative rating and That is so damn questionable!!

The 'questions' are all just conjecture and for many of us, it's just a continuation of what the Right Wing hit machine has been doing to her, Bill, Kerry, Gore, Obama for years. It's guilt by innuendo without any actual facts or gigantic leaps of faith. Many of us can respect Bernie, but simply do not think he is pragmatic or has been effective in the Senate. He's never built a coalition. He's never got another Democratic Socialist elected. His only leadership post did not go well at all (Veteran's Affairs) and is a blight on the Obama administration. There's no reason to think that he can continue Obama's agenda.
And last, there are many more moderate democrats in this country than you may believe. Crowds do not equal votes. Just ask John Kerry and his HUGE rallies in Ohio the day before the 04 election. There is such thing as a silent majority.

Free

The following is a list of every substantive bill and amendment Sanders sponsored from the floor of Congress that became law (substantive meaning legislation renaming post offices is not included). Many of the roll-call amendments he passed with majority approval — like limiting the federal government’s ability to spy on people’s library records — were removed from bills when the House and Senate negotiated over the final legislative text and did not become law.

Because the list is derived from Congress’ official database of floor actions, it does not include achievements like his insertion of funding for veterans health care into an Iraq war spending bill because that occurred off of the House floor while the bill was in conference. Nor does the list include what is perhaps his most significant achievement — providing health care to an additional 10 million mostly low-income Americans by getting Senate majority leader Harry Reid to add $11 billion in funding for community health centers that provide care regardless of a person’s ability to pay to the 2010 Affordable Care Act in exchange for Sanders rallying liberal Democrats who were considering voting against the bill once conservative Democrats removed the public option.

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/

(The list is way too long to list here so go to the link Russell. It will take you some time to read it).

Boxes&Books

mrussel1 said: tonifig8 said: mrussel1 said: Kat said:Rousseff might just be a scapegoat...a distraction. Anyway, info in this article to consider.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/opinion/dilma-rousseffs-impeachment-isnt-a-coup-its-a-cover-up.html?_r=0



Exactly... Amazing how two opinion pieces from fairly liberal media outlets view a situation so differently. There are no easy answers and the answers are much more difficult when dealing with foreign issues. There are so many factors that we Americans simply do not understand. FWIW, the Daily Beast article appears to be written not as an analysis of the situation, but an effort to damage Hillary based on one thing she said as SOS. That's politics I suppose.


There are so many dark clouds surrounding Hillary. I really don't understand how true progressives don't come out for the real progressive in the race.these progressives supporting her are use statements like, "she'll be able to negotiate deals with congress to get things done, etc", well what does that really mean?
It's disappointing that so many progressives are falling in line behind a candidate that has such a negative rating and That is so damn questionable!!

The 'questions' are all just conjecture and for many of us, it's just a continuation of what the Right Wing hit machine has been doing to her, Bill, Kerry, Gore, Obama for years. It's guilt by innuendo without any actual facts or gigantic leaps of faith. Many of us can respect Bernie, but simply do not think he is pragmatic or has been effective in the Senate. He's never built a coalition. He's never got another Democratic Socialist elected. His only leadership post did not go well at all (Veteran's Affairs) and is a blight on the Obama administration. There's no reason to think that he
mrussel1 said: tonifig8 said: mrussel1 said: Kat said:Rousseff might just be a scapegoat...a distraction. Anyway, info in this article to consider.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/opinion/dilma-rousseffs-impeachment-isnt-a-coup-its-a-cover-up.html?_r=0



Exactly... Amazing how two opinion pieces from fairly liberal media outlets view a situation so differently. There are no easy answers and the answers are much more difficult when dealing with foreign issues. There are so many factors that we Americans simply do not understand. FWIW, the Daily Beast article appears to be written not as an analysis of the situation, but an effort to damage Hillary based on one thing she said as SOS. That's politics I suppose.


There are so many dark clouds surrounding Hillary. I really don't understand how true progressives don't come out for the real progressive in the race.these progressives supporting her are use statements like, "she'll be able to negotiate deals with congress to get things done, etc", well what does that really mean?
It's disappointing that so many progressives are falling in line behind a candidate that has such a negative rating and That is so damn questionable!!

The 'questions' are all just conjecture and for many of us, it's just a continuation of what the Right Wing hit machine has been doing to her, Bill, Kerry, Gore, Obama for years. It's guilt by innuendo without any actual facts or gigantic leaps of faith. Many of us can respect Bernie, but simply do not think he is pragmatic or has been effective in the Senate. He's never built a coalition. He's never got another Democratic Socialist elected. His only leadership post did not go well at all (Veteran's Affairs) and is a blight on the Obama administration. There's no reason to think that he can continue Obama's agenda.
And last, there are many more moderate democrats in this country than you may believe. Crowds do not equal votes. Just ask John Kerry and his HUGE rallies in Ohio the day before the 04 election. There is such thing as a silent majority.

I understand that the "right" has been playing rough for a very long time. That's nothing new here. The GOP, once they sort out their mess, will continue to play rough, and against someone like Hillary it's going to be all to easy. She has legitimate baggage, not just conjecture information. The FBI investigation on her might be conjecture, but the fact is that she has been surrounded by shady things like this for a very long time. Her not giving us "progressives" the transcripts to her 250k speeches is a bit shady. If she wants our support (sanders supporters) then she's going to have to be transparent as Fuck. she would have to make a real attempt to clear up her messes, and that just might keep us from voting against her. We don't want to vote for her by default. That's been the case for far to long with many of the candidates that the DNC throws at us, no more of that. There is a real opportunity here to shake things up on both sides of the political spectrum.

My disbelief here is, how can so many so called "progressives" support a candidate like this- one with such a list of baggage, one that has proven to be a double sided coin, when we have a candidate that has always been on the right side concerning issues that matter to us most. I would imagine many of the people who are voting for her are simply old school democrats who perhaps aren't aware of the real damage some of our Democratic candidates are doing, such as Obama and surveillance. It's difficult to be on top of all these matters when information is constantly changing and when so many negotiations are being kept in the dark.

People are right, Sanders wouldn't get his agenda through congress, but nor would Clinton, even if she negotiates the fuck out of deals to benefit the elitist. The beauty about Sanders is that he'd do something even better, he'll fight to kill the cancer at its source, which will then bring about the real change we need as a country. Once we eliminate all the corruption we can then start planning for a better tomorrow. That's what's Sanders has been about all these years. If you compared the long records of these two candidates on paper, without knowing the candidates I'm pretty sure you would side with the best progressive.
Sanders has the youth to back him up and mobilize against corruption- and that's the main focus of this political revolution. Fix the problem at the core, so that tomorrow we have a much better playing field. Clinton is ready to start playing politics the minute she's back in office, this dude Sanders is ready to throw blows the minute he takes the job...


Oh and Kerry had a handful of big rallies, Sanders has big rallies everywhere he goes - those are loyal troopers who will stick around for the grind. Those aren't loyal/blind democrats/zombies that simply support the party regardless of its actions.

Hillary's is surrounded by so much shadiness

We can elect someone who will fight for our progressive values and not have to spend all of their time defending hundreds of allegations. She's defending them from people on the left and people on the right. It's incredible, yet she's still winning.

mrussel1

Those aren't loyal/blind democrats/zombies that simply support the party regardless of its actions.

You're right, but are they blindly loyal to Sanders? I put party in front of individual. There is a fair amount of hypocrisy on the Sanders side that has been pointed out many times. Today's message from the campaign that they will try to flip super delegates to win the nomination is just the latest flip. He can't win the pledged and he can't win the popular, so he's moving onto super delegates. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

The word Progressive is a big word and it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. I'm ardently pro choice, pro-gay, basically liberal on all social issues. I support Obamacare but I'm against single payer, at least for the next ten years until the market settles. You cannot introduce this type of massive change into the healthcare industry without problems. I'm against free university for about 15 reasons. I'm pro 'finding a way to reduce the cost curve on secondary education'. Unfortunately there is absolutely ZERO in Bernie's plan that will address that. In fact, putting it on the gov't dole can ONLY increase the costs since there ceases to be an incentive to reduce it. His solution is for me to have a marginal tax rate approaching 46%. No thanks.

Boxes&Books

mrussel1 said:

Those aren't loyal/blind democrats/zombies that simply support the party regardless of its actions.

You're right, but are they blindly loyal to Sanders? I put party in front of individual. There is a fair amount of hypocrisy on the Sanders side that has been pointed out many times. Today's message from the campaign that they will try to flip super delegates to win the nomination is just the latest flip. He can't win the pledged and he can't win the popular, so he's moving onto super delegates. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

The word Progressive is a big word and it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. I'm ardently pro choice, pro-gay, basically liberal on all social issues. I support Obamacare but I'm against single payer, at least for the next ten years until the market settles. You cannot introduce this type of massive change into the healthcare industry without problems. I'm against free university for about 15 reasons. I'm pro 'finding a way to reduce the cost curve on secondary education'. Unfortunately there is absolutely ZERO in Bernie's plan that will address that. In fact, putting it on the gov't dole can ONLY increase the costs since there ceases to be an incentive to reduce it. His solution is for me to have a marginal tax rate approaching 46%. No thanks.

That's the problem. You're putting party in front of country. This is not about the individual. This is about doing what's right for our liberal/progressive causes- Of course we're not going to agree 100% w/ another individual. The president doesn't have the power to enact law. He/She is our advocate for the most part, amongst other important legislative powers.

Today's message is as follows:
" New York wasn't the result we were looking for. But we still have a path to the nomination, and our plan is to win the pledged delegates in this primary.

Let's be clear: we put more than 3 million calls into New York last weekend, and turned out a HUGE number of voters for Bernie. They voted for Bernie, for his ideas, and for our movement. And for each voter we contact, we'll win more states, win more pledged delegates, and win the nomination.

This coming Tuesday, five more states vote, with 384 delegates up for grabs. We need to win every delegate possible in these contests to take a big bite out of our opponent's lead before the primary season moves westward.

So we're calling for an all-hands-on-deck mobilization this Saturday through Monday to find Bernie supporters in the April 26th states and get them out to vote. Will you pitch in?......"

Yes, the Sanders camp has said they're going after the super delegates- now that's a different subject that can go on and on, but ultimately Hillary has always appeared to have this enormous lead because she's had many of these Super Delegates from the get go- and the perception to the general population isn't that good for Sanders, obviously having those delegates help. But as you can see in the above statement you can see what his goal is.

Like I said the political revolution isn't about negotiating backwards deals and maintaining the status quo- It's about changing the whole political process. A process that is filled with a two party system, which is filled with so much damn corruption. And that's my beef here, how can so called "progressive" support more corruption and more of the status quo. If you feel Sanders is being hypocritical for flip flopping or however you want to phrase it, then checkout the record/actions of your candidate, it's all over the map, and certain things are simply undeniable. That's the thing I don't understand about my fellow liberals. Now healthcare and education are massive beasts to deal with, no doubt about it. Look at the mess Obamacare has turned out to be, but it's a start and it's an investment in the right direction- Sanders ideas might be to big, but it's in the right direction- Congress wont pass squat, that's the reality, which is why the fight must be taken to the political system- eliminate a lot of the corruption and it will level the playing field.

How can she fight to over turn citizens united when the majority of her money is coming from that type of system? How can her and the DNC overturn Obama's actions on blocking that kind of money/activities on the Democratic side? How can we trust someone who has such shady characteristics and who has left finger prints all over place.

As a side note, many independents weren't allowed to vote and their were lots of issues at polling locations, not making an excuse, but that's the facts.

Now a report coming out that many of her donors are all over the panama papers? C'mon... are you part of the 1% that need to protect your interest to maintain the status quo?

mrussel1

C'mon... are you part of the 1% that need to protect your interest to maintain the status quo?

It's best that you don't try to get personal. I'm not in the one % but I'm fine. And I'm not going to apologize to anyone for it. My father was a Ukrainian immigrant who never finished the 8th grade. I worked 55 hours a week as a Pizza Hut cook then manager to pay for my college and it took me 5.5 years at a shitty state school in Florida. Then I got a job entry level and worked my way up because I worked harder than anyone else on my team. It was fucking call center work. I took the weekend shifts. I took the supervisor calls. I did the 12-11PM shift because it paid 10% shift diff. I didn't call out on Friday night because Pearl Jam was in town like every other 26 year old. Eventually I leveraged all my experience to a great job. The opportunities exist in this country..still. I'm 43 now with three kids. Two will be in college in the next few years. So free college might benefit me I suppose, but it's not economically feasible, or more specifically, it's not the best way to maximize tax dollars.

And I sure as hell am not putting party in front of country. If I was, I would be a Republican. It would financially benefit me. I'm putting party in front of Bernie. And Hillary. I would have preferred Biden. But he chose not to run.

I have no problem with super delegates. I know precisely why they were created in 1980. My criticism is the ENDLESS disparagement of the process and about how un-democratic it is, by Bernie's camp. But now his going to try to leverage them? Hillary is a politician. I know what her story is. I've followed her since 1992, my first election. I have no illusions. But Bernie is an illusion and the narrative constructed around him is false. The super delegate is just the latest example. Tad Devine is yet another example.

Last, Hillary voted for McCain-Feingold. So I'm not sure why you think she can't use the system that's necessary today, and still want reinstate soft money bans. If you think for one second that Bernie would not be forced to take super-pac money in a general election, you are kidding yourself. He wouldn't be able to support down ballot races and run a campaign to compete with a Republican. It's simple supply and demand of limited TV time.

Free

mrussel1 said:

Those aren't loyal/blind democrats/zombies that simply support the party regardless of its actions.

I put party in front of individual.

Forefathers were anti-party. And everyone knows the 2 party system is as corrupt as you can get, so why anyone supports a "party" over an individual is beyond me.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html

The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System

mrussel1

Some of the founders were against political parties in general. You are right, but it wasn't strictly against a two party system. In other words, I'm not sure that they supported a 3 or 4 or 5 party system instead.

But to answer your question, a 2 party system isn't as corrupt as you can get. An individual can be just as corrupt as a party. Corruption isn't inherent to parties, it's inherent to power and humans. My statement is that I support the Democrats. I would have preferred Biden, Kerry again, and others. The Democratic party best represents my general views. Bernie does NOT best represent my views on a whole host of issues. I'm not a socialist. I'm a capitalist that believes in the progressive tax system. But if Bernie won the nomination, I would support him because he better represents my views vs. Trump. And staying home or casting a protest vote is pointless to me.

Free

I didn't ask you a question.

mrussel1

Free said:

I didn't ask you a question.

Touche, Free. Got me there.

Prince Of Dorkness

Free said:

If you are one of the 1%, love the idea of waging war on other countries, and robbing the people of this country blind literally, morally and humanitarily through the use of big banks, Citizens United, and rigged elections. She's your woman!

Not to be too contrary, but I can't imagine anyone other than Hillary Clinton who'd like to get rid of Citizen's United, since the whole reason it exists is anti-Hillary ads.

I haven't seen any credible evidence of "rigged elections" benefitting her or even Democrats, the only glaring example would be Al Gore winning the 2000 election and George W Bush being made president anyway. (which, thanks to Republican Supreme Court Justices, we'll get again if we don't vote in a Democrat and get the Court to be more liberal)/

Free

Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.

Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431009/hillary-clintons-citizens-united-opposition-hypocrisy-illogic

mrussel1

Free said:

Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.

Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431009/hillary-clintons-citizens-united-opposition-hypocrisy-illogic

Hypocrisy:
1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination
2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month
3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day

Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.

Free

See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.

Free

Hillary Clinton: the 'Citizens United' candidate

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/21/14140/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-candidate

mrussel1

Free said:

See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.

Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.

Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.

Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.

brianlux

Bernie and Hillary are playing the same game about as much as Mike McCready and I are with our guitar playing.

Go McCready!
Go Bernie!

Gern Blansten

Free said:

Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.

Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431009/hillary-clintons-citizens-united-opposition-hypocrisy-illogic

Why would anyone play under different rules than what is allowed? I don't blame Clinton for using super pacs because she has no other choice.

Free

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.

Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.

Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.

Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.

Again, you prove my point.
One-sidedness cannot debate.
And "thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds? This, from the person who believes in "liberal media". Uh ok

Have a nice weekend.

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.

Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.

Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.

Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.

Again, you prove my point.
One-sidedness cannot debate.
And "thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds? This, from the person who believes in "liberal media". Uh ok

Have a nice weekend.

I don't even know what in the world you are talking about. But go ahead, take your ball and go home rather than engaging in a debate.