Bernie Sanders Sends Strong Message To Establishment

[Uncle Joe]

[William769]

1. Democrats Send Strong Message to Bernie Sanders

Hillary Clinton!

[Uncle Joe]

3. I disagree, Schultz limiting and cynically manipulating the debates for when they would

least likely be viewed, followed up by Hillary going back on her word in even holding the last one in California sent a message of weakness not strength.

The corporate media conglomerates willingness to constantly cite super delegates in their vote totals 400+ which committed prior to the first vote even being cast as a constant propaganda manipulation of the American People was another sign of weakness.

New York requiring people to register six months prior to that state's primary when many people weren't even paying attention to the race also reflected a lack of confidence in establishment politics and policies.

The Democratic Primary system is archaic, defensive and reflects a major lack of faith in the democratic process, there is nothing strong or confident about that.

[billhicks76]

6. +1000

[zonkers]

116. + bazillion.

[pnwmom]

16. She won by 4 million votes, and it wasn't because there were only 9 debates

and 10 Town Halls. It was because she appealed to a much larger, broader cross-section of voters than Bernie.

The last few debates were extremely redundant -- and all nationally televised. Anyone in CA could see them -- just as all the rest of us in states where debates didn't take place.

And NY's rules have been around for decades and had nothing to do with this election.

[Uncle Joe]

18. I have no doubt the limited number and cynically manipulated scheduling of the debates combined

with corporate media brainwashing propaganda from the very beginning in regards to their treatment of super-delegates as anything but a glorified poll combined with highly limiting archaic primary registration practices, combined with overall corporate media conglomerate propaganda frames played an exceptionally large part in determining demographics and vote totals.

[pnwmom]

21. Limited number? What a joke. There were plenty of opportunities

for Bernie to give his stump speech. 13 Town Halls and 9 debates. People heard Bernie. Most just weren't interested.

[Uncle Joe]

23. It wasn't half the number of debates held in 2008 when Hillary "loved" them and she did back out

of the last agreed to debate.

So much for integrity.

[pnwmom]

34. By the time they got to the last debate in NY, there was no point.

The debates had become repetitive and redundant and another debate wouldn't have changed anyone's mind. There was no reason to have another debate aimed at a national TV audience. Hillary wanted to spend her time going around CA and talking to voters there. And Bernie used his time the same way.

But I think Bernie forfeited the chance for another debate by the way he tried to bully Hillary in the New York debate. I'll never forget the way he yelled at her after asking whether she supported raising the cap on Social security.

He knew the answer of course, because she has explained it repeatedly before. She supports BOTH raising the lid AND expanding the tax to non-salary income -- in whatever combination Congress decided to favor.

But he has to yell at her: "ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT" (supporting raising the cap.)

And when she starts to answer "I am" -- he interrupts her to scream "YES OR NO?!!!"

And that was just one example. I bet he lost the votes of many women that night, who might have been wavering till then.

[OwlinAZ]

109. another lie

go take a nap

[Craig234]

150. 2008 and 2016

26 Democratic Debates in 2008.

Six scheduled for 2016 at the worst possible times for viewers.

[NanceGreggs]

28. "Cynically manipulated scheduling of the debates ..."

As CTs go, at least that one has a great meme.

Have you ever heard of these new-fangled devices that allow you to record a TV broadcast - like a debate, for instance - and watch it whenever convenient? I understand you can watch debates on your computer whenever you like, too - imagine that!

No one who wanted to see any of the debates missed them because they aired at a particular time.

Apparently, some people can record entire seasons of Game of Thrones and binge-watch them all at their leisure - but haven't figured out that you can do the same thing with a two-hour debate.

[tex-wyo-dem]

71. Yeah, and everyone has one of those...

"New fagled devices" and knows how to operate them; right? Everyone has high speed internet to effectively watch debates at a later time; right?

Hell, even our SoS from 2009 - 2013 couldn't understand a damn secure email system.

[NanceGreggs]

81. Not everyone ...

... but most people. And most people who wanted to see the debates saw them.

It's funny how many of the revolutionists - who were willing to do whatever it takes to reclaim democracy - couldn't watch the debates if they were on at an "inconvenient time".

[Craig234]

151. Most voters weren't 'revolutionists'

Which is why he needed to hear him so they'd want to support him.

Why not just not air the debates at all? Put them somewhere on the DNC site to download. Is that to much to ask from voters?

[OwlinAZ]

108. That is a flat out lie and has been debunked time after time

when you have to lie to prevail in a a debate, you've have already lost.

[pnwmom]

115. Read it and weep.

And this doesn't even include the additional hundreds of thousands she got in the WA and NE primaries, since those voters didn't have their votes included in the totals.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/08/the-long-good-bye-for-candidate-sanders.html

Sanders on Tuesday lost by 400,000 votes in California. He lost New Jersey by more than 200,000. Clinton now has a higher percentage of pledged delegates and the overall popular vote than then-Sen. Barack Obama had at this point in 2008. She leads Sanders by nearly 4 million votes.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/09/obama-hopes-democrats-pull-together-within-weeks/

Mrs. Clinton was declared the winner of the Democratic nomination this week over her chief rival Bernie Sanders, after a flurry of superdelegates endorsements pushed her over the top on Monday. After elections in six states on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton clinched a majority of the pledged delegates as well and had a lead of nearly 4 million votes in the popular vote.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/Hillary-vs-Bernie-Comparisons-to-Hillary-vs-7971083.php

Blowing away what she once called the "glass ceiling" on women in politics, Clinton has scored 16,238,190 primary votes, or 55.98 percent. Sanders trails nearly 4 million votes behind at 12,303, 819, or 42.42 percent.

[Gene Debs]

36. +2000

[tex-wyo-dem]

72. + a million!

[MFM008]

92. I have to say

I watched every debate.

[upaloopa]

100. Sorry, you don't get to make up reality. You have your opinion and that is all!

Bernie lost because 4 million more of us voted than your side did. Most of us didn't watch debates and didn't go to rallies. We didn't give our thought processes over to the media. We just disagreed with Bernie and agreed with Hillary.

You lost the popular vote because you were out voted. You need to realize that Bernie was not seen as the great person you see him as by the majority of voters. He is not presidential. It wasn't debates it wasn't the media it wasn't DWS. It was us voters that beat you.

[Tortmaster]

103. Are people on AOL.com still ...

... fighting this battle?

The actual battle has begun. We welcome you in our effort to defeat Republicans.

[Triana]

105. +1000 n/t

[OwlinAZ]

106. It will never improve until we make it improve

[whatthehey]

129. Least likely?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/10/democrat-debate-a-ratings-record-214784

And yes I know more watched Trump and the zoo. That's the same thing that makes the Kardashians more widely viewed than Masterpiece Theater. Idiots like trainwrecks and the viewing public has plenty of idiots.

[Uncle Joe]

130. That was the FIRST and highest rated debate which coincidentally came five days

after New York's deadline for switching parties in order to vote in that state's primary.

New York’s deadline for switching party registration was Oct. 9, 193 days before the primary. I wanted to know if a party-switch deadline six months before a primary or caucus was as unusual as it sounded, so I went through every state’s election board website to see.1

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-far-harder-to-change-parties-in-new-york-than-in-any-other-state/

As a result millions of New York citizens that may have been swayed by the debate to switch parties from Independent or Republican to Democrat couldn't vote for the candidate of their choice.

Later Democratic Debates were scheduled for the weekend, one coming just before Christmas and opposite prime time professional football games, they had much lower ratings, the Republicans at least had the good sense to schedule their debates on weeknights when they would gain the most exposure.

The American "train-wreck" mentality is a direct result of corporate media brainwashing propaganda pushed by the five or six conglomerates that own it all, having done this for decades, I do believe that is also a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

[whatthehey]

131. Anybody who wanted to hear debates could

DVRs. Youtube. Live streaming. Countless websites. This is not 1980 when everyone is limited to one-time TV broadcasts. There is simply no reason to believe that anyone interested in voting in the Dem primary did not have the chance to thoroughly research and see candidates interact and debate before doing so, many times.

[Uncle Joe]

132. Television is still a most powerful propaganda force especially for older generations and this is

where Hillary did best.

People get engaged in regards to politics at different times, this holds true in regards to the very beginning of their first vote to what month and day, they start paying attention during a particular campaign.

[whatthehey]

133. And over 65MM saw them that way. Averaged over 7MM each. Only 29MM voted

So if you say the elderly watch TV and they went HRC, wouldn't it hurt Sanders to have more viewership anyway?

[Uncle Joe]

134. 65 million is incorrect, many of those were the same people viewing multiple debates,

furthermore it isn't just the debate.

Post debate "analysis" and continuous propaganda by the national corporate media conglomerate pundits shape perceptions.

Here is a blatant example of national corporate media conglomerate pundit brainwashing propaganda or framing, Tapper and Lemon used the derogative term of "kids" no fewer than five times in less than 1 minute and 39 seconds.

That wasn't accidental you have to make a conscious effort to pull that off, never mind that average Facebook users are in their forties with more women than men.

Furthermore it wasn't just online polls, real time focus groups had proclaimed Bernie the winner as well, however the conflict of interest laden corporate media conglomerates turned that reality on its head and went on to pronounce Hillary the winner.

[whatthehey]

136. How many? More than 36MM?

[Omaha Steve]

29. With just 1 post U eliminate 1000's of votes Hillary needs to win

F U 2!

[William769]

39. Thats what Democrats said to Bernie Sanders.

[Scootaloo]

47. And what "message" is Hillary Clinton, exactly?

Do you even know? Do you even care?

[appalachiablue]

2. Here TYT/The Young Turks Politics Reporter Jordan Chariton reported June 15

on Senator Bernie Sanders press conference held at his campaign headquarters in DC on Tuesday, June 14th, DC's Primary Election day in which he made concrete and specific demands he expects to be met from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment.

Pub. June 15, 2016. For more, subscribe to YouTube.com/TYTPolitics.

[MADem]

4. He should have been standing with his fellow senators and sending a strong message about

guns, violence and the tragedy in Orlando. Instead he was MIA.

Why wasn't he in the Senate, on this of all days? He is a sitting Senator--one of a hundred. Why wasn't he speaking out with Markey, Warren, Murphy, et.al?

It seems like a missed opportunity--unless he doesn't want to raise the ire of the NRA or something.

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/15/senate-democrats-launch-filibuster-gun-control-bill

Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey of Massachusetts joined Senate Democrats in a filibuster Wednesday in a push for Republicans to take action on gun control in light of the recent mass shooting in Orlando.

Led by Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the talking filibuster (technically, a Senate hold) was launched during a debate about an unrelated spending bill.

Senate Democrats said the filibuster would continue until they received a “signal” that Senate Republicans would take action to deny firearms to suspected terrorists and to require universal background checks.

“I’m going to remain on this floor until we get some signal, some sign that we can come together on these two measures,” Murphy said, according to Politico.

[William769]

5. It's not like he has to run for President or anything.

[MADem]

13. Really. No more primaries--he can get back to work. nt

[billhicks76]

7. Lame BS Comment

He most certainly did. And was called politicizing it by Chuck Todd who supports Hillary. Does the misinformation ever end?

[MADem]

11. Perhaps you are unaware that Chuck Todd's WIFE worked for Sanders?

Chuck's wife, Kristian, is a co-founder of Maverick Strategies--they did a lot of the ground work/publicity for BS. To the tune of ONE POINT THREE MILLION DOLLARS.

Now that you have this information (which has been discussed here at DU previously) you might want to revise and amend your comments, there.

Cough.

[billhicks76]

15. Don't Confuse His Wife With Him

That's sexist. All HIS comments are quite the contrary. I do have a question maybe you could help with. Is this true or RW propaganda? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3038621/More-2-MILLION-Hillary-Clinton-s-Twitter-followers-fake-never-tweet.html

[pnwmom]

20. It's propaganda. I have a Twitter account but like many non-young people,

only use it to read other people's tweets, not make my own. But I would be considered "inactive" by this metric. I'm not inactive or fake. I just don't tweet.

[MADem]

32. +1,000! If you want to "follow" someone, like a candidate,

you have to have an account.

It doesn't mean that you want to participate in that 140 character crapfling, certainly!!

I'll bet most of my friends have an egg avatar if they even have an account.

[MADem]

27. Lol!

I'm not playing the goad-and-bait game with you, certainly not with anything from the right wing DAILY MAIL.

I offered you a key fact and you ignored it--your choice of course, but the fact that you rather anxiously try to completely change the subject from a campaign expenditure to "twitter" (you do realize there are voters who do not use twitter, do not know what it is, don't give a shit about it, and/or think it is stupid?) is telling.

But here, I'll provide you with a SALIENT link--the total is up over 1.4 million, now, paid to CHUCK TODD's WIFE's COMPANY by the BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/expend.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528

Eight payments...!

Maverick Strategies & Mail $1,425,210

That's not chicken feed--of course Chuck would want Bernie to stay in the game as long as Maverick Strategies might benefit--it's only natural.

And "sexist?" You'll have to work MUCH harder to try and generate a bit of fauxrage on that score. It wouldn't matter if it was Chuck's wife, or his husband--it was a spouse, someone to whom he pledged his troth, making nearly a million and a half off of those twenty seven dollar donations. It IS significant, it DOES matter.

See, this is why we like to see income tax returns when candidates run for office--they give us an understanding of who got the money, and from where. Cui bono, and all that. We expect journalists to freely reveal anything that might be perceived as a conflict of interest.

The fact that Todd hid this information is telling, and not in a good way for him, either--he never once did the "full disclosure" knock-off comment that others in his position often do.

If he didn't have anything to hide, why did he hide this information? It took "the blogosphere" to dig it out.

smh!

[billhicks76]

152. Your Favorite Journalists Do Same With Clinton

They have ties to her and I see no outrage. It's you who have claimed don't confuse Hillary with Bill so why do you do it to Chuck? Chuck has a right wing streak if you watch him speak. There is no way in Hell he is a Sanders ally. None. And the Daily Mail is right wing? Read the article. It goes beyond inactive accounts. U less your old and out of touch everyone knows any business can buy Twitter and Instagram followers. Bernies are 1000% more active. That's not a coincidance.

[Uncle Joe]

8. What did the Senators pass in regards to this issue and why does it make a difference

where Bernie condemned it?

There is a video on this link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/14/sanders_one_hateful_person_is_responsible_for_orlando_massacre_not_islam.html

and here is another.

[MADem]

9. He is a sitting Senator--his place is in the SENATE, not on "Meet The Press." nt

[Uncle Joe]

10. You didn't answer my questions and the first video on the link which I supplied wasn't

on Meet the Mess.

[MADem]

12. A Press Conference isn't "on the floor of the Senate" either.

He is a sitting Senator, paid generously to do that job. It's time he got back to it.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Bernie got the message out, that's the main thing and if the Senate actually VOTES on this issue,

I have no doubt he will be there.

[MADem]

30. Mmmm hmmmm.

We saw who the Senate leaders were, today.

I was very proud of the Massachusetts delegation.

[Craig234]

41. them, not you

Massachusetts delegation, good. Bernie Sanders, good.

You trying to smear Bernie as a Hillary extremist, not good.

[MADem]

45. Sanders wasn't there, so I don't know what you're talking about.

He was NOT IN THE SENATE with the Democratic delegation while they undertook this effort.

[tex-wyo-dem]

83. Why do you continue to attack Bernie?

Are you worried about something?

[MADem]

86. Why are you asking me questions that have no basis in fact?

Are you goading and baiting? What is your purpose?

Pointing out facts is not "attacking." It is important that this distinction be made, because you, apparently, are having real trouble with it.

And the only thing I'm worried about is that the 20th doesn't come quickly enough--LOL!

[tex-wyo-dem]

93. Your visceral hatred for Bernie is noted...

I'm just asking: if there is no way Clinton will not be the nominee, then why waist breathe on attacking? Fair question. The only logical conclusion I can make is you and other Clinton supporters are feeling defensive and worried about something.

All you are accomplishing is further alienating a major part of the Dem electorate.

[MADem]

99. Your powers of discernment are lacking.

I have no "hatred for Bernie," visceral or otherwise.

Life is too short to hate, and people who think in those terms lack maturity.

Sanders isn't going away, at least that's what he has said. If he's not going away, then he needs to decide how he can influence the debate in a constructive way. It's not enough to be the Resident Complainer, if he wants to make change, he has to inspire more than just a collective griping about how much this, that or the other thing sucks. If he wants to "make change" then he needs to LEAD.

Hiding out in VT, away from this important example of Senate solidarity, was not a smooth move. It was bone headed. He should have gotten on the damn shuttle and done his half hour in the well. He's been collecting a paycheck from "the establishment" for three decades, now--it's a little late to pretend he's not part of the group.

One can disagree with a politician on some aspects of policy, and agree with them on others. I think Senator Sanders holds many views that most of us agree with. I also think Sanders' path to realizing some of his goals are in some circumstances unrealistic. For example: Congress-not the President--makes law. Appropriations begin in the House. He knows all this, but he sometimes speaks as though a POTUS has the authority of a king. When he does this, he does a disservice to himself (because he knows better) and to the young and naive followers who listened to him and believed he had the power and authority to "make change" in the way he suggested when he pointed his finger and yelled. He doesn't have that power or that authority, and even if he had won instead of lost the primary, he would never have that ability. No POTUS does.

I'm not worried about the one in six Sanders supporters who claim they'll vote for Trump. They have to live with themselves, and I'm sure our team will get far more than one-in-six GOP voters (even if they lie and say they voted for The Donald). I'll bet Paul Ryan votes for Clinton--he'd rather "run against" her serving as POTUS as Speaker than have to try to explain/defend that lunatic Donald in the White House.

[Uncle Joe]

117. Not a single one of your posts on this thread actually addresses the issues brought up in the video

on the OP, the obvious thumb on the scale from the very beginning by Schultz, the lack of and cynically manipulated primary debate schedule, the archaic Democratic Primary system disenfranchising, discouraging or disillusioning millions of Americans from taking part in the process, the super delegates dampening effect on democracy and the corporate media's obvious play with that propaganda tool.

With you it has been all about changing or diverting attention from the critical points and issues brought up in the OP.

Furthermore your paragraph in this post regarding Bernie's knowledge of how government works is in itself unreal, Bernie has been in government serving longer in the Congress than Hillary and for a good period of time had more amendments passed than any other Congressperson.

Bernie knows how government works much better than Hillary, on the other hand Hillary does have more connections to mega-conglomerates and Wall Street, maybe her message to them of "cut it out" will turn the obvious corporate government corruption around, and you talk about Bernie supporters being naive!?

[MADem]

118. You continually make it "all about me." Soon, that sort of thing will not be allowed here.

I can't wait.

If you don't want to participate in a subthread, then just don't...you have the power.

[Uncle Joe]

119. Thanks for reinforcing my point. n/t

[MADem]

120. The point that you repeatedly target me? It's obvious to anyone who reads our exchanges.

It's not a secret--I merely describe what is obvious.

[Uncle Joe]

121. I'm not targeting you. You targeted this OP with a large number, if not the most posts on this

thread and none of them actually pertain to the issues raised in the video on the OP.

[MADem]

124. No, I discussed an aspect of the issue you raised. You don't get to control the responses to a

a thread, you know--if you wanted a "cheerleading" thread, you should have posted this in a protected group.

For all the complaints on this site about how DU will become an "echo chamber" after the 20th, your repeated, personal attempts to prevent me from expressing an opinion on the efficacy of a sitting Senator's efforts in recent days are telling, indeed.

When you post a thread outside a protected group you should expect a diversity of opinion.

[Uncle Joe]

125. You don't have to "cheerlead" for the issues raised in an OP, there is nothing wrong with debating

or disagreeing with the issues of an OP, but you didn't do that.

Your attempts on this thread have been geared only toward changing the subject or issues raised in the OP.

[MADem]

139. My point was directly related to your thread title.

You're insisting he has a "strong" message, when the strong message in actual fact came from the Senators who bothered to show up for work the other day.

[Craig234]

126. What I'm talking about

Is that the delegation in the Senate did well advocating on the issue. Bernie did well advocating on the issue.

You did badly with your wrong attacks on Bernie.

[MADem]

140. He is not a separate entity. He is one of a hundred and he didn't show up at work

to BACK the damn delegation that he caucuses with, and who gives him committee assignments to the benefit of himself and his constituents.

It's not an attack to point out that one of the membership was AWOL--and not just any member, one who is staking a claim as being worthy of "leadership."

In order to be a leader, you need to show up.

[Craig234]

144. Yes, it's an attack.

He doesn't need to be at every event. That event did not need him. He's busy doing things like meeting with Hillary on the presidential race. You are just attacking and inflating the issue.

[MADem]

148. He needed to be at THAT one. And he was MIA.

People noticed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/telling-moment-as-sanders-goes-awol-on-guns-filibuster.html

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/06/16/bernie-sanders-gun-control-filibuster

https://mic.com/articles/146370/one-big-name-was-missing-from-the-democrats-gun-control-filibuster-bernie-sanders

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/16/why-bernie-sanders-missed-the-senate-democrats-14-hour-gun-filibuster/


It doesn't matter, really, at the end of the day. The conversation moves on.

[Craig234]

149. Define "need"

What happened because he was dealing with his campaign issues and talking with Hillary and his supporters?

What, exactly, was the impact justifying the "need" you claim? No, it 'would have been nice if he could' at most.

[Scootaloo]

50. In other words, you're exploiting 49 murdered men to justify your hatred of Sanders

[MADem]

53. What an ugly, hate-filled comment.

I'm talking about an American tragedy that "our side" should be appalled by. "Our side" spoke out today and made it clear that reform needs to start now. I am -- as I said --very proud of the MA Senate delegation, they acquitted themselves brilliantly today.

You, OTOH, are trying to make this about ME.

As you do.

[Scootaloo]

55. Because it is about you. Or rather, what you're doing

You are exploiting murder victims, men massacred for existing, in order to "score points" on a fucking message board, MADem. That's all these posts from you are.

Stop.

[SunSeeker]

58. MADem refusing to ignore this horror and applauding Dems trying to help is NOT "exploitation."

Good grief.

[MADem]

61. Some of us have been personally impacted by gun violence.

"Scootaloo" doesn't understand this, apparently.

He sees everything through the prism of "How does this make Bernie look?" not "How can we stop this senseless slaughter?" and "Leaders need to step up and LEAD on this issue."

The vicious accusations against me are really OTT. I could relate a few personal experiences that would make that poster look terribly craven, but really, what's the point? It's not about me--it's about changing some seriously bad law, and exercising legislative leadership to get that long process started.

[Scootaloo]

63. Except that's not what he's doing.

[MADem]

59. No, that is what YOU are doing.

You are taking a discussion about an issue that has affected many of us on this board, personally, and directing unfounded accusations at me in a vicious and hate - filled way.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Scootaloo]

66. The Peewee herman defense doesn't work, MADem

You open post #4 by exploiting the 49 murdered in Orlando as a springboard to launch into one of your tiring tirades about what shit you think Bernie Sanders is. And that is all you're doing. You're not "having a discussion about" the Orlando Massacre - you're the one who brought them in to use as props for your argument, and you quickly shifted the topic to Chuck Todd's wife.

What you're doing is exploitative, opportunistic, and nasty, and I'm asking you to find some other avenue to spread your hatred of Sanders. Stop, please.

[MADem]

70. You are not deleting this ugliness.

Star Member Scootaloo (25,329 posts)
66. The Peewee herman defense doesn't work, MADem

You open post #4 by exploiting the 49 murdered in Orlando as a springboard to launch into one of your tiring tirades about what shit you think Bernie Sanders is. And that is all you're doing. You're not "having a discussion about" the Orlando Massacre - you're the one who brought them in to use as props for your argument, and you quickly shifted the topic to Chuck Todd's wife.

What you're doing is exploitative, opportunistic, and nasty, and I'm asking you to find some other avenue to spread your hatred of Sanders. Stop, please.

The one who needs to stop is YOU, with your fake characterizations of "hatred" because you don't like the topic--which is a salient one, even if you don't like it. Some of us have been personally affected by gun violence, and you don't have the right to try and silence us. If someone talks the talk and doesn't walk the damn walk, they are fair game--don't like it? TOO BAD. Leaders need to lead, and if they can't lead, they need to go home.

You should be ashamed of yourself, with your sick characterizations, but that takes a degree of introspection.

The 20th can't come soon enough.

[tex-wyo-dem]

87. Sorry but Scootaloo is spot on...

Maybe you should take a breather.

[MADem]

89. I won't need to after the 20th. And you should worry about yourself. nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

94. Ah...the protective bubble of an echo chamber...

Won't have to work so hard to protect the damaged one

[MADem]

96. The rules will not permit the bashing and trashing of Democratic candidates for public office.

I don't consider that too difficult a rule to abide by.

For those that do, though, well, they won't last long. And that's fine with me. This isn't "Crap On Democrats Underground." That place is called Free Republic.

[lunamagica]

102. Murdered men?

[MADem]

122. Sometimes, much is revealed unintentionally.

Those female victims aren't forgotten by most of us, I don't think.

http://www.advocate.com/crime/2016/6/15/49-orlando-victims-and-their-stories

[lunamagica]

123. I know...that jumped at me

[azurnoir]

38. Where was Senator Boxer standing?

[MADem]

46. When you find out (since you're so interested) I am sure you'll let us know! nt

[azurnoir]

49. I'm not engaging in a double standard again where's Senator Boxer CA? where's Senator Leahy VT?

where's Senator Klobuchar MN ? seems the only Senator being demonized for not being there is Sanders thus the double standard

[MADem]

64. I thought Boxer and Feinstein were crafting an amendment to the

gun bill that Murphy interrupted, but I can't be sure of that.

Of course, you're the one who wants to know where she was, so why don't you figure it out and get back to us?

Boxer isn't trying to make herself out to be the leader of a revolution (she's retiring this year). Neither is Klobuchar--or did she run a POTUS campaign this year that we all missed?

But guess what? Amy SHOWED UP--and she spoke:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/06/15/klobuchar-filibuster/

Thirty-seven other democrats, including Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, also took the floor Wednesday night to push for gun control measures.

“Would closing off the loophole in the terrorist watch list hurt my Uncle Dick in his deer stand? Not at all,” Klobuchar said.

There is no law currently that prevents people on terror watch lists from buying firearms.

Gun advocates argue a law like that would deny due process to people who may be wrongly placed on the list.

Sanders wants to be the leader of his "revolutionaries." He should show up. It's not too much to ask.

[azurnoir]

65. so where are Boxer and Leahy? I'm impressed Klobuchar did something though

she's quite popular she started her career as Hennepin County Prosecutor her specialty seemed to be if memory serves, certifying young men of color mostly Black as adults then locking them up for life, I think that was before she reclaimed her Fathers sur-name Klobuchar he was a very popular local sports writer for many years

[MADem]

74. You have google, too--the sea lion thing gets old.

Nearly forty of our people were there. Boxer was writing an amendment to the very bill under discussion w/Feinstein, as I said. No idea where Leahy was--but I'll bet google will tell you.

[azurnoir]

76. I'm not the one singleing out Sanders for demonization I asked a question

you do not seem to wish to answer but it seems Boxer was busy posting on Facebook

https://www.facebook.com/senatorboxer/

[MADem]

79. How many of those other Senators ran for POTUS?

How many lay claim to the leadership of a "revolution?"

You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way.

The leaders in the Senate today were the ones speaking from the floor.

And this IS the 4th time I've had to say this:

Noticing is not the same as demonizing.

I bolded it so it would really stand out.

[azurnoir]

82. there are multiple threads asking/demonizing Sanders for not being on the Senate floor

and yes when there are multiple threads all saying the same thing it does become demonization IMO

[MADem]

97. I did not start those threads.

And NOTICING is still not a synonym for demonizing.

[azurnoir]

98. No but multiple threads are indeed demonizing ps I never said you started them

[MADem]

141. I don't think noting someone's conduct is demonizing.

That would be a new definition, that holding someone accountable for their actions is now defined as demonizing...

[PufPuf23]

19. Reasonable and rational.

Good for the people of the USA and good method for the Democratic party to serve the will of the people.

The only arguments against any of the proposals are to preserve vested interests and to maintain a system where some votes are weighted more than others.

Many Americans and good Democrats and long term members at DU support what Sanders suggests in this video.

[Uncle Joe]

24. I agree and I do, PufPuf23.

[SunSeeker]

22. The so-called most progressive Senator is MIA as Dems filibuster for gun control in the Senate.

The best you can do is dig up an old video of him on the Senate floor. He sure as hell is not there now, while the Dems can use all the help they can get with the first filibuster for gun control in the nation's history.

[Uncle Joe]

25. This is not old?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/14/sanders_one_hateful_person_is_responsible_for_orlando_massacre_not_islam.html

But since you mentioned it which Democratic Senators joined Bernie when he filibustered the Bush tax cuts which wrecked our economy?

Either the Democratic filibuster will work and the Republican controlled Congress will pass favorable legislation regarding the gun issue DURING AN ELECTION YEAR or it won't but Bernie being there won't make a hill of beans difference.

[SunSeeker]

26. That is not him there today, when Senate Dems needed all the help they could get. NT

[BainsBane]

33. Bernie's view of corporate greed is highly selective

and manages to exclude gun corporations.

[Craig234]

42. D-

I wish Hillary had the same D- rating from Wall Street that Bernie has from the NRA.

Instead she has millions of dollars from them.

[MADem]

51. No--you don't get to make up "facts" like that. She has an F from the NRA.

Hillary Clinton (Democrat)
NRA rating: F


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/03/san-bernardino-shooting-presidential-candidates-responses-nra-ratings

[Craig234]

127. I didn't make up any fact

I said Bernie had a D- NRA rating. That's not made up.

All you said is that Hillary has an F - another fact. The only made up fact is your claiming I posted a made up fact.

[MADem]

138. YES--you DID.

Instead she has millions of dollars from them.



Those "millions" go great with that "F" -- do they?

smDh.

[Craig234]

143. uh, no

My post clearly said Hillary has received millions from Wall Street, not the NRA. You misread it.

[MADem]

145. "Them" isn't "terribly clear" by any measure. nt

[Craig234]

146. No, "them" isn't, by itself.

If I'd just said "them", you would have every reason to not know I was referring to Wall Street. But I didn't just say "them".

That's your selective quoting.

What I actually said is that I wish Hillary had a D- from WALL STREET like Bernie does fro the NRA, but instead she has received millions of dollars from them.

Now, a pet peeve of mine is the unclear use of pronouns. But this was not unclear. It refers to the term in the same sentence. Since I referred to her relationship with WALL STREET, the "them" was vey clear.

[MADem]

147. Didn't seem that way to me. nt

[BainsBane]

56. Bullshit

She has an F- rating. A D- rating is high for a "Democrat".

Just making up stuff doesn't make it true. She has come out forcefully against gun control. And unlike Bernie the NRA didn't help put her in office.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

He voted against the Brady Bill five times, kept his promise to the NRA to never vote for waiting periods for gun purchases, and continues to defend civil liability for gun corporations. His record on the issue is unacceptable, which is why no gun control groups or activists supported him in the primary.

Look at his voting record in guns http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders/37/guns#.V2I--ZA8KrU

Compared to Clinton's: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/55463/hillary-clinton/37/guns#.V2I_S5A8KrU

Your post is willfully uninformed. I get you all have decided that no policy or issue matters compared to Bernie's career, but dont try that duplicitous crap with me. This is an issue I've looked into and care about a great deal, whereas you don't even bother to verify you claims.

[Craig234]

128. The only false thing made up is your attack

There's no "bullshit". Bernie has a D-. I and most people think that's low. You think it's high.

What's "willfully uninformed" is not my post, it's your post making that claim.

You go on to spew more lies that "no policy or issue matters" about Bernie to his supporters, and again calling the fact of his D- raiting "duplicitous crap" - projecting again.

The issue here isn't guns, it's your hostility and false statements. You'd be a better advocate if you improved your posting.

[azurnoir]

37. can you give us video of Barbara Boxer speaking?

[SunSeeker]

40. Can you do anything but deflect? NT

[azurnoir]

43. IOW no?

[Craig234]

44. can you do anything but obsessively cherry pick Bernie and attack him and not be consistent? NT

[SunSeeker]

48. How is noting Bernie is AWOL at this historic moment "cherry picking"?

Especially when the OP posts a video of Bernie suggesting/misleading he's out doing something rather than holed up in Vermont.

[MADem]

57. I find it astounding that people are annoyed that it was NOTICED that he didn't turn up.

If you want to be a "leader" of a "revolution" you kinda need to turn up at the events that the revolutionaries are concerned about...wouldn't you think?

Or are the Sanders Revolutionaries not in favor of gun control, even to the weak point of "No Fly, No Buy?"

I simply can't believe that this isn't an issue of concern to many if not most of his supporters.

[SunSeeker]

60. We hold Obama's feet to the fire, not Bernie's.

[MADem]

62. Indeed! nt

[azurnoir]

67. not quite we find a double standard that the only Democratic Senator being Demonized for not being

present is Sanders but spin it anyway that suits your needs

[MADem]

68. Well, when most of them did show up, and the ones that

didn't speak were working on amendment legislation, it is not amiss to NOTICE.

NOTICING isn't the same as DEMONIZING.

This man wants to be a "revolutionary leader?"

He needs to get up there and do the work of leading.

Like Warren did.

[azurnoir]

69. Riiiight okay then I knew this demonizing of Sanders would somehow be justified

so present proof that as you said every Senator not present was not because they were busy working on gun control legislation
especially Senator Leahy VT mmmkay?

MADem
68. Well, when most of them did show up, and the ones that
View profile
didn't speak were working on amendment legislation, it is not amiss to NOTICE.

NOTICING isn't the same as DEMONIZING.

This man wants to be a "revolutionary leader?"

He needs to get up there and do the work of leading.

Like Warren did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=385666

[MADem]

78. Since you didn't quite grasp it the first time, and memorialized it,

I'll be glad to repeat it for you--I've bolded the part you apparently missed the first two times:

MADem
68. Well, when most of them did show up, and the ones that
View profile
didn't speak were working on amendment legislation, it is not amiss to NOTICE.

NOTICING isn't the same as DEMONIZING.

This man wants to be a "revolutionary leader?"

He needs to get up there and do the work of leading.

Like Warren did.

I also didn't say "every senator." I said TWO Senators--Boxer and Feinstein--were writing an amendment while the others spoke. Please don't make things up and try to put words in my mouth. I don't tolerate that.

[azurnoir]

80. Boxer was posting on Facebook today while her constituents were asking why she wasn't on the floor

supporting her fellow Democratic Senators

https://www.facebook.com/senatorboxer/

[MADem]

84. There is a link at post 75 that explains what she was doing.

You can give that ONE PERSON on her facebook page who asked the question as to what she was doing that link to explain what she was working on in direct support of her colleagues who were speaking from the Senate floor.

You're not trying to compare her to Sanders, are you?

Because I'm starting to get that impression--that you are.

She's retiring in January...Sanders is not. His term runs through 2018.

She didn't run for POTUS this year. You do know this, right? But Sanders DID.

She did not lay claim to the leadership of a "revolution." You do know this, correct? But SANDERS DID.

So....I'm a bit flummoxed as to why you want to compare--disfavorably, it would seem--a retiring Senator, who SHOWED UP FOR WORK at the Senate, and was drafting an amendment to the bill under consideration with her colleague, with a vanquished POTUS candidate who didn't bother to come to work yesterday when there was a debate going down on gun control.


Boxer was at work yesterday. "Just sayin'..."

[azurnoir]

85. with numerous other people agreeing with her @why isn't Boxer on the Senate floor

https://www.facebook.com/senatorboxer/

[MADem]

88. No. I clicked the link the 1st time. nt

[azurnoir]

91. well you did but others may not have seen it yet

https://www.facebook.com/senatorboxer/

[OwlinAZ]

114. Demonizing describes it just fine. It has been going on for the last 6 months or so.

You expect real Dems to not notice?

[BainsBane]

31. The establishment is busy standing up to the NRA

The most powerful corporate lobby in the country.

[MADem]

35. LOL-ain't that the truth!

Love those sig line pics.

[azurnoir]

90. Hate to tell ya but main concern was people on terror watch lists and no fly lists

now another question how many of the people on those watch lists are white and how many are something other than white?

[OwlinAZ]

110. As they should have been for years

[RandySF]

52. I saw his strong tweet

While his Senate colleagues literally stand for 14 hours and running against the NRA.

[demosincebirth]

54. Someone should remind him that he didn't win the nomination

[Iwillnevergiveup]

73. Uncle Joe

Thanks for posting. A "K" and an "R" are incoming.

[tirebiter]

75. U.S. Senators Participate In Day-Long Gun Control Filibuster Following Orlando Mass Shooting

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/06/15/watch-live-u-s-senators-participate-in-day-long-gun-control-filibuster/

While U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Barbara Boxer (D-California) have not yet participated in a gun control filibuster taking place on the Senate floor Wednesday night, they are co-sponsoring an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill to increase discretion on how it conducts background checks in order to keep guns out of the hands of known or suspected terrorists.

[RandySF]

77. In other words, his colleagues were WORKING.

[OwlinAZ]

111. It's abut time.

They have done nothing for years while our President pleaded for them to stand up to the GOP and their NRA supporters.

[NanceGreggs]

95. OOOOH - COOL!

Who's "The Establishment" this week? Is it still everybody who didn't endorse Bernie?

[lexington filly]

101. I'd say Hillary didn't debate Bernie in CA because she'd already won

the majority of votes and delegates. It wouldn't be smart to debate someone in the largest primary when you're already ahead and want a decent finish. Candidates who are running behind always want more debates and so more public exposure which can only help. A candidate who is winning would be stupid to play into the other's hands because there's no upside. And after all the months of debates, etc. they'd had before CA, there wasn't any new ground to plow.

[OwlinAZ]

112. She hasn't won yet

The cynical manipulations of the Democratic establishment and their Hillary not withstanding.

[McKim]

104. Leaving DU and It's Army of Paid Trolls and Party Operatives

I am leaving DU and it's army of paid trolls and party operatives. Some posters seem to have inside knowledge of the working of the
"Democratic" Party. This is a war against those of us who support Sanders. I joined as an observer in 2004 and now it is goodbye.
I will take my ideas and my ideals elesewhere where they are honored. And I will never forget the insults at DU.

[OwlinAZ]

113. Real Democrats will find a new way. This place is a swamp as is Daily Kos.

Reader Supported News is even handed though there are a few trolls there.
Reddit is always good.

[MADem]

142. GBCW posts usually are ineffective on a good day and subject the aggrieved writer to mocking, often

as not.

But if you're going to lay down the drama, it's more believable if you actually follow through.

I won't say goodbye, since you haven't left:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1492501

Just because not everyone prefers YOUR candidate does not an insult make, and there's no requirement that those of us who support a different candidate "honor" your ideas. The idea is to DEBATE differences, not stroke egos.

[NorthCarolina]

107. The voting irregularities, and slow counts were never a problem when all candidates

in the running were "establishment approved", like in 08.

[felix_numinous]

135. Americans don't want to endorse crimes

by endorsing a candidate whose ethics we disagree with. My god everyone has their limits, by endorsing an unethical candidate, what does this say to a nation that is expected to live under the law in increasing surveillance and police aggression? These are ABUSIVE policies already.

[gopbasher452]

137. This is why I really respect this man

Sanders represents true change. Hilary represents the status quo and the 1%ers. It's a crying shame he didn't win the nomination.