HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » SMART endorses Hillary Cl...

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:53 PM

 

SMART endorses Hillary Clinton and yes they did poll there members

Because everytime Hillary gets an endorsement Bernie people attack her as not having the full unionship support http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/23/1474117/-SMART-endorses-Hillary

103 replies, 4117 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 103 replies Author Time Post
Reply SMART endorses Hillary Clinton and yes they did poll there members (Original post)
bigdarryl Jan 2016 OP
JRLeft Jan 2016 #1
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #3
Armstead Jan 2016 #17
2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #23
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #48
Hortensis Jan 2016 #53
2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #85
Hortensis Jan 2016 #89
Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #93
Hortensis Jan 2016 #94
Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #97
2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #96
2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #87
synergie Jan 2016 #56
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #31
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #50
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #51
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #54
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #55
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #58
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #61
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #65
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #69
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #73
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #75
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #78
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #82
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #84
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #86
cali Jan 2016 #35
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #49
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #59
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #60
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #62
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #68
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #72
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #76
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #79
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #99
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #98
retrowire Jan 2016 #74
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #83
retrowire Jan 2016 #88
Sheepshank Jan 2016 #100
dogman Jan 2016 #2
in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #16
artislife Jan 2016 #63
retrowire Jan 2016 #77
Fawke Em Jan 2016 #4
Empowerer Jan 2016 #71
SwampG8r Jan 2016 #90
Hoyt Jan 2016 #5
Fawke Em Jan 2016 #6
Hoyt Jan 2016 #9
Blue State Bandit Jan 2016 #37
Hoyt Jan 2016 #42
Blue State Bandit Jan 2016 #45
Hoyt Jan 2016 #47
2pooped2pop Jan 2016 #38
artislife Jan 2016 #64
Hoyt Jan 2016 #67
artislife Jan 2016 #70
mcar Jan 2016 #7
PoliticAverse Jan 2016 #8
Hoyt Jan 2016 #12
Armstead Jan 2016 #29
Wilms Jan 2016 #10
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #11
highprincipleswork Jan 2016 #95
Ash_F Jan 2016 #13
Wilms Jan 2016 #21
sufrommich Jan 2016 #14
snoringvoter Jan 2016 #19
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #34
workinclasszero Jan 2016 #24
Blue State Bandit Jan 2016 #41
cali Jan 2016 #36
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2016 #15
Blue State Bandit Jan 2016 #18
snoringvoter Jan 2016 #20
Armstead Jan 2016 #25
JRLeft Jan 2016 #30
artislife Jan 2016 #66
beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #33
workinclasszero Jan 2016 #22
Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #26
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #101
cali Jan 2016 #27
lunamagica Jan 2016 #28
cali Jan 2016 #39
cali Jan 2016 #32
Blue State Bandit Jan 2016 #43
hobbit709 Jan 2016 #40
Motown_Johnny Jan 2016 #44
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #46
Beacool Jan 2016 #52
Vinca Jan 2016 #57
TwilightGardener Jan 2016 #81
catnhatnh Jan 2016 #80
Iliyah Jan 2016 #91
libdem4life Jan 2016 #92
neverforget Jan 2016 #102
Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #103

Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:55 PM

1. She's still Goldman Sachs favorite candidate, of course that doesn't bother you.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:58 PM

3. Has Bernie ever walked back his medical assertion......

 

.....that multiple orgasms will cure Cervicam cancer?. Doesn't his medical advice bother you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:45 PM

23. 20 or more years ago?

 

Lol. Walk it back? Lol

And no it doesn't concern me. As a matter of fact the chemicals released during orgasm can be very beneficial towards assisting healing.

But the fact that you have to go back decades just to find something to try to use against him is hillarious. Especially when your candidate gives us a new scandal almost weekly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:22 PM

48. I've heard that Bernie is omnipotent

 

Bernie is the same today, yesterday and forever....so yes, has he walked it back or is he still offering this medical advice?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:40 PM

53. :) Hillary "has the real-world experience and dedication

that make her the right candidate to serve the interests of America’s working families in these turbulent times.”

Secretary Clinton’s plans are detailed and well-reasoned. On the economy, she will build on our apprenticeship and training programs, expand and improve freight transportation and transit and address environmental concerns with investments in energy efficiency. All of these involve jobs that members earn their living in every day.”

I put the italics in. Isn't it past time to ask Bernie to explain his plans in similar detail? We should know that his goals are achievable if we are to consider voting for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #53)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:16 PM

85. We know that Clinton is status quo

 

That's really all we need to know. While she has what u call experience her lack of good judgement during her experience overrides it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #85)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:25 PM

89. The "we-know-what-we know" contingent?

Is that what Bernie wants from you? I never got the idea he admired ignorance, wilfull or otherwise. Bernie can handle the truth -- and then some. Shouldn't his followers at least try to?

How about giving it another shot? Read the endorsement and consider why it was given to Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #89)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:36 PM

93. I am really baffled that people aren't uncomfortable with

 

her dishonesty !i don'r mean this as an attack, more a question.
In what moral universe is dishonesty ok?
Has it become so common that nobody even notices?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #93)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:47 PM

94. IMO we should worry about our OWN honesty first.

Only when we are committed to being honest with ourselves can we evaluate the honesty of others. Otherwise, irresponsible self indulgence is all too likely to be the result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #94)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:07 PM

97. That's off topic though I agree

 

Self-honesty is essential, in my opinion.
But doesn't address the question.
Using dishonesty to manipulate others is not okay wirh me, it's harmtful. It's not a liberal value, or even close. And I'm puzzled anybody is okay with it, especially the candidate herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #89)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:58 PM

96. The members were not asked who they wanted

 

They were asked what they wanted and leadership fit that into one of clintonsmultipil personalities

I've noticed that Hillary supporters feel the need to insult Sanders supporters personally while Sanders supporters have enough on Hillary to keep it mostly about her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #48)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:18 PM

87. Really desperate to try to use this

 

Clinton still for war? Oh wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2pooped2pop (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:48 PM

56. Is that like how you guys keep using "Goldwater Girl" in so many posts? Yes, the hypocrisy

 

is hilarious, as are his own scandals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:51 PM

31. The one that was based on a report in a medical journal over 40 years ago?

If you're still obsessed about a report on orgasms and need him to walk it back that says more about you than it does Bernie.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #31)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:31 PM

50. So then one would assume technology aids in evolution of thought.

 

Does Bernie walk back his comment in light of new information or is he simply hoping no one asks him a about it? Is You do realize the Bernie supporters tends to bludgeon the rank and file Hillary supporter about his NEVER changing stance on important women's issues....right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #50)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:33 PM

51. New information? Do tell. I want to hear ALL about the NEW data on orgasms.

You sound like an expert in the medical field.

Please proceed. Edjumacate me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #51)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:44 PM

54. You first tell me that the Bernie medical report was 40 years ago

 

....clearly implying that cancer research and knowledge has changed. Now you imply there are no improvements in the last 40 years? Wtf are you going on about. I don't think even you know other that a mildly stupid attempt to deflect the cancer research with orgasm research.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #54)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:47 PM

55. You brought it up so obviously you must posess some sort of superior knowledge on the subject.

You seem to be obsessed with this issue since you keep bringing it up.

I'm just dying to hear your take on it.

Do go on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #55)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:51 PM

58. And every time I bring it up, I ask if Bernie has walked it back

 

Clearly not...you do everything to deflect from my question with new questions attempting a different direction. You seem to try very hard to cover up this laps in decency and its reflection on his view of women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:53 PM

61. I want to hear more about this "Cervicam cancer".

What does that say about someone's views on women when they don't even know what a cervix is?

I've actually had cervical cancer so I'm fairly knowledgeable about the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #61)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:59 PM

65. You did not do Bernie any favors deflecting because of a typo

 

I assume you are very grateful for the advances in Cancer research and technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #65)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:02 PM

69. I'm not here to do Bernie any favours, I'm here to learn.

So go on, tell me why he shouldn't have believed what was written in that journal. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, surely you must know ALL about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #69)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:05 PM

73. Yeah...sure you are not here to promote Bernie

 

Pull the other one, I've got bells on it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:07 PM

75. You just said I was here to do him favours, make up your mind.

I'm still waiting to hear your expert medical opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #75)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:09 PM

78. I asked first....did he walk it back? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #78)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:12 PM

82. You brought it up - repeatedly - so it's up to you to explain why he was wrong at the time.

Go on, you're obviously an expert in this field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #82)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:16 PM

84. Well first, you are the one that says I'm the expert...I'm 100% sure I never implied it.

 

And second I suppose the answered my question if Bernie has ever walked back his medical advice that multiple orgasms cures cancer, is a resounding "no, Bernie never walked back the comment". Nice leader wannabe you are promoting and defending.

I guess I get to bring this subject up as often as I feel like bringing it up...it's not been settled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:17 PM

86. He GAVE medical advice? Really? Link to him advising women?

That sounds illegal.

And here I thought he was just quoting a medical journal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:56 PM

35. And your silly attack has jackshit to do with the op

 

Hillary Clinton is hopelessly corrupt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #35)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:24 PM

49. I was responding to a post, not the op. Insult to deflect. Not working. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:52 PM

59. Oh and it's cervical cancer, not "Cervicam".

At least get the terminology right If you're going to make assertions of your own.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #59)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:53 PM

60. Oooohhhh, typo makes you feel superior....pathetic. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #60)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:54 PM

62. Well you wanted to feel superior to Bernie and he at least got the terminology correct.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #62)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:01 PM

68. Even KKK gets their propoganda spelled correctly....what do think of their message? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #68)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:05 PM

72. So now Bernie is JUST like a white supremacist hate group because he spells words correctly?

You know who else spelled words correctly?






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:08 PM

76. You are the one that invoked typos as something that demolishes the message

 

If you don't like the example, you should have thought this through. You are the one that seemed to think typos must mean the message is true, correct and of value.

So did Bernie ever walk it back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #76)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:11 PM

79. And you're the one who just compared a Jewish man to an anti-Semitic hate group.

After calling Bernie "shifty Sanders" last week.

I have to wonder how much you thought that through.

And we'll see if you decide to walk it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #79)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:22 PM

99. You obsess about Bernie's Jewishness... Beating that drum every fucking chance you get

 

And you know full well my comment had nothing to do with his heritage. You just want to invoke something to try and get a hide...it's what you do when you can't answer the question. Did Bernie ever walk it back?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Sheepshank (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:07 PM

74. Does that have to do with the issues

or the way in which Bernie will govern as president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #74)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:13 PM

83. Has much to do with leadership, respect and policy choices

 

Although as a point of clarification I was responding to a poster and not the op...so there is that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheepshank (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:22 PM

88. How does an amateur medical observation have to do with that? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #88)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:26 PM

100. One ad hominem, countered with another

 

I figured it was the level of discourse acceptable on GDP lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:58 PM

2. They didn't poll their members about specific candidates.

They polled them on issues then their General Executive Council decided Hillary was best on those issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:16 PM

16. OMG...so, that's how they can LIE about "polling" members. So, another hollow, shallow endorsement.

Bernie has the 99%. That's all that matters. WE WILL WIN!

99% > 1%. They can't and won't win.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:55 PM

63. Great catch

 

It is the sneakiness, the running up to boundaries just to see what will fly that is yet another nail in a coffin for h. They have this air of arguing what "is" is. This is why a lot of people do not trust them. They are fudgers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dogman (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:09 PM

77. lmao how SMART of them. smfh nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:58 PM

4. Union members supporting the Wall Street candidate isn't very SMART.

(Sorry - couldn't resist)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:05 PM

71. If only those blue collar union workers were as smart as you

They would know what is in their best interests as well as your do.

And you wonder why people think your segment of the Sanders campaign is arrogant and elitist ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Empowerer (Reply #71)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:27 PM

90. Good spellers.too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 02:59 PM

5. Glad they polled members. I think most union leaders are in touch with members that elected them.

Most union members are interested in an improving economy and making sure their industry is doing well -- it's a lot easier to protect jobs and get better wages, benefits, etc., when the company is doing well. I think Clinton is the better candidate from that perspective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:01 PM

6. They didn't poll them on candidates.

They polled them on issues and went with the establishment candidate that sorta fit those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fawke Em (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:03 PM

9. As I put in my post, Clinton fits their issues, "sorta" or definitely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:59 PM

37. When did Clinton come out against TTP?

Cause I don't know many unions, including SMART, that support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:03 PM

42. Even in the wildest, most irrational fears of TPP, this unions' members will not be hurt, just

like teachers, fire/police, service workers, government workers, transportation workers, etc., by the TPP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #42)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:12 PM

45. Not so sure they believe you.

From McClatchy, July 2015

- After the speeches, Joseph Sellers, union general president, said Sanders was “fantastic.” He also had kind words for Clinton, saying she too has a history of support.

Any endorsement, Sellers said, “will take some time.”

There’s some feeling among union members that Clinton needs to take a harder line against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade pact pushed by President Barack Obama. Unions worry it will mean fewer and lower paying American jobs.

Sanders is a vocal opponent. Clinton has said it needs protection for workers and stronger assurances companies cannot skirt health and environmental rules. She backed the proposed agreement as Secretary of State.


www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article29120500.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:21 PM

47. Don't believe it will hurt most, or any, jobs SMART represents. Maybe you can

come up with some rational examples from the jobs that make up the core of SMART.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:59 PM

38. which Clinton? which issues? which day?

 

Weather vane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:57 PM

64. That was the interpretation from the higher ups.

 

And that is what a lot of Bernie's appeal is. We are against the higher ups deciding what is sorta in our best interests...but mainly in theirs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artislife (Reply #64)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:59 PM

67. "Higherups" got elected by members to represent their interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #67)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:02 PM

70. They did.

 

But are they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:02 PM

7. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:03 PM

8. "The poll focused on issues, not candidates"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:12 PM

12. Well let's see. The union members probably have a good health plan, better wages than most,

job security, and the like. Which candidate is more likely to continue that, the one that criticizes corporations or the one more concerned with the economy as a whole and promoting an environment where most companies can do better. Companies that do well are a whole lot more likely to give up some of the wealth the unions. Members know that.

Although I'm not sure it's the unions or their members' concern in this context, I think Clinton also offers the best chance for the poor and others who have not benefited a better chance to get good jobs for the long-term, better wages, better benefits, etc.

I believe an expanding economy, higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, a better healthcare system, better educational opportunities, etc., will more likely happen under Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:49 PM

29. You're kidding, right. Have you not been paying attention to the corporate imperative?

 

Screw unions, then screw workers. We want the government to rig the rules so we can export as many jobs as possible to sweatshops overseas, and use that as leverage to bludgeon the remain workforce in the US.

And the Clintons delivered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:06 PM

10. That may be a bit misleading to say. Here's what they report they did.

 

SMART surveyed its diverse membership on the 2016 election in December. The poll focused on issues, not candidates, in order for member feedback to guide the union’s electoral efforts in every race, at every level, in 2016 and beyond.

Members overwhelmingly chose jobs and the economy as their most vital interest. On qualifications, members indicated they want leaders to possess the competency, broad experience and serious approach necessary to tackle the nation’s difficult domestic and international challenges.

These, combined with the membership’s preference, led the SMART General Executive Council to approve Secretary Clinton for the Union’s support. SMART will mobilize its members across the United States to help ensure that Hillary Clinton is elected to serve as the next President of the United States.

https://smart-union.org/news/smart-endorses-clinton-for-president/


They didn't "focus" on candidate's (ya know, the thing they're endorsing). Did they even ask? But they asked about issues and traits they wanted in a candidate. Soooooo, it seems that the Exec Brd used this as a basis for their choice.



And BTW, everytime Hillary got an endorsement she did not have the full unionship support. Attacked for it or not, that seems clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:11 PM

11. No they didn't poll members

(bolding mine)
SMART surveyed its diverse membership on the 2016 election in December. The poll focused on issues, not candidates, in order for member feedback to guide the union’s electoral efforts in every race, at every level, in 2016 and beyond.

Members overwhelmingly chose jobs and the economy as their most vital interest. On qualifications, members indicated they want leaders to possess the competency, broad experience and serious approach necessary to tackle the nation’s difficult domestic and international challenges.

These, combined with the membership’s preference, led the SMART General Executive Council to approve Secretary Clinton for the Union’s support. SMART will mobilize its members across the United States to help ensure that Hillary Clinton is elected to serve as the next President of the United States.


So the members said that jobs and the economy were their most vital interest - and the GENERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL decided Hillary best represented those interests? I think it's a great endorsement and had the members actually been polled and the result was Hillary - I'd say congratulations to her. But to actually say that this selection was based on "polling the members" is really stretching it. Surely she could have won the endorsement with, you know, members actually selecting her over Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:56 PM

95. Yes, they only polled the members on issues and then Executive Council decided like this...

 

As it said in Daily Kos, "SMART surveyed it’s members based on the issues and of course Hillary was the obvious choice!"

How come whenever I read anything from the Clinton campaign or a Clinton supporter, it so clear from the words they choose that the fix is in? That the assumption has been made, even before a proper vetting of the facts?

That is what is so frustrating to Bernie supporters. I mean, really. A lot of the points of argument just don't make logical sense, unless they are rationalizations for a decision that has already been made.

Make the decision based on who is most likely to follow Progressive principles, that is, if you are a Progressive. If that is your way, Bernie is the clear choice. As to who can accomplish what, that remains to be seen. But we all should know by now that if you don't even try, you are doomed to failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:13 PM

13. Their General Executive council selected Clinton. Not members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:36 PM

21. Ha! And their president was a 2008 delegate for Clinton

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:15 PM

14. Another union under the bus.

I'm not even going to bother reading this thread,it's become way too predictable. Good for the Clinton campaign though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:26 PM

19. Based on the endorsement, Clinton got a whooping 16 people supporting her.

 

Not the members, but the executive board decided that the issues that surveyed 'sorta' fits Clinton, when Sanders fits their preferences to a tee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snoringvoter (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:54 PM

34. 16 WHOLE members of the board? Break out the champagne!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:45 PM

24. Funny how the "peoples choice" backers love throwing

 

unions under the bus eh?

Might explain why some republicans are backing Bernie though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:02 PM

41. Did Hillary come out against TPP?

If not, then a post claiming that "Members were Polled" with a link that says "not based on candidates" sounds more like "Members were Push Polled" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sufrommich (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:57 PM

36. Fail. Only Hillary supporting union bigwigs are being thrown

 

under the bus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:15 PM

15. *their

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:18 PM

18. Congratulations.

Maybe Hillary figured out that it wasn't such a good idea to accept unilateral endorsements from unions.

It's progress.

On edit: Maybe not so much.

SMART surveyed its diverse membership on the 2016 election in December. The poll focused on issues, not candidates, in order for member feedback to guide the union’s electoral efforts in every race, at every level, in 2016 and beyond.

Members overwhelmingly chose jobs and the economy as their most vital interest. On qualifications, members indicated they want leaders to possess the competency, broad experience and serious approach necessary to tackle the nation’s difficult domestic and international challenges.

These, combined with the membership’s preference, led the SMART General Executive Council to approve Secretary Clinton for the Union’s support.


:FacePalm:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:28 PM

20. These Clinton supporters are badly suffering from foot-in-mouth disease

 

when the decision was not based on the membership polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:46 PM

25. Same thing PP did....It's stated in a less than honest way

 

They ought just be honest and say "We already knew who we want to endorse, but we had to have the appearance of fairness, so we asked ourt members about issues, and fit the results to fit our predetermined choice."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #25)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:50 PM

30. It's all a game. This election is proving how big the battle is against power.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JRLeft (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:59 PM

66. It is exactly!

 

Those in power may have gotten in the game to do good things, but looked around and didn't want to lose it. So now they are hedging their bets on who will keep them in the gravy the longest.

spew!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue State Bandit (Reply #18)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:53 PM

33. OOPSIE!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:41 PM

22. Yay SMART!!

 

SMART, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, has endorsed Hillary Clinton as the union’s choice for President in the upcoming 2016 election.

Nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:48 PM

26. Clinton & Sanders both addressed the Union

From July 28 McClatchyDC (bolding mine)

Bernie Sanders wowed the audience at at a labor union conference Tuesday, calling them “brothers and sisters” and vowing to push an agenda they’ll like.

“A strong middle class is synonymous with a strong trade union movement,” the Vermont U.S. senator told the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Business Agents conference at a Washington hotel.

The Democratic presidential candidate vowed a “political revolution” that says to billionaires “you can’t have it all.” He pledged to push a “major federal jobs program that puts millions of people back to work.” He’d have the government invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize the nation’s infrastructure.

The audience loved it all, giving him standing ovations and lengthy cheers. Before Sanders spoke, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, appeared in a brief video and said she, too was a big supporter of the union, which has 216,000 members in the United States and Canada.


There's more . . . http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article29120500.html

Would have been interesting to see which candidate the members actually would have endorsed if they had actually been polled on preference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #26)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:35 PM

101. I do not support the endorsement of my union, I will

Continue to support Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:48 PM

27. Not quite

 

SMART surveyed its diverse membership on the 2016 election in December. The poll focused on issues, not candidates, in order for member feedback to guide the union’s electoral efforts in everyrace, at every level, in 2016 and beyond.

Members overwhelmingly chose jobs and the economy as their most vital interest. On qualifications, members indicated they want leaders to possess the competency, broad experience and serious approach necessary to tackle the nation’s difficult domestic and international challenges.

These, combined with the membership’s preference, led the SMART General Executive Council to approve Secretary Clinton for the Union’s support.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/23/1474117/-SMART-endorses-Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:49 PM

28. K&R. YEEESSSS!

Great endorsement!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunamagica (Reply #28)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:00 PM

39. Phony as hill. bigwig hilly supporting bigwigs making the decision

 

Just like every single one of her top down union endorsements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 03:53 PM

32. They fucking well did not poll members on candidates. Fucking period

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #32)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:05 PM

43. Push polled... maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:02 PM

40. There, their, they're. Do you know the difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:05 PM

44. Another dishonest post from a Clinton supporter. Why am I not Shocked?

 


They didn't ask their members who they wanted endorsed.

They asked about issues and then decided on their own to endorse Hillary.


This does not prove the members support her. In fact, if the leadership thought that the members would support her they might have asked.

This looks like one more top down power play to misrepresent who really is supported by the working class, and it didn't work.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:14 PM

46. No, they did not poll their members. I know this firsthand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:34 PM

52. Nice endorsement.

“Secretary Clinton’s plans are detailed and well-reasoned. On the economy, she will build on our apprenticeship and training programs, expand and improve freight transportation and transit and address environmental concerns with investments in energy efficiency. All of these involve jobs that members earn their living in every day.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 04:49 PM

57. I give up. What's SMART?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #57)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:11 PM

81. Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:11 PM

80. This OP has been proven false for over two hours

and the OP has chosen to neither reply nor edit the post.I feel that shows a lack of character...We need the un-rec button back to counter falsehoods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:27 PM

91. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 05:32 PM

92. Victim, much? Good lawd.

 

Maybe this meets somewhere in the middle, factually that is. Not all Unions are for Bernie. Not all Unions are for Hillary. They both have some. And some they have not.

It's really not that complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:37 PM

102. They did. I voted for Bernie in the poll.

I actually thought they would endorse a Republican considering how right wing my fellow co-workers are here. One of them called Obama "the Communist in the White House" just last week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Original post)

Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:40 PM

103. Actually as a union member I am much more concerned

With wage increases and protection of the Union than I am about "busting up the banks", so for me the answer is supporting a candidate who does not get stuck on a couple issues but the general welfare of our nation, I am supporting Hillary though my union endorsed Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread