Why won't Hillary supporters discuss the actual issues of the campaign?

[kristopher]

We have a very real problem with the general population's lack of control over government policy. That is a demonstrable fact and it impacts every facet of our lives.
Why won't you address problem in an honest and forthright manner? If you approve of the way the system is currently structured, explain why it's good.
If you think Hillary is going to change it, explain how she does that in light of her funding sources.

This is what Bernie's Campaign is all about, so if there is any part of you that wants unity it is an issue that will have to be dealt with.

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy




The original study:

From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT

Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

The last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

I don't know if we will get another chance to change things if we wait for them to further consolidate their power. I especially believe that Hillary's court appointees will not be inclined to limit the power of money.

[Rebkeh]

1. K&R nt

[Impedimentus]

41. They care only about winning

Money and power trump issues to the Clinton campaign.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[mythology]

107. Considering that Sanders supporters here are openly rooting for super delegates

to give Sanders the nomination even in the event that Clinton has the most delegates and popular vote, you probably shouldn't try to claim that it's just Clinton supporters who are looking to win.

[CorporatistNation]

147. ABSOLUTELY!

SEE THIS FOR MORE HYPOCRISY! http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511605823

[leftofcool]

2. We do but we don't discuss them here

Why should we discuss anything about Hillary here when the threads just get shit on. We can discuss all issues privately without the crap.

[HerbChestnut]

5. Those threads get "shit on" because she loses on the issues

Plain and simple.

[leftofcool]

14. Obviously not since she is winning in delegates and popular vote.

Hillary must be talking about issues that real Democrats care about.

[FreakinDJ]

17. Most what I hear on the street are the Third Way HIT jobs on Bernie

and yes they have been effective

[Gwhittey]

82. So Bush

was right on Issues? You can win votes when you use rat-fucking and have a Husband as Ex-President. So Hillary is just rideing on coat tails of Bill. Great first women POTUS our country is going to have. Someone who picked right man to marry and latch onto even after he was a complete ass hole to her. Man I would so rather see Senator Warren in her place.

[obamneycare]

136. As a matter of fact, polling on the issues shows that Sanders' platform is most popular

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/bernie-is-mainstream_b_9425348.html


...On the other hand, unscientific social experiments like these, indicate that Hillary Clinton receives support that is wholly divorced from her stances on issues:

[kristopher]

142. +1

[beedle]

148. Boy are they going to be disappointed

when Hillary flip-flops on Sharia Law ... whatever that is

[monicaangela]

15. It appears being honest

and showing facts that disprove statements is tantamount to shitting on something these days.

[riversedge]

92. Yet we have OPs demanding we discuss issues but they get pooped on. I have

given up posting anything related to issue out here or even in LBN.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Well lets try to engage civilly

The Olive Branch is out

[uponit7771]

57. 71 recs for an overtly racist post, that olive branch has poison ivy at the end of it

[randome]

77. You have something against plants? You animal-centric authoritarian!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. Yes, privately...behind closed doors...

winks and nodd...TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA/Wall Street/"Cut it out"/ A-OK and all.

[rhett o rick]

49. You can't even tell us what her positions are let alone discuss them. Do you support her position

on fracking? On the TPP? When this all started I would post OP after OP picking different issues. Never got one Clinton supporter to participate. As far as getting shit on, what projection. You have control of the Admin, MIRT, the host forum, you do 80% of the alerting, locking and hiding. Your bullies have never been dealt. It's only progressive that get banned and bullied out of here.

[zappaman]

143. lol!

[Avalon Sparks]

145. So true Rhett!

Exactly, I've noticed that too, they can't defend her policies, record at el...

Even Freeps were able to defend their points.

[uponit7771]

55. Yeap

[hellofromreddit]

112. I gave it a go at having a discussion

It was not warmly received.

Someone there even told me to discuss it here--not there.

But you say y'all don't discuss it here either.

So....where to discuss of this discussion board?

[HerbChestnut]

3. They have a different set of "issues" that they've been using this entire campaign

None of it has anything to do with ending institutional racism, combating poverty, reforming outrageous trade deals, closing the gender pay gap, providing free public college tuition, major healthcare reform, etc...etc...etc...

Nope, their issues deal with identity politics, snark, and a whole lot of condescension.

[JaneyVee]

4. Because our posts keep getting hidden.

/thread.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. Well, that should not be happening.

If you discuss the issues (really discuss them) with an eye to facts and hard data, then there shouldn't be any problem.

But if the discussion descends into snark and rudeness, then people will alert and that has consequences.

We should not be hiding the truth.

[rhett o rick]

51. Have you noticed

that it's always the bullies that play the victim card.

[senz]

71. Yes, I've noticed that.

[lunamagica]

63. Here is a thread with facts and data. BainsBain and other HCS have tries many, many times

to talk about the issues, only to get snark, deflection, attacks or simply they get ignored, just to ask again, why don't they discuss the issues?

I think this OP by BB deserved way more attention and respect than it received.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511508859

[ebayfool]

68. Your link is to an OP by retrowire, not BainsBain. FWIW. n/t

[lunamagica]

70. Fixed. Thank you

[kristopher]

69. Here is the link to where BB used that post as an OP

That gives a view of the discussion which followed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511508859

Do you see any difference between what BB and you considered to an issue and what I've raised in this thread as issues?

[lunamagica]

72. The thing is, not everyone (and it looks like not the majotrity) see Wall Street

or the Oligarchy as their top issue to vote on.

Do you think the average American really discusses WS and oligarchies at the dinner table?

Most of us have other priorities

[kristopher]

75. They do in the rest of the world.

In many places they actually do talk about the economic issues that are what elections are all about.
Do you think the French Revolution was about social issues or economic issues?
Do you have any sense that the American Revolution was about personal slights and hating on your neighbor or was it about economic independence?
Was the reason FDR was elected 4 times because he was male, or because he fought for the same agenda that Bernie is fighting for?

What do you believe in?

[lunamagica]

84. This is America. The America which is much different from that of FDR

Do you think the Sandy Hook parents should take economic issues before violence? What about the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner? Gabby Giffords?

Do you think if they put gun violence and the oligarchy on a balance, what will weigh more?

Millions of parents see themselves in these mothers eyes, they see their choices, and see Hillary closer to their issues.

She has addressed autism and Alzheimer disease as a priority? Do you think families affected by these conditions should care about WS more?

People who are waiting for Immigration reform to be addressed by the next POUS on their first 100 days have only one candidate who has promised to do so. Should they care more about the oligarchs?

And those who have told the Sander's camp over, and over again that economic justice does NOT bring racial justice, just to be told, for months, that they need to be educated about their own lives? Should WS be their priority?

No, it shouldn't be. And voters are showing that WS is not their top priority by the millions

[kristopher]

96. What is the social impact of economic inequality?

Why did MLK turn his focus so strongly to that front just before he was assassinated?

[lunamagica]

97. So, you completely ignored evething I wrote? Clearly, WS is *your* top priority

Millions of voters are showing that they have other priorities. That's just the way it is.

[kristopher]

98. No, I didn't, honestly. I was directly responding to it, but in a way intended to be meaningful.

Look, the root of why the kinds of problems you point to - the ones that are so damned persistent and apparently not solvable - is that we are fractured as a voting block, not because we disagree all that much on what needs to be done.

Please take a look at and think about the significance of following study:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532267

It describes how much we actually agree on the economic front. It also confirms how little we understand the basic facts of that pretty simple issue, and, how that confusion translates into inaction.

If you look at that example where there exists agreement but nothing can get done, and consider it in light of the study in the OP that documents where control of policy is located, you might be inclined to ask yourself whether the other issues are intractable because they are intended to be.

I think it is demonstrably true that they are deliberately crafted wedges to divide us and prevent action to put the body politic back in control of making policy.

For another example look at the subject of abortion. Why is it such a time bomb when actually less than 20% of the people are zealots that oppose it?

Divide and conquer is more than an old saying, it is a strategy being actively employed against both of us even as we have this exchange.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

109. No damn it.

There are middle and upper class black people who are still victims of racial profiling. Income inequality is not the issue as far as that goes.

[kristopher]

118. Ok. That's your view but I see it differently.

Dr. King stated clearly and unequivocally that he also saw it differently. I've arrived at my conclusions through a different path than Dr. King, but our views are almost identical. It's a place where the balance of evidence leads most who embrace the world with empathy, compassion, and hope.
Maybe you'll find yourself there one day.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

119. How old are you?

And did you know Dr. King?

Let me give you a real world situation.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2858505/kam-chancellor-wanted-to-buy-a-gym-but-they-called-the-cops-on-him-instead/

Sanders supporters wonder why POC support Hillary.

[kristopher]

122. Ok, now you are just sad...

What are the specific policy proposals you want to see Hillary enact into law?
Why not share a specific plan of action to address any of the social justice issues you claim to care about.

She not only doesn't walk the solutions walk, she doesn't even talk the solutions talk.

[Armstead]

115. I you or a relatuve have Alzheimer's and lack adequate and expensive coverage...

to pay the exhorbitant costs of corporate insurance and nursing homes...those thiungs do affect you very directly.

If you have to bleed your family's resources dry to qualify for Medicaid, those issues affect you.

Just one example of why it matters.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

108. Answer the fucking question

When we try to discuss issues Sanders supporters try to change the subject. Just like their hero did when interviewed in Arizona. He got mad and walked off because it wasn't going his way.

[kristopher]

121. Let's see what I can do for you.

I see the core question from lunamagica's (Lm) post above as being:
"Do you think families affected by these conditions should care about WS more?"

The rest basically frames the question as one where our needs are an either/or choice.

I see that as presupposing people are incapable of seeing the intertwined nature of the events around us; whereas in actuality, humans look for and find the patterns that events fit into. It is those patterns that tell us how best to address the challenges life throws our way.

The either/or dichotomy is simply a false construct. It is not how humans problem-solve at any level except in the most stark circumstances. And institutionalized racism isn't not such a case. The violence, poverty and economic picture are completely intertwined and cannot by unwoven.

Lm can say that "the Sander's camp (has been told) over, and over again that economic justice does NOT bring racial justice". To a degree that is correct, economic justice does not automatically bring racial justice, but the economic system is the Gordian's knot that must be either untangled (Establishment incrementalism) or hewn in half by following the goals laid down by Martin Luther King. Only then will the healing begin.

And let me repeat that this isn't conjecture or guesswork. We have vast amounts of experience and study demonstrating a consistent picture where a strong middle class - built on a social justice platform as FDR and MLK envisioned - is one where social injustice and hate find trouble flourishing.

I didn't explicitly say all of that to Lm earlier, but the same message is there to be found if one is looking.

Hope that helps.

[Matt_R]

123. I'm sure living in a gated community give you the ability to focus on...

school shooting, rather than on shooting that happen in your neighborhood.

In fact last night we heard gunfire in spurts, didn't see blue lights though, so there is a good chance it was a street over. Either that or no one passed on.

If I had a better job I would be able to move to a better neighborhood. I'm sure most would like to have a better education, to get that better job, to get that better neighborhood.

I don't see Sanders as a single issue politician focusing on wallstreet. I see Sanders as a supporter of a better minimum wage, less expensive education, less expensive health care, stronger social security, etc. I look at minimum wage, education, healthcare and social security as social issues, not as economic issues but I guess the case may be made for both.

[lunamagica]

137. What the... you obviously have a reading comprehension problem

The post you are replying to said:

"Do you think the Sandy Hook parents should take economic issues before violence? What about the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner? Gabby Giffords?"

I see you conveniently picked and chose the Sandy Hook parents and omitted the rest...conveniently trying to drive a wedge between them...But guess what? All these parents, (the Sandy Hook parents, the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner, and Gaby Giffords, who is childless? ALL OF THEM are UNITED, regardless of income, race and social status, they are all united and standing behind, supporting and endorsing Hillary Clinton.

Their number on issue is GUN CONTROL. They would NEVER support a guy who voted against the Brady Bill five times.

And how would you ever know where I live? I don't owe you an explanation, but FYI, I don't live in a gated community, and I don't have children, but I can empathize with all of these parents. All of them.

[Matt_R]

138. Woosh you missed my post completely.

you now say "Their number on issue is GUN CONTROL. They would NEVER support a guy who voted against the Brady Bill five times."

My reply still states, I'm glad you are well off enough. Your bills are paid and live in a nice neighborhood so that you can afford to focus on only "GUN CONTROL". The rest of us living in America will focus on economic issues. Getting food on the table, a safer neighborhood, and affordable healthcare. So that we can take care of our families.

I'm also glad you have never heard a gunshot in your neighborhood and thought "are my kids ok."

[lunamagica]

139. I see that either you didn't read my reply, or your reading comprehension problem

is worse that I thought. What part of "I don't have children" didn't you get?

So Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner's mother all live in nice neighborhoods? You have no idea where I live. Do you usually judge people without having any facts to base your judgement on?

This is really pointless. I'm done with you

[Matt_R]

140. You may just be reading titles because i did say...

"I'm also glad you have never heard a gunshot in your neighborhood and thought "are my kids ok.""

[Armstead]

113. They should, because it affects their lives directly

They don't because the media and the political parties don't provide the information.

It's a vicious circle.

Sanders -- and those who support him -- are trying to open up the discussion and shed some light on what has been glossded over and covered up over the years.

[lunamagica]

76. I don't want this to seem like I'm piling on you, becaus I'm not

It's just that I respect you, and I know you won't reply with insults and snark.

On this thread alone, we have been called liars, sociopaths, the "vagina voter" insult is here... I don't know what else, because I couldn't read anymore.

How do you think that makes us feel? Why would we want to participate in such a "debate".

At least the amnesty has given us some relief. But we have endured months and moths of being targets of people that wanted us to leave. Bogus hides, attacks. Hillary supporters left in droves.

I replied to this thread, and I'm already sorry I did.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

81. No worries, dear lunamagica...

You're not piling on me. You're talking to me, and I get it.

The funny thing is that we Bernie supporters feel as though we've been targeted too, just as you stated you felt. Isn't that weird?

And I sure as hell don't want to participate in such a "debate" either. It only hurts all of us.



I keep hoping things will get better. For ALL of us.

We ARE Democrats, after all.

[lunamagica]

86. Thank you, California Peggy

[kristopher]

13. This was an invitation

And it has been made by me a number of times before.

How about it, break the mold and discuss the issue of our having a sham democracy? Again, this isn't a speculative statement, but one supported by strong empirical evidence. Surely you must be worried about our future enough to at least talk about the things that matter.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Your post was dishonest gay baiting bullshit and you are here crying victim and that's typical.

Your Team has this habit of doing the same thing you don't like in the other team. You and a couple of other straight Hillary supporters have been drumming at those posts ever since she put Reagan's foot in her mouth the other day. It's transparent. At the same time Your Team runs around accusing Bernie supporters of explaining to minorities about minority issues and choices. Which is what you are doing here. And several of your esteemed team mates have been doing with gusto. It's insulting in the same way that Stockholm Syndrome thread was insulting. And you folks should really cut it the fuck out.

[asuhornets]

144. Yep.....n/t

[dchill]

6. Because they lose, and...

Because it makes their heads hurt.

[redstateblues]

48. Who is losing?

[Jenny_92808]

7. Because they don't care

I see them as a Margaret Thatcher type crowd, unfortunately.

[BernieforPres2016]

8. Because there is no argument to be made for Hillary on the issues

or on her voting record (including Bill's programs she supported as First Lady) or on her tenure as Secretary of State.

[leftofcool]

16. 5 million Democrats and a slew of delegates disagree.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. That doesn't mean there is an argument to be made.

Was Bush the one with the best ideas in 2004?

[leftofcool]

42. Then go to the Bernie Group and create some anti-Hillary threads

[JonLeibowitz]

47. I go where I please, not where you presume to tell me to go.

[JudyM]

116. Exxxxxxxxactly. Well-said. Nt

[Lorien]

38. Unless you happen to be a war loving environment destroyi right winger who prefers to lable yourself

as a "Democrat" simply because you don't want anyone to call you a Republican. Then Hillary's hawkish anti-environmental/ anti-Wall Street regulation stances on the issues might seem appealing, though completely suicidal.

[redstateblues]

50. Anybody who doesn't march lockstep with Bernie is smeared

on DU as "Republican"

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

110. Yep

[ladjf]

11. Maybe they aren't fluent in "weasel words". nt

[grasswire]

12. did you ever watch a flim flam artist at a carnival?

Sleight of hand.

[redstateblues]

52. Sounds like Bernie with all his promises

to a certain part of the electorate that he knows he couldn't keep-but they get him voted

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

111. This ^^^^^^^

[IdaBriggs]

124. Same problem with Obama: gay marriage, health care, stop the wars...

All impossible things --

BUT WAIT!

From Zero to Hero. Not perfect yet, but a GREAT START on the impossible dreams.

Because they WERE possible, thanks to GREAT LEADERSHIP.

And then we have Hillary. She dreams of ... ?

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. It's likely she'd put a bank lawyer on the court.

Probably one of the culprits who caused the crash. If she gets to pick, I'd put a heavy bet on it.

Definitely she would fill the cabinet and executive agencies with those types. It would be what we have now, on steroids.

Stopping that after it's done is too late, we have to prevent it NOW.

[SidDithers]

21. 1172 to 846...nt

Sid

[kristopher]

23. She was supposed to get a 500+ lead out of her firewall.

Oooops.

[SidDithers]

26. Where'd you read that?...

+326 is insurmountable.

Sid

[leftofcool]

29. That would have been impossible but she will have that lead before April 21st

[Tarc]

22. Hillary has been discussing the issues for over a year with the voters

and they have chosen her over him. It's that simple.

[kristopher]

30. So you have absolutely no opinion about the fact that policies people strongly support...

never, repeat, never get implemented unless the monied special interest groups allow it?

Never.

Do you realize that an impartial evaluation of the state of the worlds democracies show us to be the endangered as a full democracy? They rank the US 20th out of 20 in their set of "full democracy" nations.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2015
Democracy in an age of anxiety

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territories—this covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s states (micro-states are excluded). The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Based on their scores on a range of indicators within these categories, each country is then itself categorised as one of four types of regime: “full democracies”; “flawed democracies”; “hybrid regimes”; and “authoritarian regimes”.

This is the eighth edition of the Democracy Index. It reflects the situation in 2015, a year in which democracy was tested in the face of war, terrorism, mass migration and other crises, and, in some cases, suffered serious setbacks. The title of this year’s report reflects the threat to democracy emanating from the fearful mood of our times, which informs the reactions of ordinary people and political elites alike. An increased sense of personal and societal anxiety and insecurity in the face of diverse perceived risks and threats—economic, political, social and security—is undermining democracy, which depends on a steadfast commitment to upholding enlightenment values (liberty, equality, fraternity, reason, tolerance and free expression) and fostering democratic institutions and a democratic political culture.

In many democracies, political elites worry about their inability to relate to the electorate and fear the challenge that populist parties pose. In some cases, established parties have colluded to exclude or marginalise the populists. In the face of terrorist threats, democratic governments have reacted in anti-democratic ways, calling into question freedom of speech or adopting draconian laws. In non-democratic countries, authoritarian political elites fear the threat from the masses and seek to bolster their rule by imprisoning opponents, restricting the media, limiting popular freedoms and repressing protest. Meanwhile, electorates are ever more anxious—about economic insecurity, about their personal safety, about the consequences of immigration, about the threat of terrorism—and angry that their concerns are not being represented by the established parties. This mood of fear and insecurity represents one of the main threats to democracy today.

Almost one-half of the world’s countries can be considered to be democracies, but, in our index, the number of “full democracies” is low, at only 20 countries; 59 countries are rated as "flawed democracies”. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 51 are “authoritarian” and 37 are considered to be “hybrid regimes”. As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate among “full democracies”; there are two Asian countries, one Latin American country (Uruguay) and one African country (Mauritius), which suggests that level of development is not a binding constraint, but is a constraint, nevertheless. Slightly less than one-half (48.4%) of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 8.9% reside in “full democracies”. Around 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still live under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).

“Flawed democracies” are concentrated in Latin America, eastern Europe and Asia...

http://64.37.52.189/~parsifal/EIU2015.pdf

[Tarc]

34. Not interested in PDFs hosted on some unknown, possibly malicious IP address

But thanks.

[kristopher]

54. You think The Economist is "some unknown, possibly malicious IP address"??

I'd tell you to Google the title of the article and look at the number of years that they've been doing this evaluation but it's clear you have some strong cognitive dissonance issues to deal with so here is the direct link to The Economists website where you can do a search. I've also included The Economist's branch website directly to their "Economics Intelligence Unit" which is the /eiu/ you see in the second link.

http://www.economist.com

http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2015

[SFnomad]

61. Who said the Economist is "some unknow, possibly malicious IP address"?

Your link in the post was this ...

http://64.37.52.189 ......

Do you know that's the Economist website by just looking at the numbers?

[kristopher]

67. You've been provided a verifiable route to the paper.

Dealing with cognitive dissonance can be a debilitating condition. But treatment is as easy as deciding to open your mind and setting a course to self honesty.

Good luck. We are all in need of it because whether you know it or not; whether you acknowledge it or not, we and our descendants are all in this together.

[leftofcool]

35. I believe you were just told no, we don't discuss issues with you, period!

[rhett o rick]

74. So you agree with her position on fracking? LOL. But of course you do. I should have asked if you

know her position on fracking. Doesn't matter does it. She represents the Big Money and that's all you care about.

[Tarc]

99. Her position is that it can be done if stringent environmental conditions and safeguards are met

That's what we call a realistic and honest response, as opposed to Sanders who just gives a simplistic "no", because he knows it's what you want to hear.

[rhett o rick]

100. That is a bullcrap response. It's rhetoric because it's not been possible to demonstrate

that they don't contaminate the ground water. Also, they use a tremendous amount of the ground water for their process. Contaminating it permanently. Where do they put the contaminated water?

Her position is typical. She supports it if done responsibly. When have you ever known a corporation to put the people before profits.

Profits over people. Ask the people who have had their drinking water destroyed.

[Tarc]

101. I realize that you're used to your candidate tossing you red meat every day, but,

in the real world, there are other factors to consider, for example, the impact on jobs.

[rhett o rick]

102. There are very little jobs compared to the billions of tons of water that is contaminated for

profits. You think profits are more important than lives. It's just peons that die.

The wealthy don't wish the poor to die, they just don't care.

[Doctor_J]

24. This might have something to do with it

[uponit7771]

58. Pictures of Rand Paul have nothing to do with it

[FlatBaroque]

31. Anybody informed about politics and supports Clinton - is an easy person to figure out.

Quotable

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Sociopaths are people who lack empathy

Because they're sociopaths

and they don't care about anything except for corporate profit.

Hillary supporters on this forum are nothing but liars for the corporate power structure.

Anybody informed about politics and supports Clinton - is an easy person to figure out.

-messiah

Sociopaths are people who lack empathy. In fact a paucity of empathy or its total absence is the sine qua non of sociopathy. Who else but a sociopath would attribute the most base motivations to strangers ? A sociopath, of course.

[Broward]

28. It's a risky proposition since she's always flipping on the issues.

[leftofcool]

37. Hey newbie! I would self delete this before it gets an alert

[PeaceNikki]

46. Too late.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Nice to be told we are sociopaths who only support her because she has an innie and not a outie...

Nice to be told we are sociopaths who only support her because she has an innie and not an outie. And they wonder why their outreach is failing.

SMH

[PeaceNikki]

56. Yeah, it's shocking that we don't want to discuss issues with such people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Moral certainty is only as moral as the person who wields it.

[pintobean]

85. His GD double down OP was just hidden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027697406

Flagged now.

[PeaceNikki]

87. Oh, how I'll miss that one.

Have fun in purgatory, bro!!

[pintobean]

88. There's a bonus.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alerter is a fucking asshole

[PeaceNikki]

89. Holy shit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. Don't they know the Administrators know who is voting?

I put my name on most of my votes

[rhett o rick]

103. Alert, lock, hide, ban but dont ever discuss issues.

[pintobean]

106. Was that a friend of yours?

Are you defending those disgusting sexist remarks about Mrs Clinton?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

114. That's why I have rhett o rick on my jury blacklist

[Fawke Em]

141. I'm female and I didn't find that remark sexist.

We literally have been inundated with calls to side with Hillary because she's female and that there's something wrong with us women who don't choose her (think of Albright and Stinem). I think the post was a bit more blunt and certainly less nuanced, but I do feel as though there are a great many of her supporters who only want her in office because of her gender - and for NO OTHER REASON.

I find being told that I'm going to hell if I don't support her or am just hanging out where the boys are (which is funny since I'm 46 and am the mother of a boy) far more sexist than that remark.

[merrily]

64. That's belly buttons, not genitalia.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but women don't have the same genitalia inside as men have on the outside.

&list=PLUG_2z77cZHJTaneOlNVZkoYIBm4sFBTz

[riversedge]

91. ALERT results..

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:37 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Because all they care about is making someone with a vagina president.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1532588

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

sexist disgusting post

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:41 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I agree with alerter.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Crude in its intent, but doesn't rise to a TOS violation in my estimation.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Enough of the sexist posts.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Bernie supporter here. Post is sexist. I care about getting the best possible person into the White House. I think it's Bernie, but no reason to disparage Hillary in the mean time. If it's her, it's her. Infinitely better than trump.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[comradebillyboy]

40. Is that you Killer Mike?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. Yeah

Because all they care about is making someone with a vagina president.

Short term victory with long term consequences.

Yeah-

The suggestion a woman who:

- was a National Honor Society member
-was a Merit Scholar finalist
- graduated from Wellesley and Yale Law School
- was a two term senator from a large and heterogeneous state
- was Secretary of State

isn't more qualified to be president than some former House Representative, small town mayor, , and small state senator because she has a vagina instead of a penis is patently absurd.

[djean111]

36. Because, evidently, they are good with war and fracking and cluster bombs and lies and the TPP and

sending kids home to die to make a point, is all I can think. Those things are okay if Hillary does them!

[Jefferson23]

39. I think you received your answer..she is winning so who cares.

It will likely remain that way should she win the WH.

[Chichiri]

43. Because it's moot. She's going to win. nt

[Electric Monk]

44. Because #WhichHillary

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23whichhillary

[riversedge]

93. and other hashtags that demean Hillary. I saw a Which HIllary just a bit ago

here in gd-p.

[Electric Monk]

94. It's not the hashtags that demean Hillary, it's her own varying positions on the issues that do. nt

[riversedge]

95. Smart people including Hillary change positions as conditions change. Enough.

[redstateblues]

60. The Sanders' Condescension Squad is out

in full force today. What a burden to be so superior to anyone who thinks HRC would be a better President than Bernie. There's not much positive about Bernie today-just a lot of hate directed toward HRC and her supporters. Getting a lot of converts with that negativity I'll bet.

[Jitter65]

62. Because Sander's supporters keep talking about 7 mile lines, and mass crowds, and revolution.

If you ever bothered to listen to Hillary at the town halls and speaking events you would soon find out who is really substantively talking about the issues.

[beachbumbob]

65. Discussing pie in the sky stances is not beneficial...

And why. Sanders fails so bad with voters over 50....

[dsc]

66. I post about issues quite often

I get next to no responses and then OP's like you post dishonest OP's stating we don't talk about issues.

[kristopher]

73. And what about the issue raised in the OP, "Is America an Oligarchy?"

Or the one in post 30 about the declining state of democracy in the US?
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532343#post30

Here is another opportunity where hard evidence about how we-the-people's agreement on wealth inequality is being twisted in the public debate in order to pit us against each other?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511532267

When do we stop making excuses and actually start to talk and act like we're responsible citizens in a functioning democracy?

[book_worm]

78. Do you? When I look at GD-primary the only things you guys post are anti-HRC GOP talking points.

or pictures of one of Bernie's "massive rallies"--which certainly hasn't helped him win.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

79. Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now

...

[wyldwolf]

80. It's difficult to discuss issues with true believers

It's like discussing issues with Christians and people who believe in homeopathy and other woo.

[MisterP]

83. she loses on the issues, so they've carefully kept them out of the campaign: she's a shell-shocked

babbling wreck when she tries to address Sanders himself ("you're on the side of the Minutemen and Fidel Castro!&quot

all they can do is keep her position as the default candidate, keep Sanders out of the news, and hope they can run out the clock

problem is she may poll above Trump NOW, but he's not just gonna throw bluster at her but she'll have to attack him on something (besides his creepy mummified-baby hands): she'll light out with "the Republicans are the party of war, deportation, Social-Security destruction, attacks on healthcare, outsourcing, loan sharking, locking up a third of black youth, and border fences!"

now, for half of that she's the only one in the room who's spent trillions on them, and for the other half her record, ties, and rhetoric are to his right

[GoneFishin]

127. She's a disaster.

[kristopher]

130. I hope we don't have to see how big of a disaster...

If she is the D nominee, and the GOP fields Kasich, as looks likely, it's liable to be "Mourning in America"* all over again.

* http://www.ushistory.org/us/59a.asp

[GoneFishin]

132. Yep. They are both extremely dangerous, but he fakes it better.

[MisterP]

131. "towering grease fire" was one phrase

[GoneFishin]

133. Yep. Burning out of control, spreading worse by the second, everything she tries makes it worse,

and after it is over it is going to leave behind a stinky slimy pile of goo and bunch of people standing around it thinking "oops".

[snowy owl]

104. AWESOME POST. THANK YOU. GETS TO THE HEART OF VOTING.

But Americans are too preoccupied with propaganda, emotions, loyalty and celebrity to understand how important the vote really is. So, we end up with an oligarchy, plutocracy, corporatism. Lots of ways to say it but the only way there is a certain kind of ignorance. As that smart jack-of-all-trades Benjamin said, a republic, if you can keep it.

[marions ghost]

105. K&R

Bottom Line:

"...our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts.

if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[stevenleser]

120. There is no campaign. She's the nominee. nt

[jwirr]

125. Mainly because they know she has not solid stand on anything.

What are they going to discuss? Even they are not sure where she stands on anything.

[Zira]

146. rofl. I bet she's the biggest flip flopper that ever ran for pres

pick an issue!

[Rebkeh]

126. K and R

[HassleCat]

128. Here are the important issues.

Trump.
Supreme Court.
Bernie's lack of support among minority voters.

You expected more than that?

[kristopher]

129. Yes. But...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1536507

[Zorra]

134. Rhetorical question?

[Karmadillo]

135. Because talking about her disastrous foreign policy decisions and

her $250,000 speaking fees from banks and her disdain for the unwashed masses asking for "free stuff" is not all that great for winning votes. Focusing on the implication that anyone who isn't voting for her is a sexist or a racist probably works better, at least in the short run.