I'll leave this here.

[FourScore]

Please feel free to spread it far and wide.

[wendylaroux]

1. Yup

[RobertEarl]

2. Whoa, dang

When it's put like that, it's gonna cause some Bern in certain people.

[mdbl]

3. You can't blame Hillary for the fact that

this country has been STUPID enough to keep electing corporate elite puppets to our government for the last 35 years. She was just playing the game she thought she should.

[Ron Green]

10. I agree; she can't be blamed for playing the game, and she plays it well.

But now we have a candidate willing to talk about the game itself! This is a crucial test for this country, to shake off the stupid and engage in real and transformative politics. We may yet fail the test, but by God we've got the chance in 2016 to step back from the Abyss.

[daleanime]

59. +1

[Bubzer]

62. She does indeed. In another time and place, she'd be my candidate rather than my 2nd choice.

I suspect she probably knows the game better than most in DC. That's not a knock on her either... she's working with the system we have rather than the system as it needs to be. The problem is we cannot change the system by using the same broken methods. We need to break away from it and take ourselves to a higher place (cue song)

&list=RD_4VCpTZye10

[raouldukelives]

23. It isn't that we elect them, as much as bankroll them.

The more wealth Wall St has, the less freedom and democracy we the people have.

Corporations are now people. The most backward, greedy, racist, warmongering, environment polluting, animal torturing, misogynistic, education hating people one could ever know and people line up to share in the proceeds.

They don't care where the money comes from, just that it comes.

It's why Wall St is such a good litmus test for sincerity. A liberal in Wall St would be like a member of PETA investing in dog fights. The very act denies one the ability to claim they are sincere in their beliefs.

We exist in the most democracy corporate shareholders will allow. Thanks to them, that window grows smaller each year.

[malthaussen]

32. I believe that is the point.

Certain voters want a candidate who did not/does not "play the game." The very phrase can make some toes curl. Some voters want an end to this "game" that is being played with the country's future.

-- Mal

[marym625]

39. You're being sarcastic, right?

No one blames her for who we've elected. Holding her accountable for her positions and votes, however, is what we're supposed to do.

[mdbl]

44. My use of the term 'Blame' was sarcasm

But that is the excuse you always hear when presenting an argument for something you don't like about a candidate. Politicians always claim they have to deal with the politics at hand, even if that means being a little dirty. I said this in the remote chance some really dumb voter who falls for that crap might be viewing this thread - and there are millions of them which is why our political system is in the shape it's in today.

[marym625]

47. Thank you.

I assumed you were but a couple replies made me wonder if my assumption was incorrect.

[ion_theory]

48. Isn't that thinking along the lines of slavery apologetics?

Not trying to compare Hillary to slave owners, but the argument that she is just a product of her environment is a cop-out to me. If it s wrong now for her to support things, it was wrong then as well.

[AtomicKitten]

4. that's gonna cause some heartbern

k&r

[marym625]

41. heehee!

[AtomicKitten]

87. #FeelTheBern

[marym625]

91. All over the place!

[SoapBox]

5. It's time for real change.

No more entrenched establishment DINOs, Turd Wayers, Bankster Billionaires...

Political Revolution time!

Go Bernie!

[HappyPlace]

6. kick. (nt)

[dsc]

7. let me help you a little

the boarder fence was part of the Bush administration's immigration reform which Sanders opposed not because of the border fence but due to the fact he felt letting in Latinos would lower wages. He said not one word, not a single solitary word about border fences. Also he supported the bombing of Serbia and the invasion of Afghanistan which last I checked were foreign military interventions. He also voted to fund both Afghanistan and Iraq repeatedly. Oh and it is employees of banks not the banks that gave the money and his net worth of 330k is exclusive of his house but counting what he owes on the house. Also there is no way that 62.9% of Hillary's donations are of 2700 as her average is way lower than that and even if the rest of the donations were to have averaged 10 bucks the numbers don't work. Oh, and Bernie has not one, but two super pacs and they have funds in them.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. Nice try

[Ino]

9. Oh thank you!

This helps clear everything up too...

[SunSeeker]

12. Interesting. Didn't know about the misleading math on Bernie's net worth.

His 330k net worth claim never made sense, particularly since he made at least $5 million since he came to Congress. Where did all that money go?

I did know about his votes to bomb Serbia and invade Afghanistan. And his support of the trillion dollar MIC boondoggle that is the F-35. But hey, it brings jobs to Vermont. And Bernie is all about keeping his Vermont voter base happy (the rest of the country, meh). He worked with then-Texas Gov. George Bush to lead the charge for dumping nuclear waste from Vermont's Vernon reactor in Sierra Blanca, an impoverished town inhabited mainly by Latinos on the border with Mexico.

[mhatrw]

13. So Sanders is not poor enough or anti-war enough for you?

Nor is Sanders strong enough on the environment for you?

Which candidate do you prefer on these issues that so concern you?

[beam me up scottie]

15. Nailed it! Which candidate indeed.

Obviously Hillary is much better when it comes to war, personal wealth and the environment.

[uponit7771]

18. No, the BS shit don't stink doesn't fly any longer. He's different but not by 180 degrees as has bee

... pushed on DU for months now

[pinebox]

34. Oh

Really? Seems pretty 180 degrees different to me.

Meme says Hillary Clinton's top donors are banks and corporations, Bernie Sanders' are labor unions
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/



And what do you know!

[Bubzer]

65. +1

[merrily]

26. LOL! Two rich for one Hillary supporter and too poor for another.

Both of which are a riot, given the Clinton finances.

I have to laugh when they try to hit Bernie on things like his alleged wealth, his LGBT stance, etc. his vote for the Afghanistan War, etc. In their shoes, I'd be silent on all those things.

[MoveIt]

38. Don't you love the first "Oh really I didnt know about" response?

Gotta love how they build up the narrative, everyone chipping in to simulate an actual discussion for search bots to find.

Its a Team effort.

LOL

[SunSeeker]

94. It's not his wealth, it's his hypocrisy that is a problem.

The issues that matter the most to me are women's rights, and I trust Hillary on that way more than Bernie.

[sheshe2]

98. +1000

[beam me up scottie]

99. Too bad other she didn't always support all women's rights.

Her past opposition to marriage equality and willingness to find common ground with anti-choicers on abortion means I can't trust her.

Bernie has always supported lgbt equality and reproductive freedom.

He didn't need to evolve when it comes to civil rights.

[frylock]

102. Where do the two candidates differ?

[SunSeeker]

106. Priorities.

For Hillary, women's rights are front and center. With Bernie, it's on the back burner.

Hillary has always used the bully pulpit to champion women's rights, like her 1995 Beijing Women's Rights speech. I am not aware of any speeches Bernie has given on women's rights. At best, he'll throw in something about how women should have wage parity when he's doing a speech on income inequality. Hillary immediately came to Planned Parenthood's defense when the O'Keefe video came out. Bernie waited days, and it was hardly a full-throated defense of Planned Parenthood.

With Hillary, I know women's rights will be a priority, that women will have a tireless fighter working for them.

[mhatrw]

105. Identity politics, FTW.

The issues that matter most to me are old, angry, socialist Jewish guy rights, and I trust Bernie on those way more than Hillary.

[dsc]

33. in fairness he has nothing to do with how the net worth was reported

the rules are set by the feds and he followed them.

[noamnety]

51. How do you feel about hillary not reporting joint assets?

My bank account is joint with my husband. It would feel pretty weird/dishonest for me to tell people my networth is zero because my savings aren't just in my own name.

"Hillary Clinton’s reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/26/24-7-wall-st-net-worth-presidential-candidates/32409491/

[SunSeeker]

93. How do you feel about Bernie not reporting joint assets?

Bernie's wife got a $200,000 payment to walk away from her college job. http://vtdigger.org/2014/09/17/attack-ad-hits-sen-sanders-demands-jane-sanders-return-golden-parachute/

That payment was community property since they are married. If you added that onto his purported net worth, it would almost double it.

[noamnety]

104. I'm ambivalent.

Personally, I don't care one way or another.

I just thought it was weird to be more upset that one person left their house off their asset list than concerned that the other left 50 million dollars off theirs.

[JDPriestly]

82. Figuring net worth is tough.

Here is one estimate:

Figuring Sanders’ maximum possible debt with his minimum possible assets gives a minimum possible Bernie Sanders net worth of $222,026. Figuring his lowest possible debt with his highest possible assets gives a net worth of as much as $769,002. Combining his average assets with his average debts gives an average Bernie Sanders net worth of $528,014.

http://moneynation.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth/

Far cry from Hillary Clinton's net worth of Hillary Clinton net worth of $21.5 million.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

The Clintons' net worth is particularly shocking since when he was impeached during his administration, we Democrats were told we needed to worry because the Clintons did not have enough money to pay lawyers to represent them in all the lawsuits and criminal investigations. They plead poverty at that time.

So it is very troubling that the Clintons have amassed so much money in just 15 or so years. Wow! Wish I could make close to or maybe even more than a million a year. Or can you correct me on how quickly their fortune was amassed. You have to make a lot of speeches and sell a lot of books to make that money. Or were they selling something else? Good looks perhaps?

Sanders supports immigration reform. He is very clear about that. His national security policy is very clear also. He supported the war in Kosovo, Clinton's war by the way, because it was a question of genocide. He supported the war in Afghanistan because we were attacked: genocide and an attack on us or one of our allies are the grounds Bernie has given for going to war.

Please provide a link regarding the dumping of nuclear waste.

Also, the $5 million is Bernie's $170,000 per year salary as a member of Congress. Sounds like a lot of money. Pays for a lot of travel and politicking and two dwellings since Bernie is in D.C. and like most members of Congress cannot go home to Vermont every night.

The post sounds shocking but the facts are not shocking at all. Bernie has integrity and attempts to place his integrity in question are absolutely useless.

Please explain Hillary's wealth before talking about Bernie's income which is the same income as other members of Congress.

[SunSeeker]

95. Yes, figuring net worth is tough.

Which makes it odd that some Bernie supporters would treat that $330K net worth figure as such a rallying point. Yes, the Clintons made made a lot of money over the last 15 years selling books and giving speeches. People obviously are happy to fork over lots of money to hear them or read their books. Bernie has written books too, but they naturally didn't sell like those written by a former very successful and popular 2-term President or a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of state and presidential candidate who for years has been voted the most admired woman in the world.

Here's a link about the Sanders-sponsored legislation that allowed the dumping of Vermont nuclear waste into a border town in Texas, with the help of Bernie's BFF at the time, Dubya.
http://social-ecology.org/wp/1998/10/the-texas-vermont-maine-nuclear-dump-bringing-environmental-racism-home/

[JDPriestly]

96. The danger is that people who give large donations to Hillary

and pay her handsome sums to give a speech are buying access.

Bernie does not have that problem. He is very approachable and doesn't sell access to himself to the wealthiest few.

We shouldn't have nuclear waste to have to get rid of. Nuclear energy is yet another "product" that the rich, those with lots of influence with people like Hillary push on us so that they can have a product to sell us.

We should as a nation be investing in solar and wind, but the profits for the people who like to donate to the likes of Hillary and the Bushes don't want us to be able to put up a solar panel on our roof or set up some windmills and be independent of their electricity grid.

I attended the First International Energy Conference in January 1974. (I have also written about this on DU.) MIT scientists presented a program on the house they were AT THAT TIME (how many years ago) supplying with electricity nearly entirely in the cold, relatively rainy climate in Massachusetts with the solar panels of that era. A man behind me stood up and stated, "I represent the nuclear industry of Canada, and we don't want solar energy because it doesn't give us a product to sell."

Hillary's big donors support her in many cases because they see her as willing to play that game, the game of big money's interests versus the interests of the rest of us.

Today I got an offer in the mail for more credit cards. I was offered credit at either 0% or 1%.

And you know what, if I put money I saved in that same bank, those are almost the same interest rates that I get on my money.

The system if crooked. We need to encourage middle class and poor people to SAVE THEIR MONEY, not to borrow, borrow, borrow. There has to be a balance between personal saving and personal borrowing.

As long as we have a leader standing at the bully pulpit in the Oval office and in the Rose Garden who is influenced by the greedy big money hedge fund managers, Wall Street firms and banks and who doesn't care about improving the lives of ordinary people, we will fail as a country.

Nearly all the growth in wealth since about 1980 has gone to a relatively small group of people.

The Clintons were in the White House for 8 years. What did they do about that trend?

What has Obama done?

I understand that Congress passes the laws, but the president draws public attention to changes that are needed. Neither Clinton nor Obama has done an acceptable job of that.

Bernie for 2016.

Hillary is not an electable candidate on top of it all. If you think that Republicans made life miserable for Obama as president, just wait until they have Hillary to pick on. I don't think our nation would survive that.

Bernie focuses on the issue and, with the exception of Hillary fanatics, he doesn't leave much room for personal acrimony. Doesn't practice it. Doesn't deserve it. Focuses on the needs of the American people. What a welcome relief.

[SunSeeker]

97. Riiight. The "rich" forced Bernie to dump Vermont nuclear waste on those Latinos in Texas.

[JDPriestly]

100. You read my story. We have nuclear energy rather than solar or

some other environmentally sound form of energy because it provides ongoing income to rich investors.

Solar panels provide far less income to investors.

So in a sense what you said is the truth.

Nuclear energy is dangerous. It makes us dependent on the companies that produce it. It is not something we need in most areas of the country.

Thank goodness. San Onofre has been closed. I wonder what they will do with the dangerous nuclear waste from that closed plant. (It was leaking.)

So, yes. You are right.

The "rich" forced our country (not just Bernie) to have to dump nuclear waste, and the system is that dangerous stuff (not just nuclear waste) will most likely be dumped where poor people live.

You don't seriously think that the rich people who ultimately decide where nuclear waste is to be dumped are going to dump it in the Hamptons where they vacation? Do you?

The world would be quite a different place if we required that harmful waste be dumped where the people whose companies produce it live. We probably would have far less dangerous waste.

Hey! What a good idea!

Please note this:

The Vermont legislature’s 1994 compact vote followed several months of hearings in which a few Vermont towns agreed to consider a burial site for nuclear waste. The towns were rewarded handsomely for their initial interest and, not surprisingly, only the town of Vernon — “company town” for Vermont’s only nuclear plant — agreed to take the process any further. Vernon was deemed to be geologically unsuitable for nuclear waste burial, so the search for an alternative began.

http://social-ecology.org/wp/1998/10/the-texas-vermont-maine-nuclear-dump-bringing-environmental-racism-home/

I favor that. Here in southern California, we have had our problems with the Santa Susana nuclear research site, San Onofre to say nothing of the use of asbestos in the shipyards during WWII, an every present legacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Onofre_Nuclear_Generating_Station

http://www.asbestos.net/exposure/specific-company-sites/long-beach-naval-shipyard/

We need an environmental president. Any candidate who relies to a great extent on the donations from wealthy people and corporations does not qualify for the title of "environmental president."

Bernie may not be perfect when it comes to protecting the environment but he sure will be a lot more likely to be at least acceptably good at it than Hillary.

I note that the decisions about the Texas site for dumping nuclear waste were made WHILE CLINTON WAS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Sorry. Fail. That is not a story that makes Hillary Clinton look very promising. Bill Clinton could have stopped the dumping had he used his bully pulpit and presidential pull. He didn't.




Ultimately, the answer is to ban nuclear energy and reduce nuclear waste accordingly.

[SunSeeker]

103. Riiiight. Clinton made Bernie dump the nuclear waste in Texas.

[uponit7771]

17. +1, the "my candidate can throw a stone even if its small" from some supporters is gob smacking

... none of the dem candidates can throw a stone.

[marym625]

43. He supported support for the troops! OH NO!

Do you remember the first few years of that horrible, illegal war? Do you recall that those of us with loved ones there were buying flak jackets and other necessary things to protect our troops? Do you recall or even know that thousands of the young men and women who were first fighting this illegal, immoral war, came home with brain damage because the humvees didn't have shocks?

Fuck anyone that disses votes for funds to protect the people we send into war. Trillions of dollars still unaccounted for, missing, that was meant to support our troops. Underfunded, unprotected, military personnel sent in by a lying president and a Congress that was greedy and/or stupid, and a vote to protect our troops is supposed to be bad? What kind of seriously fucked up, bullshit logic is that?

[dsc]

45. but Hillary has been repeatedly criticized for those votes

it is why we can't believe her on war or don't you remember. You can't have it both ways. Either those votes funding the war are wrong or they aren't. They aren't wrong when cast by Clinton but right when cast by Sanders. I tend to agree with you, in point of fact, but unlike many other posters here, I think the votes should be judged the same regardless of by whom they are cast. Just like the border fence which is also mentioned in the OP. In 2013 Bernie voted for a border fence as part of a larger immigration bill just like Hillary had in 2007 but his vote in 2013 is apparently hunky dory while hers makes her Hitler in a dress.

[hueymahl]

50. Not quite

Admittedly, there has been a lot of posts about war votes that lack precision. But the bottom line is Hillary voted FOR war, advocated FOR war and funded war. Sanders voted to FUND an already in-existence war. Is there some hypocrisy there? I don't think so, but I will concede the point for the sake of argument. So unless you are PRO war, then logic dictates you would prefer the candidate that was less in favor of war, and that certainly, beyond debate, is Sanders.

[Bubzer]

66. +1

[marym625]

55. I've never seen Clinton criticized for the funding vote.

The vote to go to war, the speeches supporting going to war, yes, justifiable, disgusting and should be criticized.

Please link to the bill Sanders voted Yay on regarding the fence. I see he voted against colture on S.1348. I see he voted Yay on culture for Edward Kennedy's bill, S.1639, as did Senator Durbin and then Senator Obama. It wasn't a bill to build the fence. In fact, it set up many barriers that had to be passed before a wall could be built.

I am not disputing your claim. I just can't find it.

[dsc]

57. in 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/senate-immigration-reform-bill_n_3511664.html

[LiberalLovinLug]

63. BS

That link is the vote for the Path to Citizenship that every Democrat voted for and 14 Republicans.

Bernie DOES NOT support building a fence on the Mexican border:

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-immigration/

What are Bernie’s views on securing the border?

Bernie sees the importance of securing the border, but is opposed to building a fence to do so, and has voted repeatedly against legislation that would build such a barrier. Bernie has supported legislation which would have increased border patrol operations while simultaneously providing a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants. Bernie does not support an “open borders policy,” preferring to focus on a path to citizenship for immigrants already in the United States.

[dsc]

67. building a fence was part of that bill

just like it was part of the bill Hillary voted for. YOu can't have it both ways. If voting for a bill which includes it is wrong, then it is wrong, it isn't wrong when HIllary does it but OK when Bernie does.

[Bubzer]

70. There's considerable good in that bill... and the money didn't build a fence, but reinforce one.

Texas already had much of it's boarder fenced on the Texas/Mexico boarder. The bill primarily served to put more federal funds into the boarder patrol system. Even taking that into account, there's far more good in the bill than bad.

[dsc]

73. I agree that there is plenty of good in that bill

just like there was plenty of good in the 2007 bill so either both votes are justified for voting for good stuff and getting the fence along with it, or neither is. It can't be that it was OK for Bernie to do it but for Hillary unless your guiding principle is that things Hillary do are a priori bad and those Bernie does are a priori good.

[Bubzer]

75. I'm not terribly familiar with the 2007 bill... care to inform me on what you're refering to?

A link would be handy if you don't mind. I, for one, won't knock a candidate for voting on legislation that is mostly good... unless of course, the bad parts are really and truly heinous... the kind where no amount of good will scrub the bill clean type of deal. For me, the Iraq war authorization and patriot act were prime examples of those.

[dsc]

76. It was Bush's compreshensive immigration bill

not as good as 2013 to be fair but it had a pathway to legal status for all and to citizenship for some.

[Bubzer]

77. Ahhh, gotcha. Thanks for that.

[Bubzer]

69. This bill does apear to support completion (and repair) of an existing fence.

completes a 700-mile border fence and adds to entry-exit systems to track whether foreign nationals overstay their visas.

But this is a bit of a false-flag-attack. The fence already existed in much of Texas... this bill merely put federal (rather than state) funds into maintaining the fence and boarder patrol forces.

[JDPriestly]

83. Hillary voted for the Iraq War Resolution WITHOUT CHECKING THE

FACTS.

I do not trust Hillary. She does not do her homework. She votes with the crowd. Total lack of integrity.

[Bubzer]

64. That's a bit confusing.

If he didn't say a single solitary word about border fences, then how could you know why he did not oppose them?

To my knowledge Bernie never supported the bombing of Serbia, but did support more money for getting body armor to the troops and additional IED protective shielding for various vehicles to deal with existing conflicts.

You make quite a few claims... could you provide links to back them all up? I'd be interested in vetting your sources.
I'd also be interested in seeing what process you used to figure that the numbers don't work.

[Logical]

85. LOL, I love the desperation. nt

[JDPriestly]

88. Bernie's pacs 2013-14 raised $46,207.

w.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cid=n00000528&cycle=2014

Twice as much of it was from labor as from other sources combined.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday reiterated his pledge not to accept super PAC support but stopped short of knocking Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton’s decision to court allied super PAC donors.

“I understand where she is coming from. [But] I will not have a super PAC,” Sanders, who last month launched a bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. “...I don't think we're going to outspend Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else, but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign.”

Although Sanders did not criticize Clinton about her tacit support for an allied super PAC, about which The Washington Post’s Matea Gold reported last week, he nonetheless stressed — without naming names — his belief that the American political system gives outsize influence to millionaires and billionaires. He said a central consideration for Supreme Court nominees should be their position on the Citizens United decision.

“Let me say it this way: If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice, and that nominee will say that we are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United,” he said. “Because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/10/bernie-sanders-pledges-not-to-accept-super-pac-support/

Some of his supporters want him to have a super-pace. He can't do anything to stop them thanks to Citizens United (which he seriously wants to stop), but will not be working with any super-pacs supporting his campaign.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/

Then there are the billionaires for Bernie.

Fun video of "billionaires" trying to shut down Bernie's HQ in Arizona.

Compare to Hillary's Super-Pacs. Here is one:

Priorities USA Action, the main super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, brought in $15.6 million in the first six months of 2015 — a haul that includes a $2 million donation from mogul Haim Saban and his wife Cheryl, and six other $1 million checks.

The group — which also disclosed the creation of a joint fundraising committee with Correct the Record, a sometimes-rival pro-Clinton super PAC — spent $1.5 million over that period, largely on research and an email list rental from the Ready for Hillary PAC, according to its Federal Election Commission filing on Friday afternoon.

The creation of the joint fundraising agreement, dubbed American Priorities ’16, is evidence that some of the big-money factions backing Clinton are starting to work together after months of turmoil. Priorities struggled to raise money early in the year amid a reshuffling, but the waters have calmed since longtime Clinton ally Guy Cecil was brought on board to lead the group in May.

Eight separate $1 million checks flowed into the group in the last week of June, before the filing deadline.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-super-pacs-joint-committee-2016-election-120862

[appalachiablue]

11. The Real Deal is what the country needs, now more than ever. Guess who's the candidate for that-

Bern Baby Bern!

[Bubzer]

72. +1

[Eko]

14. There we go

That's what I like to see, just the facts, no smearing, no bashing. Thanks.

[uponit7771]

19. Those aren't "just facts" though... Post 7. gets ad hom attacks vs retort refuting what was posted

[Eko]

21. Thank you

I will check those points out and thanks for bringing them up to me, I appreciate it.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Some people are going to haz a sad about this.

[beam me up scottie]

24. They already haz sadz all over this thread.

And I rec'd it just for them.

[sarge43]

36. Can't be said enough. n/t

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

22. One of these things is not like the other..........

Can't figure it out, let me give a hint........

One is backed by the 1% one is not

I know were my vote is going and it is not to the 1%

Feeling the Bern!

[madokie]

25. Bernie Sanders will be our next President

hide and watch

[Bubzer]

71. If we keeping telling people about him, you very well may be right. I certainly hope so!

[brooklynite]

27. Thanks...it's possible that 2-3 people missed it the last 10 times it was posted...

[R. P. McMurphy]

31. I'm one of those 2-3 who hadn't seen it and am glad it was reposted.

You would get farther along with me if you posted something either 1) positive about Hillary or 2) refuting the information in the graphic. In my opinion the snark makes you appear to be petty and maybe afraid.

[bvar22]

84. I missed it.

Some of us have jobs or chores or lives, and don't have the luxury of hovering over DU all day
counting how many times things are posted. You did NOT have to open the thread, comment,
or participate. You could have done what most of us do, which is:

"Oh. I read this yesterday. I'm going to move on to another thread."

How can you assume that since YOU saw this information....then EVERYBODY has seen it?


DURec, Kick, bookmarked, and graphic saved for future use.
Thanks!

[Major Hogwash]

89. It's on Facebook, too.

Seeing that it is now a huge part of social media networking, ya know.

[bvar22]

90. I'm glad it is on Facebook.

The problem is....I am not on Facebook, and have no inclination to join.

If it were up to me, the graphic in the OP would be plastered over billboards from coast to coast.

[Major Hogwash]

92. That's cool.

When the admins of DU banned NYC_SKP in June he had nowhere else to go.

Here's to 90 days of no posts on DU by NYC_SKP, and all of the irreparable harm it's done . . .

[bigwillq]

28. K and R

[shireen]

29. where did you find it?

It's pretty amazing, the kind of thing that should be turned into postcards or handouts. That's why I'm asking about the source.

[DanTex]

30. I guess you hope it will be less misleading the 20th time it gets posted.

[dsc]

35. Oh and one other thing about the border fence

In 2013 there was a comprehensive immigration bill which also included a border fence, and how did Sanders vote, he voted for it. So he was against the fence before he was for a bigger fence, fancy that.

[marym625]

37. Thanks, FourScore

I've seen a bunch of variations on this. A couple that are very detailed with links to back up each line item. And I have actually seen people respond to the longer ones with, "tldr." Unbelievable. Not here, thank goodness.

None of this surprises me except the border fence. It surprised me then and it hasn't stopped shocking me. WTF kind of insanity is that? There is absolutely nothing good, redeeming or sensible about that.

I haven't heard any current rhetoric from HC on the border fence. Is she backtracking on that now? You know, like she does on so much of what she believes.

[LWolf]

40. Blame or not, I don't have to elect her

when there is a better option.

[jalan48]

42. Looks like Hillary likes to pull the old "I was for it before I was against it" trick.

[dsc]

46. like Sanders does on the border fence

in 2013 he voted for the very same border fence decried in the OP.

[ion_theory]

49. K&R n/t

[llmart]

52. I'm not so sure I understand the net worth figure....

If you count the value of my house, my net worth is more than his????

Not trying to rain on Bernie's parade, just wondering if this is for real.

[99Forever]

53. That's gonna leave a Bern mark on...

... the inevitability factor.

[Quackers]

54. What if I move it to here!

HA!

[Uncle Joe]

56. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, FourScore.

[ChiciB1]

58. Pretty CLEAR Picture... I Say Who Do YOU Think

cares more about "we the people" and is willing to fight for us? Still, "we the people" have a huge task in front of us because TPTB simply DON'T WANT a Bernie Sanders in the WH! It's a shame, but truth is truth... MONEY TALKS and TALKS LOUDLY!

[Fawke Em]

60. Sunday and holidays must be Hillary's "meme" days.

About one Sunday a month - and on whatever holiday happens to fall in that month - I start seeing a new anti-Bernie meme on Twitter.

Today, it's the "he's going after Obama" shit that isn't true. Wishing someone had done more with the coalition they gathered and the bully pulpit they amassed is NOT "going after" anyone. It's building on it. I was an early Obama supporter and voted for him four times - in both primaries and both general elections - and *I* wish he'd done more with his bully pulpit (like stop negotiating by starting in the middle and realizing sooner that the GOP was NOT going to work with him). It's a fair criticism, but not a flat out opposition.

If they want opposition, then they should read some of the crap Hillary's campaign came out with in 2007/8. That was so divisive, it earned it's own name: PUMA.

But, what I have noticed is that these Twitter memes seem to be coming from the same people who kept trying to slam that meme that Bernie was bad on civil rights down our throats. I remember a lot of the same names from that last meme.

So, I think I'll dropping this chart and some of HRC's quotes against Obama into THEIR memes.

Thanks for this.

[sunnystarr]

61. There's no need to divide everyone here ..

I know I'll vote straight D on my ballot. Let the best person win and whoever it is has my vote. Our votes from DU won't change the results of the Primary.

[TiberiusB]

68. The vote was for the AUMF, not just specifically Iraq

Last edited Mon Sep 7, 2015, 06:07 PM - Edit history (2)

The distinction may seem subtle, because it was clearly used to attack Iraq, but it was actually much worse than that. Though the resolution appeared to only allow force in the event U.N. action failed and a new joint resolution to use force was created, it unfortunately left the door open to attack any nations which posed an ongoing terrorist threat to the U.S. Of course Iraq wasn't a threat, but what's another lie or ten on the pile?

Ultimately, the AUMF was a disaster for one primary reason, it allowed yet another U.S. President to attack another country without going through proper Congressional channels for approval by calling it "military force" rather than "war". This scam has been going on since WWII ended and Hillary should never have voted for it just on those grounds alone.

Obama himself has argued that the AUMF legalizes airstrikes against Syria and ISIS (among others) and has argued for a newer AUMF.

The AUMF was the definition of a slippery slope, and that was Hillary's mistake. Even if you find Hillary sincere in her argument that she was effectively duped by Bush and Cheney, you still have to wonder if she is such a product of the beltway culture that she cannot see past the fog of deceit and corruption to be an effective leader and make the really hard choices. I don't need a leader that can take on our enemies, I need one that will throw down with our "friends".

[dreamnightwind]

81. +1

[Major Hogwash]

86. And yet, in 2004 Democrats were told to stop criticizing Bush's war in Iraq.

By none other than President Bill Clinton!!!

Then, in 2008, President Clinton jumped up and said he "was always against the Iraq war."

[kenfrequed]

74. Bernie is the best candidate

It takes a fair amount of contortion to try to pretend otherwise.

[Faux pas]

78. Is something burning?

I think I smell burnt toast.

[Initech]

79. And this is why I support Bernie Sanders 110%!

[WillyT]

80. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[azmom]

101. Kicked