HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "The Oligopolization of A...

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 06:28 AM

"The Oligopolization of America" Corporatism Clearly Described In HRC MSM Pump Vs Bernie Blackout!

It is the Engineered Distraction of Shiny Objects such as Foreign Policy and Terrorism in contrast to the failure to address the issues MOST Important to MOST Americans such as Affordable Access to Quality Health Care, Income and Wealth Inequality, Access to Quality Education

The Essential Media Blackout of Bernie Sanders while Hillary Clinton has been "pumped" along with Trump represent The Means of Sustaining These Paradigms through the "Purchase" of Candidates who will Ensure their Continuation...

As America enters a new Presidential era.

Paradigms are preserved through the "Corporate Coddling" of certain politicians who are reliable in their support and advocacy of The Corporation's required objectives necessary to preserve said paradigms i.e., The Status Quo in return for all of that Corporate CA$H.

http://observer.com/2015/12/bernie-sanders-vs-the-military-medical-wall-street-political-industrial-complex/
The Observer Brent Budowsky

"America today faces a grave and imminent danger of becoming an oligarchy ruled by a handful of individuals possessing and wielding vast sums of money to seize control of an interlocking directorate of American politics, American business and American media in ways that have nothing in common with the democratic dream envisioned by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams.
My Opinion... NEWSFLASH... THE TRANSFORMATION IS NEARLY COMPLETE!

What is most striking, fascinating and profound about the Bernie Sanders campaign—and the workers and small donors who are rallying to his cause—is the degree that he, and they, are battling against the oligopolization of America across the landscape of American politics and the American economy.

The lead story in The New York Times is titled: “For the Wealthiest, a Private Tax System That Saves Them Billions.” Mr. Sanders could not have said it better." SNIP

89 replies, 9559 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 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply "The Oligopolization of America" Corporatism Clearly Described In HRC MSM Pump Vs Bernie Blackout! (Original post)
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 OP
smiley Dec 2015 #1
newfie11 Dec 2015 #6
smiley Dec 2015 #66
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #7
Live and Learn Dec 2015 #18
kristopher Jan 2016 #88
tecelote Dec 2015 #2
newfie11 Dec 2015 #4
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #9
Proserpina Dec 2015 #11
raouldukelives Dec 2015 #14
nenagh Dec 2015 #22
dlwickham Dec 2015 #79
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #81
dlwickham Dec 2015 #82
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #89
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #3
Scuba Dec 2015 #5
newfie11 Dec 2015 #8
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #10
newfie11 Dec 2015 #13
CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #86
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #12
newfie11 Dec 2015 #15
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #16
JDPriestly Dec 2015 #17
newfie11 Dec 2015 #20
Ghost Dog Dec 2015 #23
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #27
mhatrw Dec 2015 #56
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #30
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #31
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #33
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #35
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #38
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #42
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #45
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #40
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #43
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #46
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #47
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #48
mhatrw Dec 2015 #59
mhatrw Dec 2015 #58
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #76
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #80
gordyfl Dec 2015 #36
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #39
Live and Learn Dec 2015 #19
SmittynMo Dec 2015 #21
Armstead Dec 2015 #24
ViseGrip Jan 2016 #87
SoapBox Dec 2015 #25
davidpdx Dec 2015 #26
Fuddnik Dec 2015 #28
Android3.14 Dec 2015 #29
99th_Monkey Dec 2015 #32
Android3.14 Dec 2015 #49
ViseGrip Dec 2015 #50
LineReply .
MohRokTah Dec 2015 #34
JTFrog Dec 2015 #41
mhatrw Dec 2015 #61
JTFrog Dec 2015 #64
gordyfl Dec 2015 #37
JTFrog Dec 2015 #44
ViseGrip Dec 2015 #51
JTFrog Dec 2015 #52
ViseGrip Dec 2015 #53
JTFrog Dec 2015 #54
ViseGrip Dec 2015 #55
JTFrog Dec 2015 #65
Oilwellian Dec 2015 #69
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #75
mhatrw Dec 2015 #62
Oilwellian Dec 2015 #68
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #73
wildeyed Dec 2015 #70
firebrand80 Dec 2015 #57
wildeyed Dec 2015 #71
Enthusiast Dec 2015 #60
Uncle Joe Dec 2015 #63
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #72
Babel_17 Dec 2015 #67
wildeyed Dec 2015 #74
Babel_17 Dec 2015 #77
wildeyed Dec 2015 #83
Babel_17 Dec 2015 #78
ViseGrip Jan 2016 #84
azmom Jan 2016 #85

Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 06:43 AM

1. it is because of this that I donate to Bernie Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:02 AM

6. Same here

He's the first politician I've ever donated to and I will continue .
If he doesn't win I'm off to Mexico.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 05:43 PM

66. same here....

not the Mexico part, but that's not a bad idea

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smiley (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:07 AM

7. New Years Prediction... Small Donors SURGE IN SUPPORT OF SANDERS!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/264462-a-new-years-prediction-sanders-small-donation-surge

Brent Budowsky.... "Doing a Niceee Job Brent!

"The month is ending, and the quarter is ending, and that means it is time for the next quarterly presidential campaign fundraising reports to be released. I predict that, within days, we'll learn that the Bernie Sanders campaign has achieved yet another new surge in the number of small donors and the amount of money raised from those donors will again stun and amaze the political world.

It seems that almost every major campaign event brings more small donors to the Sanders campaign and more money raised from those small donors.

Even when Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) is under attack from the Hillary Clinton-biased Democratic National Committee, the result is another explosion of small donations to his campaign." SNIP

TODAY IS A BIGGGG AND IMPORTANT DAY TO DONATE TO BERNIE SANDERS... JUST DO IT!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 02:43 PM

88. Thanks.

I assume you won't mind if I repost that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 06:49 AM

2. The most important election of our time!

From the article:
The village idiot can figure out that Ms. Clinton’s opposition is not unrelated to the considerable degree that Wall Street firms pour millions of dollars into her campaign and to enhance her personal wealth.


Yet, many can not seem to figure this out.

Hillary is not our candidate, she's their candidate.

Time to vote for our own self-interest and elect Bernie to turn America around and make America about Americans, not about corporate profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:01 AM

4. ++++++++++++++++++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:23 AM

14. Oh, they have figured it out. The more money in Wall St, the less democracy on Main St. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:11 PM

79. she's my candidate and the candidate of millions more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:13 PM

81. I See, Here Supporters Prefer To Hold Their "Enthusiasm" Close to the vest...

I guess that is why she has 1/10th the number of people show up to her events?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:16 PM

82. do you have a link to support that claim

or are you just pulling it out of your ass?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 3, 2016, 10:27 PM

89. Can You Say... Goldman Sachs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 06:58 AM

3. The Democratic Presidential Primary This Cycle... IS THE GENERAL ELECTION!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:02 AM

5. This is why an open internet is essential for our democracy. Oh, and you can blame Bill Clinton ...

 

... for the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which allowed the consolidation of our corporate media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:09 AM

8. That's exactly right

The MSM is worthless.
There would be nothing about Bernie if not for the Internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:14 AM

10. Spread "The Word" Beyond This Site! THIS IS IMPORTANT In Restoring Our Democracy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:21 AM

13. I'm all over Facebook about this nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #5)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 12:23 PM

86. Bernie Sanders Represents THE Answer To Turning Back The Corporatist State That Is America Today

Bernie Sanders is the ONLY candidate NOT taking the Corporate Offer to do their bidding in return for Campaign CA$H!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:18 AM

12. Large amounts of money is supporting defense is

Voted yes on in Congress and a big supporter is Sanders. The F-35 program which Lockheed Martin is the contractor is far over several years budgeted to develop and continues to get more money. So far the plane developed will lose in a dog fight but yet they ask for more money and it happens over and over and now Sanders wants to talk about the military, I hope he can see this overblown program is a big part of money thrown at the military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:26 AM

15. More government insanity

God forbid we rebuild infrastructure in this country, which would add jobs. I won't go on with my rant. It does no good when the American people fall in line like sheeple.
I was 60s protester, my how things have changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:36 AM

16. How much of our infrastructure could have been repaired

Replaced and improved by the money which has gone to the F-35 program? Sanders is right there with Lockheed Martin voting more money for a plane they have failed to meet the requirements in the original agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:50 AM

17. And do you think Hillary isn't even a bigger supporter of rxcessive military expenditures.

What would she use to enforce her no-fly zone over Syria? Remember, ISIS air force is not much of the threat.

Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution. She is the candidate who would be, based on her record, most likely to waste money on military boondoggles.

Bernie wants to audit our military expenditures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to JDPriestly (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:58 AM

23. "Bernie wants to audit our military expenditures."

 

That would be a good place to start...

Then, bring in clean brooms to sweep out the Augean Stables. Re-prioritize, re-assign, set in motion a new 'Tennessee Valley Authority'-type Federal program to develop environmentally- and socially-positive infrastructure and services...

... All by cutting and re-directing enormous waste from such expenditures into economically and socially useful employment opportunities and leaving behind a fitter, more able and more globally-friendly, potentially, military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:11 AM

27. Sanders has voted for military action, does this mean he

Is for excessive military spending? Judging by the excessive military spending on the F-35 program and Sanders saying he will take military action and use drones I can conclude military spending is not a problem with Sanders. Sanders is the candidate based on his voting record most likely the one who goes for wasteful military spending. Lockheed Martin likes corporate welfare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:54 PM

56. If you threw out all the Congress people who voted for excessive military spending in their careers,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:14 AM

31. The priblem is the amount of money which goes to military contractors, it is not the

amount of money a candidate may get from these companies. The F-35 program has been given extensions and more money and more money. Sanders has voted for the extensions and money, lots of infrastructure could have been repaired, replaced and upgraded with just the additional money, now Sanders is interested in auditing the contractors, will he start with Lockheed Martin and the F-35 program? The helmets cost $400,000 a piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:23 AM

33. I'm not defending the F-35, i agree Sanders is wrong on that ONE position.

 

You know as well as I do how deeply enmeshed Clinton is with the MIC, and how it's
apparently pushed her to support dubious foreign interventions; so why even try to
argue otherwise. It's silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:29 AM

35. He is continuing to support this program, it makes me wonder why Sanders is

putting so much money towards a failing program when he thinks there needs to be financial assistance. Sanders has also said he will use military force and has voted for military action and regime changes, this would make Sanders deeply enmeshed in interventions, no difference here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:45 AM

38. "Sander has voted for military action & regime changes" <- you offer no proof, no links, nada. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:48 AM

42. This is well known, I know what Hillary Clinton's votes have been, I do not

need links when this subject comes up. You can review the last debate, Sanders was reminded of his ILA vote, it was for regime change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:57 AM

45. OK, again.

 

Bernie made ONE questionable 'interventionist' vote; while Hillary has taken many
such positions, ones that are either equally bad (Libya) or much much worse such as Iraq.

The Clinton research team has scoured Sanders' four-decades long record for ANY slight
inconsistency with a 100% progressive 'scorecard', and finds one or two warts. Big fucking deal.
we all know that no candidate is perfect.

One doesn't even need to look very hard to find interventionist hawkish positions Clinton has
taken, both as US Senator and Sec. of State.

It's absurd to suggest "there's no difference" but nice try anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:49 AM

43. Poster child, huh, what is the supporter of the F-35 program?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:01 AM

46. This article explains it pretty well. It's more about jobs in Vermont

 

than Bernie being pro-MIC. again, I'm not defending it, but since you feign ignorance as
to why Bernie would support this ONE dubious military program, I'll go along, and offer a
link, like you haven't for many of your claims and insinuations.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-in-vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum/5452106

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:09 AM

47. He should not be complaining about military spending when he is a champion of the F-35.

All other spending by other congressional members could use the same excuse the company brings jobs to their districts. Hold Lockheed Martin accountable for the over spending, it isn't happening, I knew the jobs was going to Vermont.

A link to ILA, it is really necessary, you know what his vote was, you know he voted for the AUMF 2001 because we know only one congressional member voted against it and her name is not Bernie Sanders. As I said, I know what Hillary has voted for and against, I would think Sanders supporters knows also what he has voted for and against.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:19 AM

48. Let's look at Lockheed Martin compensation to the executives, $70,442,613

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 02:11 PM

59. Who is the bigger "supporter", the Senator who votes for the omnibus defense funding bill

or the SoS who works desperately to hard sell Lockheed's product to India?

The visiting US secretary of state Hillary Clinton is understood to have made a strong pitch for more US military sales to India, especially in the wake of American companies recently losing out in the race for a $ 10.4 billion order by the Indian Air Force for 126 fighter aircraft.

Sources said Clinton expressed her country’s willingness to sell state-of-the-art F 35 warplanes to India at “unbelievable” prices. The Americans are understood to have asked the Indian government to open its purse strings for the Lockheed built fifth generation super stealth F-35 Lightning the basic model of which is being made available to India for $ 65 million apiece. Sources said the offer was too good to be true as much inferior fourth generation French Rafale is priced at $ 85 million and Eurofighter Typhoon (also a fourth generation aircraft) at $ 125 million apiece.


F-35 PRICES SO LOW, YOU'LL THINK SHE'S CRAZY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:59 PM

58. Yeah, Sanders is not perfect. Who is the alternative running on a "dismantle the military" platform?

Sanders is, by far, the candidate who is least beholden to the military security industrial complex of our choices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:00 PM

76. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!! The BEST Investment That A Corporate Entity Can Make...

IS TO BUY A FUCKING CONGRESSMAN/CANDIDATE FOR A $MILLION BUCKS or so... Then the ROI (Return on Investment will be in the $BILLION$ through policy advocacy by the "Purchased" Candidate who in return for legislative "support" on behalf of the BENEFACTOR receives ever increasing financial support while a congressman and even more in deferred "gratuities" once they retire...

As a candidate for congress I got "The Offer" to "Play Ball" and turned IT down. As you can see... I am NOT in D.C.!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:11 PM

80. A Review of Hillary's Record on Similar Offers Demonstrates That She Has Nary Seen An "Offer"

That she would not "accept." Bernie on the other hand.... "Not So Much!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:31 AM

36. Lockheed-Martin

"One of Burlington's largest employers was Martin Marietta. When that defense contractor merged with Lockheed to form Lockheed-Martin, I was more than usually attuned to the implication of that deal--the downsizing of 17,000 American workers. For making the "tough decision" to fire all those workers, the executives of the newly merged company decided to pay themselves $91 million in executive bonuses. $91 million as a reward for obliterating 17,000 jobs.

Now, a $91 million bonus for executives who were laying off 17,000 workers is obscene enough. Fully 1/3 of that money, $31 million, was to come from the Pentagon as "restructuring costs."

As soon as I learned about this outrageous federal giveaway, I drafted an amendment to prevent the Pentagon from paying the bonus. Imagine: workers thrown out of their jobs paying taxes so that the bastards who fired them could stuff their pockets. We termed the legislation the "payoffs for layoffs" amendment. The amendment passed by voice vote.

Frankly, the big money interests do not intimidate me--not the medical indusrial complex, not Wall Street or the American Bankers Association.

Exposing the outrageous practice by which the Defense Department subsidized corporate mergers and the laying off of tens of thousands of workers is precisely what I was elected to do."
- Bernie Sanders Outsider in the White House

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gordyfl (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:45 AM

39. Thanks for the information, guess the executives getting big bonus is not a problem also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:47 AM

21. This is how stupid we really are

One would think that there would be hundreds of recs and posts here.

Nope!!!

Damn we're stupid.

I will never understand why we consistently vote against our own best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:07 AM

24. Despite the awkward title, a great summation of what is at stake

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #24)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 01:46 PM

87. Exactly, and activists must quit ignoring these facts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:09 AM

25. We need Bernie....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:11 AM

26. For anyone who didn't see it

The American Oligarchs (video)
Robert Reich

Please go over to the thread and K & R.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017318041

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:32 AM

29. It is a stupid move to support Clinton in the primary

 

As an avid player of backgammon (also known as the game of kings, by the way), the effective strategy is to work for the best outcome and prepare for the worst.

Any strategy gamer, whether it is chess, backgammon, or cards knows that you aim for the biggest return with the least amount of risk. There is no increase in risk in supporting Sanders in the primary, and an immense benefit if he wins. If that comes to be, then we have enthusiastic cross-party support, coattails for local races and the best chance of making a real change since FDR. And if Hillary wins, then we all vote the party ticket. With the latter, we have the greatest risk of losing the general election and the least benefit with that outcome.

I'll repeat the main point. There is no increase in risk in supporting Sanders in the primary, and an immense benefit if he wins.

If Sander's represents your values more so than Clinton, only a deluded idiot or a total loser would refrain from casting a vote for him in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Android3.14 (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:19 AM

32. Quite well said, I must say

 

That would make a great OP actually.

I mean, folks who are claiming to be "progressive" and hesitating to support Bernie because ...
uhh.. because why? the reasons I hear ring empty and hollow ... like
1) Bernie can't win the GE (most recent polls show he does WAY better in GE than Hillary now)
2) Hiilary has more foreign policy experience (but it's all the WRONG kind of experience by
ANY progressive metric; while Bernie's been consistently progressive on FP for decades)
3) Hillary is inevitable (this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, only true because so-called progressives
drink that cool-aid and vote against their own beliefs and best interests.

None of the reasons most often given hold any water. Anyways, thanks for your post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 11:22 AM

49. Thanks, and I followed your advice

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251962364

I was city backgammon champion when I was still in high school, and supporting Sanders in the primary is like choosing whether or not to knock your opponent's piece to the bar without leaving your piece open.

It is a blatantly obvious move to support Sanders in the primary, given the lack of negative impact on the chances of a Democratic win in the general and huge payoff a Sanders presidency could bring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:07 PM

50. Ditto! That should be an OP in itself. Spot on! GO BERNIE!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MohRokTah (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:47 AM

41. Meet the owner of the observer:

 

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

Born Jared Corey Kushner
January 10, 1981 (age 34)

Residence New York City, New York, U.S.
Education The Frisch School

Alma mater Harvard University (A.B.)
New York University (J.D.)

Occupation Real estate developer, newspaper publisher, investor
Known for Co-owner of Kushner Properties
Owner of The New York Observer
Religion Judaism

Spouse(s) Ivanka Trump (2009–present)

Children 2
Parent(s) Seryl Stadtmauer
Charles Kushner

Relatives Joshua Kushner (brother)
Nicole Kushner (sister)
Dara Kushner (sister)
Donald Trump (father-in-law)
Ivana Trump (mother-in-law)
Donald Trump Jr. (brother-in-law)
Eric Trump (brother-in-law)
Tiffany Trump (half-sister-in-law)
Barron Trump (half-brother-in-law)
Melania Trump (stepmother-in-law)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 02:18 PM

61. Well, that automatically makes everything in the article wrong. Right?

So kill the messenger has now graduated to kill the publisher?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mhatrw (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 03:25 PM

64. You're free to link to as many right wing propaganda sites as you like.

 

But as Skinner has said in the past, you take your chances of getting that shit hidden.

As a paying member of DU, I would love to see the TOS and Community Standards adhered to.

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).
Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.


And again, why in the hell does any DUer want to drive traffic to Donald Trump's son in law's website and why the fuck do we care what the right wingers have to say about our candidates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:37 AM

37. Bernie Telling It Like It Is

"Today virtually no legislation can get passed unless it has the OK from corporate America." - Bernie Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:53 AM

44. Why are we pimping Trump's son in law's website here?

 

Do folks really not give two shits what right wing source they use to attack Democrats on DU?

Yes, rhetorical question.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:08 PM

51. The truth backed by history and facts while it hurts, is not pimping. No matter who writes it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:12 PM

52. Yea, I'm gagging on all the "truth" around here.

 

Once upon a time DU was a place that recognized right wing propaganda. Now it's just thrown around at whim because some people's hatred outweigh any chance of common sense.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:20 PM

53. The truth here is that 82% of this board are Bernie Sanders supporters. That's for a reason.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:27 PM

54. That doesn't excuse

 

turning this place into a dumping ground for right wing propaganda. And why would any DUer want to drive traffic to Trump's son in law's website? Clicky clicky.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 12:40 PM

55. Ignore Hillary's faults and truth about them, at your own peril.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 03:25 PM

65. Oooooo you're so scary.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:36 PM

69. You obviously haven't a clue who Brent Budowsky is

May I suggest you research him so you don't appear so foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:53 PM

75. Can Anyone Deny That The Democratic Party Especially When Considering Third Wayers is

FUCKING LOADED WITH REPUBLICANS WHO register as Dems just to ... THROW SAND IN THE GEARS?

I live in Florida and a high proportion of Democrats who are active in the party are ... clearly there to assist in keeping republicans in office. As a former candidate for Congress both as a Democratic Nominee and as a Progressive No Party Candidate, I can assure you that my biggest obstacle was The Florida Democratic Party on each occasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 02:21 PM

62. Why didn't you read the article? Why are you trying to dismiss it based on its publisher?

Six media conglomerates control 90%+ of our media outlets today. If we censored journalists and commentators based on their corporate ties, what would we have left to discuss?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 08:34 PM

68. Pimping a Brent Budowsky piece?

Where am I? Free Republic?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:48 PM

73. I Could Give A Flying FUCK About WHo An Author Is IF The Information Is Accurate Which...

in this case it MOST ASSUREDLY IS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:28 PM

70. Also, "oligopolization"

and random bold text and italics and Randomly "Capitalized" Words. Even the Village Idiot Can See It Means There Is a Conspiracy Afoot!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 01:57 PM

57. Are we just constructing sentences out of a list of buzzwords now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firebrand80 (Reply #57)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:46 PM

71. I actually made a random phrase generator

that does that based on buzzwords combined with a logical fallacy. It works pretty well.

"Fat cat Hillary Clinton is no better than evil Republicans."

"Liar Hillary Clinton is worse than oozing Margaret Thatcher."

I made a Hillbot response generator, but that one only does ad hominem attacks.

If I get bored maybe I will make one the does faux intellectual rhetoric since that seems to be the rage right now. Or maybe I will get a life..... One of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 02:16 PM

60. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

If you don't see this you are asleep. Wake the fuck up!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 02:27 PM

63. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, CorporatistNation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:46 PM

72. Just trying To Get Some Truth Out Here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 07:11 PM

67. "Brent Budowsky", huh, interesting writer

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

From the mid-1970s to 1990, Budowsky served in senior congressional staff positions including legislative assistant to former Senator Lloyd Bentsen;[6] extensively involved with the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and Intelligence Officers Death Benefits Act, and legislative director to Representative Bill Alexander, then the Chief Deputy Majority Whip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 09:50 PM

74. "Brent Budowsky", huh, bad writer

Whatever his political affiliation, even the Village Idiot can see, that article is Not Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:04 PM

77. Your persuasive narrative almost convinces me

But just when you hit your stride, you stopped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:17 PM

83. Hey, I work with what they give me.

Brent Budowsky only gives "Village Idiot".

Now HA Goodman...... THAT is a writer of bad political rhetoric for the ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Original post)

Thu Dec 31, 2015, 10:07 PM

78. Let's keep the K&Rs coming (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Babel_17 (Reply #78)

Fri Jan 1, 2016, 12:57 AM

84. New Year Kick!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread