HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » realmirage » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2

realmirage

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Apr 11, 2016, 08:34 PM
Number of posts: 2,117

Journal Archives

The Vatican is anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion

Will Bernie rail against the pope for being a tool of the Vatican establishment and not a true revolutionary? How dare the pope not refute outright the sins of the church and demand sweeping change!!!!!!

Why is going to the Vatican any big deal?

I can't stand how those "holy men" live in a castle and wear fancy clothes, while surrounded by the poor. I like the current pope but he has met with millions of people, should they all be president too? This was an organization that for thousands of years told people that their unbaptized babies were in hell... Who gives a shit about the Vatican?

Hillary's strategy reveals she understands that she already won

You might be wondering why Hillary hasn't been hitting back at Bernie while he goes full negative. The reason is that she knows the math shows she is going to win, the way the math showed it for Obama in 08. Thus, going negative against Bernie will only alienate his voters which she'll need in November. That's why you see her attacking Trump and Cruz lately instead of Bernie: she's acting like the nominee because essentially she already is.

Bernie knows that because of the math he has nothing to lose and may as well pull out all the stops and hope one of his Hail Mary passes works. The unfortunate result of his negative turn is that his supporters have gone on full attack against Hillary supporters, which, right now is irritating to Hillary supporters, but all they need to remember is that this thing is, arguably, already over.

Of course, if some crazy thing were to happen, like she was arrested (which anyone who follows the facts knows won't happen) that would cause Hillary to lose the big primaries coming up, Bernie has a chance. But those are fantasies right now.

This thing is playing out to its slow end. Be patient. In the end, as they say on Always Sunny, reason will prevail.

Jane Sanders: Bernie and I Will Vote Hillary if We Have To


In a candid interview with Tim Teeman, a straight-shooting Jane Sanders talks superdelegates, her husband’s temperament, the need for party unity, and missing her family.

Jane Sanders and her husband Bernie will support Hillary Clinton if the latter beats Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential nomination race.

Mrs. Sanders, in an interview with The Daily Beast on Wednesday, said they would hope Bernie’s supporters would follow their lead.

Conversely, if Bernie Sanders secured the nomination, Mrs. Sanders said she hoped Clinton and her supporters would support him.

In a wide-ranging, candid interview, Mrs. Sanders also said the superdelegate system—currently weighted significantly in Clinton’s favor—was unfair, yet predicted that she is hopeful that a number of those superdelegates, and their thousands of votes, could be convinced to switch their support from Clinton to her husband.

The Daily Beast spoke to Mrs. Sanders with just hours to go before Bernie Sanders’ rally in New York’s Washington Square, and just a week until New York Democrats pick a primary winner.

“I know Donald Trump has complained about the system,” Mrs. Sanders said. “We're not going to complain about it. We knew the rules going in. We don't like the rules. We don't think it’s good for democracy. I think it’s crazy that in New York anybody who wanted to vote for Bernie had to make a change last October to say they were in the Democratic Party. Anybody who is independent cannot vote.”

Mrs. Sanders said her husband’s campaign was “trying to reinvigorate the party and we are. We are bringing many, many more people in across the country and yet in New York they’re slamming the door on those people. They can’t have a voice. That seems counterproductive to what the Democratic Party wants to accomplish in terms of winning not just the presidency, but to win governors’ seats and seats in the House and Senate.”

She dismissed Clinton campaign claims that Bernie’s camp was attempting to ‘rig’ the election by ‘flipping’ the votes of superdelegates. “How could we be rigging it? We’re not in charge of anything,” she said, laughing.

“Superdelegates, first off, I think, are silly. They're 30 percent of the vote that a candidate needs to become the nominee. How fair is that? I am a voter. I have one vote, yet you’re a superdelegate and count for thousands and thousands of votes. That doesn't make any sense at all. ‘One person, one vote’ is what democracy is supposed to be about.”

The ‘rigging’ claims did not “make sense,” Mrs. Sanders said.

“In 2008, many superdelegates had signed up for Hillary Clinton, very early, before Barack Obama.”

The same was true this year, though this time the opponent was Bernie Sanders, she said.

“In the end in 2008, the superdelegates moved to Barack Obama. This year, the superdelegates have not been counted yet, their votes have not been cast. Some are saying now they support Hillary Clinton. About half.

“If the superdelegates are using their judgment, my hope is that they are looking at what is happening in this race—that he [Bernie Sanders] has won eight of the nine most recent races, that he has far better polling numbers against all the Republicans, that he can get not just Democrats but Independents.

“Even in his last Senate race, 25 percent of Republicans in our state voted for him—and we can do that nationally as well. He’s in a much better position to be the Democratic Party candidate. Superdelegates will make up their minds. It has nothing to do with rigging, but it could happen just like it happened in 2008.”
Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the smartest, sharpest takes from The Daily Beast
Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of news and must-reads from The Daily Beast and across the Web
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

On the more rancorous exchanges between the Sanders and Clinton campaigns, Mrs. Sanders said, “I think if you compare it to the Republicans it’s nothing. I think it’s been difficult for us to have distortions of the record, when really what we want to focus on is a clear choice between the two candidates.”

For Mrs. Sanders, “there is a stark difference” between her husband and Hillary Clinton, “in a number of areas. That’s what we should be talking about, that's good for democracy, that's what people need to hear.”

When asked if she ever advised her husband to moderate his tone, Mrs. Sanders said he was being criticized over a statement he made in response to the Clinton strategy to “disqualify and defeat” him, “and worry about uniting the party later.”

Mrs. Sanders was referring to an unnamed top Clinton advisor’s battle plan, as conveyed to CNN last week.

“Then we watched surrogate after surrogate and Secretary Clinton herself on the air attempting to disqualify him, which means to make [him seem] unqualified,” Mrs. Sanders said.

She said that her husband, in response, “had said ‘Let’s talk about the issues’ about what makes somebody unqualified.

“His attempt may not have been as articulate as we might have preferred, but his attempt was to turn the page to say, ‘Let’s look at trade: Secretary Clinton is pro-free trade, pro-NAFTA, pro permanent trade relations with China, and pro-TPP [the Trans-Pacific Partnership], until the very end, after it was too late.’”

Her husband, she added, had noted that Clinton had voted in favor of the Iraq War, having seen the same information that had led Bernie Sanders to vote against it.

Mrs. Sanders said, “Secretary Clinton has a regime change policy that was borne out of Libya. Bernie does not believe in regime change policy. He was trying to say, ‘OK, if you’re looking at who’s qualified, lets look at the qualifications you’re looking for as a voter.’ I think the media has made more of it than either candidate.”

This reporter asked Mrs. Sanders if she were concerned that voters in both the Clinton and Sanders camps were so partisan they would not vote for the other Democratic candidate in a general election. She replied that “they [Democrat voters] were feeling annoyed at both sides. If Bernie wins, hopefully Secretary Clinton’s supporters will support him, and if she wins we hope our supporters will support her. It’s nowhere near as rancorous as it was between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton back then.”

Would her husband support Clinton if she became the candidate?

“I think both of them will support the other,” said Mrs. Sanders.

Her husband’s temperament has also come under scrutiny. When asked if she had ever advised him to “take it down a notch,” Mrs. Sanders said, “No, no, no.”

“I think everybody has seemed annoyed at times,” she added. “I remember Secretary Clinton looking quite angry. I think we’re talking about important issues that affect people’s lives. 25 percent of our children in America live in poverty. Yeah, that’s something to be angry about. Climate change is real, and the fossil fuel industry is pouring tons and tons of money into campaign contributions. That's something to be angry about.

“You look: 18,500 people in the South Bronx last week. Nobody was worried about his temperament. They were wild about his ideas he was bringing forth and saying, ‘We are with you, we are going to work for the same ideas.’”

When asked if her husband’s success had surprised them both—given that early consensus seemed to favor a smooth coronation for Clinton—Mrs. Sanders replied: “We knew that his ideas were mainstream American ideas. If he had a fair hearing we knew they would resonate. We were surprised at how fervently they have been embraced by young voters, and how many people who are disenfranchised voters: people who had given up on the system are coming back.

“It has been humbling and quite an honor to have that kind of support and encouragement and commitment to the future. So I think we were surprised to that. We were more intellectually thinking they would resonate. We didn’t realize emotionally how much they would resonate both for people and for us.”

For Mrs. Sanders personally, the campaign has proven “exhilarating and wonderful in terms of meeting so many people around the country, and learning about specific issues”—she cited “Latinos,” “immigration,” and “Native Americans”—but also in terms of understanding and hearing that the general issues that Bernie Sanders raises are, she said, issues of concern for all Americans.

“They want a government of the people, by the people and for the people. They want a government that recognizes that at the center of policy should be a concern for Americans’ quality of life, and their ability to live life in security and dignity by just working hard and getting a fair shake.”

Had the campaign bought her more or less turmoil than she had expected?

“I wouldn't say turmoil,” Mrs. Sanders replied. “I would say it’s hard to be away from the kids and the grandkids as much, but it’s an honor to be able to be part of this. And it’s been very invigorating for me to see the support, interest, and commitment to transform this country to what we all want it to be ideally, and people are willing to do the work and support Bernie in that endeavor. It’s wonderful.”

I asked Mrs. Sanders if she had thought about the possibility of living in the White House.

“I haven’t, you know,” she said. “I mean, I’m more focused on what we could do if he gets into the White House.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/jane-sanders-we-would-vote-hillary-but-the-superdelegate-system-sucks.html

Bernie on voting for candidates who don't agree with him on all issues

After 4 years of Bush, Sanders said the following:

"Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry, I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader...I am going to do everything I can, while I have differences with John Kerry, to make sure that he is elected."

- Bernie Sanders 2004

Bernie and Hillary supporters are on the same team

I hope you all understand that in November. If Republicans win, it's how many more decades of a conservative Supreme Court? Loss of chances to regain control of Congress? Loss of the White House? What else will we lose when Republicans control it all? I don't think many of you realize all the things we will lose as a result of that. Think of the laws that will pass, the things we enjoy now that will be gone.

Don't lose yourselves in the madness

Unbiased fact - A Bernie candidacy could cost Dems retaking Senate and more, nullifying his agenda

Headline edited for those neophytes who don't know that a large part of the discussion in the political world is the Dems good chance at retaking the Senate. I also expect much zealotry in their responses, as they will not read the article, but put me on ignore for having the gall to post facts that point out flaws in their "revolution"

This is based on the facts, and should scare the shit out of ALL democrats.

This is the problem with Bernie’s revolution: How one down-ticket election in Wisconsin shows the flaw in his political movement

A far-right judge was elected to Wisconsin's Supreme Court -- partly, it appears, with the help of Bernie voters
- by Gary Legum

Let’s take one last look at Wisconsin, where, I’m told, the Bernie Sanders Revolution scored a decisive electoral victory in this very important state.

“Justice Rebecca Bradley was elected Tuesday to a 10-year seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, defeating state Appeals Judge JoAnne Kloppenburg in a bitter, highly charged race.”

In case you are unfamiliar with this judicial race, here is a quick primer: Rebecca Bradley is a conservative jurist and favorite of Gov. Scott Walker who once served as president of the Milwaukee chapter of the Federalist Society and belongs to the Catholic legal group St. Thomas More Society. (That would be the same group responsible for that spiffy hat deceased Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia wore to President Obama’s first inauguration, which is still probably the least offensive of its actions if you are the type of person who would prefer conservative Catholic theology not be applied to major legal decisions.) And that’s before we get into Bradley’s college writings that, among other things, referred to AIDS patients as “degenerates,” while opining that “homosexual sex kills.”

Kloppenburg was the more liberal candidate, an appeals-court judge who, in her last run for the state supreme court in 2011, refused to take special-interest money. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had encouraged their supporters to turn out to vote for her in Tuesday’s election. At stake was the size of the partisan split on the court, which has been one of the more divisive and bitter fights of the Walker era.

So while the revolution might have scored a large victory for Sanders on Tuesday, there are two important caveats: (1) It did very little in terms of cutting into Clinton’s overall delegate lead. The numbers are still against Sanders for the rest of the race, and “momentum” is an overrated concept in primaries. (2) Wisconsin Republicans might have scored the biggest win of the night by keeping the state Supreme Court ideologically divided in favor of conservatives. This is no small thing in a state that an ultra-conservative governor has spent the last few years turning into the Koch brothers’ wet dream. Bradley’s term is for 10 years, so assuming she serves all of it, she’ll outlast a Sanders or Clinton presidency.

Now, I’m bringing this up because of a small tumult that was circulating on the Internet yesterday. There was some grumbling, based on early exit poll numbers, that indicated a fair number of Sanders voters (and a smaller number of Clinton supporters) went for Bradley. Needless to say, leftists voting for a revanchist conservative is a huge surprise. So how accurate was this claim, and does it tell us anything about the state of the Sanders revolution?

Exit poll breakdowns from Tuesday show that just under 10 percent of Sanders voters cast a ballot for Bradley, while 11.5 percent did not vote in the judicial election at all. Among Clinton voters, just under 4 percent went for Bradley, while just over 4 percent did not vote for either judge at all. Some very rough back-of-the-envelope math based on vote totals says that yes, those votes would have swung the election to Kloppenburg, if about two-thirds of the Bradley- and non-voters had voted for her. (And again, this is very rough math sketched by a guy who had to repeat Algebra.)

So what explains the large numbers of Bradley votes from Sanders supporters? Here are a few possibilities:

The candidates’ names were listed without a letter indicating party affiliation next to them, since the election was officially nonpartisan. In that case, a lot of people might have just punched a name without knowing anything about the candidates.
Wisconsin was an open primary, so some conservatives could have voted for Sanders just to mess with Clinton, then further down marked their ballots for the conservative judge. Mischief-making by partisans is always a danger with open primaries.
This was a general election stuck on a day that was otherwise thought of as a primary, which likely depressed turnout.

With all of those caveats, I do think this is one more piece of evidence that Sanders’s theory of political revolution as a model for this election is falling short. The model rests on millions of disaffected and previously un-engaged voters being so energized that they will turn out to vote for change in the form of one Bernie Sanders. But as we have seen throughout the primary season, if raw vote totals are an indicator, this is simply not happening. In Wisconsin, the Republican primary saw about 100,000 more voters than the Democrats. And this is in a state that, while it has taken a hard conservative turn in recent decades, has still voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every general election since 1988.

But even beyond that, there is another point that has always been the flaw in the Sanders model: It does liberals no good to turn out all these voters for a presidential election if they are not going to educate themselves about who else on the ballot they need to vote for.

Let’s say this judicial election had been held in November, with a Sanders ticket inspiring even more voters to come to the polls. The judicial candidates still would not have had party affiliations next to their names due to the allegedly nonpartisan nature of the election. So there is a good chance Rebecca Bradley would still have been elected even if Bernie Sanders won the presidency on the same ballot.

We constantly hear that Democrats have a problem getting voters to come out for midterms, and that this failing has helped lead to the most conservative, wingnuttiest House of Representatives in history, to say nothing of the Senate. So the question of increasing off-year election turnout is an important one. But just showing up every other November won’t be enough if the goal is to increase progressive governance across the board.

In other words, if you’re not paying attention to anything beyond the top of the ticket, you’re doing revolution wrong. Change in our political system takes place only with sustained civic engagement. Such engagement would indeed be revolutionary, but I see no evidence as yet that Sanders’s rhetoric will achieve it.

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/07/this_is_the_problem_with_bernies_revolution_how_one_down_ticket_election_in_wisconsin_shows_the_flaw_in_his_political_movement/

Can I trust this guy to run a country?

The whole "my wife does my taxes and we don't have time to print a copy" thing makes him sound like just some unprepared private citizen trying to run for president. That coupled with his inability to answer how he'd accomplish his key issues in the NY interview.... I dunno about this guy. If he can't print a freakin tax return how can he handle the complicated ISIS war in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2