= new reply since forum marked as read
Hillary has poisoned that well.
Bwahahahaha! 
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clintons-support-base-as-bogus-as-us-democracy/
R. Gino Santa Maria | Shutterstock.com
US elections, despite all the media hype and endless rhetoric about ‘democracy in action,’ are in fact little more than manufactured political theater. The country that ceaselessly trumpets democratic values and transparency practices neither when it comes to its own elections.
As New Yorkers go to the polls in Democratic and Republican primaries this week, it is critical to once again highlight the myriad ways that democracy in the United States is, like most other things, a commodity to be bought and sold. From corporate control of the infrastructure of elections, to the creation of mass bases of support out of whole cloth, the candidates, as well as the system itself, cannot be trusted to be genuine.
Perhaps nothing illustrates this point more clearly than the results of multiple studies on Hillary Clinton’s online following which reveal that the majority of her Twitter fans, and indeed her social media following in general, are completely fake. Consider the implications of these findings from StatusPeople.com, and well-respected analytical tool TwitterAudit, which both found that no more than 44 percent of Clinton’s followers were actually real, active users of Twitter.
This may seem something trivial, but in fact it cuts to the very heart of the notion of democracy, and the legitimacy of a candidate who is perhaps the most obvious embodiment of the political and financial establishment in the US. Indeed, Bernie Sanders, among many others, has correctly noted that Clinton is in many ways the epitome of the ruling elite.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/22/hillary-clintons-support-base-as-bogus-as-us-democracy/
absolutely beautiful...........................just like the old adage, the emperor with no clothes, when items are presented.
I am presently reading Thomas Franks book Listen, Liberal, and it is just amazing at what has transpired from this party since 1972, when I was six years into the political process, and especially from 1992 forward, when this DLC and Third Way "stuff' appeared and gained traction-------------------when it is seen for what it has become.......................its how inequality is used, and Frank, hit it right on the head, and the DLC and the Third Way, and there supporters----------------amazing.............
Like I keep saying how can someone, sitting or standing in a room with c-suites, saying something about inequality--------------what can you and I do to correct this, knowing that they will not do anything unless it's in there interests "First"------------------amazing------and then when someone asks for the transcripts all you hear about are justification not to release the information from all quarters, well it goes back to Franks book,-------------------------" it is important then, just like now" ----------------like I have been hearing on some progressive radio stations on XM --------------------------but I digress.
Honk-----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
Sanders' group uses social media for fundraising ("to help build a giant email list of supporters"
.
Hillary/Brock's group uses social media to combat negative info ("to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks" .
No one is saying campaigns should not use social media. That would be silly. The difference being discussed is the one between, say having a facebook page to engage people and using facebook advertising that elicits contributions on the one hand, vs. paying people to create pro-Hillary posts (without attributing where they're really coming from) in discussion areas on the other. I'm not even going to make a judgment here about whether it's right or wrong, a good idea or a bad one, I'm just pointing out that there's a difference that is not negated with the simple "hey, they both use social media."
The firm's activities are, in no way, to include challenging anti-Sanders statements on social media. It's function is fundraising. It uses social media to help raise funds for Sanders' campaign.
On the other hand, 'Correct the Record' has no fundraising mission. It gets money mostly from other SuperPACs. And here's what it is (straight from its own website):
"
A) strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks."
Its mission is to identify, through the use of bots, social media communications which contain negative discussion of Hillary Clinton, then attack those communications using guerilla tactics.
And, because of a goofed-up loophole regarding SuperPACs directly coordinating with candidates with respect to Internet activities, they can function directly as a wing of Clinton's campaign, while being funded by outside sources.
If you're OK with that, what would you not be OK with? I mean, is there anything that you could imagine Hillary Clinton doing that would cost her your support? If she just paid someone to kill Sanders, would that be OK? (I'm not asking about Trump - I don't know what my own answer would be there...)
(Pee Wee Herman) 
for Gentle, Dependable Overnight Relief of Internet Naysayers
will be... broadly interpreted...
If they'd just come out and told the truth: 'to seek out any and all social media commentary that suggests lack of support for Hillary Clinton and aggressively attack the commentators,' well, that might have ruffled a few feathers among her supporters (maybe?)...
Just imagine how many jobs she can create if she wins the election.
this is doomed to be a massive fail.
Attacked an excellent, excellent article by Seth Abramson as being "flawed" because it's based on the premise that you need 2383 delegates to win the nomination, not the "correct number of 2028" (half the pledged delegates), and therefore the thesis is "rubbish."
So the idiot couldn't 1. divide 4,051 in half. 2. understand the difference between winning half+ pledged vs half+ total delegates.
Drove that one off a cliff and into the ether 
Ha! Sure, that's it. "Correcting the record", what a stinking pile of word poop.
