The vetting has begun....

[MADem]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/05/the-veterans-scandal-on-bernie-sanders-s-watch.html

Bernie Sanders’s tenure as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee was characterized by glaring neglect of his oversight responsibilities, allowing the 2014 VA scandal to unfold under his watch, veterans’ rights advocates argue.

Sanders has touted his work on veterans’ issues, most recently citing his involvement in “the most comprehensive VA health care bill in this country,” in a debate Thursday.

Left unsaid however, is that he was the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, responsible for overseeing the Department of Veterans Affairs, as the scandal erupted.

Dozens of veterans died while waiting for medical care at Phoenix Veterans Health Administration facilities, a scandal CNN broke in the spring of 2014. The imbroglio spread with reports of secret waiting lists at other VA hospitals, possibly leading to dozens more preventable deaths....

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-this-1-trillion-war-machine.html

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Sen. Bernie Sanders has railed against big defense corporations at rallies, but he has a more complex history with the military-industrial complex. Most notably, he’s supported a $1.2 trillion stealth fighter that’s considered by many to be one of the bigger boondoggles in Pentagon history.

Sanders has made his opposition to Hillary Clinton’s hawkishness a cornerstone of his campaign. But he hasn’t exactly been anti-war all his career. When it has come time to choose between defense jobs and a dovish defense policy, Sanders has consistently chosen to stand with the arms-makers rather than the peaceniks—leading to tension with some of the most adamant adherents of progressive ideology.
....

The Vermont senator persuaded Lockheed Martin to place a research center in Burlington, according to Newsweek, and managed to get 18 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets stationed at the city’s airport for the Vermont National Guard.....

While Sanders’ economic policies deeply conflict with libertarians—single-payer health care, government-funded college tuition for all, etc.—he is their only remaining ally on a slew of other big issues.
And, besides, “there’s this little thing called Congress,” as Michael noted. “Any radical law he tries to pass will run through an obstacle course.”
So the logic goes: With a Republican-controlled Congress—or one remotely close to its current makeup—President Sanders would have a tough time getting his most radical economic policies passed, leaving him to fight for the civil liberties causes that matter to liberals and libertarians alike: e.g., reforms to the criminal justice system, the ongoing drug war, and the government’s surveillance efforts.
In other words, backing a Sanders presidency would mean wagering that Sanders’ most left-wing economic policies wouldn’t come to fruition. And that he’d pull a conservative Congress to the left on civil liberties issues, with the help of cross-partisan allies like Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee.
“Where’s the evidence that he could get bipartisan support for [those issues]?” countered a skeptical David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute. “We’ve got a Republican Congress and a Democratic president now, and those things aren’t moving.”...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/is-there-a-libertarian-case-for-bernie-sanders.html

[JonLeibowitz]

1. To your last "article", a lot of libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism, not liberalism.

Also, a lot of The Daily Beast articles there -- I wonder if a certain Super PAC has been feeding it info?

[MADem]

8. Those were all on the same page--DB aggregates, though.

I've seen the F-35/MIC issues raised in at least one local VT publication. His former fellows at the Liberty Union Party who gave him his start are still apoplectic at what they regard as his betrayal of their principles.

There's nothing to prevent any candidate from firing up one of those internet-only Super Pacs.

[Hortensis]

36. Some notes about libertarians.

1. True libertarians are very different from liberals and conservatives. Their one overriding moral, that trumps any other they may or may not have, is PERSONAL LIBERTY. Not necessarily liberty for all. For "ME," "MINE," "MY," "I."

Also, true libertarians are almost devoid of altruism toward others, regarding it as a weakness and damaging to society. Libs and cons are both altruistic toward others, just differing in how large and many the groups they'll sacrifice for will be.

They're proud of all this and have built a whole philosophy on its virtues.

2. Many libertarians are not true libertarians. Many are in fact conservative, some even extremely. Many, for instance, combine social conservatism, with distrust and dislike of "others," and economic libertarianism.

"Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives' first value is negative liberty to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends. They reject liberal social engineering."

"Negative liberty" is freedom from external control, as in all regulation.

3. Libertarianism is "in style." A lot of conservatives and laissez-faire capitalists like to CALL themselves libertarians when they are not. (Even for those who are sincere, how the nouveaux megawealthy would hold on to their wealth in an unstable, dog-eat-dog libertarian economy would be a problem...)

Some of our "libertarians," like a bunch of conservatives these days, including GOP presidential candidates, actually are authoritarian, some to the point of meeting criteria for being fascist -- but saying so is not in style.

The Koch brothers are famously extreme activist "libertarian," but their father was a great admirer of Hitler's fascist German state. Examination of their own behavior suggests they may be for libertarianism just for themselves and fascist control for the rest of the nation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. We have a different brand of right-wing-libertarian in this country that wants to close libraries...

They're tax grumps who think the government shouldn't pay for things like public schools and mail.

I like to screw with their heads by mentioning street and traffic lights. Cross walks too. Taxes pay to run those day and night for losers who don't even have a car.

You should see the gears go in their heads over that crap.

[Lordquinton]

80. I don't get the Libertarian angle

Is he too liberal or too right wing? They can't make up their minds.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

84. They don't know what either means....

I notice that here too.

Some seem to feel being against Hillary is "right wing".

They CERTAINLY think it's against the Party as if the Clintons own it.

I guess they only let Obama take it out for a spin.

[Lordquinton]

88. First he's too liberal, then too conservative

First he does nothing to help down ticket dems, no he's a master fundraiser.

It's all over the place.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. That's what happens when you lie.

[beam me up scottie]

129. ^^^THIS^^^

[Hortensis]

82. LOL, but scary too. Fascist leaders really do not want or

need populations educated beyond what employers need from them. Libertarian in imagination only, or the real thing, most're relatively easy pickings for the right wing.

Unaccustomed gears turned a bit here, too, when I informed a "libertarian" businessowner friend, who thought it just meant he'd pay lower taxes and regulations would go away, that it might also mean his neighbor's spacious lawns would offer plenty of room to set up his Mercedes repair business right next door. He's a very tidy, house-proud sort and I knew that'd grab his attention.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. Exactly, under Libertarianism there would be no zoning laws....

What's funny is when they say they'll sue.

I say where? Court? That's GOVERNMENT. And sue for WHAT? Breaking a law that doesn't exist?

That's about the time I use this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1022162

[senz]

89. That's what a natural teacher does, Spitfire.

It's difficult getting fish to see water. But these fish need to -- or else they'll lose it.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

98. Reminds me of the fish in Richard Bach's "Illusions"....

All of these fish in a river clinging to the rocks on the bottom. One lets go. The others see him seemingly flying over their heads and they marvel of the miracle. The one swimming says "All of you could do this too if you just let go." but they refuse.

[senz]

109. Interesting. But it should be easier to help brainwashed Americans

understand the use and value of democratic governance than to get fearful beings to relinquish illusionary security. It doesn't take too much courage to comprehend the structures within which we live, just connect a few obvious dots.

Libertarianism is a fairy tale preserved in a vacuum tube.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

117. Reaganism is worse. It has all the elements of a cult....

Including projecting one's own beliefs onto their Messiah even when a simple check shows He believed no such thing.

[senz]

133. Yes, the emotional pull. Same with Hillary

especially her female fans. Followers project what they want/need onto their hero, and when that happens, they're no longer reachable by fact, reason, and logic. I see it all the time on DU. They don't care who she is or what she does. Do. not. care. It's like they're in love.

Reagan combined the appeal of the kindly uncle/grandfather with the strong, silent Western Man, the cowboy hero -- and none of this was really him. If you want to know how bad it can be, a friend of my aunt's, an adult woman, had a huge picture of Ronald Reagan on the wall over her bed. It was so shocking I couldn't even react, which is probably good.

This is how we get demagogues. It's dangerous.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

134. It was really demonstrated when they threw Nancy under the bus over stem cells.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You noticed that too?

Starting to see a pattern here...

[shenmue]

132. Ask Ron and Rand Paul

[LexVegas]

2. Bernt. nt

[NurseJackie]

3. It's about time! The free-ride is over. People are paying attention ...

... and it looks like he's coasted about as far as he can go. The Bernie-Train is running out of steam.


Go, Hillary!! We love you!

[JonLeibowitz]

5. In your dreams! This stuff is small potatoes. If this is all you've got, Sanders is going to do well

[leftofcool]

27. The care of our Veterans is not small potatoes!

[JonLeibowitz]

30. I agree. It is a good thing I did not say that. n/t

[riversedge]

56. From your post ".. This stuff is small potatoes."

JonLeibowitz (2,535 posts)
5. In your dreams! This stuff is small potatoes. If this is all you've got, Sanders is going to do well

[enid602]

71. bern

It wouldn't be a big deal save for the fact the bern always says his collaboration with McCain on this is an example of how he can get results with republicans.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

6. free-ride

LOL

the free rides are Hillary headed to Wall Street

[Arazi]

13. Really? Nobody's brought up the F35 before this? Or the trouble with this Congress

and how he (or she) can get their agenda through? Or Bernie and the vets?

You need to read more. All of this has been out there for months now

[RiverLover]

16. Wishful thinking

Bizarre thinking, too. I just don't get it. Another conservative in the WH bending over for BigMoney. woo! So exciting!

[rhett o rick]

21. You need to refresh your definition of "coasting". Clinton has been "coasting" while dodging

and weaving trying all kinds of shinengans to hold on to her "lock" on the nomination. She hasn't made her positions clear on any issues but since you "love" her, I bet the issues and her quid pro quo acceptance of millions from the billionaires doesn't matter.

Sen Sanders on the other hand has come from a total unknown, non-Establishment candidate a year ago to becoming a speaker for the People's Revolution against corruption of big money in government.

[Armstead]

86. This is old crap...Worth discussing but hardly some new "relevation"

[DesertRat]

4. Interesting reads

I think that this information will surprise a lot of people.

[2pooped2pop]

7. He gets support because we intend to toss the ones who won't do their job

And work for the people out on their asses where they belong.

And really does anyone think the Republicans will work with Hillary? Even though they want much of the same things, she's still Hillary and they hate her.

[Hoyt]

9. Sadly, I think Sanders' nomination will get us someone like this on the Supreme Court.

I admire Sanders in a lot of ways, but I don't believe 50+% will show such admiration at the polls.

[MADem]

18. "I admire Sanders in a lot of ways, but I don't believe 50+% will show such admiration at the polls"

I agree with that completely.

If Bloomberg gets into the race, too, that will very likely cut into his support --if he managed to make it to the general. Bloomberg can self-finance, and he's been commissioning his own polls.

I'd love to put eyeballs on some of that material.

[John Poet]

76. If Bloomberg gets in, then we don't NEED 50%.

Bloomberg is a Republican anyway. Why should he hurt the Democratic nominee any more than the Republican in terms of votes? I think there would be more Republicans needing a sane alternative than Democrats.

The only poll I've seen to test that theory showed Bernie beating Bloomberg and Trump together. Having TWO billionaires running against him would only play into his major campaign theme.

[MADem]

87. No, he isn't. You don't know a thing about the guy, apparently.

He was a life-long Democrat from Medford, Massachusetts, who converted for strategic reasons to the GOP.

He's now an INDEPENDENT.


He switched to the GOP to avoid a crowded Democratic primary for the NYC mayoral race. It was a strategic decision, not one based on ideology.

He's rich, and because he's rich, he can't be bought. There's an appeal (a la FDR) to that in some quarters.

I know a lot of Democrats who would vote for Bloomberg. I'm betting the few non-racist Republicans remaining in that party would vote for him, too, especially the "Can't Stand Trump/Cruz/Rubio" crew.

He's a friend to unions, a friend to Planned Parenthood (when the Komen organization cut them, he wrote a massive check) and he has executive skills. It's an unexpected candidacy, if he even takes the leap, and make no mistake, he will have issues to overcome (he is short, and America likes TALL males as POTUS, he is a Jew, and that would be a first, too, and he is not married but has a girlfriend...how very French). That might be balanced by the notions that he also has a ton of friends, inside politics, and outside politics, not just in industry but in the arts as well who will tout for him in a big way. He's a very eclectic type of guy. He's not an "outsider" but he's not an insider, either. He just does his OWN thing, and he's successful at that.

Bottom line, though, is this: He's spending money (because he's rich and can do that without batting an eye) on polling. He's not going to just jump in on a whim. And we're not seeing HIS polling numbers--they're private, for him, to aid his decision.

I think he could eat a lot of candidates' lunches if he does jump in. I wouldn't dismiss this candidacy at ALL.

[John Poet]

93. I DID know that he HAD been a Democrat, but ran for Mayor

of New York City as a Republican. Hadn't heard that he now calls himself an independent.

Sounds like a guy with no party loyalty. You sound like you're practically oozing with praise for him. You plan on jumping on his ship and abandoning the party, if you don't get your way in the primaries?

[MADem]

100. Ha ha ha! Listen to YOU--you sound like you're OOZING WITH DISDAIN!!

You also sound angry and accusatory!! This sharp and bitter remark must have hurt like hell when you pulled it out:

You sound like you're practically oozing with praise for him. You plan on jumping on his ship and abandoning the party, if you don't get your way in the primaries?

I can talk about a candidate's pluses or minuses without ALWAYS having to praise or excoriate them on an individual level.

YOU would do well to not dismiss this guy--he could throw a monkey wrench into the machine in a big way.

As far as Bloomberg goes, he has a mixed record. He is pro - choice, pro -women, pro-arts and humanities, pro-public social programs, but he has some neanderthal views on policing (that nonetheless resonate with some people) that, IMO would require adjustment. He can't be bought (a plus), but he is so wealthy he might be out of touch from his working-class roots (a minus).

When you look at him as a player in the game, he is a threat to everyone who is at the table now. He's got money, he's got charm, he's got friends, and the only question is: Does he have the ability to "connect" with America?

Bernie Sanders has spent years not admitting that he is, in fact, an entrenched member of the Democratic Party machine. Sounds like he's a guy with "no party loyalty" either.

[John Poet]

126. OK, I have gone and educated myself about him some...

'Tis true I didn't know much about him. Out here in the hinterland we don't pay much attention to New York politics.

What I don't quite get is, if he was a Democrat, why he didn't compete as a Democrat for mayor of New York, but instead as a Republican? Seems pretty smarmy to me to run under that party label, although I know NY Republicans aren't quite like the national brand.

I see several likely lines of attack on him. He was Gung-Ho for the Iraq war and wanted to stay there as long as possible, and he endorsed George W. Bush in 2004, just for starters. That's anathema to me.

But he is pretty socially liberal. So, do you think he could peel off enough Democrats in New York or Massachusetts or the rest of the northeast to throw any of those states electoral votes to the Republicans? Certainly, without a party organization, I don't believe he could win anywhere in his own right, but a billion dollars can buy a lot of TV time...

Imagine that-- a "good friend" (she called him that) of Hillary may perhaps do what Bernie refused to do-- throw this election to the Republicans by running independent.

[MADem]

128. The Dem field was PACKED the year he decided to run.

And yeah, it was totally smarmy AND strategic. But it worked for NYC. NYC is usually a shoo-in for the Dems, but there was a lot of push-pull in the field and it could have produced a weak candidate who would have been defeated by a weak Republican. He looked the field over and figured his candidacy was a way for everyone to win.

The GOP minority got a "Republican" (if In Name Only) and the Democrats got a mayor who was good on many things, not bad on a lot of things, and lousy on a few things. It really was a win-win all round.

I don't think he'll run if Clinton is the Democratic nominee--but we'll have to see. Time as always will tell...!

[senz]

91. Hill's Supreme Court would be 100% Wall Street-friendly.

Count on it.

[livetohike]

10. He's a hypocrite. It's about time for facts to overcome emotion. However, I can see the Sanders

admirers defending Lockheed's research center in Burlington because "Bernie was trying to bring jobs to his constituents".

More surprises coming as some journalists finally start digging into his Congressional career.

[nc4bo]

14. Not nice as Hillary's baggage-in-waiting.

And it'll be a 2-Fer since Bill is being towed along.

HA!

[libdem4life]

19. I think it's a three-fer. Chelsea is chomping at the bits to wear the third crown...make no mistake.

[AOR]

28. Here's the reality...

anyone who claims to be for "justice for all" and holds the belief that capitalism is the "end of history" is by definition a hypocrite. That said...this primary is about the degree of hypocrisy. Sanders might indeed be a hypocrite...but in comparison to Clinton and the right-wing of the Democratic Party the gulf of separation in degree of hypocrisy is immense. Leftists (anti-capitalists) can make these critiques in good standing. When reactionary Clinton supporters, capitalist media hacks, and war-mongering Republican trolls make these critiques they have no standing whatsoever. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

[livetohike]

33. I disagree. There are no "degrees of hypocrisy". The vetting has begun and now we see the

reactionary Sanders supporters shells crack as they realize Bernie isn't so pure after all.

[AOR]

52. Who is doing the talking matters...

and who is doing the "vetting" and for what reason matters. What is real critique and what is reactionary political opportunism matters.

[cali]

11. Lol. The lying Clintonian meme that he hasn't been vetted

[livetohike]

35. He has not been vetted. He went about his job quietly without making waves and no reason to

scrutinize him at all. Now that he is becoming nationally known, it's fair game as for other candidates.

[Armstead]

90. Ooooooooooooooooo Gosh. bernis is a practical politician...He's lost my vote

Krist on a Kraker.

One minute he's an ineffectual purist. The next he's a scheming opportunistic hypocrite.

He has bad hair too. I guess the "vetting" will scrutinize that too.

[jehop61]

12. 'Bout time

None of these disclosures are disqualifying or bad. But they do show that Bernie is not the all omnipotent, all knowing answer to our problems. He is a smart, hard working senator from a very small state. If Hillary is vilified for the least little thing in her past, Bernie should face the same scrutiny. Time to stop throwing stones.

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. More Clinton sleazy smears.

[MADem]

20. Could you elaborate? What, specifically, in those articles is false, or a "smear?" TIA. nt

[quickesst]

68. Yeah, we got that...

I'd like to see you answer MADem's question. What exactly is sleazy, or a smear?

[amborin]

116. this...the "articles" are distortions; and the military one is laughable...proves zip

[libdem4life]

17. Yes, indeed, let's just hand over the Presidency to a Republican who CAN get something done.

But, since we can't afford 8 years of a Republican Raiding Party, I'll stick with the separation of Parties and if necessary, to go to the people and get them to raise cane when a big issue is at hand. That's what Sanders is counting on, IMO, to have the people as a reserve to go over the heads of the "Servants of the People" and force them to listen to those who pay their salaries and consider whether to vote for them...or not.

This is democracy. When the Servants do not feel the need to listen or even ask the People, that's when Oligarchy takes root. And I know few of the unwashed masses who feel any personal relevance at all to this near Oligarchy. Approval of Congress is now into the 20's, I hear.

Rather than clutch pearls, such as the above post, we need a fighter...not for personal glory, but a fighter that toils to energize the "others" and bring them and all of back into a democratic form of government...for real.

That's why so many of want to let Bernie know, we got his back, what with our vote and $27...millions of us.

[MADem]

25. Could you possibly be more rude? I posted three articles without comment, and you go straight

to calling me a 'pearl clutcher!'

We have a right to hear from more than one point-of-view. As you said "This IS democracy."

Or is it only democracy for some people?

libdem4life
17. Yes, indeed, let's just hand over the Presidency to a Republican who CAN get something done.
View profile
But, since we can't afford 8 years of a Republican Raiding Party, I'll stick with the separation of Parties and if necessary, to go to the people and get them to raise cane when a big issue is at hand. That's what Sanders is counting on, IMO, to have the people as a reserve to go over the heads of the "Servants of the People" and force them to listen to those who pay their salaries and consider whether to vote for them...or not.

This is democracy. When the Servants do not feel the need to listen or even ask the People, that's when Oligarchy takes root. And I know few of the unwashed masses who feel any personal relevance at all to this near Oligarchy. Approval of Congress is now into the 20's, I hear.

Rather than clutch pearls, such as the above post, we need a fighter...not for personal glory, but a fighter that toils to energize the "others" and bring them and all of back into a democratic form of government...for real.

That's why so many of want to let Bernie know, we got his back, what with our vote and $27...millions of us.

But, since you're talking about "One vote and $27" there's an article that might enlighten you on Senator Sanders' association with the DSCC fundraising machine. He's hosting and speechifying to wealthy Wall Street and corporate donors in exchange for cash that has been funneled through the DSCC to his campaigns. This way, he can tell you he is getting a DSCC donation, but the actual source of that cash is WALL STREET. He has been performing this service at luxury resorts (Palm Beach in winter/Martha's Vineyard in the summer) for several years. That was a surprise to me, as I'm sure it is to others--this is part and parcel of that "vetting" process, too:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011. .... A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."

Sanders' political leanings were well known by the donors who attended the retreats. "Nobody was more surprised that Bernie was there than the donors were," said another Democrat who attended the retreats....

It's a very good read.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. THIS...

"In recent years, Sanders has been billed as one of the hosts for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's retreats for the "Majority Trust" -- an elite group of top donors who give more than $30,000 per year -- at Martha's Vineyard in the summer and Palm Beach, Florida, in the winter. CNN has obtained invitations that listed Sanders as a host for at least one Majority Trust event in each year since 2011. .... A Democratic lobbyist and donor who has attended the retreats told CNN that about 25% of the attendees there represent the financial sector -- and that Sanders and his wife, Jane, are always present.

"At each of the events all the senators speak. And I don't recall him ever giving a speech attacking us," the donor said. "While progressive, his remarks were always in the mainstream of what you hear from senators."

Sanders' political leanings were well known by the donors who attended the retreats. "Nobody was more surprised that Bernie was there than the donors were," said another Democrat who attended the retreats...."

That's mighty Establishment of him, isn't it?

[MADem]

47. Absolutely--"status quo" all the way! nt

[hueymahl]

65. A WEEE bit sensitive, aren't we? NT

[MADem]

74. Who are YOU?

You've been here four years, you've never once spoken to me, so don't act like you know me or my "sensitivity" levels.

It would appear from your comment to me that in your four years, you've never bothered to read the DU TOS. You should take a moment to do just that-- it will "explain" to you the prevailing attitude about things like poster civility on the board --a concept with which you're apparently unfamiliar.

smh!

[hueymahl]

99. Who am I?

Someone who can spot BS and false indignation a mile away. Who the hell are you?



BTW, thanks for the lecture on civility! Got a good laugh.

[MADem]

101. I think you overestimate your talents.

The fact that you laugh at notions of civility tells us all we need to know about you.

[hueymahl]

102. Me thinks thou dost protest too much

But whatever gets you through the night.

[MADem]

131. Methinks otherwise--but thank you for trying to play.

I get through the night with aplomb.

[Motown_Johnny]

22. Good, the sooner the better. The virtual media black out was damaging him.

Let him get some hard questions in front of the cameras so he can get more exposure.

The guy is authentic. Not perfect. Nobody (other than some Clinton supporters) expect him to be perfect. The more exposure the better.


No such thing as bad publicity when you have the better product.

[bettyellen]

54. I appreciate your take on things. After the bullshit "poor Bill looks sick" thread

I'm a bit disgusted by GDP. Honestly, you'd think they were all in Bill's will or something. Creepy and low.

[Motown_Johnny]

55. I agree, that was bull shit. But the flannel shirt and jeans costume thread I liked.

Bill never dresses like that. It sure did look like he was in a costume for the yokels.

[bettyellen]

58. I don't think that is relevant either, was disappointed only one or two people

who do not like the Clintons had the guts to say anything about how shitty that "Bill is sick" thread was.

I really dislike quite a few people for stooping that low- and disrespect them for being so clueless. Are they trolls? They are not the ones who actually appreciate Bernie's integrity, that's for sure. I guess they are in it for their paychecks. Would explain a good chunk of their venom towards the Clintons too.

[MADem]

61. Rather dark humor, but this line of yours made me laugh....

Honestly, you'd think they were all in Bill's will or something. Creepy and low.


I got the sense some folks were on a Death-wish Watch, too. Thing is, I think the guy looks great--perky and vibrant. He's the thinnest he's been in years, and that is off putting to some who remember that chubby guy who loved McDonald's.

What he is suffering from -- and he IS suffering, because he loves to TALK-- is a polyp (or polyps) on his vocal chords, a la Joan Rivers and Julie Andrews. That makes his voice sound soft and thin and raspy.

I'm betting he doesn't want to be knocked out to have work done to fix that problem, so he's just living with it. If he does get that fixed, he'll go to a hospital with a full crash cart and a half dozen experts, but he's probably hoping he can (eventually) just rest his voice, maybe get some therapy, and get a better result.


http://www.ohniww.org/what-are-vocal-nodules/

How do vocal cord nodules develop?

Repeated vocal fold trauma will lead to nodule formation. This trauma can come in many forms but most commonly results from improper voice technique such as shouting and straining during singing or speaking too long. Improper vocal muscle use, called muscle tension dysphonia, will cause vocal strain and overly forceful closure. This is the most common cause of nodules. Additional conditions that can contribute to nodule formation include chronic allergies, acid reflux disease, and smoking.

How do vocal nodules affect the voice?

Typically, vocal nodules will cause a progressive decrease in voice quality. Some patients describe their voice as sounding hoarse, breathy, and rough. Most patients will notice decreased vocal range and vocal fatigue. These changes are typically reversible if addressed promptly. If left untreated, vocal cord nodules may permanently impact voice.

How do I know if I have vocal cord nodules?

The best way to determine if you have vocal cord nodules is to be evaluated by a qualified laryngologist that uses stroboscopy. These specialized physicians are specifically trained in recognizing and treating the conditions of the larynx.

An indicator of vocal injury is the inability to sing “Happy Birthday” (or a similar song that covers one octave) softly and in a higher key.

What is the best treatment for vocal cord nodules?

The gold standard treatment for vocal nodules is voice therapy from a skilled vocal therapist. These specialists work with patients to modify their method of voice use, promote vocal fold healing, and correct harmful vocal habits. In addition, a vocal therapist can customize a treatment plan around a patient’s unique demands. Treating other contributing conditions (such as GERD, allergies, etc) may help to slow the progression or recurrence of these lesions.

Will vocal nodules go away on their own if I rest my voice?

Vocal nodules can improve with voice rest but will recur when the voice user reengages the voice in the behaviors that led to the nodules. Nodules do not typically resolve on their own without addressing the conditions or vocal technique that initially caused them.

Is surgery typically needed for nodules?

In most cases surgery is not the optimal treatment for vocal cord nodules and should be reserved for longstanding nodules that are unaffected by voice therapy. Most nodules can be treated with voice therapy. However, there are new surgical techniques that have had significant success at nodule treatment, without the risk of nodule removal.

[bettyellen]

64. If 2/3 of the folks on that thread spreading fake concern have not posted about how they hate Bill

I'd be surprised. It is probably more like 90% of them. It floors me to see that when they claim to put "integrity" first, and then post that utter crap. I have to think it is all about their own pocketbooks, and the revolution is just cover. Aside from that, it is ghoulish and very immature. For my money, this is the kind of total bullshit that turns good people away from political discourse, and voting.

[Paulie]

23. Ah yes John Avlon

Ghouliani speech writer and Manhattan Institute fellow. Yikes!

[MADem]

48. He didn't write all the articles posted.

Vetting does come from all sides, you know.

I can't believe how many Brietbart and Daily Caller links I've seen about HRC during primary season.

DB tends to take from both sides of the aisle.

[Duval]

121. Just found that out. We stopped The Nation years ago when they hired Rove.

[casperthegm]

24. Actually...

Sanders has not neglected to acknowledge the VA issues. If you watched the last debate, while touting the work he has done for veterans, he also acknowledged regretting that they did not know about and act on the problems sooner. The man owned up. I mean, if Hillary gets a pass for not being aware of what was going on with security requests in Benghazi when she was Secretary of State, why then do you think it's fair to lash out at one of many people who served on the Veterans Affairs committee? Double standard?

[MADem]

50. He wasn't "owning up" or taking any action at all in the thick of it, though.

His leadership would have been useful when the fat was in the fire. Those problems dragged on for a LONG long time, and people complained, and nothing was done.

[casperthegm]

53. He and the others on the committee should have done better

The veterans deserve better care than they've received. Sanders has acknowledged this and I, as a Sanders supporter acknowledge the shortcomings as well.

Interesting that there is no response to the mention of Clinton's oversight of Benghazi when she was Secretary of State. When you are in a leadership position you have to take ownership for failings, as you have pointed out with the VA Committee. I'm going to assume that rather than taking a double standard position that you simply failed to agree and acknowledge this point.

[MADem]

139. As far as I know, she spent 11 hours telling a partisan Congressional committee everything she

knew about Benghazi. You can watch that testimony on C-Span.

[casperthegm]

144. Agreed. She did well. But she still bears responsibility.

I'm simply pointing out that she has similar failures while sitting in a position of oversight, leading to deaths of Americans. She wasn't directly responsible for the incident, nor was Sanders. But both share responsibility. I'm just making clear that for every point that Clinton may make there are as many, and more, counter-points that Sanders can make. When it comes to the actual issues Sanders buries Clinton on a point by point comparison. I'd be happy to list them for you if you'd like.

[Depaysement]

26. Congressional Oversight?

You're kidding right? It's the Executive Branch executes the laws and is responsible for Vets' issues. By 2014 there had already been 4 years of Congressional cuts.

Was Senator Clinton responsible for the glacial pace of the Superfund cleanup? She was Chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Congress has been making cuts to VA for many years under Bush and Obama. This was not

an executive decision. It was Republicans who made those cuts, not President Obama!

[Depaysement]

72. I'm not blaming President Obama

I'm arguing that Bernie Sanders is hardly to blame.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. But he blames the president, and he knows damn well that Republicans have been cutting

Veteran's benefits and ignoring veterans for decades. I'm always baffled by the numbers of vets who support Republicans. I will never understand it. We work our asses off for the veterans, and it is they who are being mistreated by Republican cuts across the board.

We are on the same side, but Bernie blaming the president for this is rich. Very rich.

[cosmicone]

29. Let it all come out

1. How Jane was appointed to two commissions by Shumlin
2. Why Jane's charity is in the Caribbean and not in the US
3. Jane's appointment at BU
4. Jane's overstated pledges and the harm they caused
5. How Jane got a golden parachute after poor performance
6. Channeling of campaign money to family members
7. Data theft from DNC servers
8. Logo misappropriation and misrepresentation

Let's go media !!!

[U of M Dem]

122. If only HRC supporters were as "observant" of HRC's very real corruption

as they are about complete non-issues that are so desperately accused of Sanders.

Alas, the corrupt media that is so willfully called in for "backup" on these non-issues / unsubstantiated claims will assuredly rise to the call and continue to pull the wool over the eyes of HRC supporters with impunity to our collective peril.

[cosmicone]

125. IOKIYABS - I expected it.

[U of M Dem]

127. right back atcha IOKIYAHS (I think)

To the monied establishment, her royal highness cannot do wrong.

HRH supporters have to wake up and feel the Bern.

The coronation is a myth!

The people want real governance and to dismantle the aristocracy / oligarchy that HRH represents. If this makes you uncomfortable, you might just be in the 1%. If you aren't in the 1% and you support Hillary, you are voting against your interests whether you know this, you are willfully ignorant to this, or not.

[cosmicone]

130. So you are saying just because Hillary is rich and experieneced,

it is okay for Bernie to

1. Trade his campaigning for Shumlin in an appearance of returning of favor as appointmet of Jane Sanders to two commisions,
2. Having Caribbean charity away from US Banking and IRS oversight,
3. Get Jane who has a correspondence PhD to lead a major university when other qualified candidates who had real doctorates were turned down,
4. Jane Sanders to knowingly overstate pledges to get a bank loan that would never have been approved and then get into a shady real estate deal,
5. Get a $200K golden parachute for Jane after she caused what many people would call a royal f-up,
6. Channel campaign money to family members,
7. Steal data from DNC servers from the Hillary compartment and then misrepresent the theft as something noble,
8. Misappropriate other people's logos and use them shamelessly for self-promotion,
9. Manipulate voters into thinking newspapers have endorsed Bernie when they have been neutral or had endorsed Hillary.

All of this is ok because oh "oligarchs", "income inequality", "billionaires", "speaking fees". It sounds like Romney, "forget my tax returns, look how much I gave to the Mormon church!"

By the way, oligarchy is here to stay. Bernie cannot "dismantle" it. This country is governed by laws and regulations. This is not Russia or Cuba where revolutions can "dismantle" things just because one person says so. Bernie still has to go through congress and 0% of his proposals will ever become law.

Instead of envying oligarchs and trying to "dismantle" them, one should work towards improving the lives of those impoverished, discriminated and deprived; creating opportunity for all to become rich. That has a better chance of success.

[U of M Dem]

135. I see no links, no proof, just speculations that reach hard.

Along with an acceptance of empire, an acceptance of more wars, an acceptance of more austerity, more prisons for profit, more gambling by wall street, more bought and sold politicians... And for what?

Instead of envying oligarchs and trying to "dismantle" them, one should work towards improving the lives of those impoverished, discriminated and deprived; creating opportunity for all to become rich. That has a better chance of success.

To work with those very same few who are high on power and greed, beg for our supper while they get the lions share. I do not think you get just how bad it is for some folks out there and the solutions are simple. The solutions have proof of concept, and most importantly, the solutions are the will of the vast majority of people. Look to our Scandinavian friends, really look at the next step past this corrupted reboot of aristocracy. We have a responsibility to the world as the only people capable of using the tools of our democracy to flesh out the festering hole in America carved out by the hands of obscenely wealthy individuals who stole the wealth from the common prosperity of the old American Dream. The snake oil salesman at the top and their faceless proxies in media and academia have already made themselves clear. They do not wish to relent and give up the I'll begotten spoils of their oft waged war on the common people by way of extraction of wealth upwards.

I do not care about the who or how of the story of David v Goliath, I care about the outcome. But I will say this on the how... and it is by the very same advancements and tactics of the modern era that the tycoons, tech giants, and the government's across our world have been so successful that will be their downfall. The people are armed to the teeth with cheap camera phones, internet and social media savy, and are mad as hell at the cloistered few who maintain the archaic delusion of wealth and class and race and creed and nationality, and are blind to the simple fact that we are all the same, mostly hairless apes who have the same needs and who share more in common by a thousandfold when our differences.

Human beings can be better than capitalizing on the weaknesses of human nature and thatng advantage of others' age, fears, dreams, or naivete for the greed of it. We must surely be better than cowtowing to those that are at the top of the hierarchy in all their narcissistic, self aggrandizing fervor.

That is no way to live, being an apathetic cog in the machine of our very undoing. I will take no part in it and find another,better way. And if that way, in this case, Bernie's way is unsuccessful, than at least I know I did not contribute to our collective demise of self inflicted societal suicide by neoliberalism.

You may feel differently, but in my opinion it is a choice between freedom and death, and I choose freedom, every time, I choose freedom.

[SidDithers]

31. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

32. So you are saying that Veterans were neglected under the Obama administration by citing Cato?

Those links look dubious due to that ending assertion from David Boaz of Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch,[6] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.


So those links probably have some juicy authorship as well. 'Allow me to cite the Koch Bros against Sanders' is what DU has come to.

[beam me up scottie]

60. " 'Allow me to cite the Koch Bros against Sanders' is what DU has come to."

Well said, Blue. Some days it's almost impossible to distinguish the right from so called liberals.

The Koch brothers, Front Page Mag, Free Beacon, Tomatobubble and other right wing sources have all been cited to smear Bernie.

SMH.

[NastyRiffraff]

34. The media "ignored" Sanders

According to his supporters. We saw the unending whining and crying about the media not feeling the Bern. Now, of course, it's all Bernie all the time, but part of that means much more scrutiny. Not as much as Hillary has always had, but at least he's getting some. If you want Sanders to be a front runner, you need to be prepared for that. Apparently, many of you aren't.

[TTUBatfan2008]

44. I agree with that...

Scrutiny is a good thing. He's not a perfect candidate but neither is she. My feeling is he will benefit more overall from increased coverage (both negative/positive/neutral). His message resonates with a lot of people. 93% of the elected Democrats in New Hampshire are telling the voters to support Hillary and yet it appears Sanders will win there today, possibly even by double digits.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. Hopefully that vetting will continue, as it should. Sanders has to EARN votes by convincing us

that he can deliver. Just because his fanatics talk down to everyone doesn't mean that she should just shut up and vote for him.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Yes, let's talk veterans' issues--remember this slow-on-the-uptake moment from Clinton?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251736917

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. The more you deflect, the more you lose! This is about SANDERS, not HRC!!

Again, he has the responsibility to convince us that he's better than her!

Stop deflecting!

[TwilightGardener]

43. Sanders has worked pretty hard to correct the VA's systemic problems,

while Clinton denied they were even systemic--almost two years after Shinseki stepped down.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

45. NO!! President Obama worked on that issue. I work at HUD and we work very closely with the VA

Executive action changed a lot of bad conditions.

[TwilightGardener]

49. The VA scandal was one of the few Obama had on his watch.

But make no mistake, it was on his watch.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Yours Truly has been making the same argument as Mr. Boaz..

“Where’s the evidence that he could get bipartisan support for ?” countered a skeptical David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute. “We’ve got a Republican Congress and a Democratic president now, and those things aren’t moving.”...

EXACTLY!!!

[Spazito]

46. Interesting read...

All candidates need to be vetted and it looks like Senator Sanders has gained enough attention for this to start happening. Vetting of all candidates is important, imo.

[HassleCat]

57. Interesting a US Senator is being blamed

for an administrative problem in the executive branch.

[MADem]

59. If you're referring to the VA, he was the committee CHAIRMAN. His job was OVERSIGHT.

He plainly wasn't "overseeing" or he would have brought those problems to the fore.

What's the point of having oversight committees if no one is actually doing the work?

It's a bit more than an "administrative problem." Lives were in the balance. Lives were lost.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but he owns a chunk of it--make no mistake.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

63. How much of it was President Obama's fault? Or his hand picked Secretary?

What do you mean by "chunk"? How big is this chunk?

[MADem]

106. Sanders doesn't own it all, he can share it with those guys.

He probably owns a quarter of the blame, at least. His House counterpart deserves a piece of the pie, too.

I'd like to see his constituent letters that address VA services--that's where you'll find out a lot. Did he just endorse them and schlep them off to DOD via OLA, or did he actually TRACK the complaints and take notes of patterns? And then, did he INVESTIGATE those patterns?

I think the answer to that is "He did not." I wouldn't mind being proven wrong, but that's what it looks like.

Does he even have a MIL AFFAIRS staffer on his staff? If he doesn't, he really has no business on that committee. He needs a person who a) Knows the Pentagon, b) Understands the military pay, personnel, medical and justice systems, and c) Knows how to get answers out of military agencies that might not always be forthcoming--the way to get the right answer is to ask the right question. When he goes back to the Senate, he should think about hiring such a person, if he hasn't done so already.

[mhatrw]

75. Too bad he didn't let the Koch brothers privatize the VA. Right?

Because that is what the Repuke propaganda you favored us all with is all about.

[MADem]

104. Are you saying he had a choice between shirking his responsibilities and letting the Koch Bros.

privatize the VA?

That's your take-away?

mhatrw
75. Too bad he didn't let the Koch brothers privatize the VA. Right?
View profile
Because that is what the Repuke propaganda you favored us all with is all about.

Why couldn't he do this--HIS JOB? And oh--not "let the Koch brothers privatize the VA" too.

Right?

I mean, come on--he's a smart guy. He could actually do both...couldn't he?



It's not "Repuke propaganda" just because it's not adoring towards Bernie. He failed to do his job. He has a role in the VA's failure because as committee chairman, he did not provide the oversight he was tasked to provide.

[mhatrw]

107. He did an awesome job. He just did not want to publicly browbeat the VA while the Koch brothers were

concurrently mounting an all-out assault on the whole idea of a public VA in the Repuke House of Representatives.

[MADem]

114. Had he exercised oversight before the shit hit the fan, he wouldn't have had to "browbeat"

anyone.

He should have sent a group of bipartisan senior staffers around to have a look at/do an audit of the hospitals where veterans were having wait time problems. Everyone at the committee table coughs up a name, and they get together and come up with a schedule of visits, and the staffers go to work, looking at scheduling, talking to patients, auditing wait times, etc.

Sounds like a much better use of "recess" time than jetting off to Italy and Germany to do 'base inspections' during the height of tourist season--and that is what many Congressmen with military-related portfolios do.

That's how you find out what's wrong, you get off your butt and out into the field--and if you don't have time to do it yourself, you send a trusted surrogate. You don't wait until the situation blows up on the national news.

And doing that kind of BASIC oversight has absolutely nothing to do with the Koch Brothers.

[HassleCat]

81. Yes, of course.

Who was committee chair when we gave GW Bush the blank check in Iraq? Who was committee chair when we passed DOMA? And so on, and so on. I'm thinking it is very, very unusual to see responsibility for oversight, or OVERSIGHT, as you put it, laid at the feet of a Senate committee chair. I'm glad you agree there is plenty of blame to go around. i wish we could ll keep this in mind when we point the finger at somebody we don't like.

[MADem]

142. The blank check in Iraq or DOMA wasn't voted on by a committee. It's not the same thing.

Oversight is an ongoing duty. If it's your store, you have to mind it. Otherwise, step aside and let someone interested in doing the day-in, day-out grind of the job do it.

He asked for the position--it wasn't foisted on him unwillingly. It's a good portfolio but you have to do the work.

[retrowire]

67. Verrry interesting. nt

[Helen Borg]

62. In the meanwhile...

Tomorrow will be a great day for Bernie and a horrible day for Hillary, have to flash a fake smile to pretend her major loss in NH was all planned and well.

[randome]

66. Not planned but accepted. Our last 3 elected Presidents lost New Hampshire, as well.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[randome]

70. No! No! Wait! It's too soon! I don't want any vetting! I like things just the way they are!

I'm afraid.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[Duval]

73. Sanders is already accomplishing something we need, and

that is: he's pushing the party away from DLC politics. He has listened to the people for years and taken calls while on Thom Hartmann's show, and is well informed on issues that matter to them. Our Party needs him if we want to make changes from policies that haven't worked for the ordinary person.

[MADem]

77. No, not really--it might seem that way from a distance, but he's the ULTIMATE party insider.

This is not the conduct of anyone other than a member of the party establishment:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

He's sure not pushing those big donors away. He's hosting them and jollying them along.

Like it, or not--he is part of the machine. And he's in pretty deep, too.

I was surprised, and I'm sure I am not the only one. It's the opposite of what he's been saying.

[Duval]

94. I disagree and I don't ever go to CNN for honesty in reporting.

And our MSM was hijacked long ago. We have moved too far to the right and Bernie's message may be of real help. I'll look into more, though. And I appreciate your response.

[MADem]

97. With what, precisely, do you disagree?

That he wasn't a host of the fundraisers all those years? He was.

That he didn't give the speeches and hobnob with the Wall Streeters? He did.

That he didn't raise the money that went into the DSCC account? He did.

That he didn't TAKE the money that went into the DSCC account? He did.

These are facts. Matters of record.

He's been busted. He's one of those "awful" party insiders, and he has been for years...a member of the dreaded ESTABLISHMENT!!!!!

[Duval]

111. Wow, you're way ahead of me, MADem.

It will take some research on my part to answer factually. But, I won't go to CNN to find out and I still stand by my comment.

[DCBob]

79. About time.

I was not aware of any of most of this.

[Armstead]

85. You forgot something

From the libertarian article. A not insignificant point you failed to mention.

(As for the "vetting has begun"...Those things have been floating around forever.)

It’s safe to say, however, that the majority of libertarians will not feel the Bern this election season.

“You can't be good on some social issues but want to fund them through increased taxation or income redistribution,” said Carla Gericke, president of the Free State Project, which recruits libertarians to move to New Hampshire in order to eventually take control of the state. “Libertarians are better off voting for toothbrushes and ponies than any of the frontrunners. Or better yet, why not vote for nobody?”

But the fact that libertarians would even entertain the idea of voting for an avowed “socialist” like Bernie Sanders shows just how disaffected the movement has become.

Ultimately, come November, when looking to the two major parties, many libertarians will likely find themselves in a familiar predicament: politically homeless with no one to vote for.

[MADem]

96. Well, I didn't 'forget' anything--I mean, the idea of putting up articles is to get others to

discuss them, too, put in their perspective, click on the links and read them, note the parts that resonate with them, and add to the conversation.

How hard is it to add to the conversation without accusing me of some sort of failure because I didn't focus on the bit that happened to be most meaningful to you?

You didn't have to say that, you know.

There's a paragraph limit that we have to watch out for--there's only so much that can be quoted without going over the line.

These things may have been "floating around forever" but they were floating around in Vermont--there's never been any NATIONAL attention on these issues--that is starting, now. There will be more, of that I've no doubt. He's been in politics for a third of a century, and what is notable is that so very little has come out to this point. Now that he's a "national candidate" he is going to get "national attention." This is just the opening salvo.

[senz]

95. This hit piece on Senator Sanders will be EASY for him to refute.

It's poorly argued, puffed up, unobjective, and weak.

If that's all you got, my dear, you got nothing.

[hobbit709]

103. And it doesn't look good for Hillary.

[berniepdx420]

105. Clintonias getting desperate....

Directly from The Veterans of Foreign Wars website

Stroud is scheduled to present the VFW’s legislative positions at 10 a.m., Wednesday, in testimony before a joint hearing of the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees in the Dirksen Senate Office Building. That evening he will also present Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with the VFW’s 2015 Congressional Award, which since 1964 has been presented annually to one sitting member of the House or Senate for significant legislative contributions on behalf of those who have worn the uniform.

“With eight years on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee — two of them as chairman — it is no understatement to say that Senator Sanders has taken care of wounded, ill and injured veterans and their surviving family members,” said Stroud. “He has been a commanding voice against changing the COLA calculations for disabled veterans, for the proper care and treatment of women veterans, homeless veterans, for better employment opportunities and improved access to mental health programs, as well as increased congressional oversight of the VA claims processing transformation,” he said.

“And when the VA imploded last year, he was the lead negotiator for the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act, which the president signed into law last summer,” said the VFW national commander. “The VA still has an uphill climb to fix what’s broken, to hold employees appropriately accountable, and to restore the faith of veterans in their VA, but veterans everywhere should be proud and comforted to know that this United States senator has their back in Congress.”

http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2015-Articles/Ending-Sequestration-Again-Tops-VFW-Legislative-Agenda/

[MADem]

108. You do know that the "VFW" is a "fraternal" group? They have no authority over the VA.

They aren't "the military." They are an organization of former military personnel who have served overseas. They do--like most vet's groups-- have opinions. They are a military social and lobbying group, in essence. They're similar to VVA, or MOAA, they have clubhouses and social events. They have a well known public profile, but they are by no means the only player in the social/advocacy game for veterans. You want a list? Here ya go: https://www.nrd.gov/other_services_and_resources/veterans_service_organizations

No one disputes that Sanders made a stink AFTER the shit hit the fan.

What is in dispute is if he did enough--or anything at all--BEFORE the shit hit the fan.

He did his job of managing the issues once they came to his attention, but where he failed was in his oversight duty.

[berniepdx420]

110. Spin spin spin...

read the award... and put it in your brain... thanks

[MADem]

118. Aren't you rude! LOL!

berniepdx420
110. Spin spin spin...
View profile
read the award... and put it in your brain... thanks

I don't think I'm the one having problems processing facts, here. But thanks so much for proving my point with your 'commentaries' on this topic!

[berniepdx420]

120. my point was

that with all the facts about Bernie's popularity with Veterans...you are ignoring these.. so please for the sake of Veterans read Bernies record... it is a good and honorable record..

[berniepdx420]

112. More Veterans for Bernie....

http://vetsforbernie.org/

[berniepdx420]

113. Karl Rove tactics...

attack your opponents strength...good luck with that...

[MADem]

115. No. Pointing out that someone didn't do their job is not a "Karl Rove tactic."

But ACCUSING someone of being in cahoots with the opposition?

Now THAT's a Karl Rove tactic!!

Heckuvajob!




Pro tip--this isn't twitter--three responses in rapid succession don't make your points more compelling.

[berniepdx420]

119. Inferring that Bernie doesn't fight for Veterans rights is yellow bellied spin...and you know it...

Trying to pin the entire Veteran Affairs situation on Bernie is misleading at best..and in your better moments you know this.... Veterans group after Veterans Group have praised Bernie for fighting as hard as anyone in Congress for them. He has a record.. read it... Your attack is right from the Karl Rove playbook.... attack your opponent at his strength.., Bernie is very popular with Veterans..because he has fought for them and they say so themselves.. So.. attack him on one thin unsubstantiated point while ignoring all the support Veterans give Bernie... facts are facts... you are spin

[Sheepshank]

123. I don't think there was any inferance implied. It was stated fact.

i know some just don't like it.

There are some old essays too, I think Bernie would rather they didn't see the light of day. Many may not like those either.

[MADem]

136. Who are you to tell me about my "better moments?" You've been here a week--ostensibly.

I used to work on the Hill and this is my wheelhouse.

Your post mischaracterizes what I have said and your comments are way out of line. Calling a DU member--ME-- "Rovian" and yellow bellied is a disruptive and rude comment.

You've been here how long and you're already stirring the pot? Maybe you need to tone it down.

He bears some responsibility for failing in his oversight duties as CHAIRMAN -- not ranking member, as he is now--but CHAIRMAN of that Committee.

He was the leader and he did not lead. That's FACT--not spin.

[berniepdx420]

137. I called your tactics Rovian... and...just because you've been here

longer doesn't entitle you to special treatment... just like Hillary isn't entitled to the Presidency.. And I consider you smearing Bernie Sander's good name when it comes to fighting for Veterans rights to be dishonest and Disruptive..

Read his record and get back to us... good day

[MADem]

138. You did a lot more than that--anyone can read the garbage you wrote, unless you do the decent thing

and self-delete it.

I'm calling you out for exactly what you are--rude and disruptive and personally insulting.

[berniepdx420]

141. I have in no way personally insulted you.. I am merely arguing the facts and labeling

your type of attacks you use on Bernie. You will not bully me... please ignore me as I am presently clicking to ignore you. Thank you

[MADem]

143. Yes, you have. You directly personally insulted me upthread, and I called you on it. nt

[Duval]

124. Marvelous! Thanks berniepdx420.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. So it sounds to me like Sanders would be able to get traction on ending the drug war

and reining in the surveillance state, and little else with the GOP congress.

Whereas Hillary would be able to get traction on... nothing, because she's not going to have any more luck passing "left-wing economic policies" than Sanders is, and she's apparently not all that INTERESTED in ending the drug war or reining in the surveillance state.



So it's kind of confusing- Sanders working with congressional libertarians to end the drug war- is that supposed to be a BAD thing?