I'm already starting to see some HRC supporters on my FB feed.........

[socialist_n_TN]

talking about voting for Bloomberg in the general if Bernie is the nominee. And that's after ONE primary.

I've always KNEW the Third Way Dems wouldn't vote for anybody but a corporate candidate, but it's funny to see them openly say so. Especially after flaming the Nadarites for 15 years now.

[onehandle]

1. Cool story, bro. nt

[JTFrog]

14. +1 n/t

[virtualobserver]

32. cool way to call someone a liar...

[merrily]

79. Implying the content of the Opening Post cannot possibly be true is bs, but you knew that.

[socialist_n_TN]

97. Yeah, and I was just making an observation..........

about the irony of it all. The one that made this statement on my FB feed is one that has, in the past, tore Nader a new one for "electing Bush" because of his run in 2000, yet now is threatening the same thing.

[HooptieWagon]

101. More Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.

[merrily]

110. The poster seems to have a new catch phrase and also seems to think it is very effective.

As to substance, I have not found that double standards trouble everyone who posts on DU.

FWIW, I believe your OP and double standards do trouble me.

[socialist_n_TN]

116. Yeah, except I've seen that "new" catchphrase.......

for YEARS now on DU.

[merrily]

119. Oh, okay. Then the poster seems to be clinging to an old catch phrase.

I guess I haven't noticed many of his or her posts.

[socialist_n_TN]

120. Not just from him. And the meaning behind the phrase........

is EXACTLY what you said it was merrily. So IOW, he/she is not even original with it.

[hobbit709]

2. the PUMAs are coming out again.

[HooptieWagon]

8. Yep. But that's always the case.

More Dems voted for Bush than Nader, but it's the liberals fault.

[Fast Walker 52]

74. yeah, seems that way-- it's gonna get even uglier

[Marrah_G]

75. I truly despise that term and its use as a weapon on DU

I am a Bernie supporter this time around. Last primary I was a Hillary supporter. I still have people on ignore from the last primary. I was slammed with that term for at least a year after the election. Every time I see that term it just really pisses me off.

DU does not do primaries very well.

[hobbit709]

77. It was the name they gave themselves.

Just like the Teabaggers until they figured out what that meant.

[merrily]

81. +1 (Unlike "Bernie Bros")

[Marrah_G]

85. Yes, but then every Hillary supporter was labeled as one.

For a very long time. Just telling people to be careful of labeling others and calling names. Remember that the people on this website are your allies in most things and behind the posts are real human beings with feelings.

[hobbit709]

87. Insults are like drinks. They only affect you if accept them.

I don't worry what people call me. I've been called every name in the book in at least 6 languages.
If what you're called is true, then no amount of effort on your part will change that fact.
If it isn't true, then why sweat it?

[libdem4life]

96. I going to remember that phrase...thanks. n/t

[LanternWaste]

118. We must then presume the young black students touring A&M greeted with racial epithets

"They only affect you if accept them..."

We must then presume the young black students touring A&M greeted with racial epithets were simply too weak to ignore them.

(space provided free of charge for distinction lacking relevant below)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Wonder what took em so long?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Wilms]

3. The 10% is are not happy. n/t

[Dawson Leery]

4. Berns won't see a penny from me, ever.

[jeff47]

7. That's OK, I donated for you. (nt)

[Rocky the Leprechaun]

15. I did too.

In honor of Dawson Leery's idiotic comment.

[mahina]

10. If Hillary wins the primary, I will work my heart out for her

And give her everything I can.

I guess we just disagree.

[moriah]

22. That's what I'm glad to see.

I don't have money to buy Valentine hearts right now, but if I did... you'd have one.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Wall Street thanks you.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[mahina]

109. Of course I will continue to work for Bernie and would be over the moon if he prevails.

Elizabeth Warren is my fave for VP.

If he does not, what are you suggesting exactly?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

111. I hear you and appreciate what you're saying... would be SO disappointed if we had to support anyone other than Bernie.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[farleftlib]

12. Good, keep it

He doesn't need it. We got this.

[cali]

21. He doesn't need you.

[BainsBane]

50. Obviously not

Not when American Crossroads is spending millions to get him elected. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/

Bernie has got a hell of a lot of money. He is suddenly staffing campaign offices in states where he had no presence until recently, in states where Clinton has had a few field staff working hard for months.

Money buys a hell of a lot. It yet remains to be seen if it will buy the GOP the opponent they want.

[trillion]

62. Unlike Hillary, Bernie is not getting money from these Republican groups. They're just trying to

get Hillary so are campaigning against her. They're doing it because the have a real fear of losing to her.

They'll do the same to Bernie now that he's viable.

He's gotten a whole lot of donations tonight and the last few days since winning Iowa from a lot of us here on DU and everywhere. Small donations that are adding up big time. His campaign sent out letters about it.

It's not the same at all as Hillary's super pacs where corporations are donating to her.

I think you need to go read this article again. You didn't understand a word of it.

[merrily]

83. Sly smear attempt, but it doesn't work. We all know where Bernie's money comes from and where

Hillary's came from.

[moriah]

23. That's fine, he won't see anything from me until he's the nominee, but neither will Hillary.

I am too poor to donate for primaries. I save my few bucks I could donate and once our nominee is selected give it to them, and then keep scraping up the few bucks I can.

But I phonebank like a rockstar

[merrily]

84. Good for you. It's a great gift to have.

[moriah]

91. Thanks! I will do it in the primary and the general, no matter who wins. :) nt

[moriah]

24. And if you think that was an endorsement of you staying at home in November...

... think again.

I wish people would support the Nominee and the Party and realize that primaries are for conscience but the General is about keeping the Repugnians out of the White House.

But at least I know, if you truly intend to sit out in November and fail to realize that whatever criticisms you might have (I have some, but they aren't enough to make me hate him so much I won't work MY heart out for him if he wins), he's ten thousand times better a candidate than any in any of the Republican Food Fights we've been seeing...

That you won't be disrupting after this forum closes.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. That's fine, he's getting all the money I otherwise would be giving to the DNC

That is, if the DNC wasnt currently run by someone who votes to put sick people in prison for using medical marijuana.

[moriah]

38. Was glad to hear that, despite admitted roots back to the time Prohibition passed....

... Hillary at least wants to continue to allow states to regulate it as they see fit, but on the Federal level actually give some protection to the doctors who prescribe it by placing it in the same schedule as hydrocodone for right now. That will encourage more doctors to openly support MMJ regulation in their states that don't already.

Arkansas, my state, is a weird one. We're definitely one of the buckles on the Bible Belt, but the state and local Democratic party was VERY strong here up until out-of-state funds were used to primary Blanche Lincoln and Republicans realized spending money here was worthwhile. Instead of only sending up one red rep and 5 blues (3 reps, 2 senators), everyone we send to Washington now votes against the best economic interest of the very people they "serve".

But at the same time, we came DAMN close to passing MMJ in 2012, hopefully will in 2016, and we were the first Southern state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. I think with the assurance for doctors that they won't lose their DEA licenses, more doctors will be willing to openly back MMJ. They weren't here in 2012.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Moving from I to II is better than nothing, to be sure.

But we should be clear that HRC is promising the bare minimum on marijuana; granted she's not going Full Chris Christie and saying she'll send troops in to round up pot smokers on Jan 21 2017, but there is a fairly significant legal gulf between statements like "the states are the laboratories of democracy" and actually implementing the necessary changes at the federal level to resolve the built in conflict between Federal and State law.

Certainly the status quo as it stands now is an improvement over the previous one- I've defended Obama in that I believe he quietly moved the ball forward on the drug war, and is notable in particular for what he did not do in the wake of legalization in '12, namely allow the hard line drug warriors in his administration (of which I am certain there are a few) to go in and override those states' decisions.

But leaving things as is- where not just recreational but also medical marijuana state laws are in conflict with federal law- still leaves the door open for the drug warriors to do that in the future. I believe Sanders' approach of removing marijuana from the CSA entirely, descheduling it, is a far better approach.

Also the cannabis industry is, really, booming out west and has incredible growth potential (so to speak) and it is imperatvie that the next administration push forward on the proposals by Blumenauer, etc. on opening up the banking system to cannabis businesses. Likewise the CARERS act and even Wyden's push to allow the post office to simply mail newspapers and periodicals containing ads for marijuana businesses- which they have stated, as of now, the cannot do- all that would benefit from a POTUS using the bully pulpit of the presidency to push for long-overdue sanity on this issue.

I also think given the poll numbers and particularly the importance of this issue to millennials, it is one policy point which, if she is smart, Hillary could make some inroads with younger voters by taking a more forcefully progressive tack on this issue. Unfortunately I think there is too much "conventional wisdom" in her campaign strategy which is outdated on matters like this.

Either way, the clock is ticking on prohibition. The south may be the last part of the country to go, sadly, but the time is running out for it. I do believe that.

[moriah]

57. No doubt -- prohibition, instead of regulation, of anything....

... you can grow, or grow and then ferment and distill, without anything else other than the proper equipment and what God/Mothef Nature/the FSM gave us... is just plain idiotic.

I have no doubt that eventually it will be regulated like alcohol and tobacco, though there may need to be an industry organization formed soon by the people doing the growing now that keeps Big Tobacco taking over and turning into Big Marijuana.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Living in a place where it's already happening and working, I'm not too worried about it.

The so-called "big marijuana" is far more like craft breweries than mass-produced budweiser. The only analogy to mass produced corporate weed I can think of is the shitty mexican stuff we used to smoke in the 80s, with all the seeds in it. And the one group that has objectively been shown to be hurt by legalization? The mexican drug cartels.

Legalization works - this is not hypothetical, it is a reality increasing numbers of us are living- and it is really astounding how quickly the new normal becomes not such a big deal. As far as the money, it was being spent anyway- now it can be taxed for state coffers. Legal marijuana in Oregon made $11 Million in sales the first week, more than either Washington or Colorado had in the similar time window.

http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf/2015/10/legal_pot_in_oregon_live_updat.html

http://time.com/4066470/oregon-recreational-marijuana-sales/

[moriah]

60. People have voiced worries that the current companies that are Big Tobacco....

... have enough capital and equipment and fields to basically sell the Pall Mall version of pot (which would be about the same quality as Mexican ditchweed unless they actually studied practice... tobacco is a far hardier crop and doesn't lose potency from pollination.

If it does become an issue, the microbrewery guys should have an industry alliance to try to defend against Phillip Morris, is what I am saying.

[Warren DeMontague]

63. I agree with you, but I also know a lot of the noise about "big marijuana" is coming from folks like

Kevin Sabet, who realize that the old arguments for prohibition are failing.

I do believe your avg. marijuana consumer is a more discerning individual and the playing field for recreational weed is quite different than, say, the tobacco industry as it consolidated in the early parts of the 20th century. It's just not the same thing.

I also think that the people who have been perfecting the technology of growing the stuff for the past few decades have a big ol' head start on Philip Morris.

But I agree with you, philosophically. I think Oregon's state law provides a good model for other states to follow- each household is allowed to grow up to 4 plants, so that right there is a bulwark against monopolization by any sort of large entity.

[moriah]

67. I agree on the head start.

Cannabis of any decent quality is difficult to grow in mass quantity. (I think the statute of limitations has run out on why I know that.....)

The individual household limit is also in current regulations for alcohol and tobacco -- I know people who grow their own cigs, and their rollies taste sooo much better than this icky crap I buy in the store.

I'm somewhat on the "heavy regulation" side, in that I think hard liqour, marijuana, and tobacco should all be sold only in 21-and-up establishments. But I have seen NC's "ABC Store" model for alcohol regulation, and think while we don't have to drive out entrepreneurs, and gas stations will flip if they lose their tobacco business, that having kids seeing adults buying anything that isn't appropriate for children models for that child that not only is it okay, but a privilege to (in the case of tobacco) be sold something that will give you cancer.

Edit to add: I know a lot of people drank and smoked pot when they were teenagers, and turned out fine. But there's no reason to encourage the "I want to try it because it makes me grown up!" that makes most people party down at 21 then slowly realize that hangovers aren't fun. Pot for kids... eh, I'm inclined to want it to be for medical purposes only.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Oregon has folded recreational marijuana into the OLCC, which regulates liquor sales in state.

We actually have state run liquor stores, while beer and wine are available at the supermarket. We have a lot of weird laws, like not pumping your own gas.

So there's no danger, at least here, of pot being sold in establishments that aren't expressly for that purpose, as much as I think many of us would appreciate the convenience of being able to pick it up at Costco.

[moriah]

69. Ahh, Arkansas is weird too, but I like Oregon's "weirdness" a LOT! more!

We have tons of totally dry counties, then hard liquor in private 21-and-ups and supermarket sales of beer and Arkansas-brewed wines, tobacco at every damn gas station in the state.

My ancestors were part of the same wave of Swiss/German immigrants who came to Arkansas and found that we had decent places to grow wine grapes. They were also mostly Catholic, so it was kind of important someone started a winery.

[merrily]

86. She's trying to be Bernie Lite.

[moriah]

90. Maybe. More likely, she is actually still a little afraid of cannabis...

... at least when it comes to safety in kids, and probably most concerned about research when it comes to MMJ in children. I don't know if Charlotte's Web and Sanjay Gupta changing his views on MMJ influenced her away from her prior "Don't ask, he didn't inhale", but seeing children who suffered from horrible seizures practically cured when benzos and barbs couldn't stop the seizures... it's been enough to make some states allow importation of CBD oils even though they don't currently have MMJ statutes.

But I do think she recognizes that if the best strains are developed that contain the most pain-killing, anti-nausea, whatever, that opiate use (and the unintentional addiction that can sometimes result from the person with an already addictive personality needing opiates for legitimate reasons) along with the use of either medications that are extremely expensive or can cause tardive dyskinesia with long use can be decreased. And clinical trials with different strains would definitely help MMJ patients know a little better which strains do have the best chance of helping them, rather than just going by user reports and trial and error.

I also suspect she would support alternative administration methods than combustion, because inhaling products of combustion really isn't that good for you. But would that make vape pens have to be regulated by the FDA? Quick, patent your designs, vape developers, so Big Medical Supply has to at least pay you for your ideas or come up with their own designs....

[lancer78]

105. Marijuana does not contain Opiates

Marijuana is also not addictive.

[moriah]

107. Reading comprehension, dude.

... Different strains of cannabis have varying amounts of cannabinoids that affect how they work and which strains work best for the many ailments it helps treat. The Charlotte's Web strain that has been helping kids is high in CBD but not THC, for example.

Among the various things MMJ are used to treat are pain and nausea.

If people use MMJ instead of opiates, less opiates will be prescribed. If they use it instead of expensise Zofran or known-to-cause-tardive-dyskinesia Phenergan, then we save money and people's ability to control their movements.

[Live and Learn]

45. Same here. nt

[frylock]

37. Oh, the humanity.

[Contrary1]

41. That makes us even then.

[TheBlackAdder]

55. Dude. Everytime you post something like that, it seems to drive more donations.

.


Perversely, one might even think that this is your way to support Sanders.


Post a comment like this to spur socialized donations to his campaign without using your own money.


.

[merrily]

89. Ssshhhh.

[trillion]

61. So donate it to someone already getting tens of millions from Wall Street and tell us all how

she's going to help _you_. What is this Dems for the .01%, anyway?

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Thanks for reminding me. I donated 27 for you. The system was down last night due to overload.

[LondonReign2]

93. That's perfectly acceptable. Why would you want to contribute to a Democrat

after all?

[HooptieWagon]

5. My facebook feed is all Bernie.

Zero Hillary. And the handfull of republicans seem more interested in Obama bashing than taking about the GOP candidates.

[Cheese Sandwich]

6. Showing their true colors no doubt.

At least they're honest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Mine has way too many news sites

professional risk I suppose, and local pols...

But the few D insiders locally have not been too happy for a while. To the point I finally unfollowed a local party president. I just could not take it anymore.

But given the rise of a few sites, I expect to see PUMA II soon

[alcibiades_mystery]

11. Anybody who does that is a childish moron

[Nonhlanhla]

13. It's just primary passion talking

I'm less worried about Hillary supporters not voting for Bernie than the other way around. Hillary tends to draw traditional Democrats, i.e., people with party loyalty. The only snag there might be that many Hilary supporters are very hurt by the incredibly negative smear campaign against Hillary that comes from some Bernie supporters (to the point of accusing her of enjoying killing people, etc.), and might not want to support Bernie based on that.

But overall I'd be more worried about some Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary, since it is clear that (a) Bernie draws a lot of non-Democratic types (independents and even Republicans) who do not have much loyalty to the Democratic Party, and (b) some Bernie supporters are clearly more anti-Hillary than anything else.

For now, though, I think it's difficult to really say what any particular person would actually do in November. Passions are running high. By November we'll have had a nominee for several months, the other candidate would have endorsed the winner, we'll have had a convention with all the hooplah, and most importantly of all, we'd have some frightening GOP creature to battle in the general who will make the differences between Hilary and Bernie seem trivial.

Peaceout.

[Glamrock]

16. Agreed

Good analysis!

[DonCoquixote]

17. questiuon to skinner and the powers that be

if people stump for Bloomberg, will they get the usual pizza?

[tkmorris]

18. They damned well better

[moriah]

25. Oh yeah. No doubt on my end.

I'm glad Skinner created DI -- when they get their pizzas here, they can go where they belong.

[Codeine]

34. Of course they would, but it will never, ever happen.

Nobody here is going to stump for Bloomberg.

[merrily]

88. You would have to ask in ATA, I guess?

[BainsBane]

19. I suppose they got the idea

from the countless Sanders supporters saying they wouldn't vote for the Democrat if it isnt Bernie. Seeing that sort of thing thousands of times has an impact.

But don't worry about it. That scenario is unlikely to unfold. I tend to think tonight is the zenith of Bernie's campaign.

[moriah]

28. Especially for the people who supported HRC in 2008 who transferred theirs to Obama...

... we've done it before -- realized that the only real choice in November is to "Vote Democratic -- The Ass You Save May Be Your Own".

[BainsBane]

44. I see nothing comparable about Obama and Sanders

Not in terms of preparedness, intelligence, or seriousness of policy statements.

I do not believe Sanders will be the nominee, and I think that is a very good thing for the country. I simply do not believe him qualified or prepared for the job. I fully expect to be voting for the Democrat in November.

[moriah]

48. Both motivated young people and spoke for change....

... and if Bernie does win the primary there's no doubt Hillary will throw her support to him, as she did for Obama.

If Hillary wins, either he, Elizabeth Warren, or both will be put in charge of the areas they are most passionate about (I could see continuing Warren on consumer advocacy and setting up a separate group headed by Bernie to address corruption and campaign finance reform), if she found someone else who was equally qualified in the Democratic Party she wanted for VP than either -- but Bernie would be a great force directing the Senate and legislation, and can be an attack-dog as is traditional for VPs.

My reasons for supporting Hillary do involve the fact she focuses on more than just one problem with our system. But I think Bernie IS quite intelligent, if unconventional (which isn't a bad thing). I wouldn't mention this on DU if I hadn't already amused myself several times lately explaining to RWers why the yawn story to us now about his 1972 article not only not didn't offend me as a feminist and a Hillary supporter, but that I thought he was pretty correct -- given I had a remarkably similar conversation with a guy 26 years after he wrote it... heh. Explaining it to that particular guy that way amused me even more, because he recently prrsuaded me to attempt a FB friendship (which I agreed to now that he's safely married and out of state).

[BainsBane]

49. Bernie may be intelligent

But his policies proposals are not well-developed. He is, however, a particularly astute politician, particularly when it comes to political slogans.

I would oppose his appointment to anything related to campaign finance reform given that he has played to and perpetuated voters' misinformation on the issue. He has presented the entire issue as about his superior virtue over every other politician, repeated claims about "not having super pacs," all while benefiting more from Super Pac spending that any other candidate in the race.

Not to mention the fact he has repeatedly made false claims about not raising money from Wall Street, when in fact he has helped raise hundreds of thousands from JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and the the like. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/

Besides, a reform of campaign finance depends on the Supreme Court. Giving Bernie some office he can use to shout at the TV cameras day in and day out accomplishes nothing.

[moriah]

56. Since he opened the door to that with his ad campaigns....

... I will say that I have looked over both Bernie and Hillary's OpenSecrets profiles.

You are correct in that an organization currently incorporated as a SuperPAC has spent money to advertise for him, but given that they are a nurses union, it's a little less of a hotbutton than the fact that, on the surface, because Priorities USA has raised a ton of money and has run campaign ads in favor of Hillary (though not anti-Bernie), it looks like Hillary gets a friggin BUTTLOAD from Wall Street.

7 million of that buttload came from George Soros to Priorities USA, which is how he and several other progressive people on Wall St donated for the 2012 election for Obama and seems to be holding on to whatever they raise for the General. But they have spent less on ads for Hillary than the much-smaller nurses SuperPAC has on Bernie. Neither have given directly to either campaign yet.

Without including SuperPACs in Hillary's donor list, it looks like she's at least somewhat right that contributions directly to her campaign are from lawyers, the retired, and that the education sector contributed nearly as much to her as securities/investment groups. Individual large donors do include a major manufacturer of medical supplies, several banks, and a lot of lawyers and law firms. But not Goldman Sachs. (Edit to add: I am still not sure on some of those whether those represent direct donations, or donations from people working for those companies bundled, or both.)

In fact, that page listing all SuperPAC spending shows some very interesting information. The SuperPAC officially endorsing Da Jeb, which is the primary reason he looks like he's way ahead of everyone else in the first link showing bar charts for each candidate as of last filings, is holding back about half its capital to support the GOP nominee, which isn't surprising since they are now so far behind in the polls compared to every other candidate.

The first SuperPAC that *isn't* a labeled Conservative one is running ads purely against Trump.

As far as which PACs are spending money for and against each candidate...

For Hillary, the results show many groups running ads anti and pro, looks like all antis are Conservative and pros aren't also attacking Bernie. Also looks like the largest pro-Clinton ones are holding on to most of their money for the General.

For Bernie, other than a PAC run supporting O'Malley, he has only been targeted so far by a Conservative one that equally spent against Bernie and for a NH Republican candidate. The nurses PAC has spent the most by far, pro-Bernie.

As for him wining and dining donors to get more Democratic Senators elected... really??? Yes, it shows that no politician can stay out of the game entirely. But it's certainly not a reason to whine about him -- me, I'm glad he was doing something to support the party.

[BainsBane]

71. You omit key Super Pacs

spending on Bernie's behalf. GOP outfits, including Karl Rove's American Crossroads: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/

The problem with the disclosure about Bernie raising money from Wall Street donors is that for months he has claimed he does not. That has been a central message of his campaign, only it turns out to be false.

His entire emphasis on himself as a paragon of virtue deliberately trivializes the problem of the campaign finance system to encourage voters to believe that if they only vote for someone pure, with integrity so much greater than anyone else serving in government, that will solve the problem. He isn't pure. He isn't better. The key difference is that he pretends to be above it all, while Clinton talks about the need to change the law without pretending that she doesn't participate in the system--which is in fact the current, which Sanders pretends to be a paragon of virtue, even as he benefits enormously from the rigged system he denounces.

His entire line about "I don't have Super Pacs" plays on the ignorance of the voting public about campaign finance law. (Granted, the law is complicated, so it's not surprising most aren't familiar with it. A politician whose brand is about honesty, however, should inform voters about that law rather than count on their not understanding it). A former staffer runs a Super Pac explicitly organized to promote his candidacy. A current field director runs an authorized PAC. Sanders supporters to this day insist Clinton's campaign contributions come directly from corporations--and they draw on that garbage Open Secrets site to repeat their memes. If I'm to believe Open Secrets, Bernie gets money from the US Postal Service and Universities, which in fact cannot legally contribute to campaigns. It's nonsensical.

I don't like being bullshited. I don't like politicians who pretend they are revolutionaries. I find it the most cynical sort of opportunism. I find him the least credible politician who has run for the Democratic nomination in my lifetime. I have developed a strong dislike him, not only for the reasons above but because of his campaign maneuvers--improperly downloading Clinton campaign data, time and time again using images and logos on mailers without permission, falsifying endorsements, falsifying a list of foreign policy advisors, and his juvenile insult of every civil rights organization that declines to endorse him as "establishment"--this from a man who has been ini federal government for 25 years. True, he stands out from most legislators in what he has gotten passed. He talks continuously about the Veterans bill because it is literally the only legislation (besides naming post offices) he got passed in 25 yrs. So if going to DC and accomplishing little exempts someone from being part of the establishment, so be it.

Insulting Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the Human Rights Council as establishment takes a particular kind of hubris that focuses on self above all else. After the coverage over his dismissive remarks to those organizations, his campaign denounced a young dreamer activist, an undocumented women, in similar terms after she endorsed Clinton. It is clear the definition of establishment for Sanders is those who fail to support him.

I believe any cabinet or administration position should be staffed by the most competent and qualified people available. I can't think of a single area in which that would be him. If Clinton (or Trump or Cruz, should Bernie become the nominee) think otherwise, that's their call.

[moriah]

72. They were labeled in OS on Hillary's side as "anti-Clinton"...

But I recognized that the Conservative SuperPACs were running negative ads against her already, while mostly leaving Bernie alone. And you are correct, as OpenSecrets says down at the bottom now that I read closer, and as I suspected.....

The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so.

I do feel where you're coming from. I hadn't listened to Bernie's post-Iowa speech where he claimed he was "taking on the most powerful political organization in the United States of America" until tonight when people were talking about sore losers -- what, the GOP itself is less powerful than Hillary Clinton? Sounds like an endorsement to me!

I also agree that he was the first to go negative, that Hillary was right to suggest he come right out and say if he's going to use innuendo to attack her during the primaries to come right out and say it. The fact the one speech so far to GS that's been found focused on praising them for empowering women entrepreneurs across the globe, echoing her Beijing speech, suggests that when she does the "big reveal" (doesn't hurt to wait and let people make much ado about what you know is nothing) and we see the rest are similar there will be egg on many faces.

But ethical question for you: if Hillary can accept speaking fees from large banks, and the charitable foundation her family started can accept donations, without that meaning she's bought and paid for....

Is it really his fault that Rove is trying to influence the election against Hillary? Must they be in collusion, too, like people continuously accuse Hillary of accepting donations and speaking fees quid-pro-quo?

[noiretextatique]

95. Why must you blame everthing on Bernie Sanders supporters?

Do Clinton supporters have free will, or the ability to make choices? Or are they just slaves to the whims of Bernie Sanders' supporters?

[moriah]

20. Tell those fucktards to fuck off because they aren't really Dems.

I am a proud Hillary supporter, in both 2008 and now. She's never gotten money from me, I save what few dollars I have for general elections. But I did a LOT of phonebanking.... both for Hillary before the writing was on the wall, then took a breather, signed up to make GE calls for Obama, and started donating my money as well as my time.

But I don't want to see PUMAs or BERNouts, and honestly think anyone who would vote third party or sit at home in November doesn't understand our current political system being so locked-in to a two-party system that while in the Primary you vote your conscience, but in the General Election you vote for the lesser of the two evils.

DU understands this, and when this forum closes and it's Rally Around the Nominee time, at least those people won't be participating in discourse here, and will go back to DI where they probably really belong.

[PatrickforO]

27. Well, the Clinton campaign just released that four page memo about how

they'll scrape enough delegates together anyway. Maybe people are jumping ship a bit early?

[beam me up scottie]

29. Totally believable since quite a few said they wouldn't vote for Bernie here.

[senz]

33. And yet they constantly subject Bernie supporters to the litmus test.

I suppose we could do it back to them but it's so despicable I doubt many of us could stomach it.

[beam me up scottie]

35. A lot of them went back and deleted their posts.

And you're right, I won't ask for a loyalty pledge either since I resent it so much when they do it.

[senz]

36. Got scared, eh?

Sometimes this place reminds me of a petri dish.

[senz]

30. Third Way/DLC/Blue Dog Dems are Republicans. Period.

[moriah]

42. That's the attitude that helped lose five people who nearly always caucused D...

... in Congress, from my own state alone.

Bernie is calling for a "50-state strategy", which means realizing that while in the South I might as well be one of the most Liberal Liberals Who Ever Libbed for my gun control views...

Elsewhere, the fact I merely want to:

1) Change the definition of "private party seller" back to number of guns per year sold, vs percentage of total income that person derives from gun sales (I say the early definition, 4 guns per year, is right, but am willing to compromise on that up to 10)

2) Find a way to define which dealers should be required to obtain their own FFL license vs partner with a currently-licensed FFL by how much it costs to get set up to do it themselves vs paying the FFL to be the intermediary (as is required for all interstate gun purchases already)

3) Give a presumption of innocence to the true "private party seller" doing an intrastate gun sale (as happens daily on GunsList, which might as well be the largest online gun show in the world) that if they voluntarily agree to use a local FFL as the intermediary and that gun is later used in a crime (that must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence they assisted in defrauding the background check process)

4) Find a way to prevent gun suicides by people who don't already own guns by creating waiting periods of at least 3 business days for people who don't already have a CHL (suggesting they already have access to a firearm) and/or have a police report or restraining order in place against someone for domestic abuse or stalking them when they come to purchase the firearm, or for sales/loans to close family members if the seller will take personal responsibility for what happens with that gun.... and

5) Demand states come up with legislation to define "criminal negligence with a firearm involving a preschool-aged child", and offer matching funds to law enforcement, the NRA, or anyone else who will commit to ensuring the Eddie Eagle rules are taught to every kindergartener in the US and a refresher given for grades 1-3 (or 1-5-6 if that school does go that high in grade level, some with kindergartens are merely primary schools rather than elementary schools.

Suggests I might as well be a Republican.


Edit: I would name the act the "Rights Create Responsibilities Act".... and here's the Eddie Eagle video currently out from the NRA. I see strong signs that despite being mostly supported by Republicans, the organization itself realizes that gun safety is FAR more important than their constituents cries of "Speak American or Go Home" (which really means speak some Native American language).

[senz]

46. DLC/Third Way/Blue Dog describes "fiscal" conservatives.

It's a blend of corporate interests with social liberalism. It's not related to the gun issue.

Beyond sensible laws of the type Bernie supports, I'm basically neutral on guns. I have never owned or fired one and don't find them the least bit interesting but grew up around them and thought nothing of it. I cannot see the use of denying sane people the right to have them, but it's not a "hot" issue for me, one way or the other. All of your ideas sound fine.

[AZ Progressive]

64. They hijacked the party and its time to kick them out!

[merbex]

31. My HRC Facebook friends are in hiding - haven't seen them in hours n/t

[GoneOffShore]

39. The PUMA's are back.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

52. They never left.

[MisterP]

40. they've backed Lieberman over Lamont more than half as long as they've blamed Nader

for every IDF and US bumbershoot the Dems roaringly supported

[Samantha]

43. Makes a lot of sense - he is a billionaire who wants to buy the White House for himself

so Sanders cannot present a threat to him and his ilk "having it all."

This is really one thing that bothers me about Tennesseans. They often vote against their own best interests. And I say this as a person who is from Tennessee. I have a lot of family still there.

Sam

[TransitJohn]

47. Of course they will

Some will even vote for Trump. They're conservative.

[joshcryer]

51. PUMAs are pathetic.

That includes the pathetic Sanders "supporters" who wouldn't vote for Clinton if she was the nominee.

[Maedhros]

53. I can't fault them for it. If they believe Bloomberg better represents their values,

then I can't argue with them voting according to their convictions.

[rbrnmw]

58. that's suicide no way in hell I would do it

the Democratic nominee gets this gal's vote

[littlebit]

65. Well I am a Hillary supporter

who has given close to the max to her campaign so far. But if Bernie Sanders is the nominee I will not only vote for him but also give just as much to him as I did Clinton. I also will not openly bash him on this forum or anywhere else. Because at the end of the day just because I like one more than the other doesn't mean I think the other is horrible.

[moriah]

73. Wish I had the money to give you a heart for that.

I can't afford to donate usually until the GE, if at all.

But I try to donate time. And did for Obama in 2008 after doing it for Hillary.

[littlebit]

76. Thanks

I wish I had the time to volunteer. I had a lot of fun and met some great people doing it in 2008. But I am working so much right now I don't have a lot of free time.

[Duppers]

66. Are most of your FB friends in TN?

Just wondering. I've family there.

[socialist_n_TN]

99. Not really. My FB "friends" are world-wide........

Being a Classic Red I'm tied into a lot of commie networks and people.

[Duppers]

102. :)

Cool. Hope you didn't take my question to be disparaging.

My Chinese friends are blocked from FB. Really.

[socialist_n_TN]

112. Nope, not at all.........

I generally take posts as they appear, with rare exceptions. And I don't consider the Chinese Communist Party as Classic Red. I'm a Trotskyist, yes a REAL socialist.

[Duppers]

113. You got that right.

They're not, with rare exceptions. Their govt sucks and as a society, they're the biggest laissez-faire capitalists ever, destroying anything that they please and that makes them money.

My family and I have friends there whom we met in Cambridge and have made a couple of trips there to visit them. Long story.

[Recursion]

70. And, this is the downside of a coalition (nt)

[merrily]

78. PUMAs, 2016 edition.

[stillwaiting]

82. These are the same people that scream SOCIAL ISSUES to so many of us

when we don't get the economic policies we favor acted on.

They are not my allies.

If we become truly progressive again, many Republicans and independents will come to the Democratic Party, and they can go make the Republican Party more sane on social issues. They clearly favor their precious more than equality, fairness, and even the overall health and well-being of the fucking planet.

If their taxes are raised per Bernie's stated policies they will still be taxed at MUCH lower rates than they were in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and they will still be extremely wealthy. Truly disgusting.

[LondonReign2]

92. Third Wayers aren't Democrats, so no way would they vote for an

actual Democrat.

[bunnies]

94. On Ari Rabinhavt's show this morning - one actually said she'd vote for Kasich.

Puma part 2.

[JPnoodleman]

98. Okay to be fair....

Plenty of Sanders supporters also might not support HRC assuming she is the nominee.

I am definitely a Bernie supporter but that is a bit of an unfair accusation.

[socialist_n_TN]

100. Not really an accusation. Merely an observation......

The only thing that could be considered an accusation was the part of the OP about raking Nader over the coals for electing Bush by running as a third party candidate and now they're threatening to do the same. This same FB friend has said as much about Nader and third party candidate in the past and now she's threatening the same thing. That's hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

106. Anybody who Thinks Bloomberg has a rats chance in hell

Of becoming President is clearly off their meds & they're basically trolling for attention. They're basically attempting to spoil the Election.

[Zorra]

108. These very same *Reagan Democrats* fucked up the entire world for everyone,

including themselves.

[MineralMan]

114. OK. I've seen nothing of the sort.

[socialist_n_TN]

115. OK. My OP was merely a personal observation about MY FB feed.......

But Bloomberg WILL run if Bernie and Trump are the nominees. I'm sure he gets behind the Republican if someone other than Trump is nominated.

But HRC supporters need to relax. She WILL be the nominee.

[LanternWaste]

117. a post containing multiple replies stating they won't vote for the Democratic candidate should it be

On DU - GDP we have a post containing multiple replies stating they won't vote for the Democratic candidate should it not be Sanders.

No doubt, many half-wits, buffoons and idiots will imply by the sin of relevant omission, that the action is entertained by merely one faction (e.g., Third Way Dems), but an objective and honest assessment illustrates quite differently.

I suppose our examples differ only in that yours is alleged, while yet the other may easily be found on page one of General Discussion: Primaries. However, I'm quite certain that those posts will be rationalized as something other than what they are-- bias requires such creative contrivances.