2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie says he would have only one litmus test for a SCOTUS nominee: Must oppose Citizen United.
Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 12:43 AM - Edit history (4)
Jon Ralston
?@RalstonReports
Bernie says on #RalstonLive he would have only one litmus test for a SCOTUS nominee: Must oppose Citizens United.
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/699772812500729857
Senator, what about a woman's right to choose? What about protecting marriage equality? What about protecting workers right? This is why he is being labeled as a single issue candidate.
edit- Posters bring up a good point. What about the voting rights act?
Update: hat tip to bettyellen. Here's the link to the video. His remarks starts at 17:20 http://watch.knpb.org/video/2365669386/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)he failed that test
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
By John Wagner
Here’s a look at the issues Sanders covered:
1. Universal health care. Sanders backs a single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” system, saying that “America must join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care for all."
2. Federal intervention in Flint, Mich. Sanders condemns the water contamination crisis, saying it is stunting children's development. He calls for the resignation of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and says: “If the local government cannot protect those children, if the state government cannot protect those children, then the federal government better get in.”
3. Minimum wage. Sanders calls the current federal rate of $7.25 “a starvation wage” and says it should be raised to $15 an hour.
4. Wealth inequality. Sanders decries the disparity between families like the Waltons, who own Walmart, and most Americans. He has offered several changes to the tax code to address the gap.
5. Jail population. Sanders noted that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world and says that will no longer be the case if he is president.
6. Planned Parenthood funding. While Republicans want to “defund” the women’s health organization, which has been caught up in a controversy over abortion services, Sanders wants to expand its funding.
7. Same-sex marriage. Sanders pledges to protect new rights in all 50 states for gay couples to marry.
8. Paid family and medical leave. Sanders wants to guarantee three months of paid leave after the birth of a child.
9. Federal jobs program. Sanders wants to spend $1 trillion to create 13 million jobs to “rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”
10. Child care. Sanders wants to invest more money to create a “world-class” child-care system.
11. Trade policy. Sanders cites his past opposition to NAFTA and other “disastrous” deals and vows to fight the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership being championed by President Obama.
12. Prosecute Wall Street offenders. Sanders bemoans how financial giants like Goldman Sachs could pay a $5 billion settlement for fraudulent behavior without any of its executives going to jail.
13. Marijuana policy. Sanders wants to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of dangerous drugs and allow states to decide whether to legalize possession without intervention by Washington.
14. Voting rights. Sanders opposes efforts by Republican governors to impose additional barriers to voting, says those who do should “get another job.”
Sanders hopes Obama brings forth a strong Supreme Court nominee
Play Video0:53
15. Supreme Court appointment. With a vacancy created by the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Sanders urges Republicans to “obey the Constitution” and consider for confirmation any nominee put forward by President Obama.
16. Campaign finance reform. Sanders wants the Supreme Court to overturn the Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited campaign contributions. He says that would be a litmus test for any new justice he appoints.
17. Free college tuition. Sanders calls for making tuition free at public universities and colleges and says lower interest rates should be available for those who currently have debt for “the crime of getting a college education.”
18. Tax on Wall Street speculation. Sanders proposes a tax on Wall Street trades, saying it’s the financial sector’s turn to help out the middle class after being bailed out by taxpayers after the 2008 meltdown.
19. Climate change. Sanders says policymakers have a “moral obligation” to curb emissions contributing to the warming of the planet.
20. Iraq war. Sanders argues that the U.S. invasion destabilized the Middle East and says his 2002 vote against it shows his judgment on foreign policy. He also argues that if the country can spend so much on the war, it can invest in other priorities at home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/09/29/hillary_clinton_i_could_compromise_on_abortion_if_it_included_exceptions_for_mothers_health.html
HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.
riversedge
(70,307 posts)misinformed opine.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)It has a ring of truth, so he hasn't been able to get away from it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Since that is not the case, I think we facts-based voters should be careful paying attention to her labeling. Of course, some of us are not facts-based voters.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Bernie said this in an interview on Vegas PBS with Ralston.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Here;s a link to Bernie saying it- curious who you claimed lied about this?
http://watch.knpb.org/video/2365669386/
brush
(53,876 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)This is not a single issue country.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)What good are voting rights when the entire election system is rigged by the money interests?
Like Republicans, Hillary needs big money in order to stay viable as a candidate.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)She and Citizens United are embroiled in a law suit. She has no love for them and will fight to demolish them via a judge pick and even invoked Constitutional measures....which Bernie picked up on a couple of weeks later and spouted the same.
Sept, 2015
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-long-time-democracy-killing-nemesis-citizens-united.html
· Overturning Citizens United by appointing Supreme Court Justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections, and by pushing for a Constitutional amendment to allow common sense rules to protect against undue influence from special interests and restore the role of average voters in elections.
· Ending Secret, Unaccountable Money in Politics by pushing for legislation to require public disclosure of significant political spending, and, until Congress acts, promoting SEC rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders and signing an Executive Order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending.
· Amplifying the Voices of Everyday Americans by establishing a small donor matching system for presidential and congressional candidates that will incentivize small donors to participate in elections and candidates to spend more time engaging a broad, representative cross-section of constituents.
Response to Sheepshank (Reply #32)
Sheepshank This message was self-deleted by its author.
Gothmog
(145,619 posts)The only way to get rid of Citizens United is to make sure that a Democrat wins in 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/14/hillary-clintons-litmus-test-for-supreme-court-nominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/
Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.
Clinton's emphatic opposition to the ruling, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on independent political activity, garnered the strongest applause of the afternoon from the more than 200 party financiers gathered in Brooklyn for a closed-door briefing from the Democratic candidate and her senior aides, according to some of those present.
"She got major applause when she said would not name anybody to the Supreme Court unless she has assurances that they would overturn" the decision, said one attendee, who, like others, requested anonymity to describe the private session.
If the make-up of the court does not change by 2017, four of the justices will be 78 years of age or older by the time the next president is inaugurated.
Clinton’s pledge to use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees echoes the stance taken by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is challenging her for the Democratic nomination.
If the Democrats nominate a candidate who is not viable in the general election, then the GOP will control the direction of the SCOTUS for a generation and Citizens United will indeed be locked in. Right now, it would take the swing of one justice to get rid of CU
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Empowerer
(3,900 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)If Big Money Can Buy Politicians, They Will Always Dance To Big Money's Tune.
Why do Republicans refuse scientist's conclusions on Climate Change ???
Big Coal, Big Oil, etc...
Why did the Public Option get defeated in the run up to the ACA ???
Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Hospitals, etc...
Follow the money.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)fyi.
Follow the money...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)a lot of issues in DC are now controlled by the masters of the universe, and money in politics. This includes women's reproductive rights...
And not just DC... why things like what CA if attempting to do, to bring transparency, are critical. Money is a huge corrupting influence in the United States and abroad, we are not exceptional.
here you go
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/11/11/legal-wrap-dark-money-in-politics-is-bad-for-reproductive-rights/
http://www.pfaw.org/category/topics/reproductive-rights
You can go argue this point with these two organizations for starters.
Hmm, perhaps that is a story idea. After all, I will not blame you if you have no clue. This is an aspect that has been poorly covered by the DC press.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Our risks are every bit at risk from the SC as they are from "dark money"- they supply the challenges to the court, but
we supply the SC judges who protect out rights.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I am reading that as taking out of the system what is corrupting the system and putting many things at risk, including women's reproductive rights.
This is like the doctor telling you that you have stage four cancer and you want him to just cure you from the cold.
I have heard this analogy by the way, from common cause activists. They put it this way. until we cure the cancer. a lot of the fights are effectively lost. And that includes reproductive rights.
As I said, go correct them. I am sure they will gladly educate you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)go under the bus because a man made "cancer" called greed exists. We can do BOTH.
One litmus test is asinine, and insulting to women. Bernie will walk this back within 48 hours. He must or he is toast.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I gave you links.
More than attempt to educate I cannot do
And with that, I am trashing this whole stupid discussion.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I suspect they got their finger on the pulse...since that is all they do. As I said, I am not going to be lectured...have a great night
Trashed thread
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)without them, we are screwed. So I really cannot argue with them, because they agree with me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of course. 
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)fo many years- and no amount of money can fix that or undo it.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)earthshine
(1,642 posts)It's a matter of perspective, isn't it?
A black man being shot by the police is not worried about reproductive rights.
Have yourself a nice self-centered day.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)ever be out there advocating in great numbers. When it comes to their wallets now they are out in droves in the name of "fairness"- more income- for them.
So spare me your guilt trip.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)No guilt trip is intended. What a stupid thing to say.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)selfish for a woman (who cannot have children) to want other women to have their free choice. I think women's basic rights are long overdue, and more important to society in general than your concerns.
Women and babies are the most impoverished segment of our society, because women's work has always been extremely under compensated. What you think of as my selfishness has at it's heart, grave concerns about how our society economically exploits women due to their vulnerability when they do not have the freedom of choice.
earthshine
(1,642 posts)Lighten up, Betty. I'm much more on your side than that for which you give me credit, but there are other issues at play.
Reproductive rights are women's rights. Women's rights are human rights. And we can lose all our rights, one at a time, in a fascist future.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)@ about 17:20
http://watch.knpb.org/video/2365669386/
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Response to bettyellen (Reply #18)
Live and Learn This message was self-deleted by its author.
oasis
(49,410 posts) The grind of the campaign is wearing him down.bettyellen
(47,209 posts)One litmus test is all he cares about the USSC? We could be filling 3 seats. Nope.
oasis
(49,410 posts) bettyellen
(47,209 posts)cannot believe I am reading DUers say that. Nope.
oasis
(49,410 posts)to expand his message to include other important issues. His staple has always been speaking out against corruption and economic inequality. I guess he was so tired during the interview, he fell back into his original material.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)he should not need to retract the statement.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)and speaking for myself, I just assume that Bernie would select an SCJ who would also defend those beliefs. But I suppose when you're really insecure about your candidate's stances on any given day, you need these constant affirmations that they'll adhere to traditional Democratic values.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)any and all Dem candidates as a significant issue. Bernie has hedged before in front of the firemen's group.
ecstatic
(32,733 posts)So he means it when he says that's his main issue. In previous interviews, he's been clear that Citizens United would be the first task he'd work on if elected. That's what he'd use his mandate to tackle. Sorry to the suckers out there who thought it would be healthcare.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)To walk and chew bubblegum at the same time
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)· Overturning Citizens United by appointing Supreme Court Justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections, and by pushing for a Constitutional amendment to allow common sense rules to protect against undue influence from special interests and restore the role of average voters in elections.
· Ending Secret, Unaccountable Money in Politics by pushing for legislation to require public disclosure of significant political spending, and, until Congress acts, promoting SEC rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders and signing an Executive Order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending.
· Amplifying the Voices of Everyday Americans by establishing a small donor matching system for presidential and congressional candidates that will incentivize small donors to participate in elections and candidates to spend more time engaging a broad, representative cross-section of constituents.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Sanders takes dead aim on Citizens United ruling
Any nominee he’d ever make to the Supreme Court would need to be opposed to it.
By Eliza Collins
05/10/15 12:33 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bernie-sanders-takes-dead-aim-on-citizens-united-ruling-117792
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)The article was posted Sept 2015
w4rma
(31,700 posts)lying.
There is not one single issue that Citizen's United and billionaire donor money doesn't corrupt. Nothing. Fix this and every other issue gets easier to tackle.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Here’s a look at the issues Sanders covered:
1. Universal health care. Sanders backs a single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” system, saying that “America must join the rest of the industrialized world and provide health care for all."
2. Federal intervention in Flint, Mich. Sanders condemns the water contamination crisis, saying it is stunting children's development. He calls for the resignation of Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) and says: “If the local government cannot protect those children, if the state government cannot protect those children, then the federal government better get in.”
3. Minimum wage. Sanders calls the current federal rate of $7.25 “a starvation wage” and says it should be raised to $15 an hour.
4. Wealth inequality. Sanders decries the disparity between families like the Waltons, who own Walmart, and most Americans. He has offered several changes to the tax code to address the gap.
5. Jail population. Sanders noted that the United States has the largest incarcerated population in the world and says that will no longer be the case if he is president.
6. Planned Parenthood funding. While Republicans want to “defund” the women’s health organization, which has been caught up in a controversy over abortion services, Sanders wants to expand its funding.
7. Same-sex marriage. Sanders pledges to protect new rights in all 50 states for gay couples to marry.
8. Paid family and medical leave. Sanders wants to guarantee three months of paid leave after the birth of a child.
9. Federal jobs program. Sanders wants to spend $1 trillion to create 13 million jobs to “rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”
10. Child care. Sanders wants to invest more money to create a “world-class” child-care system.
11. Trade policy. Sanders cites his past opposition to NAFTA and other “disastrous” deals and vows to fight the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership being championed by President Obama.
12. Prosecute Wall Street offenders. Sanders bemoans how financial giants like Goldman Sachs could pay a $5 billion settlement for fraudulent behavior without any of its executives going to jail.
13. Marijuana policy. Sanders wants to remove marijuana from the federal government’s list of dangerous drugs and allow states to decide whether to legalize possession without intervention by Washington.
14. Voting rights. Sanders opposes efforts by Republican governors to impose additional barriers to voting, says those who do should “get another job.”
Sanders hopes Obama brings forth a strong Supreme Court nominee
Play Video0:53
15. Supreme Court appointment. With a vacancy created by the unexpected death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Sanders urges Republicans to “obey the Constitution” and consider for confirmation any nominee put forward by President Obama.
16. Campaign finance reform. Sanders wants the Supreme Court to overturn the Citizens United decision, which allows unlimited campaign contributions. He says that would be a litmus test for any new justice he appoints.
17. Free college tuition. Sanders calls for making tuition free at public universities and colleges and says lower interest rates should be available for those who currently have debt for “the crime of getting a college education.”
18. Tax on Wall Street speculation. Sanders proposes a tax on Wall Street trades, saying it’s the financial sector’s turn to help out the middle class after being bailed out by taxpayers after the 2008 meltdown.
19. Climate change. Sanders says policymakers have a “moral obligation” to curb emissions contributing to the warming of the planet.
20. Iraq war. Sanders argues that the U.S. invasion destabilized the Middle East and says his 2002 vote against it shows his judgment on foreign policy. He also argues that if the country can spend so much on the war, it can invest in other priorities at home.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/16/single-issue-candidate-bernie-sanders-touches-on-20-issues-during-a-michigan-campaign-stop/
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)He's a single issue candidate.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)in identity politics and the politics of personal destruction. She isn't better on any single issue than Sanders is.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I am glad my party has support for me in it's platform.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)earthshine
(1,642 posts)She makes great points -- important ones -- but she appears to have no other concerns.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)about abortion rights. You want to gamble on the assumption- go ahead. I will not allow it.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Why would I be okay with them for doing that?
I am not supporting a republican, so have no idea what your point is.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)had only one.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)*any* litmus tests.
Neoliberals are a very confused group of people.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Unlike people here trying to say he was as corrupt as Bush. WTF is this crap coming from? It is ridiculous already.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Because if a justice announces in advance how they will vote, the can't rule on the case.
The way a president who understands the courts deals with such issues is to examine and discuss legal philosophies underlying certain contentious issues, but to insist on such a declaration renders the justice unable to hear the case. He is in effect promising to appoint judges who are disqualified from ruling on the issue, thereby greater empowering the longer serving justices.
How can someone be in DC 25 years and on the senate yet not figure this out? How many confirmation hearings have we watched where they decline to offer opinions in order not to face a future conflict of interest? This highlights why we need a president who knows what she is doing.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification
No, your statement doesn't qualify as a "conflict of interest".
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Prior rulings and public statements saying how they will vote in advance constitute conflict of interest. Have you ever listened to a judge's confirmation hearing? They steadfastly refuse to make such declarations. That is why they talk about, for example, their philosophy about a constitutional right to privacy rather than promising to protect abortion rights.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)In most American jurisdictions a judge may only be disqualified “for cause.” In other words, a person who would like a new judge to preside over her case is required to show either that a basis for disqualification exists that is expressly enumerated in A disqualification statute; or that, for some other reason, a reasonable person would question the judge’s ability to be impartial in the case.
http://www.judicialrecusal.com/grounds-for-recusal/
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)of Senators asking, and nominees responding to, questions. It reveals a usual practice of nominees
declining to respond to committee questions seeking their views about current legal or
constitutional issues. Notable in this regard were the 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearings
for nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, Judge
Ginsburg articulated a limit on what the Senators could expect their questioning to elicit from her,
stating she would be constrained, when responding to questions, from providing any “previews,”
“hints,” or “forecasts” of how she as a Justice might cast her vote on issues coming before the
Court: These limits subsequently came to be known informally as the “Ginsburg Rule,” standing
for the principle—invoked frequently by later Court nominees—that nominees should not, in
replying to questions from Judiciary Committee members, disclose their personal views or
opinions on issues if there were a possibility the issues in the future would come before the Court.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41300.pdf
The paper goes on to describe it as the norm. That is why we hear it dozens of times in every confirmation hearing.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)But, nothing in your paper talks about "recusals". So, I'm glad you are backing off your misstatement on that subject.
As a side note, despite it being a good general rule to follow, that's also a relatively new rule (and not a law), having been in place since 1993.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)You didn't see the word recuse and decided against even trying to read for meaning. While you are fixated on a definition of a word that you strangely insist is limited by a single entry in wikipedia, I was talking about the issue of supreme court justices being eligible to rule on controversial cases. Clearly you aren't interested in that, the way the court works, or in having a justice who could rule on campaign finance. That is entirely your problem. Since I do not share the determination that issues pale in comparison to rather sad efforts to hold up the infallibility of a member of the political elite, there is no point in our discussing this or anything else further.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)One more reason not to vote for him. Human rights trumps everything else as far as I'm concerned.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)Neoliberals are a confused set of people.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)w4rma
(31,700 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But that isn't really what we are concerned about.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)would ensure they would vote against Citizens United.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to cantbeserious (Reply #77)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I don't. I think Obama knew that they were liberals and interviewed them in a more general way.
I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, but if the situation were reversed and Hillary Clinton said that her one litmus test was whatever, I wouldn't interpret that to mean that she won't nominate liberals.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)so disingenuous...
A few things... to say, that income inequality is a term, by any stretch of the imagination, that can be classified as a "single issue", is misinformed at best, dishonest most likely... All one has to do is live life to understand how the lack of income and or wealth touches every single aspect of ones life...ponder that for a minute and then repeat the hillary catch phrase that income inequality is a single issue. And now think about it on a political macro level.. If one donor (a Koch brother) can donate 500 million or a billion dollars.. who do you think can influence our legislatures more (they buy the ones they prefer).. Then these bought politicians vote and regulate according to the masters will....I mean the Koch brother doesn't donate that money just for kicks.. Does it remain a single issue? The laws these bought politicians legislate surely affect American lives across the compete spectrum of "issues"
Having said all that.. this line of attack is dishonest on its face because Bernie talks about a wide spectrum of issue. If your actually interested and not just campaigning for hillary then check out all the facts about Bernie's stance on issues that matter to all of us.. and the future health of our Democracy
http://feelthebern.org/
and/or watch this..
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)It would mean that Hillary could no longer receive most of her money from dark sources, lobbyists, and men in shadows that don't have to reveal their names. She is addicted to Corporate cash, we wouldn't want to end that very lucrative stream of revenue for her.
Thank Gawd for citizens united! It allowed Hillary to not only purchase David Brock as her unethical attack dog, she even found a way to break the law that disallows such dark money PACS from coordinating directly with a campaign.
I am not surprised, she has raised so much money because of citizen United, she proves to her corporate people every day that she earns it from them. Now she not only has the money to run a dirty Republican style campaign, she appears to have enough left over to buy the DLC and enough super-delegates to win an undemocratic brokered convention that just laughs at the voters choice and then appoints her.
Way to go!
I always knew you would never let ethics get in the way of your shared obsession with her that she has with becoming the President, just to become the President, ethics are something her supporters view as a weakness it would appear, an obstacle to that singular obsession.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)What I find most admirable is the way she walks the talk and proves it by not milking CU for all it's worth, just like Sanders, she obviously leads by example and as such is ever so sincere this time, really, this time she really really means it!
actually her latest position is She’ll push for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United in order to restore the role of everyday voters in elections. but I am sure she held the other position as well, and maybe even others during secret meetings with her CU goldmine donors behind closed doors during Goldmine Sachs speeches. She will have to appoint judges as well as get super majority approval and states approval to do that so, I guess she can hold several positions at once while continuing to "lead by example".
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)riversedge
(70,307 posts)Denise C. ?@HawaiiDelilah 4h4 hours ago
@RalstonReports Doesn't Roe v Wade matter too? How about Voting Rights Act?
6 retweets 12 likes
Carlos Aguilar ?@ceaguila 5h5 hours ago
@RalstonReports Important issue but with abortion and immigration in dangers, that's disappointing..single issue candidate
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)2. A test that uses a single indicator to prompt a decision: "The word 'hopefully' has become the litmus test to determine whether one is a language snob or a language slob" (William Safire).
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/litmus+test
randome
(34,845 posts)There should be NO litmus test for a SC justice. That's the 'beauty' of the system, you pick someone you think is qualified and see what he/she does, not 'stack the deck' whenever you get the chance.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
