Is anyone beginning to notice the trend with Sanders?

[Renew Deal]

He says one thing publicly and something else privately. I hope there's not a 47% style video out there.

[Scootaloo]

1. Such as...?

I've noticed that Clinton supporters like making unsubstantiated claims and then vanish when called on it.

[DJ13]

3. +1

over and over and over

[Renew Deal]

4. Wanting more debates.

Apologizing for the intrusion when he didn't mean it. Saying that no one cares about emails then saying it should be investigated. Saying he opposes regime change in Libya after voting for it. And there's plenty more.

[Live and Learn]

8. Voting for the IWR and then saying you hadn't read it.

Oops, not Bernie.

[BlueCaliDem]

56. Voting to give Cheney and Bush a blank check to invade any country they please

and then sanctimoniously say you're against the War in Iraq?

Oops. Not Hillary.

[restorefreedom]

72. you mean voting to fund the TROOPS that bush and hillary already sent to war.

you're welcome for the clarification

[MADem]

156. No--a continuing resolution would pay those troops at the last year's level without an 'up' vote on

funding a war for another FY. That assertion is just not supported. They'd still get paid. They won't get their Cost-of-Living-Adjustment in the New Year, though, but they'd get their money, and the Services would get the same dough they got the previous year.

Oh, we have to buy all these new weapons or the troops don't get supper, is a complete and total cop-out. Trying to pretend that the troops would be "abandoned" if Bernie didn't vote for more war -- like there's no other option--is just fake/phony/not true.

[okasha]

207. Defunding the war would be quite simple.

Pass legislation that will provide for:

1, Food for all military and associated personnel;

2, Medical care likewise.

3. Self-defense and security likewise.

4, Transportation for all military and associated personnel and materiel back to the US.

It's not a choice between continued slaughter and "abandoning the troops. " Sanders' hands are as bloody as anyone else's.

[MADem]

208. You don't even have to do that--just do what always is done when the budget isn't resolved...

Pass a continuing resolution. We do this all the time. In fact, in recent decades, it's the paradigm, not the exception when the two sides are fighting over appropriations.

That funds all of the things you mentioned, in fact, it funds EVERYTHING--at LAST YEAR's levels.

No extras, no new expenditures. No abandoning of troops, either. That whole false construct is a terrible canard, anyway--anyone who has spent five minutes in general proximity of Congress and the budget process knows better, too.

I just don't understand why the Sanders people continually trot that shit out like it's a believable argument, when in fact, it is like a red flag that they're talking from, well, "a place of no understanding," to put it politely. They might as well wear a sign that says "I proudly do not comprehend how the Congressional budgetary process works" and be done with it.

[okasha]

211. They keep trotting it out

because there is no rational defense of Sanders' "opposition" to the war in the face of his continuing willingness to support it by paying for it. Apparently the cognitive dissonance is quite uncomfortable for them.

[MADem]

215. I know--and the whole "drone attitude" is a new look, too.

Lockheed Martin makes those, too...!

[restorefreedom]

212. a funding vote and a aumf vote are not the same

they can support the same operation, but bernie did NOT vote for the iraq war, no matter how many times people try and suggest he did.

[MADem]

214. He voted against the war when he knew his vote would not matter even slightly.

He voted to fund the war when he didn't want to disappoint his pals at Lockheed Martin!

[restorefreedom]

216. agree to disagree, although i am not particularly a fan

of any vote for LM, i do believe he took a principled stand against the iraq war for reasons that had nothing to do with political calculus or contracts but for reasons of conscience.

happy new year, MADem

[George II]

132. THAT is one that he and his supporters don't want mentioned.

[beam me up scottie]

134. That he voted to support my brother after Hillary voted to send him to Iraq?

I'm proud Bernie didn't abandon the troops.

What kind of person would vote to withhold support?

[tecelote]

201. +1

He's also a champion of veterans.

[beam me up scottie]

202. Yes, he always was.

Bernie Sanders’ surge is partly fueled by veterans

[beam me up scottie]

135. You mean he voted to keep the troops fed, clothed and protected.

The troops Hillary voted to send to die in the desert for oil.

There, fixed that for you.

[MADem]

157. A continuing resolution does that--no need to vote for more war.

There--fixed THAT for you.

[beam me up scottie]

158. Lol! Nice try. Bernie didn't vote for "more war" in Iraq. There, fixed that for you.

No matter how hard you guys try you can't blame him for Iraq.

It just looks foolish and desperate.

I understand though, backing the war hawk is tough to defend so you need to fling shit at the wall and hope it sticks.

Your candidate lied to get us into Iraq and called what we did there a "gift" to the Iraqi people.

She owned up to it, it's time you did the same.

Bernie was right.

[MADem]

161. Yes, he did--every time he voted for a Defense Authorization, he voted for "more war."

There--fixed THAT for you.



He wasn't voting for popcorn machines for the troops, doncha know....

[beam me up scottie]

163. Bernie voted against the Iraq war, no amount of spin from Camp Weathervane can change that fact.

There, fixed it permanently.

Before he got in the way of the coronation he was commended for his stand, now he's getting the blame for something he warned us about:

[MADem]

164. The childish "Camp Weathervane" meme again? When that gets rolled out, we

know it's "Desperate Times!"



The fact of the matter is this--and I really don't care that it upsets you--Bernie Sanders voted, again and again, to FUND WAR.

His IWR vote was meaningless, symbolic--easy to do, because it did not matter and he knew it.

But he voted FOR war, and every year he did, he grew closer and closer to his little buddies at Lockheed Martin.



Lockheed Martin Feels The Bern!!!

[beam me up scottie]

166. Awww, you felt the Bern? Here you go:

[Skidmore]

167. Oh, sweet Jesu.

That was childish. Feel better now?

[beam me up scottie]

170. It's supposed to make him feel better. There's plenty for you too, help yourself!

[Skidmore]

171. No, thanks. I don't care for snake oil and quackery.

[beam me up scottie]

172. Then you're voting for the wrong candidate. "Cut it out" isn't magic juju, it didn't work.

She did manage to help sell the Iraq war and DOMA though.

[Skidmore]

173. I'm voting for the candidate of my choosing and for

my own reasons. I am satisfied with my choice and if I want your opinion on my choice, I'll ask for it. I don't recall doing so. I hope you are having a great New Year's Day.

Bye.

[beam me up scottie]

174. If you don't want to hear opinions from other people don't respond to them.

And I don't need your permission to post, it's an open board.

[Skidmore]

177. I guess that cuts both ways.

Doesn't it?

[beam me up scottie]

179. Except I wasn't the one who said "if I want your opinion on my choice, I'll ask for it"

You responded to me first, remember?

I repeat, if you don't want to hear other's opinions don't engage them.

[Skidmore]

181. When you post foolishness, expect

people to respond. And that was foolishness. I'll let you know when I'm responding to an opinion.

[beam me up scottie]

182. You were responding to an opinion. And you should really try that Bern cream.

I hear it cures all kinds of ... hurt.

[Skidmore]

183. Frankly, I hear

Preparation H takes care of the bern. You can take that as an opinion if you want. How cute is that?

[beam me up scottie]

184. I was going to suggest you use it for that but you went there first.

Thanks for that!

[Skidmore]

185. See, that Bern cream is not so effective after all.

[beam me up scottie]

186. On the contrary, it worked exactly as advertised. ;)

[Skidmore]

187. Like any

snake oil.

[beam me up scottie]

188. FEEL THAT BERN!

[Skidmore]

189. *snort*

How old are you? I could swear I'm trading banter with my adolescent grandson. I have other things to do now than keep you and your memes entertained.

[beam me up scottie]

191. I change my responses to suit the maturity of my audience.

[Skidmore]

193. I doubt that.

I'd say you are pretty consistent. However, you are doing a fine job keeping this thread kicked.

[beam me up scottie]

196. Keep using that cream, Skidmore. Or learn to enjoy the bern.

[Skidmore]

197. Yup, childish.

Consistently childish.

[beam me up scottie]

200. Just stooping to your level, Skidmore, and responding in kind.

[MADem]

190. You want to hang on to that, I think--you'll need it for the searing you'll be feeling

come Super Tuesday!



Why don't you whip out that rather juvenile "Because Fuck This Shit" meme, too? That one really goes over a treat with the masses!

Bernie Sanders--He's Not For Sale...But he's For RENT! Ask Lockheed Martin!

[beam me up scottie]

192. Aw more hurt. Feel better.

[MADem]

195. You're the one with the supply of soothing creams and childish cartoons--not me!

I think you're the one who needs to "feel better."

And soon, too!

[beam me up scottie]

199. Well with all the hurt around here someone had to do something.

But my work here is done.

[MADem]

204. You're the one repeatedly using the "hurt" word. I think you might want to introspect!

Your "work" here is apparently never done, from what I've seen.

[Live and Learn]

9. Saying they did nothing wrong with emails and then saying it was a mistake.

Oops, not Bernie either.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Oops. Not Hillary, either.

I've noticed you have trouble with comprehensive reading when it come to Hillary Clinton. Why's that, LandL?

[Live and Learn]

10. Claiming to be for the TPP and then against it?

Oops, not Bernie.

[BlueCaliDem]

64. Nope. He does what union bosses tell him...like a good lackey.

He didn't even read the TPP drafts provided to Congress and to which he had access as a Senator before he went running for the mics and teevee cameras to scream that he's against it. How utterly unprofessional and a show of lack of leadership is that?

He was also against the 2006 comprehensive immigration reform bill that had the best chance of passing because the same unions were against it.

Not much of a leader there.

I'd trust President Obama's decisions FAR MORE and FAR QUICKER than some tiny State's Senator's opinions - especially when those opinions are handed to him from union bosses with vested interests, much like laws are handed to Republican politicians by ALEC.

[guillaumeb]

77. What does the DEM in your Du name stand for?

Your statement:

I'd trust President Obama's decisions FAR MORE and FAR QUICKER than some tiny State's Senator's opinions - especially when those opinions are handed to him from union bosses with vested interests, much like laws are handed to Republican politicians by ALEC.

Your comment about "union bosses with vested interests" is standard nonsense from GOP shills who try to portray union WORKERS as the problem, rather than greedy CAPITALISTS.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how this represents a Democratic or progressive view.

And your previous statement on Senatorial access to the TPP drafts indicates perhaps an unawareness that no one, except for the corporate lobbyists who wrote the TPP, had access to the full text and side agreements.

[BlueCaliDem]

99. I really could care less what YOUR standards are to judge what is or what isn't GOP. I've been here

since December 2004. I've proven my Democratic bona fides. You? Not so much. You've only been a DU member since January 2015 - unless, of course, you've been a member before and had been ppr'd and decided to return - which, in that case, is a no-no, according to MIRT rules. I would know.

And your previous statement on Senatorial access to the TPP drafts indicates perhaps an unawareness that no one, except for the corporate lobbyists who wrote the TPP, had access to the full text and side agreements.

Bull. Sanders and all Senators had access to the TPP drafts, but no one was allowed to copy and distribute it. Sanders, however, was too lazy to read them himself and, instead, wanted his staff to - something NO OTHER Senator was allowed, by the way. Elizabeth Warren - loudest and first opponent to the TPP - acquiesced and read it herself...and we didn't hear from her since. But I guess Sanders believes he's special and should receive special treatment.

And it's just another extreme-Left urban legend that "corporate lobbyists wrote the TPP". As msanthrope has tried to explain to another extreme-Libral on this site who was pushing that myth:

Specific language sections have been given to * some industry experts/CEOs because it makes no sense to draft agreements without technical input and support from the very people who will implementing those agreements. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6056629 (*bold mine)

Again, I would trust President Obama before I'd trust a Senator from a tiny State to handle foreign treaties fairly.

What most extreme-Liberals forget is, trade treaties will happen with or without the United States. It's then a decision whether we'd like China to write the rules (considering their horrible labor abuses, not a good idea) for those treaties, or should the United States do it. But trade agreements are going to happen with or without our involvement. President Obama is correct in including the United States and taking the wheel here. Because we DO live in a global economy now, and we want to make sure we get the best deal possible for the United States and for American workers. Period.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. Well Union bashing is a Republican thing

"since December 2004. I've proven my Democratic bona fides."
BlueCaliDem 2004:
"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110

I only post this because you said "since December 2004. I've proven my Democratic bona fides" You put "air quotes" around "married" for gay people and said you'd allow that. Allow. It's unthinkable, the Bible. That's your 2004 stance. This year it's anti Union rhetoric.

[MADem]

159. In 2006, Bernie Sanders said he preferred "civil unions for Vermont."

He didn't want Vermont to have that Massachusetts-style "gay marriage" because he said it would be "too divisive."

So, what were you saying -- "air quotes" and all--about what the mainstream liberal thought was on that topic over a decade ago? It seems that "Bernie" was on that same page as BlueCaliDem, who you accuse of being insufficiently progressive--TWO YEARS LATER. He was a "states rights" kind of guy on that issue who liked those "civil unions" where HE LIVED.

Talk about "Fail."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.

...Sanders is not quite the gay rights visionary his defenders would like us to believe. Sanders did oppose DOMA—but purely on states’ rights grounds. And as recently as 2006, Sanders opposed marriage equality for his adopted home state of Vermont. The senator may have evolved earlier than his primary opponents. But the fact remains that, in the critical early days of the modern marriage equality movement, Sanders was neutral at best and hostile at worst.

[beam me up scottie]

165. You're lecturing a gay man on the history of gay rights?

Well if that's not arrogance I don't know what is.

Especially after what you said about marriage equality in the past.

And citing that lame blogger after you found out he lied about the video?

Shameful.

[MADem]

206. I am not "lecturing" anyone--I leave that to you.

Those pesky little FACTS can perhaps sound like a lecture when one is unwilling to acknowledge them.

The "video" is CSPAN--but do go on!

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4550754/sanders-opposed-federal-marriage-equality-2006

Oh, those CSPAN liars!!!!!!

[guillaumeb]

109. If we are talking DU longevity, you win. But the issue is

repeating standard GOP memes and stating that these represent Democratic bona fides. The evil union bosses meme is a GOP staple, as well as being ridiculous.

Your citation:

Specific language sections have been given to * some industry experts/CEOs because it makes no sense to draft agreements without technical input and support from the very people who will implementing those agreements.

merely restates my contention in a way that you find more palatable. These trade deals are largely written by representatives from the very corporations that will benefit from them. I trust President Obama to make much the same deal as President Clinton did. Since NAFTA, nothing has halted the wage stagnation and job losses resulting from NAFTA. H. Ross Perot was correct about the "giant sucking sound".

The TPP deliberately excludes China. It does this because one of the main objectives, largely unstated, is to substitute the US and its junior partners and replace and counteract Chinese influence. The only beneficiaries of the TPP will be the same class which benefitted from NAFTA. The 1%.

[BlueCaliDem]

110. My longtime DU membership is merely to point out I've been thoroughly vetted and I AM a proven

Democrat. You? Not so much. So your accusation that I'm repeating standard GOP memes is a stretch and completely out of line.

I am pro-Union. I am a longtime member of SEIU - United Healthcare Workers. So spare me your labeling. But there are unions I don't like, like police unions and unions that work to harm my country and our environment - like the AFL-CIO and Brotherhood of Teamsters.

As you feel the need to hold Democratic elected officials accountable for their votes and policies, so also should you focus that lazer-beam of righteousness on union bosses, specifically the AFL-CIO and Teamster union bosses. When they lobby against Democratic ideals and for Republican moneymakers, like the Keystone XL bill which is bad for the environment, bad for job creation, and a really, really bad deal for taxpayers should the pipe burst (and it always does) and taxpayers are expected to cough up the money to repair it, they lose my confidence. When they push to keep undocumented people undocumented by lobbying congresspeople to vote against the 2006 comprehensive immigration reform bill, they lose my confidence.

Let me summarize: the AFL-CIO and Brotherhood of Teamsters are for Keystone and against immigration reform, and Sanders not Hillary Clinton, but Sanders did their bidding.

By the way? The SEIU has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I trust President Obama to make much the same deal as President Clinton did. Since NAFTA, nothing has halted the wage stagnation and job losses resulting from NAFTA. H. Ross Perot was correct about the "giant sucking sound".

Wait. You do know Ross Perot is even wealthier than the 1%, right? And you don't think it's ironic that you quote him favorably here while excoriating President Obama and the 1%??

Also, you need to update yourself. Obama, not Ross Perot, not Bill Clinton, is president. And he's done a damned good job for this country despite being denied a Congress he could work with. he's earned our trust that he'll do a good job for us. And once again, this trade deal was going to happen WITH or WITHOUT the United States. Now if you trust China to step in and write the regulations for the new trade deal, then that's your personal preference. My personal preference is to allow one of the greatest presidents of my lifetime to take the lead, and to ensure that corporations DON'T write the regulations, and the TPP curbs corporate power.

[center]Specifically Chapter 9 of the TPP deals with:[/center]

Article 9.9: Governments are clearly and explicitly granted authority to regulate in the interest or welfare of the public as well as the environment.

Section B - ISDS - Article 9.20: Corporations lose forum-shopping
Explicit language has been added to the TPP ensuring that corporations can seek redress either in US Courts or through the ISDS process, but not both.

Article 9.23: Sunlight: Every dispute, proceeding, filing, outcome will be public.

Annex 9-B: Profit loss alone isn't reason enough to challenge regulations.

Article 9.3: Protections for the environment, labor and everything else take precedence over corporate rights.

The so-called 1% will get theirs, with or without U.S. involvement in the TPP or any other (and there will be more) trade agreements. Believe me. They'd rather we NOT interfere.

The point I'm making is, it's better to be at the table when these trade agreements are negotiated rather than cross one's fingers and pray for the best possible outcome, and that it wouldn't harm American wages. Sitting on the sidelines will guarantee that those trade agreements will be written by mega-corporations, and they don't give a damn about American wages. President Obama does.

Sometimes it helps to do a little research before condemning something because of what one person claims - especially when that person is beholden to unions for their endorsements and doesn't even bother to read what he's protesting against.

[Thinkingabout]

127. Thanks for this post, it presented good points.

[BlueCaliDem]

217. I've written another.

It's a long one so only begin reading if you have time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=966463

[beam me up scottie]

141. I just saw some research on your posting history re: marriage equality.

I think you should stop lecturing others about liberal cred now.

[rbrnmw]

142. I wish I could rec this a million times

thank you

[BlueCaliDem]

218. Aw thanks, rbrnmw.

I appreciate that.

I've written another to clarify my previous post since the poster that responded didn't understand.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=966463

[George II]

143. Good job. Lots of great points in that post. And...

....I think one point you make is a good lesson for Sanders and his supporters as his campaign relates to the Democratic Party. They should think about this the next time they complain about this, that, or the other aspect of the Democratic Party and/or DNC.

To rephrase it slightly - "it's better to be at the table when these agreements are negotiated." By eschewing the Democratic Party (indeed, criticizing it relentlessly) for decades, he forfeited his "right" to participation in the way the Democratic Party functions.

Sorry Senator Sanders.

[guillaumeb]

148. Again, your argument about the TPP supports MY contention.

First, your reference to Section B-ISDS-Article 9.20:

Section B - ISDS - Article 9.20: Corporations lose forum-shopping
Explicit language has been added to the TPP ensuring that corporations can seek redress either in US Courts or through the ISDS process, but not both.

This so-called prohibition against "forum shopping" is a sham. Corporations prefer the ISDS process because it is divorced from the court system. Many of the ISDS advocates who rule on complaints are former corporate attorneys. The corporations making the complaints are arguing before people that they have previously employed. And people that they may employ in the future. How exactly is this a win for the workers?

Second, your reference to Annex 9-B regarding profit loss, the text actually reads:

1. An action or a series of actions by a Party cannot constitute an expropriation unless it interferes with a tangible or intangible property right or property interest in an investment.

There is nothing in the section that I read that supports your claim. In fact, as the following section makes clear, your claim has no basis.

3. The second situation addressed by Article 9.7.1 (Expropriation and Compensation) is indirect expropriation, in which an action or series of actions by a Party has an effect equivalent to direct expropriation without formal transfer of title or outright seizure.
(a) The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors:
(i) the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;
(ii) the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations;36 and
(iii) the character of the government action.

Profit loss is specifically covered here. Subsection (ii)

the extent to which the government action interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations;

directly deals with profit loss.

Finally, from what I can see, Article 9.3 contains no wording to support what you have claimed.


In addition, you do not address my contention that the TPP has been crafted with the intention of minimizing China's influence in the world trade and boosting US power. The side effect of weakening workers' rights is not really a consideration.

[kristopher]

168. Thank you for the fact based research. nt

[guillaumeb]

176. You are welcome, and thank you for noticing.

I understand that many Democrats will not entertain the idea that anything that this President supports could possibly be a bad thing, but hope should not allow people to disengage their critical function. I voted for the President twice, but his weakness when it comes to actually supporting the rights of workers to organize and protect themselves is glaring.

And the plain fact is that the TPP goes beyond NAFTA in patent protection, rights to outsource, and power politics disguised as a good deal for workers. The TPP is a gift to the investor class and big business. My fear is that many of the spineless Democrats in Congress will vote for this deal as a "show of support for the President" when what their votes really mean is a thank you to their contributors.

[BlueCaliDem]

210. No. It doesn't. But keep trying. It isn't the first time I've had to correct you.

I appear to have to do it again.

In the interest of saving space and avoiding to have to post a long explanation (the TPP is, after all, a legal doc), I gave an indexed version in my previous post pointing out pertinent points in simplified language in order to prove how good President Obama's negotiated deal is - and that it's not spawned by the devil.

Not being a lawyer, I'll address what I can below as clearly as I can:

This so-called prohibition against "forum shopping" is a sham. Corporations prefer the ISDS process because it is divorced from the court system. Many of the ISDS advocates who rule on complaints are former corporate attorneys. The corporations making the complaints are arguing before people that they have previously employed. And people that they may employ in the future. How exactly is this a win for the workers?

It's not a sham. In fact, it's groundbreaking. What IS a sham is your response that's filled with fear-mongering suppositions that you try to sell as truth. So you ask how is this a win for workers? It is. As I've pointed out, Chapter 9 is only part of the TPP, and it addresses ONLY the Dispute Settlement Process, but it's already a giant leap in protecting the rights of the public - including the guarantee for governments to be able to regulate in the public interest - and that of labor. How? Corporate rights under Chapter 9 has been made more limited and more transparent than under any other trade agreement to date.

As for the ISDS and all your fear-mongering suppositions: under the TPP, foreign corporations will need to pick one avenue for redress - the ISDS or American courts. Not both. Currently, they can do both. President Obama's team has ensured that's over with, with the TPP.

This is vitally important from the U.S. perspective. Why? Because it stops corporations from gaming the system. As the US Trade Representative has noted (here - scroll down way at the bottom), an ISDS claim against the United States has never been successful - which is a much better record than in the U.S. courts.

So when you make the (false) claim that the ISDS is full of corporate attorneys who have or might want to work for corporations again and will therefore rule in favor of corporations, how is it that NO corporation has ever won a case in ISDS against the United States? Therefore, your claim has no basis in fact and is just fear-mongering. Once again, just in case it went a little too quickly for you, there's never been an ISDS claim against the United States that's been successful. Understand now? Good. We can continue.

Second, your reference to Annex 9-B regarding profit loss, the text actually reads:

That's only item 1. And I KNOW what the text actually reads, so I'm sorry that you've tried - and failed again - for that elusive "gotcha" moment. As you've pointed out in the next excerpt, there are other items under this section, and again, I remind you that in the interest of saving space, I gave a brief, pertinent explanation of that section.

Have you ever heard of the Metaclad case that was brought under NAFTA's ISDS? Well, it's an oft-mentioned case in which Metaclad sued Mexico, in essence, on the sole ground that it lost profit due to the denial of a permit. Metaclad won a judgment of $15 million dollars against the government of Mexico.

The TPP's Investment Article makes sure that doesn't happen again. No longer can a corporation sue a government under the TPP just because they didn't meet expected profit margins, which is still currently the case. The tribunal will need to consider the action on its merits, and not because of its resulting effect on corporate balance sheets, which happened in the Metaclad case.

Section 3: (a) The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors:
(i) the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;

Finally, from what I can see, Article 9.3 contains no wording to support what you have claimed.

Article 9.3: In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

You do realize that this post and my previous post merely addressed Chapter 9 of the TPP concerning corporate rights, right? That was what we were discussing, right? And that there are thirteen chapters and countless appendixes that make up this trade agreement?

Okay, what Article 9.3 points out in almost plain language is, in the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter (9) and another Chapter (any of the other 12 - look up Chapter 19: Labour) of this (trade) agreement (the TPP), the OTHER Chapter shall prevail (take precedence over) to the extent of that inconsistency. In other words, just as I've summarized to make it easier to understand, "Protections for the environment, labor and everything else take precedence over corporate rights."

Clearer now?

In addition, you do not address my contention that the TPP has been crafted with the intention of minimizing China's influence in the world trade and boosting US power. The side effect of weakening workers' rights is not really a consideration.

I see no reason why I should address this since it's just more speculation on your part and I don't feel obligated to speculate on your speculations.

By the way? I've expended more than I was willing on this subthread. I'm done. But thank you for the exercise.

[guillaumeb]

224. Rather than dismiss the subthread, perhaps you need better sources.

I realize that this source is one of your "union bosses" meme sources, but if you read it your opinion of the TPP might just change.
From your own example:

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): In the Metalclad case, a U.S. corporation sued the Mexican federal government over a local government’s decision to deny a permit to operate a toxic waste dump. Local citizens felt the dump would pollute their water supply and petitioned their government to deny the permit. Metalclad won more than $15 million

.
So you are in favor of a process that, in reverse action, would permit foreign corporations to sue the US over the right to pollute?

Another, older example:

NAFTA: In the Methanex case, a Canadian company sued the U.S. federal government over the state of California’s decision to prohibit the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. Although Methanex lost the case, the state and federal government spent millions defending the case. Millions they would not have had to spend without ISDS: Methanex could not have brought the same complaint under U.S. domestic law.

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/What-Is-ISDS


Again, wasted money because a corporation used the concept that a local law interfered with the corporation's presumed "right to profitability" and sued for damages. Your contention that ISDS suits have not been successful ignores the real costs of litigation, and the possibility that future laws will not be passed out of fear of a suit.

[freshwest]

150. Thanks for these details, BlueCaliDem. Happy New Year. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

219. Happy New Year, freshwest, dear friend!

If you're interested, I've written a longer post explaining the previous one in a more lengthy way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=966463

Bottom line is, this is a very good trade agreement. It's sad that so many refuse to see the incredible accomplishment of President Obama who worked hard on this. He gets no credit for anything.

[ismnotwasm]

162. Wow

[BlueCaliDem]

220. Thanks ismnotwasm!

[redstateblues]

178. You rock BlueCaliDem!!

I'll bet Beammeup hasn't had a spanking like that in a while!

[Scootaloo]

180. A few points

One, posting on a messageboard proves nothing about your politics, only your ability to pose on the internet. You have been consistently the #1 example of my thesis that people who cram lots of "democrat-sounding" terms into their names are probably the least liberal people you will lever talk to.

Two, Elected officials make decisions that affect the nation. Don't tell people not to criticize them.

Three, AFL-CIO's largest union, AFSCME declared its endorsement of Hillary Clinton in October.

Four, the Teamsters have not endorsed a candidate; as of October reports were that they were leaning Trump.

Five, Sanders opposes the Keystone pipeline plan.

Six, points three through five make you a liar.

Seven, it might surprise you, as steeped in right-wing ideology as you clearly are, but the left does not hate wealth. we do not hate wealthy people. We hate the use of wealth to create undue influence in our society that degrades the quality of living for other people. Ross Perot is a rich bastard, yup. But he was 100% right about NAFTA.

Eight, "But China!" is not a valid argument for a bad plan. Knock it off with the yellow horde scaremongering bullshit, it's not nineteen fifty-fucking-two.

Nine, you don't get to tell others to do research when you'r claiming ALF_CIO and the teamsters support Bernie and all three love the keystone plan.

I will now leave you to lecturing gay people about ponies, as you are wont to do.

[oasis]

203. Excellent post BlueCaliDem.

[yardwork]

205. Wow! Sing it.

[John Poet]

97. Bashing "union bosses"? You sound like Rush Limbaugh.

"Vested interests" like the interests of their working members?

[BlueCaliDem]

114. Not all unions are good. Do you think police unions are pro-Democratic?

Get real, John.

[Armstead]

102. "Union Bosses"?

Hooookay.

[BlueCaliDem]

113. Yeah. The pro-Keystone XL Pipeline and anti-2006 immigration reform bill AFL-CIO

and Brotherhood of Teamsters unions.

Not all unions are good. Like the above and police unions. You think they're good unions? Really?

[Jamaal510]

112. +1

[kenfrequed]

115. What the heck?

What kind of democrat complains about Union bosses and tries to compare them to ALEC?

Seriously, are you sure you are posting on the right website?

Hillary has a few unions that endorsed her as well... Should they ask for a refund?

Or are you endorsing a Lieberman/Webb ticket?

[BlueCaliDem]

116. What the heck?

It would behoove you to read the subthread. You might then have a clue.

[kenfrequed]

118. I did.

But feel free to keep spinning.

"Union bosses" indeed.

[BlueCaliDem]

145. And yet...

you still don't get it. Spinning?? *sigh*

[kenfrequed]

222. Oh defend your post or don't

Do not pretend you didn't use such language. It is right frigging there.

Saying "read my post" or suggesting someone is taking you out of context is just absurd.

[beam me up scottie]

131. Union bosses? And Senator Sanders is their lackey? Wow.

Are you sure you're in the right place?

Free Republic is that way ----->

[George II]

138. He voted against the Brady Bill (for whatever reason he concocts now) and in favor of protecting....

...gun manufacturers, and now he wants more gun control.

He voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, and now he's campaigning against it.

There's no running away from those votes.

As far as you last paragraph is concerned, Obama was elected twice by more than 60 million voters each, and Senator by more than 3.6 million voters. Sanders never had to face any electorate of that magnitude - the most people who ever voted for him in an election in his ~ 40 years in public office was 207,000. In fact, he hasn't gotten 3.6 million votes in ALL the elections for which he's been involved combined.

[beam me up scottie]

140. He voted for the bill because it included the Violence Against Women Act and a ban on assault weapons.

Sanders opposed the Violent Crime Prevention Act of 1991 during his first year in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"All over the industrialized world now, countries are saying, ‘let us put an end to state murder, let us stop capital punishment’," Sanders said in a 1991 speech on the House floor. "But here what we’re talking about is more and more capital punishment."

The bill, which included provisions to authorize the death penalty as appropriate punishment for crimes involving the murder of a law enforcement officer, terrorism and drug trafficking, never reached the desk of President George H.W. Bush.

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/

George George George, always leaving out those pesky little facts.

[Live and Learn]

12. I know, being against gay marriage and then being for it?

Yikes, once again, not Bernie.

[Betty Karlson]

45. All great responses from you in this thread.

The OP's hypocrisy regarding candidates is stinking to high heaven.

[BlueCaliDem]

59. T poster you're responding to is DEAD WRONG.

The hypocrisy is with that fact-free poster, not the OP.

Bernie was for civil unions and gay rights, but he didn't come out and support same-sex marriage until 2009.

As recently as 2006, he wasn't pushing for gay marriage, and reneged on answering a moderator about it using Republican "states rights" talking points:

Sanders was asked in a debate during his first run for the Senate about a Massachusetts state court decision that legalized gay marriage. The debate moderator wanted to know if Sanders thought the federal government should overturn that decision. He responded by talking about states’ rights, which is an argument often used by politicians who have argued against federal recognition of gay marriage as well.

“I believe the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue,” Sanders said in the 2006 debate.

[center][font color="red" size="14"]OOPS![/font][/center]

[Live and Learn]

87. I am niether dead, nor wrong. Your posts, on the otherhand, are simply ridiculous. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

92. You consider my posts ridiculous only because they disprove yours and unmask you for

a hyperbolic flamebaiter who posts baseless b.s.

[Live and Learn]

111. Now, that is a personal attack. You really should delete it. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

117. Nope.

[Live and Learn]

119. Don't want to play by the rules, just like your candidte, huh? nt

[BlueCaliDem]

128. Oh? Did Clinton staffers illegally access Sanders voter files?

*mic drop*

[MADem]

160. You're the one doing the personal attacking here. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Here is you in 2004

"Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110


Whose high horse is that you are riding anyway? Hertz Rent a High Horse?

[SMC22307]

223. Jaysuz, that's despicable. Right up there with our resident former freeper...

and his thoughts on gays adopting.

[Puglover]

123. Yeah you have proven

your "bonefides" alright.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024994297

[beam me up scottie]

129. "Why calling a gay man a so-called female name, like "GiGi", is ***NOT*** automatically homophobic"

My my. That was enlightening.

Always interesting to see which folks suddenly think they can speak for the lgbt community, isn't it?

[Puglover]

137. I'll never forget

that thread and never understand how, on a so called progressive website it was allowed to stand.

[beam me up scottie]

139. And 5 people rec'd it.

While others defended that garbage.

And look at that poster now, lecturing people about marriage equality.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. He was for gay rights but not for gay marriage until 2009.

He was for civil unions.

After the legislature passed a civil unions bill, Sanders expressed support for that, but he stopped short of pushing for gay marriage to be recognized.

Six years later, when the George W. Bush Administration was pushing an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, Sanders dismissed the move as "divisive." But asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, Sanders said "not right now; not after what we went through."
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-has-evolved-same-sex-marriage-too-n454081

Sanders was pretty wishy-washy on gay marriage. He even got the Vermont's delegation's "Wishy-Washy Award" for "carefully crafted non-statement" on the issue. But his supporters would rather believe his new and improved rhetoric rather than his past statements. It's okay for him to "evolve" but absolutely an unforgivable sin for Hillary Clinton to. Uh huh. Real fair and (not-so)liberal there, Live and Learn.

[Betty Karlson]

89. Sanders joined the party in time. Clinton was unfashionably late. eom

[BlueCaliDem]

91. Yeah, but difference is, she was never considered by anyone as a diehard liberal. He was.

And just to be clear, he was AGAINST gay marriage before he was for it, which "Liberal" and Proud seems to claim only Hillary Clinton was. And she's WRONG. I'm right.

[Betty Karlson]

94. Well, if Clinton never was a diehard liberal, why should I want her to be nominated as

the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party?

[BlueCaliDem]

96. Maybe because she's the most qualified candidate? Or maybe because she's running for president

and is the Democratic Party front-runner - and not running as a Democratic U.S. Rep or as a U.S. Senator? Do you know how our government works, Betty?

We have NEVER elected a die-hard liberal or die-hard Reichwinger for president. NEVER. It's just not where the majority of the country is - which is in the middle - and die-hard liberals and die-hard Reichwingers have done nothing, absolutely NOTHING, all these decades, to change that.

Whether you approve of it or not, or are willing to understand it or not, the country is in the middle, the center, and the president is president of ALL the people, not just a subset of political activists (left or right) in their district or State. That's the difference, and that's why Sanders will not win the nomination. He's got a reputation (deserved or not) for being too left.

[Betty Karlson]

122. She is definitely not the most qualified candidate:

* She has leess cross-ovber appeal than Sanders

*She has made BIG mistakes in the past (her vote for the Iraq War, to name one; Sanders rightly opposed it)

*She is a status quo candidate; and given that the status quo is not that great, she is not that great a candidate.

*She only changes her 20th century viewpoints when doing so is polled or focus-grouped to be imperative to maintain electability. Examples: her unfashionably late support for equal rights, her Johnny-come-lately opposition to the TPP she used to defend

And as for being the front-runner: only in bought and paid-for polls. Internet polls tell a different story. So do several independent polls from Iowa and New Hampshire.

And as for needing a candidate in the middle of the country: do you know how much of the USA population supports Sanders' positions? Over 50 %.

[BlueCaliDem]

144. You're in the minority if you believe that.

She has leess cross-ovber appeal than Sanders

In what universe?
She has excellent crossover appeal - Sanders can't even get a third of minorities to support him. That's what you mean by crossover appeal, right? Minorities? You know? The Democratic Party base? Because in the Democratic Party primaries, they matter. Not Republican voters. Not Liberty University students. Not Libertarians. Democrats.

She has made BIG mistakes in the past (her vote for the Iraq War, to name one; Sanders rightly opposed it)

Every politician has made "big mistakes" - including Sanders. Oh, and by the way, NO politician has voted for war since 1942. But Sanders has voted for more military action than Hillary Clinton (with the exception of the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq);

-- he's also voted against the 2006 comprehensive immigration reform bill (Hillary voted for it);

-- he's also voted to protect gun manufacturers, gun distributors, gun sellers (PLCAA), giving this industry protection against pesky suing families of gun violence victims (Hillary voted against it);

-- he's also voted against the landmark Brady Bill (Hillary lobbied for and supported it);

-- he's also voted to shield from the Mexican government the racist, murderous vigilante group, the Minutemen Project, which had, three years later, murdered a 9-year-old Mexican-American girl named Brisenia Flores;

-- in 1998 he's voted to extradite a black woman, Assata Shakura (Joanna Chesimard), from Cuba after she was wrongfully convicted by an all-white jury after ten separate trials that, except for one, ended in hung juries, acquittals, or mistrials;

-- in 1998, he's not only voted for but co-sponsored a bill to dump nuclear waste in the backyards of poor Mexican-American people in Sierra Blanca, Texas, and even met with then Governor G.W. Bush to actively lobby for it while the late Senator Paul Wellstone was the loudest and one of the most ardent DETRACTORS of the bill, citing that the dump was a "part of a 'national pattern of discrimination in the location of waste and pollution' that preyed on those lacking political clout and financial resources.";

-- he's publicly called (three separate times on teevee and Thom Hartmann's radio show) to get a primary challenger against our first Black president running for re-election when he was already receiving a disproportionate share of unfavorable news coverage compared to Republicans.
[center]Above are just a few examples to refresh your memory[/center]

She is a status quo candidate;

Yeah. Given the above, Bernie Sanders certainly is an out of the mainstream/radical candidate. Considering his past radical votes on the above, given the choice between mainstream and radical, I'll choose mainstream, thank you very much.

She only changes her 20th century viewpoints when doing so is polled or focus-grouped to be imperative to maintain electability. Examples: her unfashionably late support for equal rights, her Johnny-come-lately opposition to the TPP she used to defend

It's what a democratically elected leader does. Only dictators and other despots stick to their outdated positions when new information is provided. If by equal rights you're referring to same-sex marriage, Sanders wasn't for it until 2009 - and that, for a self-proclaimed Liberal. Talk about Johnny-come-lately...

And as for being the front-runner: only in bought and paid-for polls. Internet polls tell a different story.

Hm. Scientific polling as opposed to clickety-click polls where people can vote as many times they want. Which would be more accurate? Hm.

And as for needing a candidate in the middle of the country: do you know how much of the USA population supports Sanders' positions? Over 50 %.

I have NO DOUBT you're correct. But your percentage seems on the low side. However, when it comes to putting the money where their mouths are, that percentage doesn't translate in votes since we still have a majority of Republicans in the majority of States. Twenty-nine, I believe, with only 7 that are governed by the Democratic Party (and I am fortunate I live in a State that really does put our votes where our liberal hearts are).

Look, the main difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is this: in the 25 years he's been in Congress, he's made NO friends. In the 20-plus years that Hillary Clinton has been in national politics, she's garnered a vast majority of allies and friends in Congress. This should be the writing on the wall for you. Without Congress' help, all those grand promises Sanders is pontificating in his speeches are nothing but "feel-good" politics, because they'll never, EVER, come to fruition without cooperation in Congress, and Sanders simply doesn't have the clout.

I'll back a candidate who knows what she can realistically get through Congress. One bird in the hand is far better than two in the bush.

[Thinkingabout]

147. A leader needs the ability to listen to the issues at hand and make a decisions.

One is not born with a complete set of positions on everything. Do you think Sanders has ever made mistakes? Voting against the Brady Bill not once but five times, he has voted for ILA though he accuses Hillary of regime changes. On the status quo, many have bragged he has had the same positions for forty years, yes this would make Sanders the status quo candidate.

We also know Sanders changes his mind, he changed his position on gay marriage, was for civil unions in 2009. He has joined Hillary's position and is now wanting to raise taxes on those earning $250,000.

If Sanders is only leading in online polls, I would question the results, many voters do not have access to online polls, as for myself I do not participate nor do I put any confidence in online polls.

Hillary has shown her ability to be a leader, has experience on a president's cabinet, has met with world leaders, has foreign experience and has experience working with Republicans.

[PyaarRevolution]

121. My thoughts.

Am I disappointed in this from Sanders? Yes. I suppose I have to remember you have to represent the overall views of your constituents. While he usually has a great deal of latitude in this regarding most issues maybe Sanders thought this was his gun issue, I don't know.
While this should've been clear from the Sanders camp out in the open at the beginning, this is an attempt to psych-out and disenfranchise Sander's supporters. You already know the strength of Sander's grassroots so you seek to make us doubt, get in our heads.
I need only remember Sander's rock solid positions everywhere else for the longest time and consider your candidate and her connections with Wal-Street as opposed to truly helping out Main Street.
Regarding the AFL-CIO and others I don't know know why they supported Keystone but their opposition of immigration reform may contain more lurking under the surface that we don't know, perhaps it would've instituted a flood of unnecessary H1 Visas with the intent of tech companies seeking to suppress wages, among other things.

[George II]

133. I think the biggest point to take from this OP and discussion is that saying one thing...

...and doing something else is not a one-way street.

EVERY person - politician, follower, civilian, etc. has many examples of that.

[BlueCaliDem]

146. Exactly! No politician is perfect, and yes, Sanders *is* a politician first and foremost,

and to the right of the late and great Paul Wellstone.

[Kalidurga]

13. You mean saying no one cares and acknowledging there is an investigation.

Asking for more DNC sponsored debates and not pushing for unsanctioned debates. And voting against a war then voting to fund troops. Is that what you mean? I suppose there is plenty more of that.

[cannabis_flower]

34. I believe he said the reason...

he voted to fund troops after having voted against the war is that it was his understanding that the troops were already there but without the additional funding they would be there without any equipment and things they needed and would be in danger. Bernie is against unnecessary war, but has always supported the troops and the veterans.

[Kalidurga]

84. In contrast

Some voted for the war and against funding. Some (Republicons) did even worse they voted against funding troops who were injured in combat and for programs that would treat mental illness.

[Scootaloo]

19. Ah, okay

1) He wants the DNC to schedule more debates. What he doesn't want is to engage in unsanctioned debates that will take two democratic candidates out of the debate schedule, basically ending the whole thing.

2) He apologized, and he meant it. Unless you now claim some ability to see into the hearts of all men? Or does some characteristic of his just render his apology inherently insincere for you?

3) He actually said "let the investigation proceed unimpeded.' you know, the investigation run by the FBI, with its Obama-appointed director?

4) He voted on a nonbinding resolution condemning human rights abuses in Libya and calling for peaceful transition of power.

So, four examples, all of them wrong. But at least you stuck around!

[Uncle Joe]

20. Bernie stated publicly that he wasn't against the investigation, just the corporate media's

infatuation with the topic to the detriment of substantive issues affecting the American People, ie; great income disparity, the disappearing middle class, climate change, etc. etc. etc.

Bernie apologized, fired and/or suspended the primary culprits that accessed Hillary's information, that doesn't absolve Schultz's draconian actions against his supporters, the vendor's responsibility, and the fact that Bernie's voter information was at risk as well, that's what the lawsuit is about damages and discovery.

Bernie opposed military regime change in Libya, he wanted an orderly democratic solution, I do believe he made a mistake in trusting Hillary's "vaunted diplomatic" skills in bringing about such a result.

[Mike__M]

83. That would be a neat debate response, if he were asked:

"I made a mistake in trusting Hillary's 'vaunted diplomatic' skills in bringing about a democratic solution."

[Sheepshank]

41. Well done.

I hadn't noticed, but now that you mention it.......

Elsewhere on DU the term "two faced" was used to describe Bernie. It appears they were more correct than they realized.

[libdem4life]

58. Apparently the FBI does't take Sander's opinion into consideration when they are

still searching for staff whose servers are erased...ongoing. In case you've not heard, they have continued into a further phase. Pagliano's server is one. Reaching, here.

[2pooped2pop]

101. I don't think you understand

1) apologizing tor the intrusion- he was sorry that someone on his side used the breach in any way. That does not mean that these things should not be investigated to find the truth.

2) no one cares about the emails/ It's true, the people don't care and were tired of it. Again, that doesn't mean it should not have been investigated. Until the investigation was concluded, it was not debate material. He wants to talk about what the people want and need.

He has a history of honesty and integrity. NO OTHER CANDIDATE comes close.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

169. Deal Breakers!

[Scuba]

28. I have one who wants me to do the research to back up his/her claim ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=35591

[LWolf]

50. I notice that, too. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

54. We substantiate them all the time, Scoot. You just ignore them and then claim we never

substantiate our claims. Your M.O.? Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Very tiresome.

[Scootaloo]

65. Except that you don't.

Renew Credit, to his point, ran a sad attempt at a gish gallop above, which is better than nothing... but he was still wrong on each point.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. Except that I do. I can't help it you don't like what's presented to you. That's your bias, not

rationale speaking.

On the other hand, the half-truths unhelpful DU Sanders supporters post against Hillary Clinton each and every day is seen as gospel with very little evidence asked for in order to back it up - and it's usually something that's misunderstood or misread in order to create that negative meme. But I guess it's tolerated by Hillary Clinton supporters because, you know, in politics it's not a good thing to strike downward.

[Scootaloo]

69. Sure. Now go back to your screaming about unions.

[BlueCaliDem]

70. ??? Whut?

Even you can't say, with any modicum of credibility, that all unions are alike.

Case in point...the Brotherhood of Teamsters and the AFL-CIO Building & Construction Trades Department emphatically supports Keystone XL. Do you agree?

By the way, it's the AFL-CIO that encouraged Sanders to vote against the 2006 comprehensive immigration reform act and are now backing the Keystone XL bill that President Obama - god bless his soul - has recently VETOED.

[Live and Learn]

2. I think you meant Hillary. And yes, she does tend to do a lot of flip flops. nt

[Renew Deal]

6. I'm not talking about flip flops. I'm talking about Sanders double game.

[Live and Learn]

7. Nope, that would be Hillary also. nt

[Aerows]

18. Agreed

They don't call Hillary's team Camp Weathervane for nothing.

She does every single thing the OP tried to pin on Bernie Sanders.

Rovian tactic failure.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. AKA: Projection - nt

[lovemydog]

5. I haven't noticed it.

I've noticed references to unnamed sources, and kind of take that with a grain of salt. Is there anything specific to which you're referring?

[Yallow]

11. Links?

No doublespeak heard here.

Sure you aren't talking about the For/Against TPP Girl?

[Jackilope]

14. gee, no. He has been pretty consistent in message from decades ago. n/t

[Renew Deal]

15. Message is consistent. Actions aren't.

[Jackilope]

16. compared to OLOPTM*?

* Our Lady Of Perpetual Triangular Motion? Please.

The O'Malley whine is a non issue. DNC established the clause regarding debates.

I see far more red flags with OLOPTM and being the Belle of Wall St. & the darling of the 1% than Bernie.

[LWolf]

60. LLOPTM*

I will never see her, hear her, or think about her again without this in my head.

[MADem]

194. And that, right there, is what's inconvenient about his message--he doesn't really walk that walk.

He talks one helluva game, though--and all that pointing and hectoring make him seem sincere to those who are not paying attention.

[Aerows]

17. No, I haven't noticed that

because he doesn't operate that way.

Maybe you were thinking of Hillary Clinton?

[Paka]

21. This whole hit from MOM sickens me.

At one point I respected MOM and could support him in the future. Not after all the crap he is pulling these days. I'm sorry he is so desperate, but it doesn't speak well for his core values.

[Live and Learn]

22. +10,000 nt

[Scuba]

29. It's just "Third Way" O'Malley doing his job.

[beam me up scottie]

32. O'Malley lied about Bernie's socialism during the debate, why should we be surprised by this?

[Betty Karlson]

48. O'Malley would do wiser to go after Clinton.

His bid for the VP spot is to do her dirty work for her? That is low. That is beneath the man and beneath the standard he used to embody.

[jfern]

23. LOL, what?

[Live and Learn]

24. Apparently, it is some kind of secret code. nt

[stonecutter357]

25. K&R!

[djean111]

26. Oh, I read about this meme - take your candidate's weakness and accuse the other candidate

with it.

Don't think it is working.

[fredamae]

27. You hope there Isn't

a 47% tape out there starring Sanders? So do I!

hahaha-fwiw I really Hope the same is true...really really true for Your candidate of choice

[Android3.14]

30. Ouch. This didn't go the way you thought

You must realize, by now, that all the criticism you heap on Sanders is actually you projecting what your subconscious correctly recognizes as serious problems with Clinton.

It is an easy task to defend Sanders, as reality tends to have a liberal bias. Defending Hillary? Not such an easy job without a willingness to bend the truth, ignore the past, and stand with so many unscrupulous and mean-spirited people.

[NCTraveler]

31. For the first time...

In his life he is being vetted nationally. Seems some are really pissed about it. They have been begging for the corporate media attention. I have told them repeatedly what that means when you are a Democrat. I think they get it now.

[Thinkingabout]

33. There has been some changes in Sanders positions.

He is very changeable on the gun issue and is indicating he has returned left from his RW position. He now says $250,000 is a good point to increase taxes. Hillary has had the ability to admit her vote on IWR was wrong though she did not make the decision to invade Iraq, Bush made that decision. Hillary has the ability to listen to situations and change her position and does not remain stuck in the 20th century on her positions.

I also expect more changes in Sanders positions before the Iowa primary.

[Betty Karlson]

49. So you admit that Sanders only had to shift on ONE issue, while Clinton flipflops all over

important issues? Gay marriage, TPP, Iraq War, Campaign Financing Reform, ...

One is not a pattern. A pattern is what your preferred candidate shows. And please tell us whom she listened to before changing those positions of hers. Because she also has a pattern of being unfashionably late to every party I mentioned. Did she listen to her conscience? To a friend? Or did she listen to a focus group, a poll, or some semi-corporate campaign adviser before reluctantly abandoning a 20th century position FIFTEEN YEARS into the 21st century?

[Thinkingabout]

130. Hillary does not have her feet in cement, is very capable of

Listening and responding to the information presented, this is an asset for a leader. Never receiving new information and never "changing" one's position is a losing position. We see in the past few months Sanders is taking the same positions as Hillary has, good for him, he can be changed.

[Betty Karlson]

149. It's mostly the other way around.

If Clinton likes Sanders's ideas that much, why doesn't she just admit that she was mistaken for most of the 21st century, and ndorse the man who will save the Democratic Party from Third Way inelectability?

[seabeyond]

35. Yes. Nt

[Katashi_itto]

36. this the new meme of the hour?

[zalinda]

37. Of course

and all the main players are here too.

Z

[Renew Deal]

39. Hey

[AgingAmerican]

38. No

But I do see a lot of OPs quoting nameless 'Sanders campaign' people.

It's the latest meme?

[R B Garr]

40. YES, he is very gimmicky. He's all about applause

lines.

[99Forever]

66. Is truth considered a gimmick....

...in Camp Weathervane? I know it's extremely rare there. Does that make it a gimmick?

Seems pretty clear that a steady diet of lies leads to a VERY twisted version of the world.

[R B Garr]

67. You badgering people about your version of the

truth is gimmicky. Its funny how the Berniebros are so eager to declare themselves morally superior.

Personally, I find a career politician like Bernie who had his whole career to run for President -- but didnt -- then claims he knew all along how to save the world to be....gimmicky, and not very truthful.

[99Forever]

75. No.

The truth is true. Your candidate has been shwn to have a big problem with being truthful. Those are facts.

Nor did I "declare myself morally superior." Strawman bullshit. Typical Camp Weathervane behavior.

Senator Sanders has run for President exactly once, the current campaign. Saying otherwise, is just plain lying.

Hillary Goldman Sachs Clinton has otoh, been running at least 10 years.

Get some better lies or a dumber person to try using them on.

[R B Garr]

80. You are just itching to call people liars.

Seriously, take your abuse somewhere else.

I remember your screen name to be one of the first Sanders supporters to be outright abusive to me. My husband remembers it, too. This was before I even posted much about Hillary, but I apparently rec'd some threads because you said you looked them up and then threatened me that you were going to keep your eye on me. That pissed my husband off BIG TIME.

I used to tell him about all the links and current news here, but since the big switch from Warren to Sanders there is this...... irrationality.

OBVIOUSLY, Bernie hasn't run for President before. That was my point, which sailed over your head. Makes me wonder what else you've missed along the way about "truth". So you call me a liar over a point that YOU missed. I think I see your problem...

[99Forever]

82. Misread your words about Sanders POTUS runs.

On a phone print is small. So sue me. The rest stands.

[R B Garr]

86. That's it?! You call me a liar for something you MISREAD

and "the rest stands".

edit, I know what you mean about phone typing/reading. Frustrating. But your post was WAY out of line.

[NurseJackie]

90. You're owed an actual apology. ("So sue me" is not an apology.)

[R B Garr]

100. Thanks, Nurse Jackie! I was thinking the same thing.

It's really unbelievable. That's proof right there how people read (or not read...) with a bias that confirms their own beliefs (or just plain dogma in his case, yikes!).

And for him to blast people about truth telling is quite ridiculous. BS's whole platform is gimmicky since he said he knew how to save the US decades ago, but he never bothered to run for President and be a leader. How phony is that. I think it was John McCain who tried that ploy about Al Queda during a campaign and the media ridiculed him.

Cheers!

[99Forever]

42. What I have noticed..

...is the large percentage of Hillarians that have a gigantic case of cognitive dissonance.

[KingCharlemagne]

44. Not to indulge in pedantry, but is 'cognitive dissonance' a polite term for

hypocrisy?

[99Forever]

46. I'm on my phone work.

Use the Google machine and look it up.

[KingCharlemagne]

47. I was being flip and it didn't come across, further validation

of Poe's Law.

I'm with you, no worries

[BlueCheese]

51. There does seem to be a disconnect between him and his scorched earth advisers.

Or maybe it's a good-cop-bad-cop act.

Sanders talks about running a positive campaign, but then the campaign runs some negative anti-Clinton before abruptly pulling them.
Sanders apologizes about his staffers accessing Clinton's data, but then his campaign sues the DNC, plants hints of a conspiracy, and accuse Clinton of taking their data, with no evidence whatsoever. Actually, Sanders himself hinted at that last one, which was an extremely disappointing moment for him.

It's a little weird.

[tularetom]

53. You don't hope that at all

Why don't you just be honest? You're trembling in anticipation of finding another flimsy excuse to attack the man.

[azmom]

55. In your dreams. Try again later.

[Ferd Berfel]

61. Is anyone beginning to notice the trend with HIllary Suporters

That the attacks on Bernie are getting more bizarre and desperate?

[restorefreedom]

71. +100 nt

[hobbit709]

73. That hits it perfectly.

[Cassiopeia]

76. We're gonna need an act of Congress to fund the emergency response dept.

I hear that staff are severely exceeding overtime limits and that the fleet is falling behind on maintenance.

[Douglas Carpenter]

213. and some of her supporters are printing nastiness I have not heard in

Democratic Party circles in more than 40 years. Call me naïve. But I have not seen so much sleaziness and sliminess here on DU or in liberal circles as I have seen from some of Hillary's most ardent supporters here on this forum. I suppose it is starting to dawn on them that Hillary could lose the nomination. A few months back most of them would have been talking about how valuable Sanders was in the Senate and how much they admire him.

[PowerToThePeople]

62. No.

You fail.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. In 2000, Bernie got the Vermont delegation's "Wishy-Washy Award"

for his "carefully crafted non-statement" on the same-sex marriage issue. I'm certain that award can be given to him on many, many other issues as well.

[riversedge]

95. thanks for the post and

Happy new Year....

[BlueCaliDem]

105. Happy New Year to you and yours, too, riversedge! I never drink, but I'm having a nice,

ice cold sip of champagne tonight to celebrate 2016 - which is going to be an excellent year for Democrats and us!

[frylock]

104. Someone just won the 2015 "Nonsense I Pull Outta My Ass Award."

[beam me up scottie]

136. And the "Biggest hypocrite on DU" award judging from his past opposition to marriage equality:

Gay marriage is for me unthinkable, but Civil Unions have my 100% vote. I believe that marriage is something done in churches, and the Bible does speak negatively about homosexuality.
However, allowed to be "married" by a Mayor, or a power-invested civil servant for gays, and lesbians, is right, and good.
My husband and I, 22 years ago, never married in a church, but in front of a legal civil servant back in the Netherlands, since he was Netherlands Reformed (Catholic lite), and I, Protestant.
Surely, NO American would be against civil unions like ours to be granted full power in the United States for gays and lesbians, right?
I guess all we need to do, is redefine what marriage, and what civil unions are, so that gays and lesbians gain the same rights in such a union as married people do--minus church and religious constaints.
Just an idea...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1352110

[Bluenorthwest]

108. Boy that's an issue you should really not bring up your own views being recorded on DU

years after that date saying the Bible is against homosexuality and gay marriage is unthinkable.

It just really takes some great disrespect for LGBT persons that you would feel entitled to preach on this subject about at all, ever. You were the exact sort of Democrat whose mind needed to change to get equality, you were opposed to it strongly in 2000.

It's just so skeevie and insulting.

[Puglover]

124. Remember this gem?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024994297

Skeevie doesn't even begin to describe it.

[uponit7771]

151. No no no!!!! Out of the 10,000 tenants the left holds dear Sanders wont compromise on not ...

... of them least he be deemed a sell out too!!!

[restorefreedom]

74. this is fantastic news!

all of these ridiculous, desperate and unfactual attacks on bernie are great indicators.... the internal polling must be HORRIBLE for hillary....looking good for iowa, nh and beyond...feel the bern!!!

[Truprogressive85]

79. If that is the case I'm pretty sure that would apply to HRC as well

she loves those private fundraisers with those big donors

it would be fun to be a fly on the wall as she talks to those donors who are writing those big checks

Now if she has 47% type of video just happens to leak lets I wonder how it will shape things but its all hypothetical right ?

[HERVEPA]

81. Is that bullshit the best you can do?

[peacebird]

85. You mean the trend that supporters of another candidate are now attacking nonstop

With memes like this that have no facts, just hoping to smear with innuendo? Yes, I have noticed. Reeks of desperation from Camp Weathervane.

[artislife]

88. I am beginning to notice a "trend" in your OPs... nt

[Puglover]

125. LOL

Precious innit it?

[Punkingal]

93. No.

But I have noticed Hillary lies a lot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. Whereas Hillary is more stable. She always says, and does, whatever is most expedient.

Even if it involves evolving.

[Romulox]

103. What I've noticed is that Hillary supporters (and proxies like MOM) are stepping up the attack.

Must be getting nervous!

[slipslidingaway]

120. A candidate changing positions? Someone becomig too popular and the need for an attack ....

yes I just noticed.

Do you have any idea of the millions of people that were displaced in Iraq with our invasion and those children who are angry? I am angry at the complacency exhibited by the establishment candidates who seem to gloss over all those people and their suffering.

So yes I have noticed their lack of compassions, millions of orphans, displaced people, possibly ISIS recruits. Who could have known?

I am beginning to notice, have you?

[democrank]

126. One thing Bernie Sanders was very clear on......

his position against Bush`s invasion of Iraq.

[HERVEPA]

152. Is anyone beginning to notice the trend with Renew Deal?

The same posts over and over again. Well, at least there's consistency.

[Dem2]

153. I started to read the first few posts at the top

[notadmblnd]

154. Why don't you go look for it?

Be persistent now and don't stop till you find it.

[floriduck]

155. This OP is crap

And the comments supporting it is supreme crap. This is a sign of fear by the Hillers. They just like to shitstir anything they can muster up.

Pathetic attempt failed miserably.

[cherokeeprogressive]

175. Nnnnnnope.

[Hiraeth]

198. NOT GOOD ENOUGH, BERNIE !!!

[Fawke Em]

209. No.

Only Hillary Clinton supporters, who are used to massive hypocrisy with their own candidate, notice such things.