Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumTomorrow means nothing. We will still be able to praise Senator Sanders...
Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
...and go forth with his message. We won't be able to attack the presumptive nominee, granted, but why would we want to at this point?We should save those attacks for the biggest danger to our democracy AND our very way-of-life... the Orange One!
Oh, and to those profile-peepers, my favorite group is NOT "Hillary Clinton". I posted there yesterday begging them to stop driving voters away from their candidate, the presumptive nominee (which changed my "favorite group" status). Since then, I've been attacked by both Senator Sanders AND Secretary Clinton supporters.
And, since a few Senator Sanders' supporters said to me that Hillary is as dangerous as Trump, I ask, *REALLY*???? It's.not.even.close.
Let's continue to move Senator Sanders and his message forward, and leave the inter-partisanship and hate behind.
On edit: *Phew!* My favorite group switched back to "Bernie Sanders".
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that is not TOTALLY pro-Hilliary, will get you banned.
That could be thought, by the myriad of Hillbots here as even things that are pro-Bernie.
I've had it, myself.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)We will certainly be able to praise Senator Sanders AND, as long as it's constructive and not rude, criticize Secretary Clinton.
The TOS has been violated repeatedly since the beginning of the primaries, and the Admins have turned a blind eye. Tomorrow, they will go back to enforcing the TOS.
No one will be banned as long as the criticism of the presumptive nominee is constructive, and the TOS is not violated.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)From what I've gathered, jurors will have to pick a specific TOS violation. And no more crappy comments.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Or, on the other hand, what difference does it make.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)swhisper1
(851 posts)we shall just support downticket dems and that is not against the rules
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Which is why TODAY is my last day. Fuck that undemocratic bullshit. I have been here for a decade and a half and paid when I could afford it. DU can stuff it as of tomorrow. I hope to get banned today.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)On edit: You and I have been here the same amount of time, so we both remember the Deaniac/Clarkie wars, and the Hillbot/Obamabot (can't recall the actual colloquial name given to Obama supporters) wars four years later. We're vets!
We were spared such contentiousness in 2012, and, yes, this cycle has been BRUTAL! But, we're STILL here!
gordianot
(15,259 posts)The ghost of Richard Daley is stalking, and appears to me has support among the living.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>> We won't be able to attack the presumptive nominee, granted, but why would we want to at this point? >>>>
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)That's not going to change.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)"Oh, those guys? They're good, but we're better!"
That's what tomorrow and beyond will be about.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...but it is what it is and we have to be pragmatic moving forward. Normally, I'm not a pragmatist first, but Drumpf has changed that.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)I don't want MY life to fundamentally change for the worse because of a Drumpf presidency.
One thing I'm sure of, is that it won't fundamentally change for the worse with a Clinton presidency.
However, I will be sad that my life will NOT fundamentally change for the BETTER because the best candidate in my lifetime, Senator Sanders, was denied the nomination by the mechanizations of the DNC.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)...except the chance that Drumpf gets anywhere near the WH. That SHOULD be a common fear for us all.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)to set up competing centers of power within government by people who really understood how to think about tyrants and tyrannical dictators.
Trump is really the worst prepared candidate of a major party in maybe 170 years. He has no real understanding of the role and limits of the presidency.
If he were to be elected he'd be forced to depend on advisors. Who will advance the names of those advisors? Mostly the poohbahs that already guide the republican party.
Getting another group of neocons could be bad, but really we would face that with a Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich...well frankly with ALL of them.
And because of the way the Constitution was designed an executive can't do too much without enabling cooperation from Congress. Trump can nominate but can't get people onto the Supreme Court without help from the Senate. Trump can't build a wall without the House voting to grant him funds to build it.
Fear isn't a plank in a party platform
Historically Fear, as in the crack of a bull whip, is used by herdsmen to drive animals, including humans in a direction desired by the herdsmen. Wherever it is employed in politics we must consider the motivation of those driving us into a thoughtless rush.
Fear in politics is a meme to drive people who can be made fearful.
Even in the worst of times, facing challenges to our existence, we have nothing to fear except fear itself.
senz
(11,945 posts)with good reason in each case.
The American people need and deserve better.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)the bejesus out of voters with.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)that couldn't be checked by one or both houses of Congress or an injunction from the courts/lawsuit or perhaps a combination of that.
Our system is set up to be difficult for tyranny, indeed getting anything done at all seems a challenge to overcome obstruction. Moreover, it seems the people usually prefer it that way.
To do most of what people talk about as scaring them requires cooperation of other branches of government and/or a nation sitting on their ass letting him do such.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Plus all kinds of administrative decisions, like deciding to NOT go after marijuana businesses in WA and CO, despite the fact that the justice dept could have decided to do that at any time
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Generally speaking, executive orders can be challenged in court, and they can also be met with laws that restrict the presidents ability to act on a particular issue.
Regarding your example, I don't think that an effort by a president Trump to enforce existing federal law, like a drug law, would make him extra dangerous and extremely scary as Trump has been painted.
I'm pretty sure the case against Trump doesn't rest on pot, even if it's scheduling more and more seems in err and ending the collateral social damage of the drug war on it is broadly desireable.
Regulatory rulings, unlike laws are determined by executive branch agencies which does give the executive more latitude, but regulations can still be challenged. If Congress wished it could specify exceptions for pot under the Controlled Substance Act for medicinal and or recreational uses. Changes to the schedule for pot classification including its potential medicinal uses can also be addressed under regulatory review process with input from citizens, industries and technical experts of other agencies.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Off to JPR I will go.
And it is not her supporters which prevent me from supporting her - it is her past deeds and her stances on issues I care about, like war and fracking and the TPP, etc. I will not be getting okay with that stuff.
I think I have most of her supporters, her group, "Bernie but" crap, and any OP headline with her name in it on full ignore or trash.
So - bye!
lbp
(8 posts)Plus, am I wrong to not be thrilled by a candidate being investigated by the FBI? If there were any respect for the voters, HRC and Obama would push to get the investigation completed before the GE. You know, so the public knows who they are voting for (aka vetting). Oh well, maybe 2024 will be the year for progressives.
senz
(11,945 posts)There was a thread about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017365793
And within it, my little comment, with which a lot of people agreed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=366513
They cannot tolerate any criticism, much less news items about her history and current legal problems.
I don't think they're going to change.
Response to Cooley Hurd (Original post)
Post removed
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)or proxy wars with Putin. He's a business man; not a neocon warhawk. Personally, I'd rather build a wall than bomb people to smithereens.
Being in the real estate business, he's also probably a natural enemy of Wall St. Real Estate hates Wall St. Especially after what they did to the RE industry in the last decade or two.
His fraud robbed thousands of people of millions of dollars. Not entire countries of billions.