merrily
merrily's JournalThe simple truth: The people with lots of money don't want leftist government.
The people with money control the media and a number of other things that the 99% don't control, which things are very useful in winning elections and controlling politicians.
Unless and until you find a way impact the prior two sentences, the transfer of wealth to the top 10% will continue.
Question submitted by merrily
TWm Testing, one, two, three. Testing, one, two, three.
I, for one, am downright thrilled about the tombstoning of one MannyGoldstein.
While I have a secret crush on his cousin, Third Way Manny, I have always found MannyGoldstein repugnant. He was outspoken, often sarcastic and uber, far, far left, radical liberal. I had nothing in common with him at all.
Third Way Manny, on the other hand, was plain spoken, meant what he said and had his heart in the right place--right at the DNC--and I do mean right. The exception, of course, was when it was at the Brooklyn, NY headquarters of the Hillary campaign (genuflects). I hope we hear from TWM, even though his disagreeable cousin, MannyGoldstein is gone (and may I add, good riddance!).
If I do get wind of anything from Third Way Manny, I'll keep you all posted, so to speak.
Third Way merrily (aka TWm)
"Reputational injury" So much for the lies that Sanders admitted wrongdoing.
If the Sanders' campaign had admitted wrongdoing, then a court would consider true a claim that the Sanders campaign had been guilty of wrongdoing. Telling the truth about the Sanders' campaign is not the basis for a claim for "reputational injury" in a lawsuit by the Sanders. Making that claim in court would be considered "frivolous." The court could fine both the Sanders campaign and its attorney for raising a frivolous claim in court.
Can't say for sure, but I doubt marym625 is more concerned with Sanders than with your rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=908415I can't speak with certitude about mary or manny or anyone else. However, I know I personally am not for Sanders first and human rights issues later. Rather, I am for Sanders because of his stands on human rights issues first and foremost, but also because of his stands other issues.
Bernie Sanders took the stands he took when they were very unpopular and might have cost him something--took them because he believed in them, not because they were polling well. That is what triangulation is about--taking a mid point between the Republican position and a center left Democratic position for the purpose of getting yourself elected and re-elected. Its not about fighting for what is best for Americans and America.
The very reason the the DLC came into existence in the first place was that Reagan had won, not that the DLC had some vision for Americans and America. Al From, DLC founder, approached Clinton with "I have a plan that I believe would make you President," not with, "How would you like to do great things for your fellow Americans?"
I have zero desire to vote for someone's personal ambition to be elected and re-elected. I am voting for a set of principles. While Bernie Sanders has not always fought for every one of the principles that comprise my ideal set, he is about principles and not about his personal well-being and ambition. Maybe he is not perfect in that respect either, but he sure comes a heck of a lot closer to it than either of the triangulating Clintons.
Okay, Bernie Supporters, I promise not to tell anyone. Just whisper in my ear.
How did we and our fellow Bernie supporters who do not post at DU manage to get control of the internet?
Apparently, Bernie supporters on and off DU are the only ones who have had access to the internet during the last several months.
I am the first to admit I am no whiz when it comes to things like this. How did we manage it? Did you all take up a collection without including me and hire Anonymous to pull this off?
Three major neworks, one of which owns MSNBC, colluding. That's a lot of sponsors.
NPR and PBS haven't exactly been all over Bernie, either. NPR said they would cover him when something newsworthy happened.
Here's a man running on small donations who, before his run for POTUS remained independent so that he would not have to be beholden to donors. That's a sea change, but apparently not newsworthy. Here's a man running on free education at public institutions of higher learning, also a sea change. Here's a man who walks picket lines while running for President. Here's a man who, while being shunned by the the Party, media, etc. draws in overflow alone numbers other candidates can only dream of. Nothing newsworthy, my a$$.
I so hope Sanders becomes President, but I have several caveats to this article.
First, Democratic Party very heavy hitters (Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Daschle, et al.) were behind Obama, not Hillary. The opposite is true of Sanders this time.
Media was behind Obama in the primary-from 2004, in fact, if not sooner. As soon as Obama finished his keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention of 2004, those covering that convention started declaring him Presidential material. (The keynote slot itself is usually indicative of the thinking at the time of party's heavy hitters.) The opposite of all that is true of Sanders this time.
The 2008 debate schedule favored the lesser known candidates last time. To say the least, the opposite is true this time.
Obama had not restricted his sources of funds last time and had a very nice fund, so much so that he had a replica of Air Force One custom made for his primary "whistlestopping." Sanders has been operating on a shoestring.
Hillary has had 7 more years since 2008 to circle the wagons.
It's not so much the tautology that Sanders 2016 is not Obama 2008 as it that Sanders does not have the benefit of things that helped Obama. And then, there is the fact that Obama was also very personally appealing to the Democratic base.
I do not say this to discourage Sanders supporters. I say it because being in reality is almost always more useful than being out of reality. I say it also to underscore the need to work for the Sanders campaign IRL and to donate to it.
Never be complacent and never give up.
Consider donating, even $1, to Timothy Smith, Bernie's NH campaign chair At least, "like" him
Facebook Post
Rep. Timothy Smith 6:52pm Sep 22
like emoticon Thank you for the kind words.
Rep. Timothy Smith
Rep. Timothy Smith 11:33am Dec 11
Friends,
Thank you for your current and past support. We're nearing the end of 2015, so I figured I'd send everyone a quick update.
I've filed my legislation for 2016, and my primary bill is an omnibus anti-corruption act that will overhaul the rules for lobbying, PAC disclosure, candidates taking donations from industries they regulate, and a number of other important measures. I was able to get ten co-sponsors, but I expect a serious fight due to the current Republican majority. Hopefully local media picks up on the bill once we get into the legislative session for the year.
So far, my role in the Sanders campaign has been very rewarding. I am on the NH campaign steering committee, and have been serving as a surrogate speaker and attending many events on behalf of the campaign. The response has been very positive, and as one of the very first elected officials in the country to officially endorse Senator Sanders it's been truly an honor to be part of this amazing journey. Currently, Senator Sanders is 10 points ahead here in New Hampshire in the polls as of this week.
One of the many reasons I chose to endorse Bernie Sanders for president is our shared belief that we should be elected by our constituents and not through large campaign and finance. In my previous elections, I have only solicited donations from 'regular people' and even mailed back lobbyist checks because I didn't want their corrupt money. I plan to continue this method for next year – I will only be soliciting donations from 'regular people' like you, and will not accept anonymous dark-money from superpacs. This means that I need to rely on a higher quantity of smaller donations rather than big lobbyist checks. Please consider donating a few dollars if you can.
Since a bunch of folks have asked, I've opened the fundraising for my 2016 re-election campaign ahead of schedule, using Act Blue
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/timsmith2016
I run my campaigns with almost no overhead at all (really just bank fees), and at least 95% of all donations will be used to directly fund voter contact.
I'll be having a campaign launch get-together here in Manchester, as well as the 'official' announcement, in January. If you've already offered to help locally, I'll be in touch with the details – if you would like to help or get involved, let me know and I'll put you on the list. For the first half of the year, most campaign activity will focus on fundraising, social media, and mail. In-person campaigning probably won't start until late May or early June.
Happy Holidays, and best wishes through the end of 2015!
NH State Rep. Tim Smith (D-Manchester)
tim@timsmithnh.com
http://l.facebook.com/l/iAQHvE-bXAQF4eEy6SsUBvJuEjy54q9-E9kLoOXgPBo1ixg/www.timsmithnh.com
IOW, if Democrats do this, it could make things more difficult for me when I run for President.
Not that this--or anything--will impact a single DUer.
Clinton only came out for marriage equality in 2013, in what the Economist dubbed a “farcically late conversion.” Even then, she seemed to endorse the Dick Cheney position that states should be allowed to decide whether or not to deprive gay people of their fundamental right to wed.
Yes, but, when Sanders voted against DOMA in 1996--when it was still very politically risky so to do, he had the gall to use the same states rights statement used by every Democrat in the House and Senate who voted against it, including "conservatives" like Kennedy, Feingold, and Wellstone. I am sure that was simply wild coincidence and not a statement that all Democrats in the House and Senate agreed to make. Sanders should go to hell for being decades ahead of Hillary on gay rights and agreeing with Democrats to give the same reason for voting against DOMA in 1996 that she gave in 2013.
DU's double standards could not possibly be more laughable sometimes.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
