Oligarchy in Action
South_Mountaineer said:
nan said:
Scully said:
This bears repeating - HRC WON -
No, she lost. She lost to a psychotic cheeto and Democrats downstream were also wiped out. This bears repeating.
She won more votes.
Democrats gained 2 Senate seats.
Democrats gained 6 House seats.
Facts matter, except to nan & paul..
I hate to break it to you but Hillary lost and that is a fact. Please notice she is not living in the White House. She won the popular vote, but that's not how we win in the US. That is a fact. Also, lots of other Democrats lost in addition to Hillary. People were using the term "bloodbath."
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
nan said:
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
Decimated? Wonder what Phil Murphy has to say about that. You may want to update your news feeds. The party has been winning lately.
You may also want to look into gerrymandering among other things. Fantasyland is a good book as well.
Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on.
The article is about the changes since 2008. Not just about the 2016 year election.
nan said:
I hate to break it to you but Hillary lost and that is a fact. Please notice she is not living in the White House. She won the popular vote, but that's not how we win in the US. That is a fact. Also, lots of other Democrats lost in addition to Hillary. People were using the term "bloodbath."
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized/?utm_term=.0e93728e8c40
ho hum, another establishment rag beating up on the Dems.
nan said:
I hate to break it to you but Hillary lost and that is a fact. Please notice she is not living in the White House. She won the popular vote, but that's not how we win in the US. That is a fact. Also, lots of other Democrats lost in addition to Hillary. People were using the term "bloodbath."
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized/?utm_term=.0e93728e8c40
You're missing the point about the popular vote by the way, but what else is new? If you got any of the hundred points that have been thrown your way, you'd stop blathering on about Hillary secretly buying the nomination.
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. He would have beaten Trump.
Nobody can know that. And it is HIGHLY probable that Clinton would have beaten Trump if it were not for the Comey letter.
Clinton should have been able to beat a psychotic cheeto by a landslide. She ran a horrible campaign and now blames everyone but herself for the loss. Anyone else would have won, including Bernie. People are sick of establishment politicians (except in Maplewood--affluent middle-aged white people still seem to be fans).
Could is not the same as would and, as I said before, nobody can know. (And we will never know.)
People are also sick of Democrats/Liberals fighting among themselves. As long as we do that, those other guys are going to keep winning and that will be worse. (I'm not defending any particular faction of the progressive side in this post, but I believe that we are our own worst enemies right now.)
Seems like to you it is all just a silly squabble. What you don't get is that the people you want to win are only slightly better than the people who you are against. And they set up the conditions to get more of the people you don't like elected. We need major change. Just voting for lessor evil is not working anymore. Even the AFL-CIO is calling for an end:
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/afl-cio-calls-for-a-break-with-lesser-of-two-evils-politics/
NO - It is MUCH worse than a silly squabble and it needs to stop and we need to figure out how to work together. For we obviously cannot win apart.
Bernie is running in 20202. His supporters continued to like him and not Clinton because they were excited about his platform and she had no messages except "vote for me or you will get psycho cheeto" You are giving way to much credit and power to these Russian facebook ads. Really ridiculous.
Mueller Indictments Are A F**king Joke & It's Dangerous
jamie said:
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
46 mins ·
Russian trolls and Bernie FB groups:
I am an admin of several Bernie Sanders groups that were active during the campaign, and this is the truth of what I saw.
After Bernie's soft concession in New Hampshire, and increasingly after the real deal in Philadelphia, the number of requests to join these groups that originated in Macedonia increased.
On a given day, I might delete 10-20 Macedonian bot accounts from a group before they got the chance to join.
I'd like to emphasize the moderation process. While many groups were open, most Bernie groups, because of flagrant attacks by Correct the Record required approval to join and post. CTR is David Brock's group that was working for Clinton's campaign and had infiltrated the groups to such a high degree that they were actively taking over these groups by force, coercion, and bribery of the more opportunistic admins.
Admins were on high alert for fake accounts because we were devoted to keeping the integrity of the group and quality of posts. We deleted any articles that had commentary like, "Is this real??" and had article titles like, "Hillary Clinton Prepares For Prison!!"
We didn't want to spread false information about Hillary Clinton, and so we worked hard not to.
We didn't need to spread false information because the true information was damning enough, and if something can be destroyed by truth, it deserves to be destroyed by truth.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton's campaign aggressively infiltrated and destroyed Bernie groups months before the election. In the most well-known incident, CTR post CHILD PORNOGRAPHY in Bernie Sanders Activists to get the page flagged and taken offline temporarily before an important state primary. I was in that group. It happened.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton represented a DOA form of policy that did not inspire enough people.
The truth is that Hillary Clinton had a Rust Belt problem she failed to acknowledge.
The truth is that we have a serious problem with internal election rigging and Democratic voter suppression that far eclipses any influence from eye-rollingly obvious Russian spam bots.
I am offering this information and perspective as one in the trenches. I understand why Bernie rings the alarm, but I would like to offer this information openly to him and other well-meaning politicians who are concerned about election integrity.
David Brock and racist, corrupt election officials are a much bigger threat to the integrity of American elections than the Russians.
There are a great many of us admins who survived the battles of 2016 and know what we're doing. We're intelligent, critical progressives who can spot a bot from 1000 yards.
It's time to stop minimizing grassroots intelligence and judgment, and let us keep doing what we do well. #Russiagate is undermining our faith in progressive politics, and it's time to let this go.
jamie said:
nan said:
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
Decimated? Wonder what Phil Murphy has to say about that. You may want to update your news feeds. The party has been winning lately.
You may also want to look into gerrymandering among other things. Fantasyland is a good book as well.
Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on. Bernie is no longer a presidential candidate - The election is over. Time to move on.
Bernie is running in 2020. Phil Murphy ran against a Chris Christie clone. No one was going to vote for that. There was also that victory against a child molester. Progressive Democrats have also been winning in some unexpected races. However, I would not relax and think that the Democrats can just continue to be Republican lite and win.
South_Mountaineer said:
The article is about the changes since 2008. Not just about the 2016 year election.
nan said:
I hate to break it to you but Hillary lost and that is a fact. Please notice she is not living in the White House. She won the popular vote, but that's not how we win in the US. That is a fact. Also, lots of other Democrats lost in addition to Hillary. People were using the term "bloodbath."
The decimation of the Democratic Party, visualized
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/10/the-decimation-of-the-democratic-party-visualized/?utm_term=.0e93728e8c40
2008 and yet, they just continue with the same losing strategy. They would rather lose to a Republican than let a Progressive win. Perhaps they are paid to lose. Oligarchy in action. Glad we are getting back to the purpose of this thread.
sac said:
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. He would have beaten Trump.
Nobody can know that. And it is HIGHLY probable that Clinton would have beaten Trump if it were not for the Comey letter.
Clinton should have been able to beat a psychotic cheeto by a landslide. She ran a horrible campaign and now blames everyone but herself for the loss. Anyone else would have won, including Bernie. People are sick of establishment politicians (except in Maplewood--affluent middle-aged white people still seem to be fans).
Could is not the same as would and, as I said before, nobody can know. (And we will never know.)
People are also sick of Democrats/Liberals fighting among themselves. As long as we do that, those other guys are going to keep winning and that will be worse. (I'm not defending any particular faction of the progressive side in this post, but I believe that we are our own worst enemies right now.)
Seems like to you it is all just a silly squabble. What you don't get is that the people you want to win are only slightly better than the people who you are against. And they set up the conditions to get more of the people you don't like elected. We need major change. Just voting for lessor evil is not working anymore. Even the AFL-CIO is calling for an end:
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/afl-cio-calls-for-a-break-with-lesser-of-two-evils-politics/
NO - It is MUCH worse than a silly squabble and it needs to stop and we need to figure out how to work together. For we obviously cannot win apart.
Well, the Democrats have been on a losing streak for years without wanting to change course one little bit. They don't want to stop taking money from donors that influence how they vote. Perhaps you should start yelling at them and suggest they start listening to the Progressives who are sick of warning them and then watching them lose and then getting blamed for it. How do you work together with a group that cares more about what their donors want than what the voters want?
Just listened to this interesting discussion between Nomi Konst and Josh Fox around fracking, Putin, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Big Oil, neoliberalism, Russiagate, 2016 campaign strategy and more how it all comes down to Oligarchic rule. It's not short but you should listen to the whole thing because they cover a lot of ground and see the issue from direct experience.
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
It's fascinating to watch as you build and build your utterly false narrative regarding the election and politics in general.
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election.
To echo the previous comment, the indictments do not state that. What you may be referring to are Rosenstein’s statements after the indictment’s release, in which he stressed that it contained no allegations that these operatives affected the election’s outcome. Not alleging is not the same as affirming that “the influence did NOT affect the outcome of the election.” Federal officials have consistently said there’s no way to determine this, one way or the other.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:To echo the previous comment, the indictments do not state that. What you may be referring to are Rosenstein’s statements after the indictment’s release, in which he stressed that it contained no allegations that these operatives affected the election’s outcome. Not alleging is not the same as affirming that “the influence did NOT affect the outcome of the election.” Federal officials have consistently said there’s no way to determine this, one way or the other.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election.
Says you. Sean Hannity made it clear that Trump's been vindicated. He went on and on about it on Friday.
You could easily do a "Who Said It - Jimmy Dore or Sean Hannity" quiz with the Dore and Hannity episodes on the indictment.
drummerboy said:
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
It's fascinating to watch as you build and build your utterly false narrative regarding the election and politics in general.
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
nan said:
jamie said:
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
So - you're getting your news from a Bernie site admin? wow - just wow. And thanks to everyone for calling nan out for her claim as to what she thought the indictment stated. And we're the ones falling for BS? 
jamie said:
nan said:
Bernie is running in 2020.
Please provide proof.
Please don't ask for that. You just make an opening for another tirade.
drummerboy said:
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
Not Jimmy or Sean, but the Orange Cheeto himself.
Nan and those fighting with her, here is what she does not seem to understand. Nan, your point of view is to the Left of most people in this Country. It's even to the Left of the left-leaning folks on MOL. In my opinion if you took a Poll on Neoliberal positions you would find that a large plurality, if not a majority, of Americans are neoliberals.
However a small but substantial portion of voters have no strong beliefs or positions at all. They vote for a candidiate for President the way they vote for a celebrity. Which candidate is better looking or reminds them of someone they admire, a friend or family member. Whis candidate is more Charismatic?
How else can we explain a person who voted for Obama in 2012 and then voted for the leading Birther in 2016.
It's not "the economy, stupid". It's the stupidity.
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
sac said:
nan said:
Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. He would have beaten Trump.
Nobody can know that. And it is HIGHLY probable that Clinton would have beaten Trump if it were not for the Comey letter.
Clinton should have been able to beat a psychotic cheeto by a landslide. She ran a horrible campaign and now blames everyone but herself for the loss. Anyone else would have won, including Bernie. People are sick of establishment politicians (except in Maplewood--affluent middle-aged white people still seem to be fans).
Could is not the same as would and, as I said before, nobody can know. (And we will never know.)
People are also sick of Democrats/Liberals fighting among themselves. As long as we do that, those other guys are going to keep winning and that will be worse. (I'm not defending any particular faction of the progressive side in this post, but I believe that we are our own worst enemies right now.)
Seems like to you it is all just a silly squabble. What you don't get is that the people you want to win are only slightly better than the people who you are against. And they set up the conditions to get more of the people you don't like elected. We need major change. Just voting for lessor evil is not working anymore. Even the AFL-CIO is calling for an end:
https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/afl-cio-calls-for-a-break-with-lesser-of-two-evils-politics/
NO - It is MUCH worse than a silly squabble and it needs to stop and we need to figure out how to work together. For we obviously cannot win apart.
Well, the Democrats have been on a losing streak for years without wanting to change course one little bit. They don't want to stop taking money from donors that influence how they vote. Perhaps you should start yelling at them and suggest they start listening to the Progressives who are sick of warning them and then watching them lose and then getting blamed for it. How do you work together with a group that cares more about what their donors want than what the voters want?
I haven't yelled at anyone, but I have said similar things to people on both sides of this "more than a squabble". But right now, nobody makes me want to "work with" them.
The is no evidence that this affected the outcome of the election. Your views on my views are just your views. Fact is different than opinion.
drummerboy said:
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
It's fascinating to watch as you build and build your utterly false narrative regarding the election and politics in general.
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
jamie said:
nan said:
Bernie is running in 2020.
Please provide proof.
Nothing is for sure, but he's been taking all the needed steps to get his ducks lined up: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/27/bernie-sanders-2020-elections-258160
Of course, you said, "The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election," which is flat-out false.
The Russian program essentially served as an arm of the Trump online advertising campaign, in addition to more nefarious activities like trying to suppress minority turn-out (which far lefties used to oppose). So it's hard to tie those types of things with direct action in terms of switching votes. I guess it goes back to the age-old question: Does advertising work?
nan said:
The is no evidence that this affected the outcome of the election. Your views on my views are just your views. Fact is different than opinion.
drummerboy said:
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
It's fascinating to watch as you build and build your utterly false narrative regarding the election and politics in general.
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
jamie said:
nan said:
jamie said:
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
So - you're getting your news from a Bernie site admin? wow - just wow. And thanks to everyone for calling nan out for her claim as to what she thought the indictment stated. And we're the ones falling for BS?
I think it's an interesting piece of evidence about what really happened during the election. Why are you being so nasty? Do you want me to leave MOL so you can all sit around and agree with each other? Since you are the moderator, I expect a bit more neutrality. Just let me know--I will get off for good. I don't want to be where I am not welcome.
There is no evidence because they are not looking for that evidence. That is not one of the responsibilities of the investigation.
This has been clear from the very beginning. There is no official body looking for the specific effects of the meddling yet.
Can you get this one thing right at least? And when you find yourself repeating a claim by Trump, doesn't that make you stop and wonder that maybe you're wrong? I can't think of a more clear indication of being in opposition to the truth.
nan said:
The is no evidence that this affected the outcome of the election. Your views on my views are just your views. Fact is different than opinion.
drummerboy said:
The indictment says no such thing. Who told you that. Jimmy Dore?
It's fascinating to watch as you build and build your utterly false narrative regarding the election and politics in general.
nan said:
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
nan said:
jamie said:
nan said:
jamie said:
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
So - you're getting your news from a Bernie site admin? wow - just wow. And thanks to everyone for calling nan out for her claim as to what she thought the indictment stated. And we're the ones falling for BS?
I think it's an interesting piece of evidence about what really happened during the election. Why are you being so nasty? Do you want me to leave MOL so you can all sit around and agree with each other? Since you are the moderator, I expect a bit more neutrality. Just let me know--I will get off for good. I don't want to be where I am not welcome.
So you're saying I should stay silent when I see something I disagree with? Ok, I will try. I didn't know I couldn't have an opinion as a moderator.
I'll start taking your side:
BERNIE IS OFFICIALLY A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE FOR 2020!!!!
Hillary Clinton's campaign aggressively infiltrated and destroyed Bernie groups months before the election.
jamie said:
nan said:
jamie said:
nan said:
jamie said:
A very telling moment for Bernie supporters is when they booed Bernie when he told them to support Clinton. This was bizarre and sad. But the Russian influence to the Bernie side is beginning to make sense. Their influence in fake narratives to demean Clinton and prop up Bernie and Trump helped to solidify Bernie's base - which extended long after he was a candidate and his supporters could not (and still can not) let him go.
The indictments state that the interference did NOT influence the outcome of the election. You are falling for BS. By the way, the worst interference during the election came from Correct the Record, the supporters of Hillary Clinton. They constantly interfered with Bernie sites. Here is a post I saw yesterday on Facebook from a Bernie site administrator:
So - you're getting your news from a Bernie site admin? wow - just wow. And thanks to everyone for calling nan out for her claim as to what she thought the indictment stated. And we're the ones falling for BS?
I think it's an interesting piece of evidence about what really happened during the election. Why are you being so nasty? Do you want me to leave MOL so you can all sit around and agree with each other? Since you are the moderator, I expect a bit more neutrality. Just let me know--I will get off for good. I don't want to be where I am not welcome.
So you're saying I should stay silent when I see something I disagree with? Ok, I will try. I didn't know I couldn't have an opinion as a moderator.
I'll start taking your side:
BERNIE IS OFFICIALLY A PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE FOR 2020!!!!
Hillary Clinton's campaign aggressively infiltrated and destroyed Bernie groups months before the election.
Of course you can disagree--it's just the tone is extremely nasty and mean. When the moderator attacks a poster, it sends a message that it's OK. Used to be personal attacks got someone banned. Now Sbenois can say I'm nuts and everyone thinks it is funny I guess. I'm not enjoying my time here as I used to.
And yes, Bernie is getting ready to run--anything could happen, but that is what is in the works. And yes Hillary destroyed his campaign when she had the DNC only working for her in secret. We disagree, but there is lots of evidence. Don't see why this these are such controversial positions.
It's not criticizing Sanders. Why do the "We hate Hillary" people deflect criticism like that?