Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread

POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44594
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, March 9, 2016 6:16 PM (P)

Didn't see one, so here it is.

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Huge turnouts. A small-donor campaign fund. A reputation for consistency and decency. A truly progressive agenda.

I think he'll rout Hillary and become our next president. He also beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary in the polls.

SECOND

Wednesday, March 9, 2016 9:48 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Just like he is getting more youthful looking and, any day now in order to win the general election, will be embracing Christ and throwing aside his Judaism/atheism/socialism.

here are a few exit poll results from Michigan:

Sanders won union households 49-47 percent.

Clinton won voters who think the economy is the most important issue by 51-48 percent.

Among voters who think trade with other countries takes away US jobs, Sanders won 58-41 percent.

Among voters worried about the economy, Clinton won 50-48 percent.

Sanders won a convincing victory among voters who think trade takes away US jobs. But more generally, voters concerned about the economy broke pretty evenly.

The bigger story, perhaps, is that Sanders won a whopping 83 percent of voters under 30. That's a fifth of the electorate. He also won a respectable 31 percent of the black vote. In both cases, this is better than he usually does.

THGRRI

Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:06 PM (P)

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, March 9, 2016 11:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.
Just like he is getting more youthful looking and, any day now in order to win the general election, will be embracing Christ and throwing aside his Judaism/atheism/socialism.

here are a few exit poll results from Michigan:

Sanders won union households 49-47 percent.

Clinton won voters who think the economy is the most important issue by 51-48 percent.

Among voters who think trade with other countries takes away US jobs, Sanders won 58-41 percent.

Among voters worried about the economy, Clinton won 50-48 percent.

Sanders won a convincing victory among voters who think trade takes away US jobs. But more generally, voters concerned about the economy broke pretty evenly.

The bigger story, perhaps, is that Sanders won a whopping 83 percent of voters under 30. That's a fifth of the electorate. He also won a respectable 31 percent of the black vote. In both cases, this is better than he usually does.

Sanders didn't campaign too hard in the southern states. He was never going to do well there. Establishment dems, black religious voters who really like the Clintons, Democratic machine workings and just a touch of anti-semitism meant he would choke there even if he tried.

Michigan was different. He actually organized and spent a little money, and voila.

The Bubba vote is all counted. It's on to the blue and purple states, now. The media, of course, just ignore him and fawns over Trump and Clinton.

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, March 10, 2016 12:31 PM (P)

You know, I'm all for the little guy finally getting a break in this country. Minimum wage, health care, etc. But Bernie sounds more and more
like a broken record. All he continues to say is "Wall Street, Billionaires
and fixed economy."

Granted, those things matter and are part of the landscape, but the country's problems run much deeper than that. Couldn't he at least acknowledge and address some of the other issues facing the American people. Not all will be fixed by changing the economic structure of this
country. I really don't think he's aware of all that is going on here.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Didn't see one, so here it is.

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Huge turnouts. A small-donor campaign fund. A reputation for consistency and decency. A truly progressive agenda.

I think he'll rout Hillary and become our next president. He also beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary in the polls.

SECOND

Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Couldn't he at least acknowledge and address some of the other issues facing the American people. Not all will be fixed by changing the economic structure of this country. I really don't think he's aware of all that is going on here.

SGG

Bernie has simple, crowd-pleasing answers to every question. He's for X, full stop. He's against Y, end of story. There's no nuance.

On whether Bernie supports fracking: "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."

On reforming Wall Street: "If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist....Within one year, my administration will break these institutions up so that they no longer pose a grave threat to the economy."

On whether there's even a "single circumstance" in which abortion should be illegal: "That is a decision to be made by the woman, her physician and her family. That's my view."

On prison reform: "I promise at the end of my first term we won't have more people in jail than in any other country."

Bernie hit the rhetorical peak of his career while mayor of Burlington (population 39,000), when he was a staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. As if Burlington mayors make even the tiniest difference in what happened to Latin America. Since then he has never stopped running his mouth and he has never had more power to change the real world than when he was mayor.

SECOND

Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:53 PM (P)

Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet’s manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard.

The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.

Thank you, Bernie, for selling out the nation for Vermont jobs.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/03/02/trump-is-right-about-
defense-spending-and-that-should-scare-you/

JO753

Friday, March 11, 2016 8:43 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:

Lois CK vid

Well sed.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

REAVERFAN

Friday, March 11, 2016 8:07 PM (P)

He wins debate polls by 90% or better, consistently.

If you think all he talks about is billionaires and Wall Street, you need to check out his position on all the other issues.

Don't count on MSM to paint an accurate picture of him. Trump gets 80x the media coverage Bernie gets. They hope that by ignoring him, he'll go away.

He'll be our next president at the rate he's going.

RAHLMACLAREN

Saturday, March 12, 2016 1:57 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You know, I'm all for the little guy finally getting a break in this country. Minimum wage, health care, etc. But Bernie sounds more and more
like a broken record. All he continues to say is "Wall Street, Billionaires
and fixed economy."

Granted, those things matter and are part of the landscape, but the country's problems run much deeper than that. Couldn't he at least acknowledge and address some of the other issues facing the American people. Not all will be fixed by changing the economic structure of this
country. I really don't think he's aware of all that is going on here.

SGG

Which issue, that you're concerned about, has he not addressed?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 12, 2016 7:43 PM (P)

The reason why Bernie has only my halfhearted support is because of his foreign policy. He's been in the Senate long enough to have a voting record. I think this sums it up quite well ...

Quote:
A report on Yahoo News August 24 raises the question of “How President Bernie Sanders would handle foreign policy.” It begins by taking note of this curious fact: “Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont, has a special ‘War and Peace’ section on his official website, detailing his views on issues like Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East peace process. Bernie Sanders, the contender for the Democratic presidential nomination … doesn’t.”

The report goes on to detail the positions that Sanders has taken on a range of foreign policy issues, based on his voting record as a congressman and senator. His profile is typical of liberal Democrats, supporting the Clinton administration’s war against Serbia in 1999 and the Bush administration’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, while voting against the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq in 2002. Sanders criticized Obama’s bombing of Libya in 2011—mainly because he did not seek congressional authorization—but backed his bombing of Iraq and Syria in 2014.

Sanders is a down-the-line supporter of the state of Israel, repeatedly endorsing Israeli onslaughts against the Gaza Strip, most recently the savage bombardment of July-August 2014 which killed nearly 2,000 Palestinians, including more than 500 children. At an August 2014 town hall meeting, Sanders notoriously demanded that audience members “shut up” when they questioned his support for Israel’s criminal actions.

He is a vociferous opponent of China in both economic

That's a good thing, IMO

Quote:
and foreign policy, and backed the US intervention in Ukraine to foment a coup spearheaded by fascist elements to overthrow the pro-Russian government and set up a pro-Western stooge regime. “The entire world has got to stand up to Putin,” Sanders declared last year, at a time when the warmongering campaign in the US and European media was at its height.-

Better than Hillary? Yes. But that's a VERY low bar to step over!

That link that THUGR posted is excellent. Thanks, THUGR!

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:07 AM (P)

Okay, so he won Michigan despite predictions, but as I watch the debates, he's beginning to sound like a broken record.............

Moderator: Flint water supply and the politicos who did a "Titanic" on the residents of the city, how can "we" do better?

Bernie: If Wall Street were to pay for their crimes this wouldn't have happened.

Moderator: Homeland security......blah, blah

Bernie: I'm glad you asked that question, security is important but minimum wage should be $15/hr and then free tuition for all colleges...............

No matter what you ask him or what the topic he always brings it back to his main
themes - Wall Street, economic equality, Hilary and the transcripts, college tuition, Billionaire class. Granted those are important issues, I'm all for someone
from Wall Street going to jail for almost bankrupting the country, but there's more to it than that. Everyone is tired of politics as usual because the billionaires
succeeded in pounding it into our collective psyche.

It's all about control, and they have concocted a brilliant plan. Koch brothers don't fool me, I know that they want to control the majority of people's thinking.
Get 'em all riled up and not thinking clearly about our collective future. Get 'em
hating on each other instead of thinking about what's right for this country. Bernie has some good ideas - a revolution is needed. I'm not sure if he can lead the way.

Funny thing is that the gridlock in Washington is really due to the "outsiders" rather than the "insiders" as the king of all that is wrong with Washington has
so emphatically stated. Just to be clear, that king is Ted Cruz. I should really say, Jester and master of the Tea Party, who have been unusually quiet of late.
Of course, we have the "silent majority," a misnomer if I ever heard one, is
another branch of the Tea Party who are desperately trying to hang on to their privilege and dominance. Of course, I'm speaking in the general abstract of the nation's collective psyche that this country is for a particular group of people,
and that all others are mere interlopers.

Guess again! Generally speaking the Koch Brothers want to maintain the status quo:
namely, remain rich and privileged......no matter what.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Didn't see one, so here it is.

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Huge turnouts. A small-donor campaign fund. A reputation for consistency and decency. A truly progressive agenda.

I think he'll rout Hillary and become our next president. He also beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary in the polls.

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, March 13, 2016 7:32 AM (P)

Okay, let's look at one in particular:

Does he really think that breaking up that old gang at Wall Street is going to fix
what took place in Flint?

You may wonder why Flint is on my mind. Here's why: Because Flint could happen
anywhere in the country. Recently they've discovered lead in the water of a school
in Newark, NJ. And in Jackson, MS more of the same.

Yes, he has addressed fixing the country's infrastructure. Bravo! But the president has addressed this almost from the beginning of his time in office, yet nothing has been done. What Bernie has mentioned in his campaigning is nothing new. Again, kudos to him for even mentioning the country's infrastructure. Does he have a specific plan? I haven't heard it.

He's worried about Hilary's transcripts, really!? I always thought that this country admired and revered those who accomplished success and made gobs of money.
Trump for example. But because there's a Clinton after her name............

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You know, I'm all for the little guy finally getting a break in this country. Minimum wage, health care, etc. But Bernie sounds more and more
like a broken record. All he continues to say is "Wall Street, Billionaires
and fixed economy."

Granted, those things matter and are part of the landscape, but the country's problems run much deeper than that. Couldn't he at least acknowledge and address some of the other issues facing the American people. Not all will be fixed by changing the economic structure of this
country. I really don't think he's aware of all that is going on here.

SGG

Which issue, that you're concerned about, has he not addressed?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Didn't see one, so here it is.

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Huge turnouts. A small-donor campaign fund. A reputation for consistency and decency. A truly progressive agenda.

I think he'll rout Hillary and become our next president. He also beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary in the polls.

How do you view him defeating his greatest opponent - the MainStreamMedia?
They cannot back him over Hilliary.
So how does he pull it off? Even if he gets more delegates, Hilliary will still be annointed the winner.

THGRRI

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

How do you view him defeating his greatest opponent - the MainStreamMedia?
They cannot back him over Hilliary.
So how does he pull it off? Even if he gets more delegates, Hilliary will still be annointed the winner.

No, she won't

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:53 AM (P)

Preserved for future review.

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

How do you view him defeating his greatest opponent - the MainStreamMedia?
They cannot back him over Hilliary.
So how does he pull it off? Even if he gets more delegates, Hilliary will still be annointed the winner.

No, she won't

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 6:13 AM (P)

Bernie is a grumpy, dogmatic scold. And his policies - and his presentation (see grumpy, dogmatic scold) - leave many Americans feeling unsettled, rather than hopeful and energized. That he's doing as well as he is is an indictment of Hillary, who I think should have otherwise been a shoe-in for the democratic nomination.

Though my hopes are for Bernie, I think Hillary will get the nomination.

If she gets the nomination, I will NOT be voting for her, no matter who she's running against.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 8:19 AM (P)

SGG

"Yes, he has addressed fixing the country's infrastructure. Bravo! But the president has addressed this almost from the beginning of his time in office, yet nothing has been done."

The difference between Bernie and Obama, or Bernie and Hillary, is that Bernie's been walking his talk for a long, long time. His record and his rhetoric are consistent.

Now, whether he'll be able to get anything done is a different question. But I think his intentions are beyond doubt.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

RAHLMACLAREN

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

"Yes, he has addressed fixing the country's infrastructure. Bravo! But the president has addressed this almost from the beginning of his time in office, yet nothing has been done."

The difference between Bernie and Obama, or Bernie and Hillary, is that Bernie's been walking his talk for a long, long time. His record and his rhetoric are consistent.

Now, whether he'll be able to get anything done is a different question. But I think his intentions are beyond doubt.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

If Bernie WINS, it's a fair guess to say that the Dems would also gain seats in Congress, leading to a better possibility of things getting done.

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

JO753

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:23 AM (P)

Even tho I think Berniez messaj iz getting monotonous and Hillary haz better credentialz for the job, I put in a vote for him today.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

SECOND

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

If [Clinton] gets the nomination, I will NOT be voting for her, no matter who she's running against.

An idea that's integral to Bernie's political revolution but never required him to win a presidential election --- mobilizing young liberals to vote every two years rather than skipping midterms.

Although young liberals do vote for downballot candidates when they show up to vote in presidential elections, they're not especially engaged with those races, which is why they don't bother voting in midterms.

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 1:56 PM (P)

Yes, the MSM is doing a fantastic job on all of us. Half the country is going for Trump and the other half for Hilary.................really!?

Everyone blames the MSM for the country's attitude and for the nominees success.
But wasn't it Bernie, despite the MSM touting Trump and Hilary, that defeated her
in Michigan?

Please, that excuse is as tired as Bernie's "Wall Street Bad" montra. A tired old excuse that died along with the Slinky.

On another front; The Donald managed to push back the clock about 50 years to the rocking 60s. The Chicago convention in 1968 was sure rocking as punches and
fists flew all over the place. YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Thems were da good ole days! Back when the Silent Majority was taking their first baby steps, and white sheets were more than a fashion statement. Fuck Yeah! The Donald sure knows how to show "his" people a good time. And, of course, he blames everyone else - Bernie supporters and the MSM - but himself, for inciting a riot, er, I mean, a party. P-A-R-T--Y, because I gotta!

Time sure does fly when your prejudice is showing.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Didn't see one, so here it is.

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.

Huge turnouts. A small-donor campaign fund. A reputation for consistency and decency. A truly progressive agenda.

I think he'll rout Hillary and become our next president. He also beats Trump by a larger margin than Hillary in the polls.

How do you view him defeating his greatest opponent - the MainStreamMedia?
They cannot back him over Hilliary.
So how does he pull it off? Even if he gets more delegates, Hilliary will still be annointed the winner.

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:09 PM (P)

So, his intentions are good and consistent. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, let me see: Obama, as you know, has been blocked and every turn, almost from Day One. So, his intentions are not honorable? He doesn't want to put America to work and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? And you know this, How exactly?

Bernie has some good ideas, no doubt, but will he be able to accomplish 1/10th of
what he has proposed? I really do wish that Bernie and his Donaldness wins. I want
to see how they will implement their lofty ideas and goals. By the end of Trump's disastrous 1 term, let's see if he actually builds that wall and deports 11 million
people. And Bernie, let's see if he will get Congress to go along with restructuring Wall Street.

I really do hope they win. I'd like to see them succeed. Let's see how far they get.

Elizabeth Warren 2020!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

"Yes, he has addressed fixing the country's infrastructure. Bravo! But the president has addressed this almost from the beginning of his time in office, yet nothing has been done."

The difference between Bernie and Obama, or Bernie and Hillary, is that Bernie's been walking his talk for a long, long time. His record and his rhetoric are consistent.

Now, whether he'll be able to get anything done is a different question. But I think his intentions are beyond doubt.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SHINYGOODGUY

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 2:18 PM (P)

That is the Million Dollar Question!

I think the Repubs have done so much damage to their brand that the mid-term elections may swing back the other way. But that's a Big If! Basically, that's the key.........and it doesn't matter if it's Bernie or Hilary at the helm, or, at least, it shouldn't matter.

But, I'm thinking it would be best that Trump win, just so that people won't complain that the fix is in. Plus he'll tank so badly that one of two things will happen: Either the GOP will slowly fade into the sunset, or, you will see the formation of the Independent Party.......Heaven help us!

Maybe both will happen. Please Lord, let Trump win!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

"Yes, he has addressed fixing the country's infrastructure. Bravo! But the president has addressed this almost from the beginning of his time in office, yet nothing has been done."

The difference between Bernie and Obama, or Bernie and Hillary, is that Bernie's been walking his talk for a long, long time. His record and his rhetoric are consistent.

Now, whether he'll be able to get anything done is a different question. But I think his intentions are beyond doubt.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

If Bernie WINS, it's a fair guess to say that the Dems would also gain seats in Congress, leading to a better possibility of things getting done.

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SECOND

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Either the GOP will slowly fade into the sunset, or, you will see the formation of the Independent Party.......Heaven help us!

Maybe both will happen. Please Lord, let Trump win!

SGG

That Independent Party will not happen. Why? Why is the USA a two party political system? Why only two parties?

Answer: the USA has single member districts. It refuses to use proportional representation. Nearly all democracies with winner-take-all districts tend toward two-party systems. A party that always ends up in 2nd or 3rd place will never get any seats. Zero seats. Why James Madison thought that was good idea for the USA Constitution, I will never know, but now it cannot be fixed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, March 18, 2016 4:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Bernie is a grumpy, dogmatic scold. And his policies - and his presentation (see grumpy, dogmatic scold) - leave many Americans feeling unsettled, rather than hopeful and energized. That he's doing as well as he is is an indictment of Hillary, who I think should have otherwise been a shoe-in for the democratic nomination.

Though my hopes are for Bernie, I think Hillary will get the nomination.

If she gets the nomination, I will NOT be voting for her, no matter who she's running against.

Are you a supporter of "anyone but Hilliary" this year?

1KIKI

Friday, March 18, 2016 9:09 AM (P)

" So, his intentions are not honorable?"

Not with his neo-CON State Department, spying on us, drone strikes, and pushing those 'free' trade agreements. Those are all on him, and something he has complete control over.

So, no, his intentions are not honorable.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Monday, March 28, 2016 11:15 AM (P)

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/new_york_times_busted_for_anti_bernie_
bias_the_iconic_clinton_endorsing_newspaper_slyly_edits_article_to_smear_sanders/

New York Times busted for anti-Bernie bias: The iconic, Clinton-endorsing newspaper slyly edits article to smear Sanders
As the media is slammed for anti-Sanders bias, the NYT changes a piece on Bernie's impressive legislative record
Ben Norton

The website NewsDiffs tracks changes in articles in prominent media outlets. The following shows the times of the changes in the headline (original is at the bottom):

Content in the article that shined positively on Sanders was removed as well.

The Times cut out a quote from a longtime adviser who said Sanders’ approach “has been a very successful strategy,” and instead replaced it with two harshly critical paragraphs that suggest he would not be able to succeed at a national level and accuse him of promising voters ” the moon and a good part of the sun.”

A line describing Sanders’ legislative approach as “the liberal mirror image of the Tea Party Republicans who oppose large-scale legislation” was also edited and taken out of context, reducing Sanders’ record simply to “the liberal mirror image of the Tea Party Republicans.”

Moreover, the Times quietly added a phrase that implies Sanders only succeeds “at the margins,” and added a qualifier that weakens a line that calls the Vermont senator an “effective, albeit modest, legislator.”

The Times makes no mention whatsoever of the edits in the piece, and has added no editor’s notes. The newspaper’s public editor, Margaret Sullivan, insisted she would report changes at the Times Public Editor’s Journal. As of 2 pm EST on Wednesday, has not yet done so.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, March 28, 2016 1:03 PM (P)

I'm tired of hearing about Trump this and Trump that, but Hilary doesn't get half the love Bernie gets in the media. For months I heard nothing but how the crowds were flocking to Bernie rallies. Now, all of a sudden...............boo hoo, we're not getting enough coverage.

And now, the anti-semitism excuse is being thrown in? Give me a break! But surely you've heard the news that there's no more racism in the United States.

So what you are saying is that the South hates Jews. Hmmmmm, I wonder who would
say such a thing? Surely not Trump or anyone wearing white sheets over their
heads.

Funny thing: Why not even try to communicate?

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

Winning Michigan last night, in spite of polling predictions that he'd lose by 20%, has shown that Sanders' campaign is growing stronger by the day.
Just like he is getting more youthful looking and, any day now in order to win the general election, will be embracing Christ and throwing aside his Judaism/atheism/socialism.

here are a few exit poll results from Michigan:

Sanders won union households 49-47 percent.

Clinton won voters who think the economy is the most important issue by 51-48 percent.

Among voters who think trade with other countries takes away US jobs, Sanders won 58-41 percent.

Among voters worried about the economy, Clinton won 50-48 percent.

Sanders won a convincing victory among voters who think trade takes away US jobs. But more generally, voters concerned about the economy broke pretty evenly.

The bigger story, perhaps, is that Sanders won a whopping 83 percent of voters under 30. That's a fifth of the electorate. He also won a respectable 31 percent of the black vote. In both cases, this is better than he usually does.

Sanders didn't campaign too hard in the southern states. He was never going to do well there. Establishment dems, black religious voters who really like the Clintons, Democratic machine workings and just a touch of anti-semitism meant he would choke there even if he tried.

Michigan was different. He actually organized and spent a little money, and voila.

The Bubba vote is all counted. It's on to the blue and purple states, now. The media, of course, just ignore him and fawns over Trump and Clinton.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, March 28, 2016 1:18 PM (P)

Foreign policy.
That new economy and the job creation within.
Military intervention and deployment.
The Military Industrial Complex (within his New economy).
Climate change policy.
Environmental issues.

To name a few.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You know, I'm all for the little guy finally getting a break in this country. Minimum wage, health care, etc. But Bernie sounds more and more
like a broken record. All he continues to say is "Wall Street, Billionaires
and fixed economy."

Granted, those things matter and are part of the landscape, but the country's problems run much deeper than that. Couldn't he at least acknowledge and address some of the other issues facing the American people. Not all will be fixed by changing the economic structure of this
country. I really don't think he's aware of all that is going on here.

SGG

Which issue, that you're concerned about, has he not addressed?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SIGNYM

Monday, March 28, 2016 5:44 PM (P)

Here is an extended (30 minute) interview with Bernie Sanders by The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur.

One point you never hear about in MSM: Sanders would fare BETTER than Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head against Trump

However, my objection to Sanders still stands: He's pretty much down-the-line supporter of DEMOCRAT'S wars of choice, and a staunch supporter of Israel no matter how horrific Israel's actions. His foreign policy is less overtly hawkish than Clinton, but he still makes poor choices, leading me to think that his considerations about foreign policy are less grounded in reality than in politics.

Also, his call to "elect people who are accountable to the people of the United States" is a flaccid truism.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

RAHLMACLAREN

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:52 AM (P)

Sanders' position on Israel, albeit not perfect (even though it's improved from 2014 (Telling your audience to "shut up" is probably not the best maneuver.)), is still saner than all the other candidates. Ok, maybe Jill Stein's is slightly better.

A curiosity, Signym: Of all the time you've been on this planet, who(m) is your favorite or least bad presidential candidate?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 3:33 AM (P)

Quote:
However, my objection to Sanders still stands: He's pretty much down-the-line supporter of DEMOCRAT'S wars of choice...

Bullshit. He's one of the ONLY congresspeople to vote AGAINST military intervention at nearly every opportunity.

1KIKI

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 4:19 AM (P)

"and a staunch supporter of Israel"

He's the only major candidate to not speak at AIPAC this year.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2016-03-25/article/44283?head
line=-Bernie-Sanders-AIPAC---Tejinder-Uberoi

Kudos to Senator Sanders – the only presidential candidate who had did not grovel before the mighty AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and offered a far more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unlike the other candidates who only offered more of the same, Sanders is the only Jewish candidate who experienced living in a Jewish Kibbutz and took aim at right-wing Prime Minister Netanyahu’s polices of illegal occupation and settlement expansion.

He reminded us that “Gaza’s unemployment today is 44 percent and poverty rate almost as high.” He stressed the need to be successful;” we have to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the Palestinian people.” He called for an end to the occupation and blockade of Gaza and was equally critical of Hamas’s rocket attacks and Israel’s overwhelming response that killed 1,500 civilians, wounded thousands and devastated much of the Gaza’s infrastructure.

This is a man who has a well-calibrated moral compass who speaks his mind but who is not out of his mind like his Republican counterparts. Contrast his message with Clinton’s who only promises to sink billions more into futile wars and American lives. She has a poor record of hasty decisions for regime changes in Iraq and Libya and offers nothing new to end the festering conflict in Israel. Kissinger’s endorsement will come back to haunt her.

Hillary otoh gave a speech that was truly horrifying.

http://time.com/4265947/hillary-clinton-aipac-speech-transcript/

I think we should all give them a hand for being here (young AIPAC members) and beginning their commitment to this important cause. ... Candidates for president who think the United States can outsource Middle East security to dictators ...(hunh?) ... As we gather here, three evolving threats — Iran’s continued aggression, a rising tide of extremism across a wide arc of instability, and the growing effort to de-legitimize Israel on the world stage — are converging to make the U.S.-Israel alliance more indispensable than ever.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:25 AM (P)

I like Bernie. I like his policies - he wants to focus on the domestic front, and help reduce some of the squeeze on the middle class, including up and coming members of the middle class who are struggling against the current economic climate and college debt. He is the only one talking about campaign finance reform and corruption. I trust him more than Hillary, and a lot more than Trump.

I have mixed feelings though. I am not afraid of the sort of mixed economy he promotes, but I am concerned how far reaching policies which consolidate can be used by the power hungry and perpetuated even with the pendulum swinging between parties, like the PATRIOT Act. I don't know how economic and social welfare policies can look in the hands of the power hungry when misused, but I can't imagine it's pretty.

Bernie has pie in the sky dreams that I am not sure how he intends to put into action. It's basically going to be up to his advisors, who may help him or screw him over, and it's going to be up to congress, which can take a good idea and tack on so many additions that it will look like an abomination, no matter which party is the majority.

I'm also unsure about what will happen with Israel with Bernie, but then every candidate feels the pressure from that corner.

Part of me thinks Bernie is the best chance we have for someone not corrupt and insane in the office. Part of me thinks even if we do elect him (or even Trump), it won't matter, because it's other factors that are controlling the future of our society.

And part of me thinks despite the recent wins, and despite me wanting to see more wins from Bernie, he doesn't have a chance, and even back when campaigning started I'm not sure he ever did. I don't think he can steal the candidacy from Hillary. And even if he did, there's factors in Bernie's policies that aren't going to fly well with a lot of Republicans and conservative independents looking for an alternative to Trump.

I think this election is going to be a debacle no matter what happens, and that other countries are looking at us and either laughing, or feeling completely terrified, maybe both.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 5:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I like Bernie. I like his policies - he wants to focus on the domestic front, and help reduce some of the squeeze on the middle class, including up and coming members of the middle class who are struggling against the current economic climate and college debt. He is the only one talking about campaign finance reform and corruption. I trust him more than Hillary, and a lot more than Trump.

I have mixed feelings though. I am not afraid of the sort of mixed economy he promotes, but I am concerned how far reaching policies which consolidate can be used by the power hungry and perpetuated even with the pendulum swinging between parties, like the PATRIOT Act. I don't know how economic and social welfare policies can look in the hands of the power hungry when misused, but I can't imagine it's pretty.

Bernie has pie in the sky dreams that I am not sure how he intends to put into action. It's basically going to be up to his advisors, who may help him or screw him over, and it's going to be up to congress, which can take a good idea and tack on so many additions that it will look like an abomination, no matter which party is the majority.

I'm also unsure about what will happen with Israel with Bernie, but then every candidate feels the pressure from that corner.

Part of me thinks Bernie is the best chance we have for someone not corrupt and insane in the office. Part of me thinks even if we do elect him (or even Trump), it won't matter, because it's other factors that are controlling the future of our society.

And part of me thinks despite the recent wins, and despite me wanting to see more wins from Bernie, he doesn't have a chance, and even back when campaigning started I'm not sure he ever did. I don't think he can steal the candidacy from Hillary. And even if he did, there's factors in Bernie's policies that aren't going to fly well with a lot of Republicans and conservative independents looking for an alternative to Trump.

I think this election is going to be a debacle no matter what happens, and that other countries are looking at us and either laughing, or feeling completely terrified, maybe both.

Sometimes I wonder.
At what point will the history books decide: THAT was the first insane President.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, March 30, 2016 9:32 PM (P)

I think we've always given Presidents a lot of leeway in not calling them insane when they were. I mean Lincoln's wife used to do seances in the whitehouse for their dead son and Lincoln allowed it.

But if you ask me, I think the first president we will publicly recognize as insane will be an as yet unknown crazy cat lady.

The secret service will perform security detail for all 50 of them, and the UN meetings where she throws her pets at other world leaders will be a hoot.

REAVERFAN

Friday, April 1, 2016 2:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Sometimes I wonder.
At what point will the history books decide: THAT was the first insane President.

If trump wins, it'll be this year.

Others have been crappy, and even downright evil, but Trump is a certifiable narcissist.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 1, 2016 4:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Sometimes I wonder.
At what point will the history books decide: THAT was the first insane President.
If trump wins, it'll be this year.

Others have been crappy, and even downright evil, but Trump is a certifiable narcissist.

Those same things were said about Slick Willy, the First Black President - and also Obama, the Second Black President.

THGRRI

Friday, April 1, 2016 5:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think we've always given Presidents a lot of leeway in not calling them insane when they were. I mean Lincoln's wife used to do seances in the whitehouse for their dead son and Lincoln allowed it.

But if you ask me, I think the first president we will publicly recognize as insane will be an as yet unknown crazy cat lady.

The secret service will perform security detail for all 50 of them, and the UN meetings where she throws her pets at other world leaders will be a hoot.

Most people who have risen to the top have quarks of one kind or another. And it is also true that they have risen to the top because of something extraordinary about themselves. Usually family members are of the common breed. Some actually are nuts.

THGRRI

Friday, April 1, 2016 6:36 PM (P)

Gotta love Bernie

REAVERFAN

Saturday, April 2, 2016 3:25 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Those same things were said about Slick Willy, the First Black President - and also Obama, the Second Black President.

Yes, but psychologists are all saying Trump is.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/a-neuroscientist-explains-trump-has-a-
mental-disorder-that-makes-him-a-dangerous-world-leader/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201511/the
rapists-confirm-trumps-narcissistic-personality-disorder
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapi
sts
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/03/30/donald-trump-narcissis
t-in-chief-not-commander-in-chief/#ea13b8c55959

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 2, 2016 3:31 AM (P)

I thought I heard that Hilliary was behind in the polls for New York primary. And it was yesterday, not April Fool's day.

Have I misheard?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 2, 2016 3:33 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Those same things were said about Slick Willy, the First Black President - and also Obama, the Second Black President.
Yes, but

libtards

Quote:

are all saying Trump is.

And the real world seems to put him in 3rd place.

But isn't this the Bernie thread?

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 2, 2016 9:38 AM (P)

Quote:
Ok, maybe Jill Stein's is slightly better. A curiosity, Signym: Of all the time you've been on this planet, who(m) is your favorite or least bad presidential candidate?

I figured it would either be Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders.

Still, it depends on who's running. I doubt Jill Stein will ever be voted in as President! So far, my thoughts are: Vote for Bernie in the primaries. But in the November election, if faced with ...vote for ...

Hillary v Trump > Trump
Hillary v any other Republican > Jill Stein
Sanders v any other Republican > Sanders
Sanders v Trump > ???

I thought this was fun!
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
But some people say tis biased for Bernie, which may be true. I took this poll and got unrealistic results, and I know other people who took this pool and got even stranger results. After all, we're counting on the honesty of the poll and its counting, and supposedly this poll was put up by a Sanders supporter.

Now, one of the problems with ISideWith is accurately judging the ACTUAL stances of the various politicians, since politicians work mightily of obfuscate their actual stances! Sanders, for example, votes the "right" way for hopeless cases, but when his vote might really make a difference - for example, on the Pentagon budget - he tends to fold. But he talks and good game, so what does this poll record as his real opinion? Well, it's a little hard to say. OTOH, Jill Stein (Green Party) is very consistent, but she doesn't have a voting record to look at so it's a little hard to decide how she would ACTUALLY perform.

Bernie Sanders' voting record

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/legislation/voting-record

http://mosquitocloud.net/like-it-or-not-bernie-sanders-congressional-v
oting-record

I stumbled across a voting record website that would allow you to parse votes by issue (eg defense) but can't find it now. IF I can find it again, I'll post it. A comparison to Hillary would be useful.

--------

One thing I heard was a very convincing argument that the ONLY arena where Presidents might make a difference is in foreign policy. For a number of reasons, their effectiveness is blunted in domestic issues. So if you're going to judge a candidate on their POV, look hardest at their foreign policy opinions/ record.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 4, 2016 8:14 AM (P)

REALLY?

Bernie Sanders Wins the Nevada Caucus After All

Quote:
After the Clark County Democratic Convention, Bernie Sanders has flipped his close Nevada caucus loss to a win at the convention stage. The Sanders campaign pulled out a victory in Nevada’s most populous county at this weekend’s convention at the Cashman Center in Las Vegas.

Las Vegas Sun reporter Megan Messerly confirmed the final delegate count, showing Sanders had flipped Clark County in his favor.

After realignment: 2,386 Clinton, 2,964 Sanders, & 7 uncommitted. 5,357 total.

— Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) April 3, 2016

The other most populous county, Washoe County, ended with 1050 delegates for Sanders and 833 for Clinton. It is unclear at this time exactly how many more delegates Bernie Sanders has picked up, as the final results will not be decided until the state convention in May.

The Clark County Democratic Convention was full of controversy from the beginning. But to give the full context of the controversy, it’s important to understand how the convention process works.

Delegates come in three forms:

* Elected delegates, which were selected at precinct caucuses.
* Alternate delegates, which were also named at the precinct caucuses,
* And unelected alternate delegates, who can become official delegates in the event a precinct’s elected delegates or alternate delegates don’t show.

The Credentials Committee for the Clark County Democratic Convention determines who exactly qualifies as a bona fide delegate in the event an unelected alternate steps in to become an official delegate. The committee is made up of four members appointed by Clark County Democratic Party Chair Chris Miller, with two representatives for Hillary Clinton and two representatives for Bernie Sanders in the interest of fairness.

On Friday night, accusations of cheating came from both sides, which resulted in the attempted removal of credential committee chair Christine Kramar.

“We caught the Hillary campaign cheating, we caught the Nevada Democratic Party secretary cheating,” said Angie Sullivan, another member of the credentials committee for the Clark County Democratic Convention. “When it was apparent Bernie started winning, they really turned up the heat.”

Sullivan alleges that the Clark County Democratic Party (CCDP) was sharing information with the Hillary Clinton campaign that was not being shared with the Bernie Sanders campaign, and this is why Kramer copied a Sanders campaign contact on an email correspondence with CCDP officials and Clinton campaign officials.

However, Clinton campaign attorney Marc E. Elias told a different story in a threatening email sent to CCDP Chair Chris Miller. Elias ordered Miller to remove Kramar from the credentials committee due to her sharing allegedly proprietary information belonging to the Clinton campaign with the Sanders campaign.

But Kristal Glass, a Sanders delegate who was also a member of the credentials committee, told US Uncut that Kramar was simply acting as an independent arbiter in accordance with party bylaws by making sure all parties were included in conversations about the convention.

“It was her job to make sure everything was fair leading up to the Friday night early registration,” Glass said. “[Kramar] CC’d the Sanders campaign about a conversation happening that they weren’t included in, which was against the convention process.”

Then, Glass alleged that Michelle White, political director for Hillary Clinton’s Nevada campaign, was pressuring volunteers at the registration site to register alternates as delegates.

“We had a member of a campaign walking around with a computer showing volunteers, saying, ‘They’re approved, so go ahead and add them,'” Glass told US Uncut. “It has to be brought to the credentials committee to vet the entire thing, that’s what our responsibility is.”

“You don’t change the rules at the 11th hour to favor your candidate,” Sullivan said.

After Kramar reminded the Clinton campaign and CCDP officials of the par

RAHLMACLAREN

Monday, April 4, 2016 1:50 PM (P)

Maybe Bernie taking Nevada will make up a little bit for Hillary magically winning all six coin tosses in Iowa.

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 4, 2016 3:14 PM (P)

"One point you never hear about in MSM: Sanders would fare BETTER than Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head against Trump"

That is a flat out fairy tale, in other words BULLSHIT!

Bernie is interviewed as much, if not more often than Hilary. I watch the news and they often mention how well he fares against Trump and that he
does so better than Hilary. He's often interviewed on MSNBC, most particularly by Rachel Maddow. Chuck Todd often refers to his "political
map" and he shows the poll numbers and how Sanders is doing. So don't give me that MSM media bias crap.

Besides how can the media be against all the candidates at the same time.
Trump complains all the time about media bias against him, as does
Bernie's camp. And, although the media covers Hilary's missteps with a
particular glee, her campaign rarely, if ever, complains about media bias.
So, is the media against all candidates - that's the way it should be.
Adversarial watchdogs.

Just last week they covered Bernie's victory speech, almost in it's entirety. Yeah the media is bias alright. Not that they are without fault.
They have been the major contributor to Trump's rise in the polls. But
he is his own worst enemy, so that won't last. Besides the media is mainly
made up of trends, Trump was trending for a while, but, since the Sykes
radio interview, that has changed. Now you find them following a new
blueprint. Now they are challenging Trump. There is media before Sykes
(never fact checking or challenging his statements) and there's media
after Sykes (now they question and challenge away).

Charlie Sykes is a conservative radio talk show host, based in Wisconsin, who showed the rest of the media how it's done.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/28/listen-to-what-happens-when-donald
-trump-gets-asked-real-questions-by-a-media-interviewer/

Here's the interview with Trump:

Why is it trending now? Because news outlets don't want to look bad and
seem bias (there goes that word again); they don't want to be out-scooped.
So now the latest is to pressure Trump and challenge, fact check and not let him control the interview (as they had previously allowed because it
brought in ratings; he was basically the Golden Goose). Yes, ratings
which equals money (this, above all, is the driving force as Les Moonves
admitted)

Clip from Talk Show host Thom Hartman:

I actually saw an morning interview, on the Today show, where both Matt
Lauer and Savanah Guthrie double teamed the Donald and employed the "new"
tactic. Something that they should have been doing all along. As long as the Donald was "making" news, and consequently bringing in the
cashy-money, all was good. Now with his latest fascist comments and
obvious stupidity, it doesn't bode well for the networks to be "allowing"
his Donaldness free access and unfettered exposure. Now he's popular, but for an entirely different reason - still, the networks make money.

Isn't it ironic? Bias no, money-making, yes!

SGG

SECOND

Monday, April 4, 2016 4:58 PM (P)

Last week Bernie was on Colbert. Bernie starts at 5:15 into the video.

First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too.

Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable.

Oh, and the Sanders campaign is saying that it will try to flip superdelegates even if it loses the unpledged delegates and the popular vote. Remember when evil Hillary was going to use superdelegates to steal the nomination? Double standards aside, what makes the campaign think that he will get any backing from a party he refuses to lift a finger to help?
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-b
ernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Monday, April 4, 2016 8:52 PM (P)

Clinton IS corrupt. From her Wall Street speaking engagements to her list of top 20 donors to the hundreds of millions poured into the Clinton "foundation" from nations like Saudi Arabia, to her tenure as neocon head of the State Department, to her private email server...

Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.

I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office: she'll represent the interests that have given her the most money: Banks, international law firms (like the Panamanian one that was just exposed), Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, and the ultra-wealthy. She's for the TTP and TTIP. She's for Saudi Arabia, She's for the banks. Do you really think that Hillary will reform the WH in the way it so desperately needs?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Monday, April 4, 2016 9:07 PM (P)

Quote:
"One point you never hear about in MSM: Sanders would fare BETTER than Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head against Trump" That is a flat out fairy tale, in other words BULLSHIT

No, it isn't. I was referring to the results of OPINION POLLS. Now, I realize so early in the game that head-to-head opinion polls don't tell you who would will win ... as you have noted, the Donaldness has mis-stepped on several issues, and his unfavorables have risen even higher.

But as of TODAY'S search,

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-clinton

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-tru
mp-vs-sanders

Sanders would beat Trump by 14 percentage points, while Clinton would beat Trump by only 8. So, yes, Sanders WOULD fare better than Clinton against Trump in head-to-head voting, if that vote were to be held today.

-----

I think what you don't understand is that a lot of people are fed up with "business as usual", which is why both Sanders and Trump are doing well. They hear all of the happy news about the economy, and they look around at their children, their parents, their neighbors and their friends and they think WTF???. Many people realize that .... to rephrase the Reagan question Are you better off than you were sixteen years ago? the answer is a resounding NO!

DC politicians - both the mainstream Repubs and the mainstream Dems, have each had their turn at restoring the American economy, and all they've managed to do is make the banksters incredibly wealthy. By now, I believe many Americans are ready to turn the tables over, and that include Hillary.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Monday, April 4, 2016 11:49 PM (P)

Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable.

Clinton's getting 'big donor' money from corporate America, and has it to throw around. Sanders isn't, and doesn't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/07/faceboo
k-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

Clinton’s top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILY’s List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288).

The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500).

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. ...

Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.

I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office:

I have heard this variety of political reasoning in 2000 from Ralph Nader's voters, who said that Gore would be no better than Bush and that Gore as President would be as big a catastrophe as Bush. The entire future of America was suppose to depend on Ralph in the White House. Only Ralph could save the Nation. The Nader people are still telling themselves soothing lies about how terrible a person Gore is so they don't have to feel bad about what Bush did in the next 8 years.

Nader had no chance of being President, no matter what 2,882,995 Nader voters say. Bernie has no chance of being President, either. Bernie is too old, too godless, too socialist, too many things to win. Tearing down Clinton as corrupt WILL NEVER GET BERNIE INTO THE WHITE HOUSE. But it will get a Republican elected.

I checked the betting sites. Bernie will not be President is a safe bet.
www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures
www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_i
ds=791149

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 2:11 AM (P)

Wow, Second. You could have not picked a more inappropriate example in Nader if you tried.

Nader wasn't in the primaries running as a democrat against another democrat. He was the Green Party candidate. Any point you might be trying to make about whether or not the Democratic voters should ELECT the Democratic candidate, or if the party gets to SELECT the candidate is pointless.

On top of that Gore didn't lose, and he didn't lose because of Nader. Bush won through fraud in multiple states. And then the Supremes stepping in to decide the winner.

And finally, what's been driving the Republican Party further and further to the extremes, if not the populist Tea Party, which had good control over the rest of the Republican factions through the power of the vote? (... and which lost its legitimacy through its failure to walk its talk.)

The extreme can swing a party through the vote. I think the democratic party is very much overdue for a reality check.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 3:35 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Wow, Second. You could have not picked a more inappropriate example in Nader if you tried.

Nader wasn't in the primaries running as a democrat against another democrat. He was the Green Party candidate. Any point you might be trying to make about whether or not the Democratic voters should ELECT the Democratic candidate, or if the party gets to SELECT the candidate is pointless.

On top of that Gore didn't lose, and he didn't lose because of Nader. Bush won through fraud in multiple states. And then the Supremes stepping in to decide the winner.

And finally, what's been driving the Republican Party further and further to the extremes, if not the populist Tea Party, which had good control over the rest of the Republican factions through the power of the vote? (... and which lost its legitimacy through its failure to walk its talk.)

The extreme can swing a party through the vote. I think the democratic party is very much overdue for a reality check.

Wow, 1kiki, you think Bernie has a chance? I think Bernie has a chance of sabotaging Clinton, but no chance of being President.

Compare Bernie to Nader. The Nader voters in 2000 would have split 5 to 1 in favor of Democrats if Nader had not been on the ballet. Nader says that is not true; he says his voters would have stayed home if he had not run. I say Nader has a history of not knowing what he speaks of. Nader, a perfectly worthless Presidential candidate since Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965, used a lawyer's argument that it wasn't his fault (and nothing has ever been his fault) that Gore was weak. It will be on Nader's headstone: "Don't Blame Bush 43 On Me"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader#Presidential_campaigns

Following Nader's example, Bernie will say Clinton ran a weak campaign if she loses. On his headstone will be carved "Don't Blame (Cruz?) On Me". Bernie is ancient like Nader and neither of those senile doofuses ever had a chance of being President.

I ought to have checked sooner about Nader's opinion of Clinton. As I suspected, same as Bernie's, but less polite:

Quote:
Ralph Nader Says He Might Run in 2008 if Hillary Clinton Wins the Nomination
Published February 16, 2007 FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON – Former presidential hopeful Ralph Nader might consider jumping into the 2008 race if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic Party nomination.

"She's just another bad version of (former President) Bill Clinton,'' Nader told KGO radio host Ronn Owens in San Francisco while on a book tour, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

Nader has recently said he'll consider making a bid for the White House later this year.

"We're going to see what the Democrats come up with," he said.

www.foxnews.com/story/2007/02/16/ralph-nader-says-might-run-in-2008-if
-hillary-clinton-wins-nomination.html

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 4:00 AM (P)

I think if Bernie wins the nomination then he'll have broken the predictive power of that one odds-tracking site.

But that aside, don't you think the voters should be deciding who runs in the election, and not Debbie?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 8:34 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I think if Bernie wins the nomination then he'll have broken the predictive power of that one odds-tracking site.

But that aside, don't you think the voters should be deciding who runs in the election, and not Debbie?

To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken. Lincoln Chafee, Lawrence Lessig, Martin O'Malley, and Jim Webb dropped out (you don't remember them, do you?) because the system is ridiculous.

You would probably notice how stupid the Primary system is if the Presidential election was organized in the same fashion, with Iowa deciding who is on the ballot in California. But all the states are forced to have their elections in the same month, and even, dare I say it, ON THE SAME DAY!

And the Republicans have an equally idiotic system for picking their Presidential candidate.

I should google "Why are there no runoff elections in America?" But I don't care enough. Somebody do it for me and let me know the answer.

Then there are all the other parties with absolutely no chance. I wonder what they do?

1 Ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes

1.1 Green Party
1.2 Libertarian Party

2 Ballot access to fewer than 270, but more than 50 electoral votes

2.1 American Independent Party
2.2 Constitution Party
2.3 Peace and Freedom Party
2.4 Reform Party of the United States of America

3 Ballot access to fewer than 50 electoral votes

3.1 America's Party
3.2 American Freedom Party
3.3 Independent American Party
3.4 Nutrition Party
3.5 Party for Socialism and Liberation
3.6 Prohibition Party
3.7 Veterans Party of America

4 No ballot access

4.1 Humane Party
4.2 Socialist Party USA
4.3 Socialist Workers Party
4.4 Workers World Party

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 9:00 AM (P)

To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 9:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
To be as blunt as possible, the primary system is broken.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

I'd like to see more choices than Bernie vs Clinton. I'd like to see some acknowledgement that an elderly Jewish socialist atheist cranky old man cannot be elected President of the United States. President Bernie is not impossible in the Constitution. President Bernie violates a law of physics, so it can't happen, kind of like Star Wars Hyperdrive, another lovely fantasy that can't happen.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 1:13 PM (P)

I hope Bernie sabotages Hillary because I can't think of a worse choice.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 7:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I hope Bernie sabotages Hillary because I can't think of a worse choice.

There is worse. It's typical for the Democratic party left wing to sabotage the rest wing of the party. That's why Nixon won a second time. That's why the majority of states, governorships and Congress are Republican. The left would rather lose than compromise with the rest of the party. Then the left, in perfect self-righteousness, can bitch about the Republicans, Obama, and Clintons ruining the country.

But that is a long-running story to be told about the witless anger of the left at the rest of the Dem party. I'm thankful the left is not angrily repeating that Obama is a Kenyan and the Clintons killed Vince Foster.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-nixons-long-shadow/2014/
08/06/fad8c00c-1ccb-11e4-ae54-0cfe1f974f8a_story.html

SECOND

Tuesday, April 5, 2016 9:47 PM (P)

Bernie Sanders wants public colleges and universities to eliminate tuition. He's convinced me that this is a good goal, but he's also produced a plan that would NOT achieve that goal.

Hillary Clinton has taken to pointing this out.

Sanders's reply to this, when asked by CNN's Erin Burnett, was to misdescribe the essential elements of his own plan.

More about Bernie's screwed up thinking on eliminating tuition is here:
www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11332612/bernie-sanders-free-college

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:14 AM (P)

Why all the predictions that Bernie would lose to the reichwingers? That's not what the polls say.

SECOND

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 2:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Why all the predictions that Bernie would lose to the reichwingers? That's not what the polls say.

The only polls that count with me are the ones that treat the Presidential race as a sporting match. Real money and bitcoins will be won or lost on these bets:
www.oddsshark.com/entertainment/us-presidential-odds-2016-futures
www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_i
ds=791149

The Democrats Are Flawlessly Executing a 10-Point Plan to Lose the 2016 Presidential Election
www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-democrats-10-point-plan-lose-
election_b_9605608.html

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 3:03 AM (P)

That's a lot of words to say "nobody really knows."

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:00 AM (P)

Will the general election come down to "anybody but Bernie" vs "anybody but Trump" this November?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:02 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Maybe Bernie taking Nevada will make up a little bit for Hillary magically winning all six coin tosses in Iowa.

Paranoid much?

SECOND

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 7:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
That's a lot of words to say "nobody really knows."

That is a truism; nobody really knows the future. But you, reaverfan, can make part of the future without the uncertainties of Democrats and Republicans deciding. One of your bullets hits Bernie's heart and everybody in the world would know the future. Or Trump's 757 crashes because reaverfan placed an exploding box of make-america-great-again caps in the cargo bay and everybody knows even more about that future. In 1968, candidate Nixon told South Vietnamese President General Theiu to NOT accept LBJ's negotiated cease-fire, which lead to Nixon winning the election. Nixon really grabbed the future by the balls, squeezed hard, and he did it all in secret. It was treason, but so what? It worked! More than a million Vietnamese were killed because of Nixon's treason, but again, so what as far as Nixon cared? He was changing his future!
www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-viet
nam-treason

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:24 AM (P)

Quote:
Yessiree. A suspicious person might even wonder if promoting Bernie - because he would loose to Trump and President Donald would be the worst thing for this country, especially Internationally - is partly the work of interests outside the US.

Personally, I want my president to have a bit of conniving and guile - better to recognize it in others. As much as I dislike Hillary in general and as a person from what I think I know, of all the choices left to us she's the only one I can imagine.

I have to say, your imagination is limited and your paranoia is completely mis-directed.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:35 AM (P)

Quote:
Bernie Sanders wants public colleges and universities to eliminate tuition. He's convinced me that this is a good goal, but he's also produced a plan that would NOT achieve that goal.

Bernie Sanders has NOT convinced me that this is a good goal, and I doubt that he ever will. I'm against a lot of things that he's for, like free tuition (which is stupid) and enhanced immigration.

I doubt that he'll get 0.01% of his domestic agenda accomplished, because it will be Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold (assuming he gets elected) against everybody else - Democrat and Republican alike - who are desperately sucking on the money-teat.

The one area where Presidents have more leeway is foreign policy - they can go negotiate trade deals, or make peace with nations, or destabilize nations because the President is Commander in Chief, ultimate head of the State Department and the CIA, and represents the nation in foreign affairs.

Sanders, like Trump, is against the TPP and the TTIP. Call me a several-issue voter, but right now I'm not looking for pie in the sky, but VERY directed policies.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:58 AM (P)

"The only polls that count with me are the ones that treat the Presidential race as a sporting match. Real money and bitcoins will be won or lost on these bets"

Those bets are placed because of decisions already made - for example, assigning Hillary all those superdelegates. They're not bets about whether Bernie should be president, or if he would be a good president, or if people want him to be president. They're about what his chances of completing the obstacle course are GIVEN THAT THE DECK HAS BEEN STACKED AGAINST HIM. And of course based on that Hillary hadn't been indicted - yet.

You've given your brain away and replaced it with the thoughtless reaction of the mob to things as they are RIGHT NOW. But the way things are right now can change.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 4:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Those bets are placed because of decisions already made - for example, assigning Hillary all those superdelegates. They're not bets about whether Bernie should be president, or if he would be a good president, or if people want him to be president. They're about what his chances of completing the obstacle course are GIVEN THAT THE DECK HAS BEEN STACKED AGAINST HIM. And of course based on that Hillary hadn't been indicted - yet.

You've given your brain away and replaced it with the thoughtless reaction of the mob to things as they are RIGHT NOW. But the way things are right now can change.

I'll give you my opinion of Bernie. He'd be the most worthless President since Franklin Pierce. Bernie is not the leader who will change America. He is a grumpy old man, more articulate than average, and nothing more than that. Any other candidate would make a bigger splash than Bernie as President. I predict he will be taking long naps in the White House and be dead before his first term is over.

From an Interview with Bernie. Some would read it and be impressed. I read it and I see his future as a failure in the White House, vilified by Congressional Republicans and ignored by Congressional Democrats who will be wishing Bernie had more energy. http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-
editorial-board-article-1.2588306

1. Whether Wall Street executives could be prosecuted over their actions during the financial crisis.
Bernie: “Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t.”

2. How far he wants Israel to pull back its illegal settlements.
Bernie: “You’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer.”

3. What the Supreme Court's recent decision on Metropolitan Life means.
Bernie: “It’s something I have not studied, honestly.”

4. How Israel should have handled its 2014 conflict in Gaza.
Bernie: “I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions.”

5. President Obama's policy of giving the military authority over drone attacks.
Bernie: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

6. How he would handle the detention and interrogation of an ISIS commander.
Bernie: “Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.”

7. The Palestinian leadership's decision to litigate Israeli war crimes in the International Criminal Court.
Bernie: “Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world?”

8. What big banks would look like after he's broken them up.
Bernie: “I'm not running JP Morgan Chase or Citibank.”

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:33 PM (P)

Second, your reply is hilarious. You sound exactly like the paid shills on Facebook! LOL!

SECOND

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 6:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Second, your reply is hilarious. You sound exactly like the paid shills on Facebook! LOL!

Don't laugh. I sound to myself like I think Bernie can't handle the hostility he will face from the Republican party once he is President. He will collapse under real pressure. But some people think he has hidden reservoirs of calm decisiveness and perseverance against implacable foes. If he does, he is keeping those qualities well hidden.

Oh, and you should comment on that story about Nixon's treason. It shows what terrible things Republicans are capable of doing to a Democratic President. As Nixon did to LBJ, someday a Republican candidate could do to President Bernie. I hope Bernie handles it better than LBJ did, but I doubt Bernie.
www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-viet
nam-treason

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:38 PM (P)

How Bernie Can Win!
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sand
ers-988-more-delegates/

Who’s On Track For The Nomination?
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/dem
ocrats/

The media has a systematic self-interested bias toward exaggerating how close the race is. Sanders supporters avidly read and share content about Sanders' big fundraising hauls and his wins in low-population states. Television networks want people to tune in to their debates and townhalls, which they are much more likely to do if they think something is at stake. And Sanders' big fundraising has been transformed into big advertising dollars, which is literally money into the pockets of media companies.

The media loves Bernie Sanders!

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

THGRRI

Thursday, April 7, 2016 1:45 AM (P)

Gotta love the guy but it's over after NY.

RAHLMACLAREN

Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
I'll give you my opinion of Bernie. He'd be the most worthless President since Franklin Pierce. Bernie is not the leader who will change America. He is a grumpy old man, more articulate than average, and nothing more than that. Any other candidate would make a bigger splash than Bernie as President. I predict he will be taking long naps in the White House and be dead before his first term is over.

From an Interview with Bernie. Some would read it and be impressed. I read it and I see his future as a failure in the White House, vilified by Congressional Republicans and ignored by Congressional Democrats who will be wishing Bernie had more energy. http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/transcript-bernie-sanders-meets-news-
editorial-board-article-1.2588306

1. Whether Wall Street executives could be prosecuted over their actions during the financial crisis.
Bernie: “Do I have them in front of me, now, legal statutes? No, I don’t.”

2. How far he wants Israel to pull back its illegal settlements.
Bernie: “You’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer.”

3. What the Supreme Court's recent decision on Metropolitan Life means.
Bernie: “It’s something I have not studied, honestly.”

4. How Israel should have handled its 2014 conflict in Gaza.
Bernie: “I don’t quite think I’m qualified to make decisions.”

5. President Obama's policy of giving the military authority over drone attacks.
Bernie: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

6. How he would handle the detention and interrogation of an ISIS commander.
Bernie: “Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot.”

7. The Palestinian leadership's decision to litigate Israeli war crimes in the International Criminal Court.
Bernie: “Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world?”

8. What big banks would look like after he's broken them up.
Bernie: “I'm not running JP Morgan Chase or Citibank.”

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

What are Hillary's or Trump's answers to those same questions, in the same interview environment? Or do they avoid those subjects?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

RAHLMACLAREN

Thursday, April 7, 2016 5:52 PM (P)

"When you improvise a plan, sometimes you hit a speed bump, and sometimes you hit it so hard, that you soar through the air, far beyond your initial expectations." - Pierce Hawthorne

SECOND

Thursday, April 7, 2016 6:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:

What are Hillary's or Trump's answers to those same questions, in the same interview environment? Or do they avoid those subjects?

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

The New York Daily News, which questioned Bernie, has an entire section devoted to Hillary.
http://m.nydailynews.com/tags/hillary-clinton

There are stories like: Pros say Sanders doesn't know enough about foreign policy-- "Bernie Sanders needs to seriously brush up his foreign policy chops, according to a statement from former security and diplomatic officials."

Bernie Sanders faces recoil on gun comments made to The News-- "Sanders' positions on guns and gun violence have been widely criticized in Democratic circles."

Maybe you can find there (at the Daily News) the Serenity you seek here.

SECOND

Thursday, April 7, 2016 9:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Gotta love the guy but it's over after NY.

Bernie said Hillary Not Qualified to Be President. I don't think he is lovable when he uses Republican talking points to attack a Democrat. But Bernie doesn't truthfully care in his heart how much he hurts the Democrats.

Today Hillary Clinton criticized Bernie Sanders: "I am concerned that some of his ideas just won't work, because the numbers don’t add up." I’ve added up Bernie’s numbers and Bernie’s answers are mathematically incorrect.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/06/clinton-says-s
anderss-plans-unrealistic-or-nonexistent-as-tame-democratic-primary-gets-testy/?tid=a_inl

And Hillary said about Bernie, "I think he himself doesn't consider himself to be a Democrat." Bernie can’t truthfully deny it.

And Hillary said, in response to Bernie’s widely-panned Daily News interview: "I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood."
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/clinton-says-sanders-hadn-t-145832404.ht
ml

Since Bernie can’t truthfully deny what Hillary said, he attacked Hillary with the Republican Party’s talking points. That is not how Bernie can prove he is superior to the Republican candidates, even though the crowd cheered for Bernie:

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

KPO

Friday, April 8, 2016 6:28 PM (P)

Paul Krugman: "Sanders Over the Edge" - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html?s
mid=tw-share&_r=0

Quote:
From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.

Some Sanders supporters responded angrily when these concerns were raised, immediately accusing anyone expressing doubts about their hero of being corrupt if not actually criminal. But intolerance and cultishness from some of a candidate’s supporters are one thing; what about the candidate himself?

Unfortunately, in the past few days the answer has become all too clear: Mr. Sanders is starting to sound like his worst followers. Bernie is becoming a Bernie Bro.

Let me illustrate the point about issues by talking about bank reform.

The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Mr. Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

You could argue that policy details are unimportant as long as a politician has the right values and character. As it happens, I don’t agree. For one thing, a politician’s policy specifics are often a very important clue to his or her true character — I warned about George W. Bush’s mendacity back when most journalists were still portraying him as a bluff, honest fellow, because I actually looked at his tax proposals. For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.

...

SECOND

Saturday, April 9, 2016 12:32 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.

Somebody clued Bernie to the fact that his mouth was running faster than his brain, so he took back his Hillary is NOT qualified to be President. Everybody breathed a sigh of relief.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 9, 2016 6:49 PM (P)

You guys still don't "get it", do you?

IF you're a modern politician, and you whittle your course of action to "the possible", using all the "realistic" models, what you wind up with is exactly what we have today: politicians who are afraid to offend their sources of money, and a series of "I can't do this because of..." statements, until you wind up with the same-old.

So, speaking of "hard choices". Our choices are only HARD because we're constrained by those with money to "choose" courses of action which don't seriously discomfit them. Those who speak of "hard choices" in the USA are those who think ...

"Do we address global climate change, or pander to TPTB in fossil fuels, or try to find a course that's 'tolerable' to them?"

"Do we address our crumbling infrastructure, or do we pander to the banksters who're always seeking the highest ROI, or do we try to find a course that doesn't offend the financialists and still manage to get at least a little something necessary done?"

Do we cost-effectively cover everyone with health insurance, or do we allow SOME of the health care industry [pharma] to rake in unconscionable profits?

Do we decline to destroy yet another nation - leaving a failed state in its wake, or do we go along with State Department/ CIA plans to use drug money and weapons smuggling to destabilize one more time?"

Both Bernie and Trump are protest votes. And if you don't think the system as it currently stands demands a protest vote, then by all means stick with TPTB.

Are we heading in the right direction? If not, then isn't choosing a different direction to right thing to do?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

REAVERFAN

Saturday, April 9, 2016 8:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Those same things were said about Slick Willy, the First Black President - and also Obama, the Second Black President.
Yes, but

libtards
Quote:

are all saying Trump is.

And the real world seems to put him in 3rd place.

But isn't this the Bernie thread?

I see. You're demonstrating the cognitive thing that was mentioned on that other thread about people being gullible.

1KIKI

Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:55 AM (P)

Jeeze Second - could your post have been any more dishonest?

Daily News: We are very well aware of the broad themes of your campaign by now. So we'd like to hone in on some of the more particular issues to get a sense of how your presidency might evolve.

You’ve said that the greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation. So if we can get particular: For example, in corporate America, Apple happens to be celebrating, today, its 40th birthday. It's a company that grew from nothing to 115,000 permanent employees. And I'm wondering, is Apple destroying the fabric of America?

Bernie Sanders: No, Apple is not destroying the fabric of America. But I do wish they'd be manufacturing some of their devices, here, in the United States rather than in China. And I do wish that they would not be trying to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

Daily News: Okay. Well, would you name, say, three American corporate giants that are destroying the national fabric?

Sanders: JPMorgan Chase, and virtually every other major bank in this country. Let me be very clear, all right? I believe that we can and should move to what Pope Francis calls a moral economy.

Right now, there are still millions of people in this country who are suffering the results of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And when you have companies like Goldman Sachs and many other major banks reaching settlements with the United States government, as you're aware, for many billions of dollars, this is an implicit admission that they have engaged in illegal activity.

Daily News: I understand that. I wanted to draw a distinction, though. Because in your speech you mention the financial industry and you focused on corporate America, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America. So I wanted to get a sense of corporate America, as the agent of American destruction.

Sanders: General Electric, good example. General Electric was created in this country by American workers and American consumers. What we have seen over the many years is shutting down of many major plants in this country. Sending jobs to low-wage countries. And General Electric, doing a very good job avoiding the taxes. In fact, in a given year, they pay nothing in taxes. That's greed.

That is greed and that’s selfishness. That is lack of respect for the people of this country.

Daily News: And so how does that destroy the fabric of America?

Sanders: I'll tell you how it does. If you are a corporation and the only damn thing you are concerned about is your profits. Let's just give an example of a corporation that's making money in America, today, but desiring to move to China or to Mexico to make even more money. That is destroying the moral fabric of this country. That is saying that I don't care that the workers, here have worked for decades. It doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters is that I can make a little bit more money. That the dollar is all that is almighty. And I think that is the moral fabric.

To me, what moral is, I've got to be concerned about you. You've got to be concerned about my wife. That's moral to me. That's what I believe in. And if the only thing that matters to you is making an extra buck, you don't care about my family, I think that's immoral. And I think what corporate America has shown us in the last number of years, what Wall Street has shown us, the only thing that matters is their profits and their money. And the hell with the rest of the people of this country.

Daily News: Okay. Do you weigh in the balance at all, the fact that a company that's moving jobs overseas, that the competitive climate may be such that they feel that they must, to compete in the United States?

Sanders: No. I think, firstly, we have to appreciate these guys wrote the rules in the first place. So they wrote the trade agreements. And then, yes, I do understand you can make more profits by paying people in Mexico, or China

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:10 AM (P)

Even coin tosses are rigged!? Damn! it's like that with you guys. I really do hope Bernie or the Donald win, then we gonna see some real kick ass government.

How many days in office before Bernie actually changes Washington, DC?
Can anyone give me the scoop? How long before we see Wall Street fall to it's
knees and beg for mercy? And the banks, when will we see the CEOs line up to
pay tribute to his Bernieness? The magical and wonderful professor Sanders
waving his Wand of Socialist Republic of America to transform the country to
the land of milk and honey.

Or will it be the New Wave of the 4th Reich as the Donald deliver the US into
the den of goosestepping SS troops.

Ah, the American way!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by RahlMaclaren:
Maybe Bernie taking Nevada will make up a little bit for Hillary magically winning all six coin tosses in Iowa.

Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:23 AM (P)

True, someone must have figured out that he will need Hilary's votes to win the
general election...........soooooo, the walk-back. Denigrating Hilary also
succeeds in insulting her supporters, NOT SMART. The issues are many and
a president needs to address them all in the course of running the country.

Is he ready? Well, that answer will only come when he wins and is faced with
the reality. It's time to put up or shut up!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

For another, I consider a commitment to facing hard choices as opposed to taking the easy way out an important value in itself.

But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.
Somebody clued Bernie to the fact that his mouth was running faster than his brain, so he took back his Hillary is NOT qualified to be President. Everybody breathed a sigh of relief.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Sunday, April 10, 2016 11:55 AM (P)

God forbid Bernie should tell the truth. So here it is in very brief terms.

New York is full of Zionist Jews who think Israel is justified no matter what it does (oh look, Israel is a baby-USA), and it's the home of Wall Street and 2 bigee bank bankstas (rhymes with gangstas).

Those are exactly the people Hillary's been sucking up to. I guess that's what you have to do to win the state.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Sunday, April 10, 2016 6:21 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

New York is full of Zionist Jews who think Israel is justified no matter what it does (oh look, Israel is a baby-USA), and it's the home of Wall Street and 2 bigee bank bankstas (rhymes with gangstas).

Those are exactly the people Hillary's been sucking up to. I guess that's what you have to do to win the state.

As an election strategy, that only works for Clinton if the Zionist plus Banker plus Stockbroker population is more than 10 million out of the 20 million New York State citizens. The Jewish population numbers 6.4 million U.S. adults and children out of 323 million. About 13% of all Jews in the U.S. live in New York City.

1kiki, why not just call Clinton a Zionist-stockbroker-banker rigidly committed to her native people? Make your insults more forceful. This is the internet and you can say anything to make a point. Nothing you write has to be true. There is no enforcement of any standards.

I think Clinton is really only a bleached white-bread politician who is speaking her mind and seeking a few Zionist, banker, stockbroker (ZBS) votes. But Clinton knows if she overdoes the ZBS side of her sympathies, she will lose everyone else. I think she can change her mind about the ZBS, when they cause too much trouble for her, since she was not born one of them.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

1KIKI

Monday, April 11, 2016 12:31 AM (P)

I thought you didn't believe in the power of the citizen vote to influence the government, Second. Now here you're telling me that the powerful AIPAC lobby, the powerful Wall Street lobby, the powerful bank lobby and the 1.75 millions Jews in New York State (a single-identity bloc roughly 9% of the population) - and their media handmaidens - have no influence over Hillary's coffers, her media image, or her reach. Because voters are so independent and powerful.

Which is it?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 11, 2016 12:42 PM (P)

Well, at least you did one better than Bernie. You answered a question directly.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
" So, his intentions are not honorable?"

Not with his neo-CON State Department, spying on us, drone strikes, and pushing those 'free' trade agreements. Those are all on him, and something he has complete control over.

So, no, his intentions are not honorable.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 11, 2016 12:57 PM (P)

So you believe it's only the White House that needs fixing? And that all politicians have sold the US out. Or is it just Hilary that has turned this
nation into a Third World country? Do you actually know what a neocon is?

So the banks will benefit further, international law firms will hold us hostage,
Saudi Arabia will take over the US Banks (like Bank of America, who launders
money for the Russian Mob) and restructure our economy. The Global multinational
companies have nothing to do with workers here losing millions of jobs. One person and one person only is to blame, and that's Hilary Rodham Clinton.

If she's corrupt, as you so eloquently put it, then, I say, all those
motherfuckers are corrupt, beginning and ending with Ted Cruz & Trump. Those
evil bastards running the states too. FUCK THEM ALL! That's what's needed.
Damn them all to hell. Name one of them that isn't a greedy, sleazeball,
scumbag son of a whore that's in on the TAKE.

Go ahead, I dare you to say Bernie!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. From her Wall Street speaking engagements to her list of top 20 donors to the hundreds of millions poured into the Clinton "foundation" from nations like Saudi Arabia, to her tenure as neocon head of the State Department, to her private email server...

Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.

I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office: she'll represent the interests that have given her the most money: Banks, international law firms (like the Panamanian one that was just exposed), Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, and the ultra-wealthy. She's for the TTP and TTIP. She's for Saudi Arabia, She's for the banks. Do you really think that Hillary will reform the WH in the way it so desperately needs?

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 11, 2016 1:35 PM (P)

Thanks Kiki for posting the DN interview, it was very enlightening.

I dare say that Bojangles would be proud of Bernie, and that he would have won
an Oscar for his performance, as he tap danced his way around the details. His
entire campaign is built on a House of Cards. There is no foundation to his
claims that he will dismantle the banks (as he has so vigorously extolled) and
reform Wall Street.

For example:

Daily News: I get that point. I'm just looking at the method because, actions have reactions, right? There are pluses and minuses. So, if you push here, you may get an unintended consequence that you don't understand. So, what I'm asking is, how can we understand? If you look at JPMorgan just as an example, or you can do Citibank, or Bank of America. What would it be? What would that institution be? Would there be a consumer bank? Where would the investing go?

Sanders: I'm not running JPMorgan Chase or Citibank.

Daily News: No. But you'd be breaking it up.

Sanders: That's right. And that is their decision as to what they want to do and how they want to reconfigure themselves. That's not my decision. All I am saying is that I do not want to see this country be in a position where it was in 2008, where we have to bail them out. And, in addition, I oppose that kind of concentration of ownership entirely.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what exactly is he going to do once he reaches the White House? Is he going to break up the banks? Is he going to restrict Wall Street? What changes will he
personally make to affect the economic landscape of our country, as he has
promised?

He states that he was on the Veteran Affairs Committee, yet you have veterans in
Arizona that were not allowed to vote. Does that seem right to you? What is his
voting record when it comes to veterans? What will he do when the time comes to
break up the banks? Does he know?

SGG

SECOND

Monday, April 11, 2016 6:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
So what exactly is he going to do once he reaches the White House? Is he going to break up the banks? Is he going to restrict Wall Street? What changes will he personally make to affect the economic landscape of our country, as he has
promised?

What will he do when the time comes to break up the banks? Does he know?

SGG

I am being mean to tired, old man Bernie but the easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?

Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point. We all know old people who miss the point. I've got a crowd pleasing suggestion for Bernie: all Bankers are Terrorists and must die. Bernie can then be very specific about using drones against bank buildings and filling Guantanamo with bankers to be tortured. That is what I call a detailed plan for breaking up big banks. He won't need Congressional approval, which he can't get anyway, for more moderate plans.

Yet going on about big banks is pretty much all Sanders has done. On the rare occasions on which he was asked for more detail, he didn’t seem to have anything more to offer. And this absence of substance beyond the slogans seems to be true of his positions across the board.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Monday, April 11, 2016 9:16 PM (P)

SECOND-

The big banks were desk-deep in the 2008 panic .... They engaged in robo signing

Quote:
In 2010, it was revealed that several large banks routinely used affidavits signed by employees who did not personally review the documents and had no basis for believing that the homeowner was in default or that the bank owned the loan. Employees for financial giants like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and GMAC have all testified that they signed many thousands of affidavits a month, spending about 30 seconds on each affidavit, and that they didn't have a clue regarding the veracity of the affidavit or the documents in question -- hence the name "robosigners." In 2012, a $25 billion settlement among 49 state attorneys general, federal regulators and five banks that was announced in 2012, and in early 2013, federal regulators announced a $9.3 billion settlement with 13 banks over the robo-signing scandal and other abuses.

Now, why would banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and GMAC be "robosigning" affidavits if they did not hold many of these subprime mortgages?

In addition to these large banks having bought many subprime mortgages, they also bought Mortgage Backed Obligations (MBOs) and Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) which insinuated specious mortgages into financial institutions everywhere (including large insurers like AIG).

While the "big boys" could withstand the shock of the subprime collapse, many medium-sized ones couldn't. Here is a list of banks which became insolvent in 2008:

Wachovia, Downey S&L, Indy Mac S&L, Colonial Bank, Guaranty Bank S&L, and WaMu S%L. In addition are several large American insurers like Ambac (which also insured municipal bonds, which made a huge mess of that bond market.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_acquired_or_bankrupted_dur
ing_the_Great_Recession

Trying to pin it all on the "shadow banks" ignores the point that these "shadow banks" SOLD the mortgages elsewhere, and found ready buyers in investment banks, depositor banks, and insurers.

In any case the environment is no longer the same as before. Large banks are now protected by "bail in" provisions in which YOUR DEPOSIT is no longer considered your money, but instead is considered as an unsecured LOAN to the bank. Should this bank fail, it can exchange YOUR MONEY for stock shares of the bank (of unknown value).

In theory, the first roughly $250,000 is protected by FDIC, but in reality if you have your money in a credit union (for example) or a smaller bank, these institutions save their money in larger in institutions in large uninsured deposits. And if the bail-in measures need to be invoked, the shit has already hit the fan.

Instead of large, un-insurable banks, we really need smaller ones.

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:18 AM (P)

https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/2009/09/credit-union-members-bewa
re-your-credit.html

private insurer of credit unions - take home message - if you don't or can't look up who's insuring your credit union, make sure you have one with the word 'federal' in its name ... you will avoid private insurance that way

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 1:26 AM (P)

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:57 AM (P)

Hillary's RECORD on Israel

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33868-what-we-can-expect-from-hilla
ry-clinton-on-israel-palestine

One of the big challenges regarding the application of international law is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which involves a foreign belligerent occupation, illegal colonization, war crimes committed by both the occupying power and at least one arm of the resistance, and scores of UN Security Council resolutions. As senator and subsequently, Hillary Clinton has developed a reputation as one of the most right-wing Democrats on Israel/Palestine, repeatedly siding with Likud-led governments against Israeli progressives and moderates, and taking a dismissive attitude regarding the application of international law or any role for the United Nations.

As a senator, Clinton defended Israel's colonization efforts in the occupied West Bank and was highly critical of the United Nations for its efforts to uphold international humanitarian law, which forbids transferring civilian populations onto territories under foreign belligerent occupation. Clinton criticized the UN's enforcement of four UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to end the practice, and even took the time for a 2005 visit to a major Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank in a show of support. She moderated that stance somewhat as secretary of state in expressing concerns over how the right-wing Israeli government's settlement policies harmed the overall climate of the peace process, but she has refused to acknowledge the illegality of the settlements or demand that Israel abide by international demands to stop building additional settlements. Subsequently, she has argued that the Obama administration pushed too hard in the early years of the administration to get Israel to suspend settlement construction.

In 2011, Clinton successfully pushed for a US veto of a UN Security Council resolution reiterating the illegality of the settlement drive and calling for a settlement freeze. The UN Security Council has traditionally been the vehicle for enforcing international law in territories under foreign belligerent occupation, but Clinton noted, "We have consistently over many years said that the United Nations Security Council - and resolutions that would come before the Security Council - is not the right vehicle to advance the goal," despite the US failure to stop this colonization drive on its own.

Hillary's RECORD on

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/01/16/clinton-record-wall
-street-laissez-faire/Z2a3iOsj40wryeRN2iT6qK/story.html

She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall Street regulation. With banks enjoying a new era of deregulation that her husband helped create, a neutralized Clinton represented a win for the financial services industry and its perpetual effort to free itself from Washington’s hand.

The Boston Globe reviewed eight years of lobbying disclosure forms for the four financial services firms that donated the most money to Hillary Clinton while she was in the Senate. The review examined which banking and finance bills those banks cared the most about, and whether she took a position on them.

The junior senator from New York rarely signed on to bills related to the financial services industry — whether the banks supported or opposed the measures. Of the 189 Senate bills that their lobbyists identified as significant banking or finance legislation, she cosponsored only 25.

Of those, most of the ones she put her name on were also backed by Schumer — a member of the Senate Banking Committee who has never been known as an anti-Wall Street crusader.

“She was not a champion of the financial sector, nor was she an antagonist,” said one financial services executive who lobbied her while she was in the Senate. “The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clinton-mixed-record-on-wal
l-street-tough-cut-it-out-talk

Hillary Clinton’s Mixed Record on Wall S

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:44 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
God forbid Bernie should tell the truth. So here it is in very brief terms.

New York is full of Zionist Jews who think Israel is justified no matter what it does (oh look, Israel is a baby-USA), and it's the home of Wall Street and 2 bigee bank bankstas (rhymes with gangstas).

Those are exactly the people Hillary's been sucking up to. I guess that's what you have to do to win the state.

How does this story mesh with Hilliary constantly pulling the rug out from under Israel, and all the Libtard Jews of America voting against Netanyahu?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Clinton IS corrupt. From her Wall Street speaking engagements to her list of top 20 donors to the hundreds of millions poured into the Clinton "foundation" from nations like Saudi Arabia, to her tenure as neocon head of the State Department, to her private email server...

Clinton is a bought, sold, butchered, graded, and packaged politician. You don't need a jury trial to figure that out.

I know exactly what she'll do when she gets into office: she'll represent the interests that have given her the most money: Banks, international law firms (like the Panamanian one that was just exposed), Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC, and the ultra-wealthy. She's for the TTP and TTIP. She's for Saudi Arabia, She's for the banks. Do you really think that Hillary will reform the WH in the way it so desperately needs?

So you believe it's only the White House that needs fixing? And that all politicians have sold the US out. Or is it just Hilary that has turned this
nation into a Third World country? Do you actually know what a neocon is?

SGG

I sincerely doubt you know what a neocon is.
Care to share what your personal definition is?
This ought to be a hoot.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE