Bernie Sanders Discussion Thread

POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:39
VIEWED: 44646
PAGE 2 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

1KIKI

Tuesday, April 12, 2016 7:29 AM (P)

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?

I'm sure you have cites for all of that.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ... ... ... ...

OH, btw, did you know that New York Jews can't for or against anyone in an Israeli election, and specifically not against Netanyahu ?

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-1.647133

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.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
OH, btw, did you know that New York Jews can't for or against anyone in an Israeli election, and specifically not against Netanyahu ?

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium-1.647133

All of the Dual Citizenship Israelis in New York can return home to vote. Those Israelis residing in New York and Florida predominantly vote against Netanyahu, and the resident Israelis voting in America via absentee ballot vote almost exclusively for the Democrat Party in America as long as it opposes Netanyahu, which it always does. In the same way the Libtard Jews vote against Netanyahu by voting for Democrats.

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 9:15 AM (P)

"Those Israelis residing in New York and Florida predominantly vote against Netanyahu .."

Cites?

"... resident Israelis voting in America via absentee ballot vote almost exclusively for the Democrat Party in America as long as it opposes Netanyahu, which it always does."

That's funny, because Google links say the relationship between bibi and the democratic party has been quite cozy for years. https://www.google.com/#q=netanyahu+democratic+party+position

And let me point out that once again you provided no evidence (DAMN that word!) for your assertions and posted something demonstrably false.

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 13, 2016 9:59 PM (P)

www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-new-york-brawler-20160
408-story.html

www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/04/12

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Bush won through fraud in multiple states. And then the Supremes stepping in to decide the winner.

There was some Pirate-News-esque stuff that came out about this when Scalia died. Scalia was the deciding vote in that Supreme court decision to stop the recount. Legally speaking whole recount thing was a state level issue, there shouldn't ever have been involvement on a federal level.

And as it turns out, Scalia was a member of a secret hunting society that has connections to the Bohemian Grove. So does the Bush family, George H.W. Bush is a known member of Bohemian Grove.

So they're both members of the same secret society, and we're going to say there wasn't a conflict of interest when Scalia cast the deciding vote?

Interesting stuff.

Although I too think that Al Gore probably wouldn't have been that different from Bush. Granted, the Bush family and Cheney had that whole grudge against Iraq so maybe that war wouldn't have happened, but I think that 9-11 and all the security theatre stuff would have happened anyway. I think that the 9-11 hijackers slipped through the cracks, and would have no matter what, and I think that there's people in the intelligence community that took advantage of it after the fact to erode human rights in America. I think banks failed because of banking acts that had already been passed.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, April 13, 2016 10:15 PM (P)

Quote:
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.

Because it reduces the power of the parties. I don't even have to google it, it's just an obvious logical conclusion.

Why join a party if they can't guarantee that you'll be the only candidate they're putting forward, and therefore the only candidate from that party with a chance to win?

SECOND

Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Scalia was the deciding vote in that Supreme court decision to stop the recount.

Having mentioned Scalia, the next Supreme Court justice will be another Scalia unless the next President is a Democrat.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/28/nation/la-na-tt-scalias-slam-2
0130228
Scalia is alleged to be one of the great intellects of conservative jurisprudence, but his comments during oral arguments over a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act displayed all the mental acuity of a third-tier talk radio bozo.

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

SECOND

Thursday, April 14, 2016 12:21 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I think banks failed because of banking acts that had already been passed.

Since Americans are who they are, if they see an opportunity to make money, even if it means, perhaps, crashing the economy, by the holy US dollar they will crash the economy. Americans feel it is their destiny to be wealthy and if they have to smash millions of people’s dreams, too bad for dreams. To stop those crashes means stopping Americans from making all the money they desire. The details about how to stop them are very important. To Bernie, details are unimportant. To Clinton, details are everything.

There is an article about that very subject, contrasting Bernie and Clinton:
www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11415772/clinton-sanders-daily-news
Hillary Clinton does a better job than Bernie Sanders of explaining the details of his bank breakup plan

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

BYTEMITE

Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:35 AM (P)

Quote:
Scalia is alleged to be one of the great intellects of conservative jurisprudence, but his comments during oral arguments over a challenge to the 1965 Voting Rights Act displayed all the mental acuity of a third-tier talk radio bozo.

Hah, I know some lawyers who could tear apart a number of his decisions. They were never logically consistent with each other or the constitution, Scalia just tended to go with whatever was the most convenient interpretation for his interests.

Quote:
To Bernie, details are unimportant. To Clinton, details are everything.

Based on the entire transcript Sig posted, I wouldn't say they were unimportant to Bernie. I found his comments insightful - yes, more fluff and spin than I'd like, of course, but there were more concepts there than, say, Trump's completely unfounded and baseless campaign platforms that have no chance in hell of being implemented.

But I would agree that Hillary's explanation of her policies do have more substance behind them.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Thursday, April 14, 2016 5:49 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
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.

Because it reduces the power of the parties. I don't even have to google it, it's just an obvious logical conclusion.

Why join a party if they can't guarantee that you'll be the only candidate they're putting forward, and therefore the only candidate from that party with a chance to win?

This was dumb when posted, and still dumb when quoted.
There are runoff elections all the time. We have primaries to narrow it down to 1 or 2 prime candidates, and then the general election we can vote for the runoff remainders.

1KIKI

Thursday, April 14, 2016 10:22 AM (P)

Hillary Clinton does a better job than Bernie Sanders of explaining the details of his bank breakup plan

That's your opinion - which I don't share.

But I gotta ask you - what are you voting on? The person who you think explains breaking up 'too big to fail banks' better but has no intention of doing it, or the person who has it as a goal? Is erudition more important to you than direction?

And this is the same pattern in your posts. They cavil at Bernie because of the supposed shortcomings in his plans - and magically fail to notice that Clinton hasn't even addressed the questions Bernie has, let alone provide an answer.

Which is why I posted about Hillary in a Bernie thread. Because it's not about Bernie, it's about Bernie v Hillary. Who has the BETTER answer? And many times in your posts, it's easily apparent Hillary has no answer at all.

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

Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:05 PM (P)

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, April 14, 2016 4:11 PM (P)

Have you read the article? Just curious.

Anyway, I'm kind of lost here. Oh and by the way, your arguments sound extremely similar to those that Bernie has. My guess is that he has really
influenced you and your way of thinking. Let's take the whole idea of Too Big To Fail. I watched an interview, and I read the transcript, where
Bernie says that he's not quite sure who would have the authority to
break up the banks.

Now, don't get me wrong, I agree with you on one level.....that Bernie
means what he says. He has every intention of breaking up the banks. Saying it and doing it are parallel roads - which one do you think will actually get the job done? But in order to get on that road, you've got to know how
to read the map, and know where the pot holes are situated. Otherwise.....

Well, that is a way to learn the ropes.

A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has
his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob"
The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new
Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies"
written on the cover.

Susie says, don't hire Bluto over there (she meant Bob) he might know more than I do, but he has no intention of fixing your leak the right way. He just wants to milk you for more cash. Don't worry, I'll fix it and it won't
cost you nearly as much. Now, Susie is a great gal, she bakes a mean apple pie. But she's asked if she knows what to do.

Well, let's see. She opens the book and turns to the Table of Contents and looks up the word "leaks." Bob starts laughing (not too hard, mind you, he doesn't want to offend the lady of the house), he reaches into his left breast pocket, pulls out a business card, hands it to the lady and says...
"Call me when she's done." He hops into his truck and drives off.

What do you think the nice lady will do? Go with her next door neighbor to
the nearest Home Depot!? Saying it and doing it are two different things.

Bernie did not sound too sure of how exactly he would go about breaking up those BIG banks. One question that I have; why hasn't he even tried holding
the banks feet to the fire before this. Tell me, has he supported or introduced any legislation, during his many years in office, to effectively
start the ball rolling in that direction? Or does he only intend to do it
once he's president.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Hillary Clinton does a better job than Bernie Sanders of explaining the details of his bank breakup plan

That's your opinion - which I don't share.

But I gotta ask you - what are you voting on? The person who you think explains breaking up 'too big to fail banks' better but has no intention of doing it, or the person who has it as a goal? Is erudition more important to you than direction?

And this is the same pattern in your posts. They cavil at Bernie because of the supposed shortcomings in his plans - and magically fail to notice that Clinton hasn't even addressed the questions Bernie has, let alone provide an answer.

Which is why I posted about Hillary in a Bernie thread. Because it's not about Bernie, it's about Bernie v Hillary. Who has the BETTER answer? And many times in your posts, it's easily apparent Hillary has no answer at all.

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

Thursday, April 14, 2016 6:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

That's your opinion - which I don't share.

But I gotta ask you - what are you voting on? The person who you think explains breaking up 'too big to fail banks' better but has no intention of doing it, or the person who has it as a goal? Is erudition more important to you than direction?

And this is the same pattern in your posts. They cavil at Bernie because of the supposed shortcomings in his plans - and magically fail to notice that Clinton hasn't even addressed the questions Bernie has, let alone provide an answer.

Which is why I posted about Hillary in a Bernie thread. Because it's not about Bernie, it's about Bernie v Hillary. Who has the BETTER answer? And many times in your posts, it's easily apparent Hillary has no answer at all.

I think Bernie will fall into the same obscurity of, say, Howard Dean from Vermont. His hopes and dreams will amount to nothing. The only previous thing Bernie has done of any importance is caucusing with the Democrats to give them a 51–49 majority in the Senate and thus thwarting evil Vice President Dick Cheney, who would have broken any tie votes in favor of the Republicans. Bernie has been bellyaching for 25 years about the rich ruining American, but he has nothing that will ever become law.

Bernie is neither devious enough nor energetic enough to make a difference. And just looking at the old man, I don't think he has the strength to run again for the Senate. Maybe he will fool me and live to be 80 in 2021 and die in office.

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

SECOND

Thursday, April 14, 2016 7:52 PM (P)

Bernie Sanders, who has made it his business to police other people's transparency practices, has released full tax returns tax returns for... zero years, though he released the summary for a single year, 2014. Only Donald Trump has released less.

Hillary Clinton has released her full tax returns for every year since 2001.

John Kasich released seven years of partial returns. Ted Cruz (who released four years of partial returns) has shown more commitment to transparency than Bernie.
www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/4/12/bernie-sanders-tax-return-foot-d
ragging

Here is Bernie during CNN’s “State of the Union,” April 3, 2016
If I had been there, I would have yelled at the old fart to stop talking and just give me his goddamn tax returns.

Jake Tapper: “Let’s talk about taxes, specifically about your tax returns. I have to say, I’m kind of surprised that you haven’t gone further on transparency. You released the summary page of your 2014 tax returns. Hillary Clinton has posted on her website the last eight years of her personal returns, all of the returns. Before the New York primary, will you match her? Will you post your full returns for the last eight years?”

Bernie Sanders: “You know who does our tax returns? My wife does our tax returns. We’ve been a little bit busy lately. So we will get out as much information as we can. There ain’t going to be very much exciting in that. I get a salary from the United States Senate, you know, there’s not going to be anything new in it that people haven’t seen for the last many years, but we will get it out as soon as we can.”

Tapper: “But nobody has seen them at all, I guess, is the point, and whether or not there’s anything exciting in them –“

Sanders: “No, that is not true. That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past. Our financial situation, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed very much, but we will get out all of that information as soon as we can.”

Second: "Is right this second too soon for you, Bernie? The IRS has already seen all your returns, so stop stalling!"
www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/05/bernie-sanderss
-false-claim-that-he-has-released-his-full-federal-tax-returns/

I realize that Bernie will eventually post something about his taxes, but the point is he has everything about his taxes already completed at this very second and yet he delayed.

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 15, 2016 5:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

1KIKI

Friday, April 15, 2016 8:46 AM (P)

Howard Dean was sabotaged by both the "Democratic" party and the media. Are you old enough to remember the 'Dean scream'? - that well-timed media fabrication? How about H Ross Pee'roh and his daughter's wedding?

Maybe not. Maybe you really are too young to have seen the machinations that go into derailing any real threat to the power that sits behind behind the spectacle we see.

Hungry family, waiting for dinner. Gotta go.

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.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 15, 2016 9:08 AM (P)

Hillary Clinton

\

Giddy with the thought of having a man sodomized with a bayonet and turning Libya into a cluster. George Bush couldn't have done better. She's either unbelievably stupid or unbelievably evil, or both.

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

SECOND

Friday, April 15, 2016 5:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Hungry family, waiting for dinner. Gotta go.

"I'm horrified by all the elderly running for President, including Clinton. And Cruz believes gold should back the US dollar. Just that qualifies him as elderly. And senile." - second

Looking for president in the geriatric crowd
By Garrison Keillor
www.sltrib.com/opinion/3777098-155/keillor-no-dementia-for-president-p
lease

How did we wind up with these old people running for president? In 1960, the first election I voted in, Richard Nixon was 47 and John Kennedy was 43 and now, 56 years later, the candidates are mostly my age. Young people are flocking to Bernie Sanders who, given two terms in office, would be Leader of the Free World until age 83, setting a new record — Ronald Reagan was just shy of 78. Where is that new generation of leadership we keep hearing about at college commencements?

They say the voters long for a leader unlike the previous one and so after Nixon the schemer we elected the Baptist deacon. He turned out to be a detail guy and so was succeeded by a guy who thought in terms of Shining Good vs. Very Very Bad. After W, we elected a man who spoke in whole paragraphs. He was 47 when he took office. So now we’re longing for elder care and the full disclosure of the presidential prostate and colonoscopy analysis?

Speaking as an old guy, let me just say: Blecchhhhh. And let me add to that: Arghhhh. I don’t want a president who is groping for the word that means “no” and rhymes with “mosquito” or who needs to lie down every afternoon.

Tell me I’m an ageist and you’re right — I come by it honestly, I am that age. It’s a cruel age when you go out to dinner with friends and someone says, “Elevator or stairs?” and you shrug and take the stairs though you do feel short of breath and sit down in the restaurant which is clamorous and you can’t hear, which is a blessing, because your friends are telling bald-faced lies about how busy and happy they are, writing bad poetry and walking briskly with no particular place to go.

Meanwhile you gaze at the menu — you can afford the steak or lobster, but your metabolism is such that you order one sea scallop with a spoonful of rice and emulsified celery, with a pitted prune for dessert, lest you wake up at 3 a.m. whinnying in pain, begging to be shot and put out of your misery. And now the conversation is about calcium supplements. Chewable or the other kind. I’m dubious about entrusting someone from this age group with our foreign policy.

Listen to me. Old people run for office because they’re bored, hanging with their peers.

Bernie is tired of the club with Mitch McConnell, 74, Orrin Hatch, 82, John Mc-Cain, 79, Charles Grassley, 82, and is having the time of his life on the hustings, a teen idol at last. Fine.

But check out that 25th Amendment about presidential disability and how, if the boss’s brain turns to tapioca and he crouches behind bushes in the Rose Garden talking to Grover Cleveland, the vice president must conspire with the Cabinet to bounce him out of office. It isn’t exactly clear how this would actually work and the thought of three or four months of wrangling about incapacity is not a pleasant prospect. And two candidates seem incapacitated right now.

I remember Election Day 2008 and the vast crowd waiting in Grant Park in Chicago, and that young couple walking out on the big stage with the two little girls trotting alongside.

I get misty-eyed just thinking about it. All that it said about our country. My heart went out to them, the two young strivers from the South Side who took the high road and somehow knew exactly what to do in every situation. And how to bring up those girls.

The Obamas brought so much juice and style to the White House, and I will miss him in January, a cool president who could write a book and sing in public and show genuine emotion and speak for the nation at crucial times. And be genuinely funny.

As he winds up his presidency, pe

SECOND

Friday, April 15, 2016 7:03 PM (P)

Bernie Sanders has a very clear theory of what is wrong with Hillary Clinton: She is less left-wing than he is. She is less of a conviction politician, less politically daring, less consistent in her record, and more beholden to interests that benefit from the status quo. Agree or not, that's what he's saying. You don't need to agree with it or intend to vote for him to understand it and be able to repeat it coherently.

Clinton, by contrast, is all over the map. She can't quite decide what she wants to say about Bernie Sanders. . . she has an enormous lead at this point anyway, and the aversion to stark choices that makes it hard for her to develop a compelling line of attack would likely serve her well as president.
www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11436670/democratic-debate-new-york-clinton-mess
age

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

REAVERFAN

Friday, April 15, 2016 7:12 PM (P)

SECOND

Friday, April 15, 2016 7:19 PM (P)

I do not believe we live in a single issue country.

That is a message on which Clinton could hang most of her critiques of Sanders:

* Sanders' relentless focus on a single big idea about crushing corporate power prevents him from seeing that when you sit in the Oval Office it actually matters whether you get the details right.

* Sanders' self-righteousness about fundraising is going to make it impossible for him to build legislative coalitions and make even incremental progress on even his core issue.

* Sanders has been soft on guns, not because he's in the pocket of the NRA but because it's an issue that can't be easily assimilated into his class warfare worldview.

* Sanders voted against the 2007 immigration reform bill, not because he hates immigrants but because his passion for anti-business causes trumped other concerns.

* Sanders' ideas on health care might make sense in principle, but insisting on reopening this fight would prevent other issues from getting on the agenda.

The point would be not that Sanders is a bad guy or that his idea is wrong or even that he's a bad senator, but that he belongs in the Senate which is an ideal vantage point from which to flail away at one big idea.
www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11436670/democratic-debate-new-york-clinton-mess
age

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 16, 2016 3:27 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

You seem nonplussed.

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:20 AM (P)

You know, you're right..........they are more Uber-cons than Neo-cons. I stand corrected.

Oh, by the way, I get my info from Libtard Weekly, a subsidiary of Wiki-Leaks.
Not very much different than where you get your facts, only opposite (that's code
for WRONG) Dickhead Central, a subsidiary of Goose-steppers Bizarre

New policy, keep throwing insults; I'm ready, but, as they say in Dublin, duck &
cover - tira y tapate!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:30 AM (P)

It is kinda funny........lmao

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hillary Clinton

\

Giddy with the thought of having a man sodomized with a bayonet and turning Libya into a cluster. George Bush couldn't have done better. She's either unbelievably stupid or unbelievably evil, or both.

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:32 AM (P)

Actually, Uber-Neo-cons.................that's more like it!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:33 AM (P)

Actually, what is a conservative? Define that!!!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 16, 2016 11:38 AM (P)

You know, I could stand for a politics lesson...........I'm not as politically
obtuse as you are............wait, I meant to say sharp. Damn, I always get those
mixed up. Ya see! I am in need of a good political ass whupping............

Teach me, O exalted one! Yep, I pick Option B.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

SECOND

Saturday, April 16, 2016 6:25 PM (P)

Bernie would approve of Obama's eloquent description of the subtle corrupting effect from the fundraising process:
http://bit.ly/1NelzbK

I can’t assume that the money chase didn’t alter me in some ways. …

Increasingly I found myself spending time with people of means — law firm partners and investment bankers, hedge fund managers and venture capitalists. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, knowledgeable about public policy, liberal in their politics, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class: the top 1 percent or so of the income scale that can afford to write a $2,000 check to a political candidate. They believed in the free market and an educational meritocracy; they found it hard to imagine that there might be any social ill that could not be cured by a high SAT score. They had no patience with protectionism, found unions troublesome, and were not particularly sympathetic to those whose lives were upended by the movements of global capital. Most were adamantly prochoice and antigun and were vaguely suspicious of deep religious sentiment.

And although my own worldview and theirs corresponded in many ways — I had gone to the same schools, after all, had read the same books, and worried about my kids in many of the same ways — I found myself avoiding certain topics during conversations with them, papering over possible differences, anticipating their expectations. On core issues I was candid; I had no problem telling well-heeled supporters that the tax cuts they’d received from George Bush should be reversed. Whenever I could, I would try to share with them some of the perspectives I was hearing from other portions of the electorate: the legitimate role of faith in politics, say, or the deep cultural meaning of guns in rural parts of the state.

Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population — that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve. And in one fashion or another, I suspect this is true for every senator: The longer you are a senator, the narrower the scope of your interactions. You may fight it, with town hall meetings and listening tours and stops by the old neighborhood. But your schedule dictates that you move in a different orbit from most of the people you represent.

And perhaps as the next race approaches, a voice within tells you that you don’t want to have to go through all the misery of raising all that money in small increments all over again. You realize that you no longer have the cachet you did as the upstart, the fresh face; you haven’t changed Washington, and you’ve made a lot of people unhappy with difficult votes. The path of least resistance — of fund-raisers organized by the special interests, the corporate PACs, and the top lobbying shops — starts to look awfully tempting, and if the opinions of these insiders don’t quite jibe with those you once held, you learn to rationalize the changes as a matter of realism, of compromise, of learning the ropes. The problems of ordinary people, the voices of the Rust Belt town or the dwindling heartland, become a distant echo rather than a palpable reality, abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought.

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 16, 2016 7:12 PM (P)

\

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It is kinda funny........lmao -SGG

Which part's funny? The part where Clinton turned Libya into a failed state crawling with jihadists? Or the part where she's so happy about it?

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 16, 2016 7:50 PM (P)

SECOND, I assume that you posted those extended (negative) opinion pieces about Sanders because you agree with them.

So here's my take on those pieces:

Looking for president in the geriatric crowd: Garrison Keillor
I enjoy Keillor and his stories of Lives of the Cowboys, Guy Noir, and especially Lake Woebegone which in many ways was like my (small) hometown. I'm sad that he's retiring but I recognize that he's earned it. I guess I'll just have to content myself with rebroadcasts. But I'm not about to take political advice from a guy who seems to be swayed more by youth and style than by the issues. Sorry Garrison, you don't get my vote.

Hillary Clinton can't quite decide what she wants to say about Bernie Sanders
The problem with Hillary Clinton isn't that she's some sort of uber-wonk who can't draft a clear message because she's got all of the details in mind. HER problems is that she's been wrong on every single issue, from health care to NAFTA to Iraq to Libya. (I posted an article which lists all of her failings here: Would the World Survive President Hillary? http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60433&p=1#1
009887.) That woman is a disaster. Trying to portray her as some sort of mastermind is tragically lame, since she's flubbed everything except getting $$$ stuffed into her pocket.

Bernie would approve of Obama's eloquent description of the subtle corrupting effect from the fundraising process
And, yes, even "mainstream" Democrats can admit to the corrupting influence of money. The difference between Sanders and Obama, however, is that Sanders has a history of actively fighting against it for decades, while Obama's record is pitifully weak.

One thing that the MSM repeats often is Clinton's "overwhelming" delegate lead. The part they leave out (I wonder why) is that much of that lead comes from "superdelegates". Like Colorado GOP handing its delegates to Cruz without even holding an election, the Dem party central committee is dedicated to disenfranchising its own voters. They've selected Hillary as the heir apparent since she won't upset their comfortable relationships with the banks, the CIA and T(other)PTB.
-------

As you know, I'm not a huge Bernie fan. But the thought of voting for that evil witch Clinton (with apologies to witches everywhere) makes me gag.

Bernie doesn't need to be on top of every detail. That's not the President's job. It's up to the President to assemble a team of trusted (and hopefully realistic) advisors who can get and keep those details for him.

But I don't expect Sanders to achieve his goals as President. Breaking up the banks (which BTW are still dangerously TBTF, an article about it here http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/the-fed-sends-a-frightening-lett
er-to-jpmorgan-and-corporate-media-yawns/) and getting money out of politics is not in the cards. It would be enough for him to simply veto the more egregious notions of Congress (like voting for the TPP/TTIP) and to block the more egregious actions of the State Department and the CIA (like destabilizing YET ANOTHER nation) and to nominate a reasonable Supreme Court Justice. If Bernie can do that - and I think those are all every achievable goals well within his grasp - then he deserves a vote.

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

REAVERFAN

Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

You seem nonplussed.

Never.

REAVERFAN

Sunday, April 17, 2016 1:00 AM (P)

For all her talk, Hillary has no problem whoring for every single thing Sanders is against.

She's without a conscience, and a complete sociopath. The video above proves it without question. She's every bit as evil as Bush, and is actually very friendly with all the PNAC neocons.

She WILL get us into another war. Put that in the predictions thread.

1KIKI

Sunday, April 17, 2016 3:31 AM (P)

SGG

Have you read the article? Just curious. You mean the one I quoted from beginning to end, with the FULL context of the questions and each entire reply in green; rather than the dishonestly reported version 2nd posted? Yes.

A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob" The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies" written on the cover. Yours is a wildly inaccurate analogy. The more accurate analogy would be - she sees a blind licensed electrician with a truck that says on its side "we break it"; and she also sees her concerned neighbor who says "we need to find a way to fix that". Because Hillary has never even admitted to the existence of the problems Bernie focuses on. That's why the woman with the major leaks sees a blind electrician, not a sighted plumber. Also, every decision of Hillary's has led to a disaster. Well, maybe those were her intended goals, but they look like disasters for the American people from where I am. That's why the logo on the truck says "we break it". Meanwhile, Bernie comes over, sees the leak, thinks it's a problem, and goes about finding the fix for it.

Who do you think has the better chance of fixing the leak?

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 17, 2016 4:21 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I assume that you posted those extended (negative) opinion pieces about Sanders because you agree with them.

As you know, I'm not a huge Bernie fan. But the thought of voting for that evil witch Clinton (with apologies to witches everywhere) makes me gag.

It is second, not SECOND.

If Republicans had not revised the Constitution out of pure vindictiveness toward FDR and the New Deal, I would prefer Obama running for a third term to Clinton or Bernie. But I would prefer any Democrat to any Republican, partly because a Republican would pick a Scalia clone for the Supreme Court. I think Bernie has no chance of winning against any Republican, once their noise machine bombards us for months about Bernie's beliefs and the fact that Bernie still has not posted all his tax forms going back to year 2000. I know he has done them, so why is he waiting? I know why Republicans don’t post theirs: tax cheating and greed will be evident.

Pretty soon that will make no difference because the witch will beat Bernie. Then the noise machine will be turned on the witch, but it has been noisily pointing out the witch's faults since Benghazi and the emails, however many years ago that started.

To summarize:

1) I prefer Obama to Clinton or Bernie, but I can't have Obama because of far-sighted Republicans acting in 1947.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_St
ates_Constitution

2) Bernie has little chance at this second of being elected President and very soon everyone will know he has no chance.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-york-democratic/
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-res
ults.html?_r=0

3) That leaves Clinton. I do hope Democrats would vote for a witch rather than stay home and let the Republicans win. But, you know, Democrats tend to not go to the polls and then they tend to not understand that that is the reason the Republicans win. Or Democrats vote for a Ralph Nader and that is another reason the Republicans win.

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

1KIKI

Sunday, April 17, 2016 4:55 AM (P)

"I do hope Democrats would vote for a witch rather than stay home and let the Republicans win."

If the "Democratic" Party didn't learn from their losses in governorships over the last couple of decades, in the House, and in the Senate, maybe they'll learn if they lose the White House.

I kinda don't think so, but there's always a chance. And it would serve them right if Republicans elected the first populist president instead of the usual party handmaiden.

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:27 AM (P)

SECOND I capitalize everyone I address because that's the way it shows up on the site, and it also helps to get the attention of those whom I'm addressing.

You've usually been rational in the past, why are you so emotional over this discussion?

We're still at the primaries stage, so who you'll be voting for is not who'll be President but who'll be candidate.

But, OK, thinking ahead, what are the probabilities?

Clinton v Trump
Clinton v Cruz
Sanders v Trump
Sanders v Cruz

Now, personally, I can't imagine many Democrats who would "stay home" if either Cruz or Trump were on the ticket, no matter WHO is on the Democrat side. There's enough negatives with both Trump and Cruz to scare almost every Democrat into voting blue (except me, but I'm atypical). So why not vote for Sanders? It would send a big fat message to party hacks that maybe they should start working for their base again. And even if he wins, he may not "get much accomplished" but so what? Considering what Hillary has "accomplished" in her political life, less is probably better.

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:42 AM (P)

Actually, BOTH!!! HI-larious!!!

You know what else is funny, how Libya is the only thing NOT Obama's fault.
Bush invades Iraq, well that's fine. Kills, or has killed, Sadam; oh, that's
applauded.............downright laughable.

Then Obama gets Osama (hey that rhymes!) and he's BBQ'd for actually doing
something right, and something that Bush had promised.

Stop it, my sides are hurting......lol

Benghazi Committee is actually set to meet AGAIN! Ha, ha I'm dying here. It is
now officially the longest government-sponsored investigation in America's
history, and the least effective.

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-commi
ttee-now-one-of-the-longest-and-least-active-congressional

"During this time, the Select Committee has identified no evidence to
support claims that Secretary Clinton ordered a stand-down, approved an
illicit weapons program, or any of the other wild allegations about the
Benghazi attacks Republicans have made about her for years."

Stop it, stop it you're killing me............lmao

SfGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
\

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It is kinda funny........lmao -SGG

Which part's funny? The part where Clinton turned Libya into a failed state crawling with jihadists? Or the part where she's so happy about it?

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:45 AM (P)

SGG, when did you turn into a jerk?

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:59 AM (P)

Lesson received loud and clear.

SfGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

Have you read the article? Just curious. You mean the one I quoted from beginning to end, with the FULL context of the questions and each entire reply in green; rather than the dishonestly reported version 2nd posted? Yes.

A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob" The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies" written on the cover. Yours is a wildly inaccurate analogy. The more accurate analogy would be - she sees a blind licensed electrician with a truck that says on its side "we break it"; and she also sees her concerned neighbor who says "we need to find a way to fix that". Because Hillary has never even admitted to the existence of the problems Bernie focuses on. That's why the woman with the major leaks sees a blind electrician, not a sighted plumber. Also, every decision of Hillary's has led to a disaster. Well, maybe those were her intended goals, but they look like disasters for the American people from where I am. That's why the logo on the truck says "we break it". Meanwhile, Bernie comes over, sees the leak, thinks it's a problem, and goes about finding the fix for it.

Who do you think has the better chance of fixing the leak?

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

Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:01 AM (P)

Just yesterday.................pretty becoming

Pretty darn awful, and becoming worse!

Ha, I kill me!

SfGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG, when did you turn into a jerk?

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:04 AM (P)

Right you are! I totally agree - Trump or Bernie should win, then we'll really see this country fly above all others. America will be Great Again!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I do hope Democrats would vote for a witch rather than stay home and let the Republicans win."

If the "Democratic" Party didn't learn from their losses in governorships over the last couple of decades, in the House, and in the Senate, maybe they'll learn if they lose the White House.

I kinda don't think so, but there's always a chance. And it would serve them right if Republicans elected the first populist president instead of the usual party handmaiden.

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

Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:11 AM (P)

It's a political statement using sarcasm. You guys spout off and make some
serious claims, mix in some "facts" and then complain when someone protests.
We are all here to express our opinion, right or wrong, which is an American
right and tradition.

Do you wish to deny me that right? So what if I'm being a jerk, sometimes that is needed to get a point across.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG, when did you turn into a jerk?

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:20 AM (P)

You want to know the real reason why I laugh at this post.............Because,
it's so heavily "doctored" it's not even FUNNY.

SfGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SGG, when did you turn into a jerk?

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

1KIKI

Sunday, April 17, 2016 11:40 AM (P)

Right you are! I totally agree - Trump or Bernie should win, then we'll really see this country fly above all others. America will be Great Again!

SGG

Are you drunk? High? Stoned? What's going on SGG? You're incoherent. Trump and Bernie aren't the same. And you may have noticed 'make America great again' is the Trumpette's slogan, not Bernie's.

What I'm getting from you and 2nd is that you fear Trump and despise Bernie - but neither of you have been able to point to one solid reason - backed up by history or experience - as to why Shrillary would be so great. And why the serious baggage of her bad decisions, bad policies, and bad company should be ignored.

Why should anyone vote FOR her? What is she going to do to stabilize the areas the US (and Shrillary herself) destabilized? Is she going to escalate tensions with Russia or deescalate them? And do you think limited nuclear warfare is possible? How will she deal with Israel's illegal behavior? What will she do to protect the economy from 'too big to fail' banks? Will she reverse 'bail-in' policies? Is she for or against 'free trade' pacts? And will she be the same tomorrow? There are critical issues facing the US where Shrillary has either been on the wrong side, or is silent.

As president, will she address them them in ways that represent the interests of us, the citizens of this country? Neither of you can answer that.

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.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:08 PM (P)

Quote:
It's a political statement using sarcasm .... So what if I'm being a jerk, sometimes that is needed to get a point across.

Being a jerk is sometimes necessary to get your point across, but I have no idea what point that would be, and I daresay neither does anyone else.

So let's start with something simple:

Quote:
You want to know the real reason why I laugh at this post.............Because,
it's so heavily "doctored" it's not even FUNNY.

WHICH post is doctored? The Youtube of Hillary beaming and giggling because she just got someone killed?

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

1KIKI

Sunday, April 17, 2016 1:00 PM (P)

2nd's tilted posts - a sampler

I was trying to get a sense of 2nd's thinking. But her posts were so incredibly dishonest and one-sided, all I came away with was the impression of a person with absolutely no integrity. And also, highly partisan, but not because of any support for Clinton's policies.

reasons to vote against Bernie
Sanders persuaded the jet’s manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard.
what 2nd left out of her post from the same article
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops.

now for some completely fictitious commentary
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.

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. As for Hillary's disastrous record ... crickets.
On whether Bernie supports fracking: "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking." And what is Hillary's policy? Surely there must be some statement amongst all the 'nuance'.
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." And Hillary? Does she even consider it a problem?
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." What about Hillary?
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." And Hillary's position?

First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt ... In the video 2nd posted? Or the link? It didn't happen.

The entire future of America was suppose to depend on Ralph in the White House. Only Ralph could save the Nation. Nobody I knew, no story I read, ever made that point. Now there goes 2nd again, making up stuff. It's called a strawman argument and is a form of dishonesty.

I checked the betting sites. Bernie will not be President is a safe bet.

There was an article 2nd posted about Bernie where snippets of phrases were cut out of entire sentences Bernie said, and those isolated phrases were posted AS IF they were Bernie's entire answer. FOR SHAME 2nd. Talk about blatant dishonesty.

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. And Hillary's position? ... But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, yes and would breaking them up protect us from future crises? yes On the rare occ

1KIKI

Sunday, April 17, 2016 2:04 PM (P)

post to flip the database display out of a poorly defined 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 17, 2016 5:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND . . . You've usually been rational in the past, why are you so emotional over this discussion?

. . .

Now, personally, I can't imagine many Democrats who would "stay home" if either Cruz or Trump were on the ticket, no matter WHO is on the Democrat side.

I am going to contradict you on your notion that Democrats will NOT "stay home". With the tiniest excuse, Texans Democrats will not vote. In Texas, Democrats do "stay home" all the time and that has warped state politics into a weirdness never seen before.

There are 14,000,000 registered voters in Texas. 5,000,000 more did not register, so that is 19,000,000 voters. Less than 5,000,000 vote for governor. From that, and personal observation, I draw the conclusion that Democrats are simply letting 2.8 million Republicans take control of the entire state at all levels of government, from highest to lowest.
www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/historical/70-92.shtml

Repeating myself: The population is not Republican, but Texas government is Republican because Democrats are not voting. I know Democrats who think Republican Governor Greg Abbott is a “Democrat” and think that Bush was the most recent Republican Governor. I explain it to them and they say "Oh!" and they understand, but give them a few months and they go right back to confusing who is Republican and Democrat.

Unlike the Democrats, Republicans do not misidentify the Governor’s party.

Getting mixed up about parties has awful consequences. Why should a Democrat bother to vote when the Governor is already a “Democrat”? And if the “Democrat” acts just like Republican Bush, why bother to vote when there is no difference between political parties?
www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Texas-is-not-among-the-most-Republ
ican-states-as-6087850.php#photo-7448282

It is just mind-boggling in Texas. The winning side, the Republicans, have an organizational advantage because they know who they are and they reliably vote for their side. And those 14 million Texans who did not vote? They have no more control over Texas government than Canadians do.

Bernie and his followers are NOT helping the Texas Democrats by painting Clinton as a witch who makes the same mistakes as Republicans. What Bernie's people will accomplish is convincing Texas Democrats that there is no reason to vote in November since Clinton is no better than a Republican. And, once again, Texas Democrats will "stay home" by the millions and 2.8 million Republicans will control the local governments that rule over 28 million Texans. We can thank Independent Bernie for doing all he can to trash the Democratic party in his rush to make it the Bernie party of one.

And later on this year, Bernie will be back in the Senate, calling himself an Independent because he is purer and better than any Democrat that ever existed and thus helping Republicans win Texas local government.

Texas Governor Race 2010
Republican Rick Perry 55% 2,737,481
Democratic Bill White 42.3% 2,106,395
Libertarian Kathie Glass 2.2% 109,211
Green Deb Shafto 0.4% 19,516
Write-In Andy Barron 0.1% 7,267
Total Votes 4,979,870
Eligible voters 19,000,000
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2010

Texas Governor Race 2014
Republican Greg Abbott 59.3% 2,796,547
Democratic Wendy Davis 38.9% 1,835,596
Libertarian Kathie Glass 1.4% 66,543
Green Brandon Parmer 0.4% 18,520
Write-in Sarah Pavitt 0% 1,062
Total Votes 4,718,268
Eligible voters 19,000,000
https://ballotpedia.org/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2014

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 8:51 PM (P)

Well, Texans are notoriously conservative. Nobody can save them from themselves.

And what is the point of electing "a Democrat" if that Democrat won't address the very real problems that the USA is facing right now, and who instead has consistently added to the conflagration over her lifetime and will probably continue thru a term of two in office?

Look, there are either very real - in fact, existential- problems facing the USA or there aren't.

And Hillary, as far as her record indicates, will exacerbate those very worst problems. And those aren't abortion rights or gay rights or any number of other important problems but problems like the fact that USA policy is determined by the ultra-wealthy and the alphabet agencies, that the USA is massive de-industrialized, that the USA has the greatest wealth gap since before the Great Depression, and that the USA has been continuously at war since 2003. Hillary is not about to do anything (except negative) about those problems.

That most Republicans have their head collectively buried in the sand is no reason for Democrats to do the same.

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

SECOND

Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, Texans are notoriously conservative. Nobody can save them from themselves.

I have a few problems with this line of argument, which seems to imply that Democratic voters in Texas don’t reflect the larger Democratic electorate.

“Secretary Clinton cleaned our clock in the Deep South, no question about it,” Bernie Sanders said during Thursday night’s Democratic debate in Brooklyn. “That is the most conservative part of this great country,” he continued. “But you know what, we’re out of the Deep South now. And we’re moving up.”

(The remarks Thursday night echo previous comments made by Sanders and his campaign.) Consider Sanders’s reference to the term “Deep South,” which traditionally describes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina: These are five of the only six states, along with Maryland, where at least a quarter of the population is black. Given the United States’ history of disenfranchising black voters — not to mention the importance of black voters to Democrats in November — it’s dicey for Sanders to diminish Clinton’s wins there.

Texas is quite diverse. Ideologically Austin isn’t exactly “the most conservative part” of the country and Texas is diverse racially. It contains not only a substantial number of African-Americans but also Hispanics and, increasingly, Asian-American voters.

In fact, Texas is demographically representative of the diverse Obama coalition that Clinton or Sanders will have to rely on in November.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that
-look-like-the-democratic-party/

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:33 PM (P)

SECOND, you're focusing on the most trivial aspect of my post. Firstly, Texas is NOT reflective of the greater USA, no matter how "diverse" you think it is.

But more importantly, are you so wedded to having "a Democrat" in office that you don't care that that particular Democrat is so wedded to big money and neocon interests that she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)?

Except for some "social policy" differences with the GOP .... which is the least of our problems right now ... Hillary is a warmongering, bankster-loving, welfare-cutting, free-trade groupie. That woman has been a disaster thru her entire career. She voted for the Iraq War, which was the prominent reason for her defeat by Obama, and is endlessly quoted by the reichwing here for her endless justifications (at the time) of that misguided vote.

There is nothing important (ie outside of some social policy votes) that she's gotten right in her entire career. As far as I can tell, she's a bank/CIA whore. I challenge you to find one thing that redeems her. Take your time. I'll be interested in the results.

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

SECOND

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, you're focusing on the most trivial aspect of my post. Firstly, Texas is NOT reflective of the greater USA, no matter how "diverse" you think it is.

But more importantly, are you so wedded to having "a Democrat" in office that you don't care that that particular Democrat is so wedded to big money and neocon interests that she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)?

Except for some "social policy" differences with the GOP .... which is the least of our problems right now ... Hillary is a warmongering, bankster-loving, welfare-cutting, free-trade groupie. That woman has been a disaster thru her entire career. She voted for the Iraq War, which was the prominent reason for her defeat by Obama, and is endlessly quoted by the reichwing here for her endless justifications (at the time) of that misguided vote.

There is nothing important (ie outside of some social policy votes) that she's gotten right in her entire career. As far as I can tell, she's a bank/CIA whore. I challenge you to find one thing that redeems her. Take your time. I'll be interested in the results.

I will pretend I'm a politician and say, "I agree with you completely about Hillary. If I had a choice, Obama would be running for a third term. Bernie would be my second choice. But sadly for all us Bernie supporters, our wonderful candidate is slightly behind the evil witch according to
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/cal
ifornia-democratic/

If there is a chance Clinton will be the nominee, our Bernie should not try to sabotage her before the nomination. OR AFTER. A Republican President would only be worse than the witch, as bad as she is."

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:08 PM (P)

Bernie can't "sabotage" her with the facts. Hillary sabotaged herself when she decided to lap-dance for the banks and the internationalists and the neocons. Along those lines, I can't see a dime's difference between her and establishment Repubs. If she loses, she deserves to lose.

I noticed that you can't come up with any redeeming qualities for her, all you can say is ... But Cruz! But Trump! Personally, I'd rather vote for Trump. Sure, he's a manic blowhard. But better a manic blowhard than a sociopathic shill.

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

SECOND

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Bernie can't "sabotage" her with the facts. Hillary sabotaged herself when she decided to lap-dance for the banks and the internationalists and the neocons.

This is Bernie "sabotaging" Clinton rather than "factually" campaigning.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Along those lines, I can't see a dime's difference between her and establishment Repubs. If she loses, she deserves to lose. Personally, I'd rather vote for Trump. Sure, he's a manic blowhard. But better a manic blowhard than a sociopathic shill.

And this is you making sure that everyone knows the mentally ill witch is evil beyond redemption and that Clinton is no different (except maybe worse) than the worst Republican running for President. Personally, I think she can be persuaded by Congressional Democrats to do right where a Republican President could not have his mind changed.

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 17, 2016 10:54 PM (P)

SECOND, I listened to the Bernie Sanders clip, and I couldn't find anything factually wrong or "sabotaging" about his statements.

Is he raising most of his money from small donations?
Yes

Is Hillary dependent on large donors for her campaign?
Yes

Is the United States "moving to" an oligarchy?
Well, according to a convincing research paper published by respected academicians, we're not "moving to" an oligarchy, we're already there.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I have linked this paper at least five times by now, you really should at least read the abstract about policy outcomes and who gets to determine them, from a study of the results of about 1800 well-polled policy decisions.

As far as Hillary being a sociopath, it was the quickest summary of my view of her record. FWIW, I think she's a "made" sociopath, not a "born" one. That doesn't take away from the fact that she's been a destructive and evil force for much of her career. I'm not going to repeat over and over the observations that have led me to that conclusion.

As far as Congress being able to "persuade" Hillary to "do the right thing" ... Congress is a money-grubbing, neocon-and-fake-evangelist-dominated, smoke-filled back room. Congress has NOT prompted Obama to "do the right thing" and it's doubtful they would be heading in that direction post-November. Don't count on Congress, for god's sake, to steer the USA! What we need is President who will prevent the WRONG thing, not someone who "might" be persuaded to go against the source hundreds of million$ (if not billion$) by a Congress which doesn't exist.

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

REAVERFAN

Monday, April 18, 2016 12:12 AM (P)

This is why I support Sanders. He's the only candidate to correctly identify our oligarchy, and the only one who wants to change it.

Hillary will continue giving blowjobs to all her big money owners. She is bought and paid for, and she'll be indistinguishable from the Republicans on most matters.

Money controlling politics is our #1 problem. Hillary's fine with it. Sanders is our last chance to recover democracy.

SECOND

Monday, April 18, 2016 12:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Is the United States "moving to" an oligarchy?
Well, according to a convincing research paper published by respected academicians, we're not "moving to" an oligarchy, we're already there.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
I have linked this paper at least five times by now, you really should at least read the abstract about policy outcomes and who gets to determine them, from a study of the results of about 1800 well-polled policy decisions.

I can't disagree with that paper: "Leaving aside the difficult issue of divergent interests and motives, we would urge that the superior wisdom of economic elites or organized interest groups should NOT simply be assumed. It should be put to empirical test. New empirical research will be needed to pin down precisely who knows how much, and what, about which public policies."

Centuries ago, most of the American people (as in all women and all men without a certain level of wealth, which varied from state to state) couldn’t even vote and the wealthy rushed into the power vacuum when Americans switched allegiance, slowly over many years, from King George to George Washington, leaving the government in the hands of the richest American in the 13 colonies, the Original Oligarch. The King lost control, but the rich never gave back control of the country to the citizens since March 1, 1781. Bernie will have to do a whole lot more than nominate a Supreme Court justice who would vote to reverse the Citizen's United decision of January 21, 2010. Bernie hasn't explained what more he can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

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

1KIKI

Monday, April 18, 2016 12:51 AM (P)

"... but the rich never gave back control of the country to the citizens since March 1, 1781."

FDR, who created the New Deal starting in 1935, can arguably be said to have represented the citizens of the country in opposition to the oligarchy. However, he wasn't elected under those terms, but came to them after socialists and communists started the largest mass movement of workers in the country. Which is why I've concluded the US democracy has never tested the power of the vote itself - the will of the people in pure, free political expression, without violence or the threat of it - as a force in opposition to the ruling class.

It would be sad, and incredibly ironic, if republicans had a populist candidate first.

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

Monday, April 18, 2016 1:23 AM (P)

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/oldsters-and-hillary

On the Democratic side, primaries have specialized in having at least one bold truthteller like Bernie in every cycle since the 1960s. Sometimes they're lefty truthtellers, sometimes they're "hard truths" truthtellers, and sometimes they're a bit of a mishmash. But the one thing they have in common is that they can afford to tell the truth—in the beginning, at least—because they're mostly running as rebels who don't really expect to win. And if you're not seriously trying to win, there's no downside to being entirely candid. Who cares if you're going to lose a few important demographics in the process?

Since 1968, we've seen at least one of these in every contested Democratic primary. Off the top of my head, the list includes Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Mo Udall, Gary Hart, Paul Simon, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, and Dennis Kucinich. They all attracted a crowd of fans, some more than others, and generally speaking they were lionized by the press. None of them won except for McGovern, who went down to an epic defeat in the general election. (Probably any Democrat would have lost that year, but McGovern lost in a landslide.)

So this year I look at Bernie, and I see the same old thing: a bold truthteller who could afford not to play conventional politics because he was never really planning to win. He just wanted to get his issues on the table. The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.

But this is obviously something that's far more salient to older voters than to younger ones. Bernie doesn't seem fresh and courageous to us. He seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it. They usually drop out by spring. And generally speaking, most of them probably didn't have the temperament to make good presidents.

Obviously your mileage might vary. Maybe Bernie is finally the one to do it, and I'm just too old and jaded to see it. Maybe his temperament is different, and he'd surprise us all by being a pretty good president. Maybe he'd get serious about rallying his troops to care about downballot elections, and win control of Congress. Maybe he'd really get a lot of the stuff done that he's been talking about.

I doubt it. But then again, none of the previous truthtellers has ever made it to the White House, so who knows? Maybe eight years from now we'll all be feeling the Bern.

1KIKI

Monday, April 18, 2016 2:46 AM (P)

The relationship between Hoover and Roosevelt was one of the most severely strained in Presidential history. Hoover had little good to say about his successor. FDR, in turn, supposedly engaged in various petty official acts aimed at his predecessor, ranging from dropping him from the White House birthday greetings message list to having Hoover's name struck from the Hoover Dam ...

As your own cite (above) indicates, FDR didn't start the New Deal in repudiation of Hoover. No, his repudiation took the form of petty slights. Instead, he was elected on a series of modest proposed reforms. He moved only later to more controversial reforms under pressure from communists and socialists.

This reference indicates FDR's initial actions were modest in nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Many historians distinguish between a "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38), with the second one more liberal and more controversial. The "First New Deal" (1933–34) dealt with the pressing banking crises through the Emergency Banking Act and the 1933 Banking Act. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration provided $500 million for relief operations by states and cities, while the short-lived CWA (Civil Works Administration) gave localities money to operate make-work projects in 1933–34.[5] The Securities Act of 1933 was enacted to prevent a repeated stock market crash. The controversial work of the National Recovery Administration was also part of the First New Deal.

And FDR provided only tepid support for workers' rights, and people's welfare in general, as opposed to the oligarchy

http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml

Roosevelt’s concessions to workers did not have the effect he intended. He expected that granting workers the legal right to organize alone would placate workers so that he could get on with the business of stabilizing the economy. In a 1933 radio address, he specifically urged workers not to struggle to win the right to unionize:

The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away but, on the other hand, no aggression is necessary now to attain these rights…. The principle that applies to the employer applies to workers as well and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit.23

These words undoubtedly began to ring hollow to workers whose employers called out the National Guard when they tried to exercise their legal right to unionize. Meanwhile, it soon became clear that Roosevelt had only grudgingly consented to grant workers the right to form unions–and he deliberately wrote Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act so vaguely that it could easily be interpreted as ensuring the "rights" of employers to form company unions. Many employers found it convenient to interpret the NRA that way in order to prevent workers from organizing genuine unions. Soon many workers were referring to the National Recovery Act as the "National Run Around."

It wasn't until later that FDR would throw his support behind workers (again, as opposed to the oligarchy).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation),[6] the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.[7]

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, April 18, 2016 2:54 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

Actually, what is a conservative? Define that!!!

SGG

In the Political Spectrum of America, there are 5 partitions.
In the middle are Centrists, generally not heavily biased.
On the far left of the diagram are the Radicals.
Between Radical and Center are Liberals - still well left of middle.
On the far Right of the diagram are Reactionary.
Between Reactionary and middle are Conservatives, still right of Center.

In the Golden Age of Radio and Television broadcast "journalism" or "news" when many yellow journalists pretended to be unbiased or balanced, and attempted to give the impression of being Centrist, they were merely liberal while trying to appear Centrist.
But Uncle Wally (Cronkite) was able to put a severe spin on the content and ushered in the current Hard left, Radical, and extreme Liberal position of the MainStream Media, while most of America resides in Conservative or Right side of Middle. This mismatch is why MSM so vehemently tries to claim that they are unbiased or Middle, Centrist - so that the most gullible will believe them and suspend disbelief while pretending to accept this falsehood.

1KIKI

Monday, April 18, 2016 3:02 AM (P)

The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.

...Bernie ... seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it.

WOW. Is the author dismissive of "issues" or what? Because aggressing against the nuclear power called Russia (that has already said it will use nuclear weapons if threatened) is, well, just another thing called an "issue". Banks counting derivatives as assets that are 20x the global GDP, and which could plunge he world into a depression the likes of which we haven't seen, is just another thing called an "issue". Bail-ins which would impoverish every entity that has money in a bank is just another thing called an "issue". The income gap that threatens not only the middle class but the ability of the economy to function is just another thing called an "issue".

So the FACT that Hillary is on the wrong side of these doesn't matter, because, hey, they're just "issues" And everyone has "issues".

Right?

What a stupid-ass lame argument.

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, April 18, 2016 3:02 AM (P)

The fact that he's running so close is probably as much of a surprise to him as it is to everyone else.

...Bernie ... seems like the same guy we've seen every four years. They all have one or two issues they care about. They want those issues on the table, and running for president is a good way to do it.

WOW. Is the author dismissive of "issues" or what? Because aggressing against the nuclear power called Russia (that has already said it will use nuclear weapons if threatened) is, well, just another thing called an "issue". Banks counting derivatives as assets that are 20x the global GDP, and which could plunge he world into a depression the likes of which we haven't seen, is just another thing called an "issue". Bail-ins which would impoverish every entity that has money in a bank is just another thing called an "issue". The income gap that threatens not only the middle class but the ability of the economy to function is just another thing called an "issue".

So the FACT that Hillary is on the wrong side of these doesn't matter, because, hey, they're just "issues" And everyone has "issues".

Right?

What a stupid-ass lame argument.

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

Monday, April 18, 2016 9:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

What a stupid-ass lame argument.

Not an argument, but an observation that the Democratic party has seen Bernies before with different names:
Eugene McCarthy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy
George McGovern, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern
Mo Udall, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Udall
Gary Hart, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hart
Paul Simon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Simon_%28politician%29
Paul Tsongas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas
Bill Bradley, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bradley
Howard Dean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean
Dennis Kucinich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Kucinich

I was wondering who the hell these people were? Wiki helped.

Bernie will go back into obscurity, remembered only because he, also, has a wiki page, if he does NOT beat Clinton. But if he does beat Clinton, Bernie will be remembered forever with his face on Mt Rushmore or somewhere semi-permanent like youtube, with millions of hits when you enter the word Bernie.

Need I say that Obama was raised from obscurity the same way Bernie will be raised? By beating Clinton!

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

1KIKI

Monday, April 18, 2016 12:12 PM (P)

Silly me! I thought you posted it in response, and because you agreed with it.

In any case, as I opined days ago, my hopes are with Bernie, but my expectation is that Hillary will win the nomination. But nothing says I have to vote for her. Nope, I'll be among the rest of the 52% who view her unfavorably. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/22/politics/2016-election-poll-donald-trump
-hillary-clinton/ And I can't speak for them but I intend to take my vote elsewhere. Because she may have the "D" name on her but her policies are "R", and she's creepy.

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 18, 2016 3:13 PM (P)

So Cronkite was a leftist/communist shill!? And all the media as well!?
And here I thought that "Yellow" journalism was part of the reactionary right
using sensationalism to further their cause and sell newspapers - I'm thinking
of the Spanish-American War in 1898, the sinking of the Maine.

I would consider the Guardian as a leftist radical newspaper, but not part of
the mainstream media. Somehow I don't see CBS news and "Uncle Wally" waving
the communist flag in one hand, while clutching Stalin's communist manifesto
in the other. It's news to me that the majority of the country is "Conservative
or Right side of Middle."

CBS, NBC and ABC are all part of the mainstream media, along with Fox, although
they lean more to the right, and, for the most part, they are all conservative
more so than leftist - more middle of the road in that regard. They mostly play
it safe so as to appeal to the broadest audience. It's what you guys call
"political correctness."

For example:

The local Fox 5 News here maintains a very middle of the road approach to the
news of the day, to appeal to a wider variety of folks and sell more stuff
during commercial breaks. While the national Fox News broadcasts in the
colorful and often sensational style of "Yellow" journalism that mainly appeals
to the extreme right of the spectrum. The ultra-conservatives and their ilk.

SGG
But I would consider Fox as part of the "Yellow"
kind of journalism.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
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.

Two words, oh exalted one, Bush - Cheney

Too much wisdom..........must - bow - down, your knuckleheadedness!
Please spare this poor humble peon as I tremble at your exalted greatness!

SGG

Aaaaand, you delivered.
You are defining Bush and Cheney as New Conservatives, or vice versa.
Did you get that from some Libtard dictionary? Something that includes FDR as a neo-con?

Actually, what is a conservative? Define that!!!

SGG

In the Political Spectrum of America, there are 5 partitions.
In the middle are Centrists, generally not heavily biased.
On the far left of the diagram are the Radicals.
Between Radical and Center are Liberals - still well left of middle.
On the far Right of the diagram are Reactionary.
Between Reactionary and middle are Conservatives, still right of Center.

In the Golden Age of Radio an

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 18, 2016 3:20 PM (P)

What else are we talking about?

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
It's a political statement using sarcasm .... So what if I'm being a jerk, sometimes that is needed to get a point across.
Being a jerk is sometimes necessary to get your point across, but I have no idea what point that would be, and I daresay neither does anyone else.

So let's start with something simple:

Quote:
You want to know the real reason why I laugh at this post.............Because,
it's so heavily "doctored" it's not even FUNNY.
WHICH post is doctored? The Youtube of Hillary beaming and giggling because she just got someone killed?

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, April 18, 2016 4:20 PM (P)

Actually, I read your post, about 95% of it. I found his answers - interesting!

I don't get this love affair with Bernie, I really don't. You say he speaks
truth, that he's going to "change" the White House and turn the country around.
Based on his speeches and debate performances, I gather. And you say that Hilary
is a witch, and the most evil person on the planet. Whether or not that's true
is irrelevant, because people believe it. But all in this race have made speeches
and promised things that, quite frankly, border on the spectacular.

Believe in your candidate, that's the ticket. I don't think he will accomplish
half of what he's promising. This is no slight on Bernie, or his followers, just
an observation based upon watching the office these candidates are striving for
over the years. It changes a person.

As I have stated numerous times, it certainly is about time for the "little guy"
to gain something positive in this country. For far too long, especially these
last 8 years, the politicians have run this country ragged. We, the people need
to take back control. With our vote and with keeping the elected officials feet
to the fire. Bernie believes in his heart that he will be the person to lead
the country into a new direction, I say Bravo! Lead away! But I don't think he
will make the drastic changes he claims he will make, that is yet to be determined.

Like I said, just an observation. By the way, just because I criticize Bernie
doesn't necessarily mean I'm against him and what he's hoping to do; the change
he's looking to affect. Nor does it mean that I'm blindly pulling for Hilary.
I have my concerns about her as well. I am not afraid of Trump, Cruz or any of
the candidates. But I am concerned for this country and the future of this
Democracy.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Lesson received loud and clear.

SfGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

Have you read the article? Just curious. You mean the one I quoted from beginning to end, with the FULL context of the questions and each entire reply in green; rather than the dishonestly reported version 2nd posted? Yes.

A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob" The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies" written on the cover. Yours is a wildly inaccurate analogy. The more accurate analogy would be - she sees a blind licensed electrician with a truck that says on its side "we break it"; and she also sees her concerned neighbor who says "we need to find a way to fix that". Because Hillary has never even admitted to the existence of the problems Bernie focuses on. That's why the woman with the major leaks sees a blind electrician, not a sighted plumber. Also, every decision of Hillary's has led to a disaster. Well, maybe those were her intended goals, but they look like disasters for the American people from where I am. That's why the logo on the truck says "we break it". Meanwhile, Bernie comes over, sees the leak, thinks it's a problem, and goes about finding the fix for it.

Who do you think has the better chance of fixing the leak?

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

Monday, April 18, 2016 7:28 PM (P)

The USA never had a slogan like France: "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité" The closest it got was "Give me liberty, or give me death." Bernie, with his talk of an "oligarchy" that Clinton spends all her free time entertaining and her grandchild was born into, is pointing to a real part of the country. The country has always been ruled over by the people with the most money. They are the people who bully their employees and are constantly asking (and getting) special favors from the federal government or state or local. If anybody claims the first Presidents were NOT part of an aristocracy of money, but really middle class, you’d be wrong.

I don’t think Bernie can push back the oligarchy because Americans like the idea of oligarchs ruling. That’s why Americans don’t see a problem with the President, supposedly the friend of the common man, living in the most expensive residence in America. And Americans, except for a mystery arsonist in Austin, see no problem with Governors living in mansions with multimillion dollar a year operating budgets. http://gov.texas.gov/mansion

Originally posted by 1kiki:

And FDR provided only tepid support for workers' rights, and people's welfare in general, as opposed to the oligarchy

http://www.isreview.org/issues/25/The_1930s.shtml

Roosevelt’s concessions to workers did not have the effect he intended. He expected that granting workers the legal right to organize alone would placate workers so that he could get on with the business of stabilizing the economy. In a 1933 radio address, he specifically urged workers not to struggle to win the right to unionize:

The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away but, on the other hand, no aggression is necessary now to attain these rights…. The principle that applies to the employer applies to workers as well and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit.23

These words undoubtedly began to ring hollow to workers whose employers called out the National Guard when they tried to exercise their legal right to unionize. Meanwhile, it soon became clear that Roosevelt had only grudgingly consented to grant workers the right to form unions–and he deliberately wrote Section 7(a) of the National Recovery Act so vaguely that it could easily be interpreted as ensuring the "rights" of employers to form company unions. Many employers found it convenient to interpret the NRA that way in order to prevent workers from organizing genuine unions. Soon many workers were referring to the National Recovery Act as the "National Run Around."

SIGNYM

Monday, April 18, 2016 11:02 PM (P)

Quote:
It's a political statement using sarcasm .... So what if I'm being a jerk, sometimes that is needed to get a point across.- SIGNY

Being a jerk is sometimes necessary to get your point across, but I have no idea what point that would be, and I daresay neither does anyone else.
So let's start with something simple:

"You want to know the real reason why I laugh at this post.............Because,
it's so heavily "doctored" it's not even FUNNY." WHICH post is doctored? The Youtube of Hillary beaming and giggling because she just got someone killed? - SIGNY

What else are we talking about?- SGG

The Youtube video of one of Hillary's most widely-quoted statement is "doctored"? Don't believe Youtube? How about CBS, which did the interview?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/

She was variously described as "cackling", "chuckling", "joking", "laughing" in different media outlets. Sorry SHINY, but you're 100% wrong: that was all Hillary, all the time.

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:08 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
\

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It is kinda funny........lmao -SGG

Which part's funny? The part where Clinton turned Libya into a failed state crawling with jihadists? Or the part where she's so happy about it?

Probably the part where she can blame Conservatives for her failures and ineptness, knowing that the gullible like SGG will worship everything she says.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
SGG

Have you read the article? Just curious. You mean the one I quoted from beginning to end, with the FULL context of the questions and each entire reply in green; rather than the dishonestly reported version 2nd posted? Yes.

A woman has a major leak in her house. She steps outside her door to find 2 people waiting there. One has his truck parked in the driveway and it says 'licensed plumber' and he's wearing overalls with his name above his left breast pocket that says "Bob" The other is her next door neighbor Susie, in her yoga pants and brand new Reeboks holding a Do-It-Yourself book that reads "Plumbing For Dummies" written on the cover. Yours is a wildly inaccurate analogy. The more accurate analogy would be - she sees a blind licensed electrician with a truck that says on its side "we break it"; and she also sees her concerned neighbor who says "we need to find a way to fix that". Because Hillary has never even admitted to the existence of the problems Bernie focuses on. That's why the woman with the major leaks sees a blind electrician, not a sighted plumber. Also, every decision of Hillary's has led to a disaster. Well, maybe those were her intended goals, but they look like disasters for the American people from where I am. That's why the logo on the truck says "we break it". Meanwhile, Bernie comes over, sees the leak, thinks it's a problem, and goes about finding the fix for it.

Who do you think has the better chance of fixing the leak?

But the leak is not there.
And when you get her to see the leak, it will have just popped up out of nowhere, not existing when you said it did, and she can blame the conservatives because the leak was caused by their witch hunt conducted years after the leak started.
Otherwise an accurate analogy.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:30 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, I assume that you posted those extended (negative) opinion pieces about Sanders because you agree with them.

As you know, I'm not a huge Bernie fan. But the thought of voting for that evil witch Clinton (with apologies to witches everywhere) makes me gag.
It is second, not SECOND.

In all fairness, should point out that many times, such as now in this thread, your name posts as SECOND, all capitals. Sometimes names do post as all lower case, sometimes mine posts as all caps or only caps for JSF. But please do not be offended if we do not see how you intended, because I don't even see mine posting the same all the time. Unless you sign your every post, like SGG.

Quote:

Pretty soon that will make no difference because the witch will beat Bernie. Then the noise machine will be turned on the witch, but it has been noisily pointing out the witch's faults since Benghazi and the emails, however many years ago that started.

To summarize:

1) I prefer Obama to Clinton or Bernie, but I can't have Obama because of far-sighted Republicans acting in 1947.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_St
ates_Constitution

2) Bernie has little chance at this second of being elected President and very soon everyone will know he has no chance.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new
-york-democratic/
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-res
ults.html?_r=0

It appears the Reut6ers poll has Bernie ahead 49-48% in their 9-13 April poll, flipped from their 2-6 April poll.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-
primary

other polls show Hilliary with leads of 6% in Connecticut, 6% in PA, 6% in CA - all far less than the supposed and announced leads she had in Michigan and some other lost Primaries. Those delegate counts seem to be 55-CT, 189-PA, 475-CA.
I don't count Brooklyn-born Bernie out against Carpetbagger Clinton yet.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:16 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
http://you
tu.be/FmIRYvJQeHM\

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
It is kinda funny........lmao -SGG

Which part's funny? The part where Clinton turned Libya into a failed state crawling with jihadists? Or the part where she's so happy about it?

Actually, BOTH!!! HI-larious!!!

You know what else is funny, how Libya is the only thing NOT Obama's fault.
Bush invades Iraq, well that's fine. Kills, or has killed, Sadam; oh, that's
applauded.............downright laughable.

Then Obama gets Osama (hey that rhymes!) and he's BBQ'd for actually doing
something right, and something that Bush had promised.

Stop it, my sides are hurting......lol

Benghazi Committee is actually set to meet AGAIN! Ha, ha I'm dying here. It is
now officially the longest government-sponsored investigation in America's
history, and the least effective.

http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/press-releases/benghazi-commi
ttee-now-one-of-the-longest-and-least-active-congressional

"During this time, the Select Committee has identified no evidence to
support claims that Secretary Clinton ordered a stand-down, approved an
illicit weapons program, or any of the other wild allegations about the
Benghazi attacks Republicans have made about her for years."

Stop it, stop it you're killing me............lmao

SfGG

They might be able to wrap it up if they just look for the classified emails under Hilliary's Rose Law Firm Billing Records hidden in her closet of the White House, or wherever it is these days - maybe her super duper Sercret Service Agent's car trunk, or Server case.

SECOND

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:48 AM (P)

An article about Bernie ended with:

This year, the insurgency is larger than it’s ever been, and that in itself is an opportunity. A chance for the insurgents to play the long game, to co-opt the institutions that have held them back and to emerge as the leaders of a new Democratic Party. Sanders may not be the Democratic nominee, or the president of the United States, but if his supporters take the opportunity, they’ll accomplish what past insurgent candidacies couldn’t, and he’ll stand as a key figure in the origin story of a new, new left.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/04/there_is_
no_bernie_sanders_movement.html

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

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 7:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
An article about Bernie ended with:

This year, the insurgency is larger than it’s ever been, and that in itself is an opportunity. A chance for the insurgents to play the long game, to co-opt the institutions that have held them back and to emerge as the leaders of a new Democratic Party. Sanders may not be the Democratic nominee, or the president of the United States, but if his supporters take the opportunity, they’ll accomplish what past insurgent candidacies couldn’t, and he’ll stand as a key figure in the origin story of a new, new left.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/04/there_is_
no_bernie_sanders_movement.html

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

I think Bernie's candidacy, along with the Democracy Spring event in DC are a continuation of the Occupy movement. They're all about the same issues.

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:53 PM (P)

I'm curious.....Has Bernie done anything of note? Please post!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, you're focusing on the most trivial aspect of my post. Firstly, Texas is NOT reflective of the greater USA, no matter how "diverse" you think it is.

But more importantly, are you so wedded to having "a Democrat" in office that you don't care that that particular Democrat is so wedded to big money and neocon interests that she's a DINO (Democrat in Name Only)?

Except for some "social policy" differences with the GOP .... which is the least of our problems right now ... Hillary is a warmongering, bankster-loving, welfare-cutting, free-trade groupie. That woman has been a disaster thru her entire career. She voted for the Iraq War, which was the prominent reason for her defeat by Obama, and is endlessly quoted by the reichwing here for her endless justifications (at the time) of that misguided vote.

There is nothing important (ie outside of some social policy votes) that she's gotten right in her entire career. As far as I can tell, she's a bank/CIA whore. I challenge you to find one thing that redeems her. Take your time. I'll be interested in the results.

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

REAVERFAN

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:28 PM (P)

Bernie's always been a "voice in the wilderness." He's been amazingly prescient and 100% correct on the issues, but we're dealing with a congress of paid whores.

Elected by the state of Vermont 8 times to serve in the House of Representatives.
The longest-serving independent in U.S. congressional history.
He was dubbed the “amendment king” in the House of Representatives for passing more amendments than any other member of Congress.
Ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee.
Former student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
Led the first ever civil rights sit-in in Chicago history to protest segregated housing.
In 1963, Bernie Sanders participated in MLK’s Civil Rights March. One of only 2 sitting US Senators to have heard MLK’s “I have a Dream Speech” in person in the march on Washington, DC.
Former professor of political science at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and at Hamilton College.
Former mayor of Burlington, VT. In a stunning upset in 1981, Sanders won the mayoral race in Burlington, Vermont’s largest city. He shocked the city’s political establishment by defeating a six-term, local machine mayor. Burlington is now reported to be one of the most livable cities in the nation.
Co-founded the Congressional Progressive Caucus and chaired the group for its first 8 years.
Both the NAACP and the NHLA (National Hispanic Leadership Agenda) have given Sanders 100% voting scores during his tenure in the Senate. Earns a D- from the NRA.
1984: Mayor Sanders established the Burlington Community Land Trust, the first municipal housing land-trust in the country for affordable housing. The project becomes a model emulated throughout the world. It later wins an award from Jack Kemp-led HUD.
1991: one of a handful in Congress to vote against authorizing US military force in Iraq. “I have a real fear that the region is not going to be more peaceful or more stable after the war,” he said at the time.
1992: Congress passes Sanders’ first signed piece of legislation to create the National Program of Cancer Registries. A Reader’s Digest article calls the law “the cancer weapon America needs most.” All 50 states now run registries to help cancer researchers gain important insights.
November 1993: Sanders votes against the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement. Returning from a tour of factories in Mexico, Sanders says: “If NAFTA passes, corporate profits will soar because it will be even easier than now for American companies to flee to Mexico and hire workers there for starvation wages.”
July 1996: Sanders is one of only 67 (out of 435, 15%) votes against the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal benefits to same-sex couples legally married. Sanders urged the Supreme Court to throw out the law, which it did in a landmark 2013 ruling – some 17 years later.
July 1999: Standing up against the major pharmaceutical companies, Sanders becomes the first member of Congress to personally take seniors across the border to Canada to buy lower-cost prescription drugs. The congressman continues his bus trips to Canada with a group of breast cancer patients the following April. These brave women are able to purchase their medications in Canada for almost one-tenth the price charged in the States.
August 1999: An overflow crowd of Vermonters packs a St. Michael’s College town hall meeting hosted by Sanders to protest an IBM plan to cut older workers’ pensions by as much as 50 percent. CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and The New York Times cover the event. After IBM enacts the plan, Sanders works to reverse the cuts, passing a pair of amendments to prohibit the federal government from acting to overturn a federal district court decision that ruled that IBM’s plan violated pension age discrimination laws. Thanks to Sanders’ efforts, IBM agreed to a $320 million legal settlement with some 130,000 IBM workers and retirees.
November 1999: About 10 years before the 2008 Wall Street c

SECOND

Tuesday, April 19, 2016 6:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:

In 1963, Bernie Sanders participated in MLK’s Civil Rights March. One of only 2 sitting US Senators to have heard MLK’s “I have a Dream Speech” in person in the march on Washington, DC.

I just picked this one accomplishment at random. And what did I find? Click: www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/

I would have preferred that Bernie could list as one of his accomplishments: "Beat a Republican Senator senseless and Grand Jury refused to indict after hearing Bernie's testimony."

www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2016/04/19

1KIKI

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 9:34 AM (P)

Originally posted by reaverfan:

In 1963, Bernie Sanders participated in MLK’s Civil Rights March. One of only 2 sitting US Senators to have heard MLK’s “I have a Dream Speech” in person in the march on Washington, DC.

Originally posted by second:
I just picked this one accomplishment at random. And what did I find? Click: www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/

You found that, according to Snopes, reaverfan was right?

www.snopes.com/sanders-mlk-selma-march/

Origin: On 20 January 2016, the web site Democratic Underground posted a photograph purportedly showing Bernie Sanders participating in a 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery (Alabama) with Martin Luther King, Jr. The web site identified the man standing "behind Coretta King, just right of Old Glory in the glasses, white 't' shirt, open collar and dark jacket" as the future United States senator and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate.

Even Sanders himself hasn't claimed he took part in the march

However, according to Snopes, he did say he participated in the event where MLK gave his 'I Have a Dream' speech, and was very active in the Chicago Civil Rights Movement.

For the record the March on Washington, where MLK gave his 'I Have a Dream' speech (1963) and which Sanders says he participated in, was a different event in a different year than the march from Selma to Montgomery (1965). It was the march from Selma that the Democratic Underground claimed Sanders participated in, but which Sanders himself never claimed.

If Hillary Clinton wins in November, it won’t happen because America has gotten over sexism or because the Democrats have forged a pathway to the future. It will be because she was nominated by the party that is dying slowly and somewhat politely, rather than the one that just blew itself up in public with a suicide vest.

SECOND

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:14 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

However, according to Snopes, he did say he participated in the event where MLK gave his 'I Have a Dream' speech, and was very active in the Chicago Civil Rights Movement.

I am impressed with Bernie for seeing and hearing that speech and I am equally impressed by the millions who saw the speech on youtube, without seeing the back of the head of the people standing in front of Bernie in the crowd. Those millions should also tell everybody, constantly, that they, too, heard and saw MLK Jr. more clearly than Bernie ever could.

Did Bernie notice that MLK Jr. talked in the language of money? Checks and Promissory notes? That wasn't completely allegorical, either. It was send cash, please, the only language Americans of all colors really understand.
www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2016/04/19

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

SECOND

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:52 PM (P)

Bernie Sanders is (still) the Future of the Democratic Party
by Matthew Yglesias on April 20, 2016, 7:00 a.m. ET

Even in defeat in New York and most likely in the overall quest for the 2016 Democratic nomination, he's already won in another, perhaps more important way: His brand of politics is the future of the Democratic Party.

Sanders is the overwhelming choice of young voters, scoring 67 percent of voters under 30 in New York even while losing overall amidst a set of election rules that were highly unfavorable to his cause. National Reuters polls now show him with a large 56-38 edge over Clinton with voters below the age of 40.

The votes of old people count just as much, of course, but any young and ambitious Democrat looking at the demographics of the party and the demographics of Sanders supporters has to conclude that his brand of politics is extremely promising for the future. There are racial and demographic gaps between Clinton and Sanders supporters, but the overwhelming reality is that for all groups, the young people are feeling the Bern.

Much more at www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11466376/bernie-sanders-future-democrats

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

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:37 PM (P)

He got slaughtered in NY. Not really surprising, given the byzantine rules for registering to vote and changing party well before even the first debate. His voters largely couldn't.

There might be some investigations, but AZ showed us that nothing will change.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1PRFE_e
nUS672US672&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voters%20disappeared%20brooklyn

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, April 21, 2016 1:59 PM (P)

GET YOUR CRYING TOWELS HEEEERREEE!!!

Boo Hoo! Bernie runs home to sulk and then to spew venom over ass whupping.

That's how we do in NY!!!!!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
He got slaughtered in NY. Not really surprising, given the byzantine rules for registering to vote and changing party well before even the first debate. His voters largely couldn't.

There might be some investigations, but AZ showed us that nothing will change.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1PRFE_e
nUS672US672&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voters%20disappeared%20brooklyn

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, April 22, 2016 5:21 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
GET YOUR CRYING TOWELS HEEEERREEE!!!

Boo Hoo! Bernie runs home to sulk and then to spew venom over ass whupping.

That's how we do in NY!!!!!

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
He got slaughtered in NY. Not really surprising, given the byzantine rules for registering to vote and changing party well before even the first debate. His voters largely couldn't.

There might be some investigations, but AZ showed us that nothing will change.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1PRFE_e
nUS672US672&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=voters%20disappeared%20brooklyn

You are in NY? I guess that explains a lot.

RIVERLOVE

Friday, April 22, 2016 7:14 AM (P)

"The sea was angry that day my friend, like Bernie Sanders trying to return soup in a deli."

SIGNYM

Friday, April 22, 2016 4:18 PM (P)

Quote:
That's how we do in NY!!!!!

Indeed [/snark]

Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Quote:
For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

“He allowed me to change for that day,“ she said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

What a fake liberal clown.

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” he said in a statement released after 5 p.m. on Election Day. “I am calling on the Board of Election to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

A spokesperson for New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman told the New York Daily News that his office received “by far the largest volume of complaints we have received for an election since Attorney General Schneiderman took office in 2011.”

Some polling sites did not open on time, citing too few election workers. Others

SECOND

Friday, April 22, 2016 9:06 PM (P)

Jerry Brown once played the same role as Bernie, except with the OTHER Clinton. Bernie is nicer than Jerry was.

If you're ever interested in what an ugly Democratic Party primary campaign looks like, I would suggest taking a look at this exchange between Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown in a 1992 debate. It starts with a softball lobbed at Brown about Clinton's electability that Brown turns into a vicious attack based on a now-forgotten scandal involving conflicts of interest in Hillary Clinton's legal work.

"He is funneling money to his wife's law firm," Brown says. "It's not only corruption, it's an environmental disaster and it's the kind of conflict of interest that is incompatible with the kind of public servant we expect for president of the United States." Brown goes on to say he would refuse to serve as Clinton's vice president. This argument was literally about chicken shit. http://archives.arkansasnews.com/2007/09/07/the-chicken-waste-state/

Even OBAMA was meaner to Clinton than Bernie is:

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

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 23, 2016 11:24 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Jerry Brown once played the same role as Bernie, except with the OTHER Clinton. Bernie is nicer than Jerry was.

If you're ever interested in what an ugly Democratic Party primary campaign looks like, I would suggest taking a look at this exchange between Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown in a 1992 debate. It starts with a softball lobbed at Brown about Clinton's electability that Brown turns into a vicious attack based on a now-forgotten scandal involving conflicts of interest in Hillary Clinton's legal work.

"He is funneling money to his wife's law firm," Brown says. "It's not only corruption, it's an environmental disaster and it's the kind of conflict of interest that is incompatible with the kind of public servant we expect for president of the United States." Brown goes on to say he would refuse to serve as Clinton's vice president. This argument was literally about chicken shit. http://archives.arkansasnews.com/2007/09/07/the-chicken-waste-state/

Quote:
Even OBAMA was meaner to Clinton than Bernie is:

Quote:

It would not have been worth my time to waste watching a Dem debate, but every once in a while Moonbeam has a point, and is accurate and correct.

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Saturday, April 23, 2016 11:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
That's how we do in NY!!!!!

Indeed [/snark]

Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Quote:
For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

“He allowed me to change for that day,“ she said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

What a fake liberal clown.

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” he said in a statement released after 5 p.m. on Election Day. “I am calling on the Board of Election to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

A spokesperson for New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman told the New York Daily News that his office received “by far the largest volume of complaints we have received for an election since Attorney General Schneiderman took office in 2011.”

Some polling sites did not open on time,

SECOND

Sunday, April 24, 2016 7:44 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Only an ignorant Libtard (sorry for the redundancy there) would be unaware that Democrats are undemocratic, or that New York politics is a racket.

One thing the left, the middle and the right have in common: they're convinced that most people support them (if only they would vote), even when they lose and even more when they feel like they were cheated out of victory. Hence the "take back our country" canard.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 24, 2016 8:12 PM (P)

Quote:
"He is funneling money to his wife's law firm," Brown says. "It's not only corruption, it's an environmental disaster and it's the kind of conflict of interest that is incompatible with the kind of public servant we expect for president of the United States." Brown goes on to say he would refuse to serve as Clinton's vice president. This argument was literally about chicken shit.

http://archives.arkansasnews.com/2007/09/07/the-chicken-waste-state/

Listening to Bill Clinton reminds me what a lying weasel HE was, even then!

"I did not ... my wife did not..." said with complete apparent sincerity.
"I'm a change agent ... I think about the lives of ordinary Americans..."

What a dick. There was only ONE thing that Clinton did for ordinary Americans during his Presidency, and that was to raise the Federal minimum wage. You know the saying that begins "Fool me once?" I may have voted for him the first time, but I sure didn't vote for him the second time!

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 24, 2016 8:23 PM (P)

Quote:
You sound surprised.

I do? Then you would be wrong. I'm NOT surprised.

Quote:
Only an ignorant reichwinger (sorry for the redundancy there) would be unaware that Republicans are undemocratic, or that Texas politics is a racket.

Fixed it for you.

This is a flaw that establishment politicians share, no matter what party, since they're all feeding at the same trough and your vote simply gets in the way of them doing what they been bribed .... er, I mean paid ... no, that is elected ... to do. Is Ted Cruz really any better than Hillary Clinton??? Do you think he'll represent your interests in the WH any better than she will?

The thing that makes some Republicans an extra-crispy hoot is their religious evangelism and their denial of science.

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

SECOND

Sunday, April 24, 2016 11:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Is Ted Cruz really any better than Hillary Clinton??? Do you think he'll represent your interests in the WH any better than she will?

Charles Koch: 'Possible' Clinton could be better than GOP nominee
Koch is the Republicans' real-life equivalent of Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons.

Oil tycoon and conservative mega-donor Charles Koch had kind words for both Bill and Hillary Clinton in an interview Sunday, saying there was an outside chance he could support her in November.

"We would have to believe her actions would be quite different than her rhetoric. Let me put it that way," he said on ABC's "This Week" Sunday. "But on some of the Republican candidates we would -- before we could support them, we'd have to believe their actions will be quite different than the rhetoric we've heard so far."

Earlier in the interview, Koch said Bill Clinton was better than George W. Bush on issues of economic growth and government spending but did not offer a full-throated endorsement of either Clinton.

"As far as the growth of government, the increase in spending, on restrictive regulations, it was two-and-a-half times under Bush than it was under Clinton," Koch told ABC.

Asked if it was possible another Clinton could be better than a Republican, Koch said: "It's possible."
www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/politics/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-2016/inde
x.html

Charles Koch, or Mr Burns, high on ether.

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

SECOND

Monday, April 25, 2016 8:12 PM (P)

Voters' 'Bernie or Bust' efforts persist despite Sanders' vow not to be another Ralph Nader
www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-clinton-20160424-story.html

In interviews, Sanders has said he has no intention of being another Ralph Nader — the third-party candidate blamed by many Democrats for siphoning votes from Democratic nominee Al Gore in 2000, helping give the White House to George W. Bush.

Some of his supporters remain so steadfast, however, that a #BernieOrBust movement has picked up momentum on Twitter. So has an online pledge for supporters who vow to vote for Sanders as a write-in candidate if he loses the nomination.

A recent McClatchy-Marist poll found that 1 in 4 Sanders supporters would not back Clinton as the nominee, a sign of the party's deep divide — and Clinton's high negatives — at this point of the race.

Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg says she is confident that many Sanders supporters will ultimately vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination, especially if she faces Republican front-runner Donald Trump or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

"They might have to hold their noses to vote for her, but she's going to seem better ... than the alternative," Greenberg said.

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

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:52 AM (P)

Probably the part where she can blame Conservatives for her failures and ineptness, knowing that the gullible like SGG will worship everything she says.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, I'm gullible alright. And America stands for everything good, right and decent
in this world. Elvis was the King, the Christian faith tops all religions, GWB was
a hell of a president, Cheney is an upright citizen who loves the world (especially
black people), Limbaugh is the smartest man alive, Palin the smartest woman alive
and Major Cage wasn't a private.

Yeah, I'm as dumb and gullible as a bag of rocks!

SGG

SHINYGOODGUY

Tuesday, April 26, 2016 3:16 AM (P)

Fugetaboudit! NY has the best voter suppression in the country, f#ck Neveda, Colorado, hell even North Carolina or the Koch brothers can't top the Big Apple.

New York, the home of the crooked politician............we aim to destroy the
democratic process. Cuomo colluding with the prick from New Jersey "Jumping
Jimmy" Chris Christie (what $50 million missing from the NJ Transit Hub?).
Yep, we have the market cornered when it comes to suppressing the vote. Every
where else their as honest as the day is long. How do you think Trump built
all those buildings and never paid anyone under the table?

Sheldon Silver ran NY like a Chicago night club for decades without taking a
single bribe...........no, wait....he's going to jail for that. And Bush got
the Supreme Court to shill for him without so much as a whoopsy daisy. Yeah, NY
is a steaming pile of doggie dung when it comes to downright nasty cheating.
Everybody's on the take.

New York, so nasty they named it twice...................

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
That's how we do in NY!!!!!

Indeed [/snark]

Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary

Quote:
For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

“He allowed me to change for that d

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 5:29 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
That's how we do in NY!!!!!

Indeed [/snark]

Additional Evidence Of Mind-Boggling Fraud Emerges from The New York Primary
Quote:
For the past week or so, I’ve been warning readers that the supposedly “liberal” state of New York has some of the most repressive voting laws in the country. Before reading the rest of this post, I suggest refreshing your memory on just how undemocratic New York is by checking out the following:

Published April 13th: Hillary Clinton Will Win New York, Because New York is Running a Banana Republic Primary

Published yesterday: As Expected, New York’s Primary is Already a Pathetic Mess

As such, two things were obvious going into the New York primary: 1) Hillary Clinton would win. 2) There would be an enormous amount of voter suppression and fraud.

Well the results are in, and the state of the state in New York is very, very bad.

The Daily Beast reports:

Alba Guerrero was dumbfounded. She’d arrived at her polling place in Ozone Park, Queens only to be told that she had been registered as a Republican since 2004.

That was news to her. She remembers registering to vote for the first time as a Democrat so she could vote for Barack Obama in the general election in 2008. When she recently moved from Manhattan to Ozone Park, in Queens, she re-registered at the DMV, she says, and even checked online on March 9th to be sure she was registered at her new address.

But when she showed up to vote for Bernie Sanders at PS63 on Tuesday, she says she was told she couldn’t. New York is a closed primary, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic Primary—and voters had to be registered by last October. She was told—very politely, she wants to make clear—by poll workers to take it up with a judge. She was given a court order in nearby Forest Hills.

Guerrero drove to the Queens County Board of Elections and pled her case, but Judge Ira Margulis initially turned her away.

“The judge tells me, ‘No, that’s it—2004.’ He shows me, I’m registered as a Republican. He says there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

But on her way out she saw a Board of Elections worker holding something with her name on it. It was her 2004 voter registration, replete, she remembers, with her name, her social security number, her birthday—and someone else’s signature.

“I said, ‘Excuse me, that’s not my signature,’” she said. “It’s not my handwriting. It showed completely different signatures.”

Sure enough, the signatures are strikingly different. Next to a box checked “Republican,” her 2004 signature is written in clear, deliberate, legible cursive and includes her middle name. Her more recent signature is a loopy, illegible scrawl. She insists she’s never changed it in her life, and says she can produce old tax forms to prove it.

So Guerrero went back to to Judge Margulis and showed him the discrepancy.

“He allowed me to change for that day,“ she said.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who tweeted at 11:50 a.m., “There’s nothing more punk rock than voting. #GetOutAndVote”, had to change his tune by the end of the day. WNYC reported this morning that 126,000 Brooklyn Democrats had been removed from the voting rolls since last fall.

What a fake liberal clown.

“It has been reported to us from voters and voting rights monitors that the voting lists in Brooklyn contain numerous errors, including the purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists,” he said in a statement released after 5 p.m. on Election Day. “I am calling on the Board of Election to reverse that purge and update the lists again using Central, not Brooklyn borough, Board of Election staff.”

A spokesperson for New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman told the New York Daily News that his office received “by far the largest volume of complaints we have received for an election since Attorney General Schneiderman took office in 2011.”

SECOND

Wednesday, April 27, 2016 10:06 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

I am getting the impression that you think the rest of America should fix the Democrat party of New York, or maybe also the Republican Party of New York. Or maybe all of New York.

Bernie Sanders — without appearing to realize it — put his finger on why his campaign hasn't succeeded.

"Poor people don't vote," he said in an interview with Meet the Press on Sunday. "It's just a fact."

Bernie is correct. The poor don't vote at anywhere near the rates their richer peers do.

Bernie's theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare-For-All that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more and more progressive Democrats down-ballot who will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who actually vote, Bernie's policies aren't popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections. 30 percent of eligible voters aren't registered to vote, or aren't accurately listed in the voter databases that campaigns use. Those voters are basically ignored by candidates. And, just like the nonvoting yet registered-to-vote population as a whole, the not even registered-to-vote population is more likely to be poor than voters are — and more likely to support liberal policies on government spending.

A candidate who can figure out how to reach out to that 30 percent of eligible-but-not-registered voters could actually make a political revolution happen.

The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders and his campaign have identified an intriguing electoral strategy, but it's becoming pretty clear they're not going to be the ones who prove whether or not it works.

This should be good news for Sanders's supporters: Just because it looks very unlikely that this particular candidate will win the nomination this particular time, that doesn't mean that a different candidate won't be able to succeed with a similar platform and strategy.
www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE