Bernie Sanders

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I certainly think so. That you ostensibly don't makes it all the more delicious

Don't what? Cite an opponents rival and think that its valid? Youre right; when I make an argument I actually look for compelling sources. An nonpolitical economist is where I would look to first on this subject for example.

Youre a proud sophist piece of shit then. Eat it up.

[vy65]

Don't what? Cite an opponents rival and think that its valid? Youre right; when I make an argument I actually look for compelling sources. An nonpolitical economist is where I would look to first on this subject for example.

Youre a proud sophist piece of shit then. Eat it up.

Om nom nom nom

Crofl who the fuck insults someone by calling them a sophist piece of shit. You must be the whitest person ever.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Om nom nom nom

Crofl who the fuck insults someone by calling them a sophist piece of shit. You must be the whitest person ever.

:lol now I am white. Lovely. Its amusing watching your peabrain try to categorize me so you can understand me, crayola.

[vy65]

:lol now I am white. Lovely. Its amusing watching your peabrain try to categorize me so you can understand me, crayola.

This ham sandwich sure could use some more mayonnaise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

well now that he is completely dissembled into nonsense, my work here is done.

[vy65]

well now that he is completely dissembled into nonsense, my work here is done.

Crofl thinking you do anything but spewing nonsense

[Nbadan]

James Galbraith,,...


"What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders' proposals stems from their scale and ambition," Galbraith wrote. "When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result."

"It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme," Galbraith added. "Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not."

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

His whole premise of the "4 economists" is debunked by Galbraith's letter, unless these gentleman "show their work", which they haven't. They've only made assertions without backup.

[DMX7]

If he doesn't start attacking Hillary by hammering her on the Iraq War vote, saying her policies look like they're purchased by Wall Street, and shouting that she's a flip flopper on issues like Keystone and others.... then he is going down in flames.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bernie is toast. She will bury him in the next two weeks.

[spurraider21]

well now that he is completely dissembled into nonsense, my work here is done.
fwiw i have money on white philosophy major in his/her early-mid 20's

[vy65]

fwiw i have money on white philosophy major in his/her early-mid 20's

You sophist piece of shit you

[TheSanityAnnex]

CoAmll3ViQAfwiw I have a youtube video of this exact person you describe

[DarrinS]

I keep seeing "Bernie 2016" on my caller ID. Annoying AF.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol What I find particularly amusing is how you numbskulls think I would need a degree to know these things when you guys are clueless to what you claim to have degrees in.

All you are doing is enforcing my point as to your claims and looking very upset that I 'act smart.' Thanks for the lunchtime entertainment.

[DarrinS]

:lol What I find particularly amusing is how you numbskulls think I would need a degree to know these things when you guys are clueless to what you claim to have degrees in.

All you are doing is enforcing my point as to your claims and looking very upset that I 'act smart.' Thanks for the lunchtime entertainment.


Lol, claim. Yeah, we are all lying about having degrees. :rolleyes

[clambake]

i have 98 degrees right now.

sometimes, when i'm feeling extra smart, i could have as much as 102 degrees.

[DarrinS]

i have 98 degrees right now.

sometimes, when i'm feeling extra smart, i could have as much as 102 degrees.


Then you can bloviate about field theory and particle physics with FuzzyLimpdick.

[CosmicCowboy]

And wishcasting. Don't forget that emo gem.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Do you even mutually exclusive fatty?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol, claim. Yeah, we are all lying about having degrees. :rolleyes

That is not what I said. What I said is that is one of a couple of possibilities given what you have demonstrated here. You claim to have an engineering degree yet you cannot talk about math or modeling. This was made very clear arguing over climate over the years. You always end up whining about the subjects I bring up as opposed to disputing what I say.

You lying is certainly a possibility. The other is that you have the degree but for whatever reason you didn't retain or learn the material in the first place. You clearly do not have the knowledge.

Same goes with vy. Outside of a couple shitty syllogisms a couple of years ago he doesn't even try to argue logically anymore. He claims to have a degree that trains him to do just that. Same thing applies here.

I have no way of knowing if you are lying but I very much so have the capacity to see whether you have the knowledge that that type of education would grant. You lack it and you never argue it but instead resort to these types of whines.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then you can bloviate about field theory and particle physics with FuzzyLimpdick.

:lol Xellos brought up the subject when he tried the mystical desim science: god is infinity and can exist in all places at once, the singularity is an endpoint and the like.

That gets a pass because you want to believe that stupid shit too. I still don't know why you bitch about me talking about it since your supposed to have an engineering degree and I wasn't even talking to you but him in the first place.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you even mutually exclusive fatty?

Not my fault you suck at deductions abd cannot figure out why.

[TheSanityAnnex]

TheSanityAnnex
whatdifferencedoesitmake?
This message is hidden because TheSanityAnnex is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list

I have sufficient impulse control for this task. You can always try quoting me and including your message in a few words cause of the notification system. :lol

[DarrinS]

:lol Xellos brought up the subject when he tried the mystical desim science: god is infinity and can exist in all places at once, the singularity is an endpoint and the like.

That gets a pass because you want to believe that stupid shit too. I still don't know why you bitch about me talking about it since your supposed to have an engineering degree and I wasn't even talking to you but him in the first place.

I'm not interested you lying sophist piece of shit

[DarrinS]

Om nom nom nom

Crofl who the fuck insults someone by calling them a sophist piece of shit. You must be the whitest person ever.


People with extremely high IQ :lol

[vy65]

soph·ist
ˈsäfist/Submit
noun
noun: sophist; plural noun: sophists
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

It burns it burns

[hater]

:lmao at this clown Cuomo. What an incompetent little bitch. Wheres andersonna cooper???

Telling Bernie when going to commercial break "have some water. Its free" then acting like a little bitch thewhole time

[FuzzyLumpkins]

soph·ist
ˈsäfist/Submit
noun
noun: sophist; plural noun: sophists
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in ancient Greece, associated in popular thought with moral skepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments.

It burns it burns

I'm speaking to your credibility. You will say whatever to argue for your preferred outcome regardless of objective truth. IOW, you are not reliable and should not be given the benefit of the doubt.

It's very obvious that you don't value such things. My point is not to insult you but instead to demonstrate for others. That it denigrates you is ancillary. That you go out of your way to tell me it doesn't bother you belies your desired portrayal. People that don't care don't act out as such. Actions speak louder than words.

You would think a lawyer understood such concepts.

[vy65]

Not only do you take this forum way too seriously, you take yourself even more seriously. And frankly, I have no idea what's worse.

Tell me, how gratifying was it to type that post? Is attempting to tell people off on a Spurs message board the only way you can feel good about yourself?

S:lolphist pi:lolc:lol :lolf shit

[vy65]

But you're right Fuzz, I couldn't give a fucks less whether some burn out philosophy grad student wannabe thinks I lack credibility.

[spurraider21]

sanders is catching heat for claiming hillary is sucking up to obama to pander to black voters

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton: Candidate Says at Town Hall She's 'Not Sure' Why Bernie Sanders Is Leading Youth Vote

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Hillary-Clinton/172714159566601?source=whfrt&position=1&trqid=6254737071397993061

She lying, she and her staff know why.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/ydsWeR6.jpg :rollin

[Aztecfan03]

http://i.imgur.com/ydsWeR6.jpg
:rollin

Shouldn't Hillary be the cuckold?

[baseline bum]

Shouldn't Hillary be the cuckold?

She had a good role in Who's Nailin Palin back in 08. She was giving a speech where she said "Why do we have to be bipartisan? Why can't we just be bi?" before clamsmacking.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sanders surges in West Virginia, as one-time favorite Clinton falters

Hillary Clinton’s close association with President Barack Obama may be hurting her in West Virginia, where the former secretary of state is trailing behind Sen. Bernie Sanders in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination ahead of the state’s May 10 primary.

A REPASS research poll on Monday showed Sanders sweeping West Virginia with support among 57 percent of Democratic respondents. Clinton, who bested Obama in the state by a 42-point margin in 2008, only netted 27 percent in the REPASS poll.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/2/23/sanders-sweeping-west-virginia-where-one-time-favorite-clinton-has-faltered.html

[Reck]

He's finally attacking Hillary.

Just plain said she needs to release the speeches. He must have seen it was do or die.

Probably too late.

[FkLA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdWd0wV44mk

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ahead of Tuesday's Democratic primaries in Michigan and Mississippi, Hillary Clinton has a nine-point lead over Bernie Sanders in a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

The former secretary of state earned the support of 53 percent of Democratic primary voters, while Sanders took 44 percent. While well within the poll's margin of error, the latest results represent a two-point dip from February's NBC/WSJ national survey that found Clinton with an 11-point advantage of 53 percent to 42 percent.

The results are a marked contrast from the NBC News/SurveyMonkey national online tracking poll of registered Democratic voters released earlier in the day, which showed Clinton's lead ballooning to 17 points from nine points the previous week.

Age and gender gaps are on full display in the latest poll.

Clinton commands majorities over Sanders among those 50 and older (65 percent to 32 percent), those who are not white (63 percent to 34 percent), self-identified Democrats (60 percent to 38 percent) and women (61 percent to 37 percent). Among women 50 and older, Clinton leads Sanders by 48 points—73 percent to 25 percent.

The Vermont senator leads Clinton with independents (59 percent to 35 percent), self-described liberals (56 percent to 42 percent) and people younger than 50 (60 percent to 38 percent).


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-national-poll-220425#ixzz42LPX416k
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Thanks grandmas!

[boutons_deux]

Press is, in typical melodramatic bullshit, calling today Sanders' last stand, which really encourages people to go vote :)

[gambit1990]

go bernie!

[boutons_deux]

So Hillary's slander that Bernie voted against the auto bail out didn't work.

Fuck Hillary ("I don't even want to think about it")

[DMX7]

So Hillary's slander that Bernie voted against the auto bail out didn't work.

Fuck Hillary ("I don't even want to think about it")

It was just too unbelievable and totally inconsistent with his principles.

[Nbadan]

Sanders’s Michigan Upset


Bernie Sanders made folks like me eat a stack of humble pie on Tuesday night. He won the Michigan primary over Hillary Clinton, 50 percent to 48 percent, when not a single poll taken over the last month had Clinton leading by less than 5 percentage points. In fact, many had her lead at 20 percentage points or higher. Sanders’s win in Michigan was one of the greatest upsets in modern political history.

Youth vote is starting to over-come...can't happen soon enough...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

[Reck]

Sanders’s Michigan Upset


Youth vote is starting to over-come...can't happen soon enough...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/

Open primaries=huge independent turnout=Bernie sweeps.

She actually beat him by 16 points among democrat only voters.

[boutons_deux]

It was just too unbelievable and totally inconsistent with his principles.

Hillary was LYING. Bernie voted for the bailout but then it got wrapped up in TARP, which he voted against.

Hillary was LYING.

[Reck]

Hillary was LYING. Bernie voted for the bailout but then it got wrapped up in TARP, which he voted against.

Hillary was LYING.

No, she didn't.

He voted for it then he voted against it.

That's not a lie.

Manipulating an arguement to support your point doesn't mean you're lying. It's call stretching the truth.

[Pelicans78]

Voting against the bailout was the right thing. Tax payers shouldn't be forced to help a failing company.

[hater]

The "poll" are financed by Clintons. I'm glad their hedging has been exposed.

Lol upset. There's no such thing as upset in politics

[pgardn]

No, she didn't.

He voted for it then he voted against it.

That's not a lie.

Manipulating an arguement to support your point doesn't mean you're lying. It's call stretching the truth.

If you use this in an attempt to deceive its disingenuous and on level with a lie.
If one misstates a fact but had no intention of manipulating the truth, that's a mistake.

So yep, a lie. But hardly surprising as the Republican candidates and Hillary turn this obvious manipulation into fair play in politics. Boots is well acquainted with these antics.

[Fabbs]

Voting against the bailout was the right thing. Tax payers shouldn't be forced to help a failing company.
Was all for it until GM was allowed to skip out on it's last payment.
That was b.s.

[Fabbs]

Has Bern given a stance on ISIS?

[Pelicans78]

Has Bern given a stance on ISIS?

He will tax them to death.

[rmt]

He will tax them to death.

So funny.

[FkLA]

So funny.

In the top one tenth of one percent funniest posts imho tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Would you rather pay your current tax and current health care or would you rather get what you pay towards health care in cash and see a 6% increase in tax and get medicare?

You can still buy supplemental insurance of course.

It will gut the health insurance industry which is fine with me. OTOH, what about businesses who no longer having to pay for health benefits? Do you think the margins might work out in their favor?

You guys like to talk about taxes ideologically with a puritan bent but oversimplification should be seen in context.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Rekt by a gypsy

http://i.imgur.com/amG0DMc.jpg

[Blake]

Bernie hates when his Netflix starts buffering when watching House of Cards

[rmt]

Would you rather pay your current tax and current health care or would you rather get what you pay towards health care in cash and see a 6% increase in tax and get medicare?

You can still buy supplemental insurance of course.

It will gut the health insurance industry which is fine with me. OTOH, what about businesses who no longer having to pay for health benefits? Do you think the margins might work out in their favor?

You guys like to talk about taxes ideologically with a puritan bent but oversimplification should be seen in context.

So is this 6% going to cover only my husband (as he is the only one who works)? It's certainly not going to be enough to cover all 5 of us.

I would rather my current health care and taxes and not be taxed an extra 6%. I currently pay $450 per month for 5 of us - $500 deductible per person and can go to any doctor/hospital in the country, pay my own wellness/checkups ($80 cash for diagnostic mammogram and bilateral breast ultrasound), but unlimited for any accident/incident (cancer, broken limb, etc). That 6% is not going to be enough to provide single payor. Nothing government promises ever comes in on time or on budget - single payor will just add to our ever growing debt. Believe me I can do a lot more with that 6% than what the government will with its waste and irresponsibility.

Regarding Medicare, slowly add a month and raise the age to 70 for people who are 13+ years out.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So is this 6% going to cover only my husband (as he is the only one who works)? It's certainly not going to be enough to cover all 5 of us.

I would rather my current health care and taxes and not be taxed an extra 6%. I currently pay $450 per month for 5 of us - $500 deductible per person and can go to any doctor/hospital in the country, pay my own wellness/checkups ($80 cash for diagnostic mammogram and bilateral breast ultrasound), but unlimited for any accident/incident (cancer, broken limb, etc). That 6% is not going to be enough to provide single payor. Nothing government promises ever comes in on time or on budget - single payor will just add to our ever growing debt. Believe me I can do a lot more with that 6% than what the government will with its waste and irresponsibility.

Regarding Medicare, slowly add a month and raise the age to 70 for people who are 13+ years out.

So your answer is that you don't think it will work? No real basis but incredulity.

Are you subsidized or is your coverage through work?

[rmt]

So your answer is that you don't think it will work? No real basis but incredulity.

Are you subsidized or is your coverage through work?

I would hazard that my incredulity is as good a guess as yours. Look how the CBO estimates for ACA turned out:

2016 - 21 million estimate slashed to 13 million

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/01/26/cbo-slashes-2016-obamacare-exchange-enrollment-projections-by-8-million/#6db871b6791e

Neither. I belong to a Christian health sharing ministry and pay with taxed dollars.

[spurraider21]

He will tax them to death.
:lol

[boutons_deux]

Lame

It's really a bit much that at least so far none of the networks have carried any of Bernie Sanders' speech.

Tonight was a massive win for Clinton.

But Sanders is still in the race.

Kasich, meanwhile, who has something like a courtesy win in his home state of Ohio but is not even really in the race, had his whole speech covered.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lame--3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[Reck]

Lame

It's really a bit much that at least so far none of the networks have carried any of Bernie Sanders' speech.

Tonight was a massive win for Clinton.

But Sanders is still in the race.

Kasich, meanwhile, who has something like a courtesy win in his home state of Ohio but is not even really in the race, had his whole speech covered.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/lame--3?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29





He's in it in name only. He's done.

You don't come back from losing 3 key states +2 more.

Michigan an was a fluke after all.

[FkLA]

He's in it in name only. He's done.

You don't come back from losing 3 key states +2 more.

Michigan an was a fluke after all.

He actually ended up with +1 in MO and -1 in IL with delegates. Those two were ties not losses.

He's got a long hill to climb but it's not out of the realms of possibility.

[Nbadan]

He's in it in name only. He's done.

You don't come back from losing 3 key states +2 more.

Michigan an was a fluke after all.

Lots of Bernie states still left on the plate and Hillary will have to win big in California to lock the nomination...no an easy prospect....

[Nbadan]

Update on Dem delegate math:


Pledged: Clinton 1130, Sanders 835
Overall: Clinton 1566, Sanders 858

Sanders needs to win 65% of remaining...

[CosmicCowboy]

Dreamers

Sanders is toast

[boutons_deux]

Dreamers

Sanders is toast

don't worry, even if Bernie's elected, the Repug assholes won't let him touch your money.

[Reck]

He actually ended up with +1 in MO and -1 in IL with delegates. Those two were ties not losses.

He's got a long hill to climb but it's not out of the realms of possibility.

As longs as it is close either way, it's not a tie, it's a loss for Bernie.

He's too far behind to match her in delegates.

[Reck]

Update on Dem delegate math:



Sanders needs to win 65% of remaining...

I dont get this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

She's crossed the thousand mark WITHOUT counting superdelegates.

He's a good 300 delegates behind. That's tough to come back from.

[Reck]

Lots of Bernie states still left on the plate and Hillary will have to win big in California to lock the nomination...no an easy prospect....

?

Unless he wins all of them by 30+ points, will it matter?

New York will essentially be a tie. I doubt California will come into play by the time we're around that time frame.

If this was like the republican winner take all then yeah, you'd be right but even if Bernie wins, she'll still get a good bit of the delegate share.

[Nbadan]

Could happen...not saying it will...just saying....Bernie is only 300 regular delegates at this point..the super-delegates will go the way of the states...Bern needs to do well in Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Indiana, Washington, Maryland, Arizona and Oregon then hope that California puts him over the top....

[Nbadan]

Trump needs 60% of the remaining delegates but is considered a lock.

He has 666
He needs 571 to reach 1237
There are 946 still up for grabs

Bernie needs 64% of the remaining delegates but is considered dead in the water.

He has 851
He needs 1532 to reach 2383
There are 2309 still up for grabs

So 4% is the difference from be a lock to win vs being dead in the water?

[Nbadan]

https://i.imgur.com/sUlpP8T.jpg

[Splits]

^ Bernie's a dead man walking. Though I do support him staying in the race to pull Shillary to the left and take the nomination if the Justice dept indicts her and she can't run.

[spurraider21]

^ Bernie's a dead man walking. Though I do support him staying in the race to pull Shillary to the left and take the nomination if the Justice dept indicts her and she can't run.
would be ideal

[FkLA]

Trump needs 60% of the remaining delegates but is considered a lock.

He has 666
He needs 571 to reach 1237
There are 946 still up for grabs

Bernie needs 64% of the remaining delegates but is considered dead in the water.

He has 851
He needs 1532 to reach 2383
There are 2309 still up for grabs

So 4% is the difference from be a lock to win vs being dead in the water?

I did the math and Bernie winning 64% of the remaining delegates would result in him winning by over 200 delegates. 58% is enough to overtake Shillary tbh.

[Reck]

Trump needs 60% of the remaining delegates but is considered a lock.

He has 666
He needs 571 to reach 1237
There are 946 still up for grabs

Bernie needs 64% of the remaining delegates but is considered dead in the water.

He has 851
He needs 1532 to reach 2383
There are 2309 still up for grabs

So 4% is the difference from be a lock to win vs being dead in the water?

I dont get why so many delegates go unawarded.

So much votes go to the "other" category.

Take Florida for instance. 214 delegates for grabs but Hillary only got 130 something and Bernie got around 60. Where the fuck is the extra 16 or in Illinois case where 21 delegates went to no one.

Those should be split between the two imo.

[rmt]

Trump needs 60% of the remaining delegates but is considered a lock.

He has 666
He needs 571 to reach 1237
There are 946 still up for grabs

Bernie needs 64% of the remaining delegates but is considered dead in the water.

He has 851
He needs 1532 to reach 2383
There are 2309 still up for grabs

So 4% is the difference from be a lock to win vs being dead in the water?

If I'm not mistaken, the Dems are proportional? Some republican states are winner take all or winner take most. So it's easier to rack up delegates on the republican side.

[boutons_deux]

The establishment newspaper of record politicking against perceived threats from non-establishment politician

'How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders'

The New York Times spins Bernie Sanders' ability to effectively achieve legislative action for his party into a fault.

Editor's Note:

On Monday, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0) published an article titled "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories" by congressional reporter Jennifer Steinhauer that cast a dim light on Bernie Sanders’ legislative achievements by tacking on his agenda to larger bills, not unlike Democrats complain that Republicans do maliciously when making compromises.

But as Medium (https://medium.com/@brokenravioli/proof-that-the-new-york-times-isn-t-feeling-the-bern-c74e1109cdf6#.dv2rsuhwy) picked up on Tuesday in an article titled “Proof That the New York Times Isn’t Feeling the Bern,” the New York Times’ bias could be tracked publicly thanks to the earlier draft that “many people, including Sanders himself (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/bernie-sanders-scored-victories-for-years-via-legislative-side-doors), had already shared ... widely on social media and other sites” —

and a side-by-side comparison shows how the New York Times’ editors wrote their own pro-Hillary Clinton, anti-Bernie Sanders spin on what should have been a wide sample size of proof of Sanders’ experience getting hard results for his constituents.

Matt Taibbi (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315) performed a brilliant close analysis of the two articles for Rolling Stone — the original NYT title being the far less harsh “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors (https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)” — using his experience having written what he calls “essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago” for Rolling Stone, his being titled “Four Amendments and a Funeral (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/four-amendments-a-funeral-20050825).”

—Jenny Pierson, AlterNet

In 2015 we saw how the New York Times was instrumental in erecting a wall of silence around the Sanders campaign ​as Bernie struggled to overcome a large deficit in name recognition against an almost universally known opponent. Then late last year silence turned into unremitting negativity.

How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315)


By Matt Taibbi

... Sanders was skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
…
Steinhauer the other day wrote very nearly the same thing. She described how Bernie managed to get a $1.5 billion youth jobs amendment tacked onto an immigration bill through "wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling."

The amendment, she wrote, was "classic Bernie Sanders," a man she described as having "spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment."

Now, Steinhauer's piece wasn't all flattering. This is, after all, the New York Times, which has practically been an official mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign this election season.

Though we both operated on the same set of facts — i.e., that Sanders had an extensive history of building coalitions to pass amendments — Steinhauer implied that Sanders often acted as a kind of lefty obstructionist, using Republicans to thwart more centrist initiatives. "Mr. Sanders is not unlike Tea Party Republicans in his tactics, except his are a decaf version," she wrote.
...
First, as noted in the Medium (https://medium.com/@brokenravioli/proof-that-the-new-york-times-isn-t-feeling-the-bern-c74e1109cdf6#.dv2rsuhwy) piece, they changed the headline. It went from:Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors (https://web.archive.org/web/20160314164825/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
to:

Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0)

Then they yanked a quote from Bernie's longtime policy adviser Warren Gunnels that read, "It has been a very successful strategy."
They then added the following two paragraphs:

"But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.

"Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical."

This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.
...
Online content does change a bit from time to time, but I've never been in a situation where an editor has asked me to alter the overall meaning of a piece, which is what happened in this case.


Taibbi shows how a candidate for president apparently was smeared by the editors at our so-called "Paper of Record."

IT WOULD SEEM THE NY TIMES HASN’T BEEN FAIR WITH EITHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DURING THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE, AND WE SHOULD FIND THAT DISTURBING NO MATTER WHO WE SUPPORT.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/matt-taibbi-how-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders

[boutons_deux]

NY Times' 'Stealth Editing' to Undermine Sanders Was Unethical, Writes Public Editor


The decision by the New York Times to make edits that dimmed Bernie Sanders' legislative achievements have created controversy not just by Matt Taibbi and readers, but also within the paper itself.

to criticism by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi and others that Jennifer Steinhauer's article's editing by the New York Times (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/matt-taibbi-how-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders#overlay-context=) was unethical.

To add to the complexity of NYT editorial opinion, she agrees with the criticism:

My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; it’s hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
Given the level of revision, transparency with the readers required that they be given some kind of heads-up, and even an explanation.


Matt Purdy, a deputy executive director at the NYT, is among the NYT editorial staff Sullivan quotes as defending the edits.

But she grants the readers' responses in an update to her article that considering that the Steinhauer article covered Sanders' legislative history, rather than breaking news, it should have been properly edited into the current election context before being published, since there is little justification that the edits were dependent on any breaking news.

http://www.alternet.org/media/new-york-times-stealth-editing-undermine-sanders-was-unethical-writes-nyt-public-editor

==============

Matt Taibbi: 'How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders'

The New York Times spins Bernie Sanders' ability to effectively achieve legislative action for his party into a fault.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/matt-taibbi-how-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders#overlay-context=

[dbestpro]

Which would be better. Abolish the IRS, and their rules that allow the rich to avoid paying taxes, or forgiveness of all debt for those making less than 100k per year?

[Pelicans78]

Which would be better. Abolish the IRS, and their rules that allow the rich to avoid paying taxes, or forgiveness of all debt for those making less than 100k per year?

Less than 100K is not even close to middle class. Median income is around $53K yearly. Anyone making about 50K should easily pay monthly installments for whatever debt they have.

[Winehole23]

Over the course of the campaign, he has earned close to $2 billion worth of media attention, about twice the all-in price of the most expensive presidential campaigns in history. It is also twice the estimated $746 million that Hillary Clinton, the next best at earning media, took in. Senator Bernie Sanders has earned more media than any of the Republicans except Mr. Trump.http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?_r=0

[boutons_deux]

Sanders surprises with controversial superdelegate strategy

Strictly speaking, Democratic primary and caucus voters are principally responsible for choosing their presidential nominee, but the power is not entirely in their hands. While those voters elect pledged delegates for the party’s national convention, the Democratic process also includes superdelegates – party officials who are able to cast their own votes, separate from primary and caucus results.

The system is not without critics. Though it’s never happened, the existing Democratic process leaves open the possibility that actual, rank-and-file voters – the folks who participate in state-by-state elections – will rally behind one presidential candidate, only to have party officials override their decision, handing the nomination to someone else. For many, such a scenario seems un-democratic (and un-Democratic).

It therefore came as something of a surprise this week when Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign first raised the prospect of doing exactly that. Sanders aides told reporters (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-longshot-victory-superdelegates-220847) that he may not be able to catch Hillary Clinton through the primary/caucus delegate process, but the campaign might come close, at which point Team Bernie might ask superdelegates to give Sanders the nomination anyway, even if he’s trailing Clinton after voters have had their say.

On the show last night, Rachel asked the senator himself (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-open-to-help-from-superdelegates-647035459778) about the possibility. Initially, Sanders responded by talking about his optimism regarding upcoming contests and some national polling, but he didn’t answer the question directly.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-surprises-controversial-superdelegate-strategy?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[boutons_deux]

Amy Goodman Blasts CNN for Airing Trump’s Empty Stage Instead of Sanders’ Speech

In a live segment on CNN, Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, shamed the three biggest corporate media outlets for ignoring Bernie Sanders’ March 15 speech so they could broadcast an empty podium at a Donald Trump rally.

“Let’s look at Super Tuesday 3; you had major coverage here at CNN, at MSNBC, at Fox — all the networks across all through the night as the polls are closing,” Goodman told Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources on March 20. “You see the concession speeches and the great victory speeches, you see Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Kasich, you see Donald Trump. You’re waiting here at CNN, at MSNBC. They said he’s going to hold a news conference… and that’s it.”

Goodman is right. Even though Sanders — who is only slightly behind Hillary Clinton in terms of pledged delegates, making him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination — was speaking on the night after Democrats in 5 states voted in primaries, his speech wasn’t covered by CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News.

“This time, they didn’t even record and show after Bernie Sanders,” Goodman said. “He was completely absent.”

http://usuncut.com/politics/amy-goodman-calls-media-blacking-bernies-speech/

[Reck]

Sounds like Bernie is desperate.

[FkLA]

Sounds like Bernie is desperate.

Why do you even like Shillary? Not talking shit, just genuinely want to know what would compel someone to support that snake.

[boutons_deux]

"Sounds like Bernie is desperate."

He's behind, playing catchup. He polls beating Donny T better than Hillary does.

Not nearly as desperate, as PANICKED as the Repug establishment is.

[Reck]

Why do you even like Shillary? Not talking shit, just genuinely want to know what would compel someone to support that snake.

Who says I do? :lol

I'd rather Bernie get the nod.

I just defend her more because people give her more shit than she deserves. A lot of unfair bullshit is thrown her way.

Bernie's supporters dont help either. They act like entitled fucktards.

To be honest no one knew Bernie before a year ago. He doesn't have the 30 year old baggage that she does.

Bernie's not a saint by a long shot.

I'm a democrat though so either one will get my vote.

[FkLA]

Who says I do? :lol

I'd rather Bernie get the nod.

I just defend her more because people give her more shit than she deserves. A lot of unfair bullshit is thrown her way.

Bernie's supporters dont help either. They act like entitled fucktards.

To be honest no one knew Bernie before a year ago. He doesn't have the 30 year old baggage that she does.

Bernie's not a saint by a long shot.

I'm a democrat though so either one will get my vote.

Ah allright. You just came off as a Shillary supporter, my bad.

And yes she really is that bad. Also if Bernie had any major baggage it would've been brought to light by now. The only thing they have on him is that interview about Castro to try to paint him as a Castro sympathizer but everyone knows the notion that he'd be an authoritarian socialist is BS.

[boutons_deux]

Huge Crowd Of 20,000-30,000 Estimated At Bernie Sanders Seattle Rally

Hours before Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was set to speak in Seattle, WA an estimated crowd of 20,000-30,000 lined up to get into an arena that holds 17,000.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20/huge-crowd-20000-30000-estimated-bernie-sanders-seattle-rally.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Makes His Move And Presses Superdelegates To Go With The Popular Vote

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is pressed superdelegates to go with the popular vote in their states during an interview on CBS's Face The Nation.


SANDERS: The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic.But I would say that, in states where we have won by 20, 25 points, you know what? I think it might be good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their home state. I just talked to a person the other day who said, you know what, I am going to listen to my state, and if my state votes for you, Bernie, you’re going to have my vote.I think that — I would hope that a lot of the superdelegates will take that factor into consideration.

SANDERS: Well, to say to a superdelegate, Bernie Sanders won your state by 20 or 30 points, you might want to listen to your state, I think that that is common sense and I think superdelegates should do that.

SANDERS: Well, that’s — legally, they have their own decision to be made. They have their own right to make that decision.

But I would argue that many of these superdelegates, for them, what is most important, as it is for me and Secretary Clinton, by the way, is making sure that no Republican occupies the White House.

And if people conclude by the end of this campaign, if we have the energy — and it’s an if — if we win a number of states — that’s also an if — but if that is the factor, and it appears that I am the stronger candidate against Trump, I think you’re going to see some superdelegates saying, you know what?

I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy.


The easiest way to persuade superdelegates to win. Sanders needs to win in big states, and he needs to win by a lot. If Bernie Sanders can’t win in Pennsylvania, New York, and California, he frankly has no argument for being the Democratic nominee.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20/bernie-sanders-move-presses-superdelegates-popular-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders out-raises Hillary Clinton by $13.4 million in February

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outraised rival Hillary Clinton in February but spent at a faster pace, leaving him with less money, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.Sanders raised $43.5 million in the month, compared with Clinton, who raised $30.1 million.

The U.S. senator from Vermont has amassed much of his fundraising haul from online donations driven by supporters contributing small amounts of money.

While Sanders raised more than Clinton, he also spent more than the former secretary of state. At the end of February, Sanders had $17.2 million in cash remaining, the Post said. Clinton had $31 million, according to her campaign

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/bernie-sanders-outraises-hillary-clinton-by-13-4-million/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[InRareForm]

Bernie said in the showtime show The Circus he is already happy win or lose... he started off at 3% when it all began... and now look where it is. Also he has made hillary more bernie like through the whole campaign, and that is a good thing.

[boutons_deux]

Also he has made hillary more bernie like through the whole campaign, and that is a good thing.

yes, Hillary's talk has become more proressive, but she wouldn't act more progessive in the WH. Her incrementalism is code for "I'll make 99%'s decline a little less painful, but y'all 99%ers gonna decline inevitably as I go higher up the 1%. I'll sign all kinds of nasty shit the Repugs pass, just like my husband"

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Made the Right Decision to ‘Pro-Israel’ AIPIC Conference

Rabbis don’t want (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/18/opposition-donald-trumps-hate-speech-jews-plan-boycott-aipac-speech.html) Trump giving a speech there. Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, could. But he won’t. He’ll be campaigning in the West instead. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, along with Ted Cruz, John Kasich and others, is a featured as a speaker at AIPIC this week.In fact, as The Washington Post points out (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sanders-the-only-presidential-hopeful-to-be-a-no-show-at-aipac/2016/03/20/ca2f3374-ed52-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html), Sanders will be the only presidential hopeful to not attend AIPIC. Donald Trump is due to speak tonight, trying to explain how he can be pro-Israel while championing an antisemitic movement.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPIC, represents the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, saying (http://www.aipac.org/en/about/mission), “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.” It regularly invites the presidential candidates to the conference. Salon’s Ben Norton called (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/18/bernies_bold_move_sanders_only_candidate_to_skip_a ipac_pro_israel_conference_next_week/)Sanders’ decision a “bold move.”

not “unequivocally pro-Israel” that is the issue, but rather an “Israel first” stance: giving control of American foreign policy to Israel, a gambit embraced by hawks in both countries. What conservatives don’t understand is that Democrats can be pro-Israel. They just can’t put Israel above the United States.

Netanyahu fans among American voters are unlikely to vote for Sanders in any case, and anyone who thinks Israel should control America’s foreign policy are unlikely to be persuaded by anything Sanders says.

Trump is the guy with the real problem, proving to be the antithesis of the conservative position equating opposition to Israeli policies with antisemitism by proving that loving Israel does not equate with loving Jews.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/21/bernie-sanders-decision-skip-aipic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29


Here are 9 hatemongers — besides Trump — who will be honored guests at this year’s AIPAC summit

Here are just nine of the hateful figures welcomed by AIPAC as featured guests.

1. Steven Emerson: This notoriously Islamophobic author and pundit made the following statement (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/emerson-claims-least-thirty-forty-percent-all-muslims-support-terrorism) about Muslims in 2011: “If I had to guess, based on what I know, based on my experience and this is all anecdotal, I would say to you at least thirty to forty percent support cultural jihad. That is, at least, they support the notion that it’s okay to blow up a bus of Israelis, it’s okay to bomb the World Trade Center, it’s okay to impose the Sharia, the code of Islamic law, it’s okay to beat women or wives, as part of the Sharia.”

In 2015, Emerson appeared on Fox to make fallacious claims (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/18/fox-news-corrects-apologizes-for-no-go-zone-remarks/) about Muslim no-go zones in Europe, saying: “They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens. And they’re places where the governments, like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany, they don’t exercise any sovereignty so you basically have zones where Sharia courts are set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where police don’t go in… There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”

Fox later issued numerous corrections and apologies for Emerson’s statements.

2. Josh Block: Block was fired from the Truman National Security Project in 2011 for smearing Israel critics as anti-Semites. “Josh was removed from our community because he’s unable to differentiate between an honest debate and a personal attack,”said (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/02/chris-hayes-and-palestine/) Truman spokesman David Solimini. “There is real anti-Semitism in the world and we can’t debase the term by using it for everyone who disagrees with us on Israel policy. There is a clear pattern here. Over time many of our community members had come to realize Josh isn’t interested in an honest debate.”

An email exchange (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/demeaning-sexist-emails-about-rula-jebreal-between-ex-aipac-spokesman-josh-block-and-voa-producer/) between Block and a Voice Of America staffer, Block denigrated journalist Rula Jebreal, heaping scorn on her appearance and her Palestinian background, calling her a “crazy person” and (what else?) an “anti-Semite.”

As he campaigned against the Iran nuclear deal, Block claimed (https://twitter.com/bruculino/status/672572030353596417) that Iran wanted to dominate and enslave every man, woman and child they can reach w/ their nuclear terrorist totalitarian regime.”

3. Jerry Cox: The president of the Family Council Action Committee in Little Rock once argued (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/arkansas-group-says-californias-harvey-milk-day-will-force-students-cross-dress) that California’s Harvey Milk Day would force students to change their gender presentations and hold mock gay weddings. “If a person has left-leaning philosophies, a left-leaning theology, a left-leaning view of the world, then it seems that it’s always in vogue to honor those people and to have a special holiday for them,” Cox said of the slain leader.

4. Ralph Reed: The far-right conservative activist and first executive director of the Christian Coalition spoke out (http://www.glaad.org/cap/ralph-reed) against civil rights protections for LGBTQ people in the mid-’90s, declaring: “No one should have special rights or privileges or minority status because of their sexual behavior. We don’t have it for people who are polygamists; we don’t have it for people who have affairs on their wives or husbands.” He bizarrely proclaimed (http://observer.com/2012/09/the-unlikely-resurrection-of-ralph-reed/) to a Virginia newspaper in 1991, “I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until election night.”
5. Benjamin Netanyahu: The Prime Minister of Israel declared (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2009/03/2009325171634815939) as a young junior minister in 1989, “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”

As he campaigned for a fourth term as prime minister after slaughtering 551 children in the besieged Gaza Strip, Netanyahu warned (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/17/binyamin-netanyahu-israel-arab-election) that “Arab voters are heading to the polls in droves.” More recently, Netanyahu insisted (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/netanyahus-solution-palestinian/) that a Palestinian — not Hitler — was responsible for the Final Solution.

6. Paul Ryan: The Speaker of the House from Wisconsin made dogwhistle racist statements (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/opinion/blow-paul-ryan-culture-and-poverty.html?_r=0) during a 2014 interview with conservative radio host Bill Bennett. “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” he said.

7. Edwin Harper: As AlterNet senior editor Max Blumenthal reported (http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/aipac-speaker-obama-cant-be-anti-christ-because-hes-not-jew) this week, Bishop Harper is a self-described fanatic eagerly awaiting (http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/aipac-speaker-obama-cant-be-anti-christ-because-hes-not-jew) the Rapture. Harper proclaimed that Anti-Christ “has to be a Jew.”

“Is Obama the Anti-Christ?” Harper asked his audience at the Apostolic Life Cathedral in Martinsburg, West Virginia in 2012. “No. He don’t qualify. He’s not a Jew! You’ve got to have a Jew!”

8. Nir Barkat: The Mayor of Jerusalem was condemned for incitement against Palestinians after releasing a statement (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jerusalem-mayor-nir-barkat-tells-people-to-carry-firearms-as-violence-threatens-to-escalate-a6685651.html) in October which states, “The mayor encourages licensed gun owners to carry their weapons to increase security. He himself serves as a personal example of this.” Barkat told (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/military-jerusalem-israelis/) Israel’s Army Radio, “In a way, it’s like military reserve duty.” Barkat has presided over (http://mondoweiss.net/2009/03/jerusalems-mayor-looks-to-american-jews-instead-of-his-own-palestinian-citizens-to-revitalize-the-ci/) the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements across occupied East Jerusalem, driving Palestinians out of their own homes (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.655189) by force and replacing them with Jewish religious extremists.

9. Raheem Kassam: The Breitbart editor-in-chief ran an article in January under the headline, “Breitbart’s Raheem Kassam Tells Sean Hannity:

If Merkel Took a Million Rapey Migrants, Hillary Will Take 20 Million.” The piece details his interview with Sean Hannity, in which Kassem declared (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/08/europe-today-american-tomorrow/):

“Merkel isn’t the only dumpy old hag that’s for mass migration… If Hilary is elected, you can see her doing exactly what Angela Merkel has done.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/here-are-9-hatemongers-besides-trump-who-will-be-honored-guests-at-this-years-aipac-summit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyDemocrats/videos/1080899312003122/?pnref=story.unseen-section

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Major Research Findings: Sanders’ Tax Wall Street Plan Would Raise $300 Billion And Create Millions of New Jobs

New research findings from a team of progressive economists provides documentary evidence that the financial footing for Sen. Bernie Sanders visionary social change agenda is not only plausible, but would create far more socially productive jobs, as well as moving us down the road to the more humane society that is at the heart of the Sanders campaign.

In their push to vilify Sanders, Democratic Party acolytes from the media to academia have fallen in line attacking the economic foundations of his campaign for free public college tuition, Medicare for all, job creation through infrastructure repair, and other critical needs.

But a new report from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Institute (http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/73719726ffadd0cd22d52981724e90f5/publication/698/) documents how a key Sanders proposal — a tax on Wall Street speculation -would bring at least $300 billion a year in new revenues from those who can most afford to pay it for the critical reforms the country so desperately needs.

Further, the report by Robert Pollin, lead author, and his colleagues James Heintz and Thomas Herndon, breaks new ground in documenting that the tax would be a huge boon to the economy in creating millions of new jobs in education beyond what the same spending creates on Wall Street.

And contrary to the critics would not dampen productive investment, which has fallen sharply under the reckless Wall Street behavior of recent decades.

Taxing Wall Street speculation to finance free public college tuition, as Sanders talks about on the campaign trail, and has introduced in legislation, S 1373, the College for All Act, could create a net expansion of 4.2 million jobs. Not to mention securing equal educational opportunity for everyone, regardless of background or ability to pay.

Investing in education produces more than 8 times the number of jobs created by the same spending in financial services, the authors explain.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/22/major-research-findings-sanders-tax-wall-street-plan-would-raise-300-billion-and

[rmt]

So what does Bernie want to do about ISIS?

[Reck]

So what does Bernie want to do about ISIS?

That's a good point. I dont think I have ever heard him give his opinion about terrorism. Or I may have just missed it.

[spurraider21]

So what does Bernie want to do about ISIS?
tax them to death

[Pelicans78]

tax them to death

:toast

[FkLA]

Bernie won the democrats abroad primary by a landslide. Only 13 delegates at stake but he got 9 of them. The 5 delegate difference is bigger than the differences in MA, MO, and IL combined. Won't hear about it on the Clinton News Network though.

[Reck]

Bernie won the democrats abroad primary by a landslide. Only 13 delegates at stake but he got 9 of them. The 5 delegate difference is bigger than the differences in MA, MO, and IL combined. Won't hear about it on the Clinton News Network though.

I mean, delegates from afghanistan and places like that you can see why. lol

Hillary has won on random places that dont even get coverage. This is like one of those.

I saw a clip on the young turks about this. Is that where you saw it? They used that same phrasing. :lol

[FkLA]

I mean, delegates from afghanistan and places like that you can see why. lol

Hillary has won on random places that dont even get coverage. This is like one of those.

I saw a clip on the young turks about this. Is that where you saw it? They used that same phrasing. :lol

:lol Yeah, TYT is the shit that's where I go to for my news.

I heard they're going to have Bernie on tomorrow too.

http://i.imgur.com/vTUZ5.gif

[spurraider21]

tyt are faggots

[FkLA]

tyt are faggots

Ana is armenian. Would smash tbh.

[Reck]

Ana is armenian. Would smash tbh.

Thought she was hispanic for the longest time. She has spanish qualities. Would also smash.

[spurraider21]

Ana is armenian. Would smash tbh.
i know she is, but she's a cunt for agreeing to be on that show

the name "the young turks" is ridiculously insensitive and offensive...

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

the young turks were the ottoman regime that ended up allying with germany in ww1 and were responsible for the armenian genocide. it would be like a german talk show being called "the nazi germans" or "the third reich"

how you can use the name of a genocidal regime as a badge of honor is beyond me

[Mitch]

i know she is, but she's a cunt for agreeing to be on that show

the name "the young turks" is ridiculously insensitive and offensive...

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

the young turks were the ottoman regime that ended up allying with germany in ww1 and were responsible for the armenian genocide. it would be like a german talk show being called "the nazi germans" or "the third reich"

how you can use the name of a genocidal regime as a badge of honor is beyond me

:lol I blacklisted their shit from a browser extension, those fuckers just do click bait

[spurraider21]

regardless, i would never uses sources like that as "news"... it would be the same as using sean hannity for news.

political opinion shows can be good and entertaining, but using them for news is pretty dangerous

[Reck]

I used to subscribe to them but I had to unsub after all they talked about was Bernie 24/7.

These fucks are on his cock like you wouldn't believe.

They're supposed to be a liberal news, not Bernie news. That shit turned me off.

[FkLA]

i know she is, but she's a cunt for agreeing to be on that show

the name "the young turks" is ridiculously insensitive and offensive...

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

the young turks were the ottoman regime that ended up allying with germany in ww1 and were responsible for the armenian genocide. it would be like a german talk show being called "the nazi germans" or "the third reich"
ihow you can use the name of a genocidal regime as a badge of honor is beyond me

It is insensitive but I don't think that's the intent behind it. I think Cenk is the only guy on the cast that is actually of Turkish decent. Ana has stood up for Cenk in the past regarding that issue.


regardless, i would never uses sources like that as "news"... it would be the same as using sean hannity for news.

political opinion shows can be good and entertaining, but using them for news is pretty dangerous

Yeah, news was probably the wrong word. They do do actual news if I'm not mistaken but I go there mainly for the political talk. Still a better option than the mainstream media imo.


I used to subscribe to them but I had to unsub after all they talked about was Bernie 24/7.

These fucks are on his cock like you wouldn't believe.

They're supposed to be a liberal news, not Bernie news. That shit turned me off.

They're liberal news and Bernie is by far the most liberal candidate. It makes sense that they'd be all over him. They don't have a vested interest in him either they just genuinely like him unlike the MSM with Shillary.

[Reck]

They're liberal news and Bernie is by far the most liberal candidate. It makes sense that they'd be all over him. They don't have a vested interest in him either they just genuinely like him unlike the MSM with Shillary.

How long have you been following them? I was subbed to them since middle of last year. They used to be somewhat in the middle leaning toward Bernie which in my opinion is fine. But they have gotten pretty bad at being one sided now.

They did a video a few days ago about Obama. They shit on him for some reason. They used to be on the Obama bangwagon before.

This election cycle has made them nuts. lol

[Reck]

Actually I'll take that back.

John and Ana are pretty good. Cenk and Jimmy though, holy shit.

[FkLA]

Only a couple of months but it makes sense to me that they started gravitating to Bernie as his campaign started taking off. He's easily the most progressive candidate.

Jimmy's a comedian and Cenk fancies himself one. The overbearing Bernie love is part of their schtick imo.

[spurraider21]

Cenk is a faggot that denies the genocide ever happened and coincidentally chose the name of that genocidal regime for his show. Now he masquerades as a progressives that cares about minority rights. fuck him.

imagine a talk show called "The Third Reich" which denies the holocaust actually happened. how seriously would you take them? even if one of the co-hosts was jewish

[boutons_deux]

Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down

Protracted combat with Hillary Clinton threatens to do real damage in a general election against Donald Trump, senators warn.

Democratic senators of all stripes are as impressed as they are surprised by Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign.

But the time has come, they say, for Sanders to start winding things down.

After holding their fire on Sanders for the better part of a year, the senators — all backers of Hillary Clinton — are gently calling on Sanders to face the reality that there’s almost no chance he’s going to be the Democratic nominee. They don’t say outright he should quit; doing so would be counterproductive, they say.

But nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers suggested in interviews that Sanders should focus more on stopping Donald Trump and less on why he believes Clinton’s stands on trade, financial regulation and foreign policy would make her a flawed president.

“What’s important is not whether or not he gets out, but how he campaigns,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “If the contrast is now about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it’s fine. I just hope that we can begin to focus on unifying because obviously a lot of us are perplexed that we could be facing a country led by someone who seems to be a buffoon.”

Added Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.): “It’s good [for Sanders] to continue to raise the concerns that people have, but I think it ought to be in the context of, ‘This is the difference between the Democrats and Republicans in this race.’”

The subtext of these comments is the general view among Democrats that Sanders has no path to win. Clinton has nearly double the number of delegates that Sanders has, and she swept the Vermont independent in three distinct regions of the country last week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-dems-winddown-220966

[Reck]

^ I understand their concerns.

But instead of asking him to drop out they should tell him to quit attacking Hillary as if she was a republican. I saw his speech last night and he was incredibly crude referring to her. He's doing the GOP's job for them.

Other than that, let the math do the rest. There are only 6 more open primaries to go where he does great with independents. After that is all closed primaries where she does better with registered democrats.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

[djohn2oo8]

^ Bernie is more of an independent than a Democrat

[Pelicans78]

^ Bernie is more of an independent than a Democrat

Yup, he's been an independent most of his life until he ran for the nomination this time around. Not doing as bad against an established dynasty candidate even if she's Nixon-like in appeal/popularity and trustworthiness.

[spurraider21]

only reason he's listed as independent is because there is no major "socialist party" in the US

[The Reckoning]

the top 1% in the world will control over 50% of wealth soon.

and you idiots base your vote on what bernie is going to do about ISIS.


the "boring" shit like climate change and GDP monopoly is what I worry about. you know, all the real shit that is going on behind the curtain that the media puts up.

[boutons_deux]

So what does Bernie want to do about ISIS?

what would your lover boy Trump about ISIS? A few more $100Bs wasted, 100s, 1000s more US military bodies, minds, lives wasted while failing to clean up the Repugs' Middle East catastrophe?

[spurraider21]

the top 1% in the world will control over 50% of wealth soon.

and you idiots base your vote on what bernie is going to do about ISIS.


the "boring" shit like climate change and GDP monopoly is what I worry about. you know, all the real shit that is going on behind the curtain that the media puts up.
the isis shit isn't "real" to you because it hasn't impacted you yet

[boutons_deux]

the isis shit isn't "real" to you because it hasn't impacted you yet

how is ISIS ever going to impact US civilians in USA?

( ... apart from transferring more $100Bs of taxpayer wealth to MIC, while public water systems are full of poison, infrastructure crumbles, etc)

[spurraider21]

how is ISIS ever going to impact US civilians in USA?
while the san bernardino shooters weren't necessarily isis, it has been widely reported that they were influenced/inspired by isis and were supporters of the movement


( ... apart from transferring more $100Bs of taxpayer wealth to MIC, while public water systems are full of poison, infrastructure crumbles, etc)
i've always advocated decreased defense spending. its just laughable to say isis isn't a real issue

[boutons_deux]

while the san bernardino shooters weren't necessarily isis, it has been widely reported that they were influenced/inspired by isis and were supporters of the movement

i've always advocated decreased defense spending. its just laughable to say isis isn't a real issue

something like 8 teens or younger killed by guns every day. 91 Americans killed by guns every day. But ISIS in USA is a problem, a priority? :lol

ISIS simply isn't "real" for American civilians. It's rightwingnut/Repug/MIC fabrication in their standard fear and paranoia campaigning.

Even 9/11 fucked up only lower Manhattan, and like all disasters was actually an economic stimulus.

And remember, ISIS/AQI and Ms of refugees messing up Greece, Balkans, Europe are direct consequences from your war criminal Repugs' invasion of Iraq for oil.

[spurraider21]

something like 8 teens or younger killed by guns every day. 91 Americans killed by guns every day. But ISIS in USA is a problem, a priority? :lol

ISIS simply isn't "real" for American civilians. It's rightwingnut/Repug/MIC fabrication in their standard fear and paranoia campaigning.

Even 9/11 fucked up only lower Manhattan, and like all disasters was actually an economic stimulus.

And remember, ISIS/AQI and Ms of refugees messing up Greece, Balkans, Europe are direct consequences from your war criminal Repugs' invasion of Iraq for oil.
damn, ur quite delusional

[rmt]

what would your lover boy Trump about ISIS? A few more $100Bs wasted, 100s, 1000s more US military bodies, minds, lives wasted while failing to clean up the Repugs' Middle East catastrophe?

Trump doesn't waste money as evidenced by how little he's spent on his campaign and

Having fallen into utter disrepair during the New York City fiscal crisis, unable to make ice, the city’s Parks Department embarked on a total refurbishment of the facility in 1980, estimating it would take two years to complete. After six years and having flushed $13 million down the drain, the city announced they would have to start all over again and it would another two years to complete. Wollman Rink had quite visibly failed. The Wollman Rink fiasco amplified the public perception of the general incompetence of government and their inability to complete even the simplest projects.

Enter the Donald. In late May of 1986 the 39 year-old Trump made an offer to Mayor Ed Koch. Trump would step in and take over the construction and operation of the project for no profit and have it up and running in time for the holiday season. Koch tried mightily and quite snakily tried to reject Trump’s offer. A very public Trump-Koch feud ensued; Donald ultimately prevailed taking on the responsibility to finish the rink in less than six months for no more than $3 million. The city politicos could only hope that when Donald failed it would divert attention from their own incompetence.

Instead of failing, Trump finished the job in just four months at a final cost 25% below the budget. It wasn’t rocket science according Trump. It was common sense and “management.”

Imagine, instead of this ice rink, if Trump could do this for America - clean up the financial mess we're in and get things done on time and under budget. Trump is not a war-hawk - he wants to go in and try to quickly defeat ISIS, get out and get back to the job of building America up. He wants all these other countries to pay their fair share for protection by US military.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/offwhitepapers/2015/08/24/donald-trump-and-the-wollman-rinking-of-american-politics/#3a0f51b226b2

[boutons_deux]

"Trump doesn't waste money"

:lol he doesn't waste HIS money. :lol

He's been sued for reneging on deals that wasted OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

As conned as you are by Trump's buffoonery, you also think Trump gives a shit about your money, or you, and that he can single-handedly "deal" and "win" with Congress and the MIC to do whatever the fuck he's telling you he would do. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Trump doesn't waste money as evidenced by how little he's spent on his campaign and

Having fallen into utter disrepair during the New York City fiscal crisis, unable to make ice, the city’s Parks Department embarked on a total refurbishment of the facility in 1980, estimating it would take two years to complete. After six years and having flushed $13 million down the drain, the city announced they would have to start all over again and it would another two years to complete. Wollman Rink had quite visibly failed. The Wollman Rink fiasco amplified the public perception of the general incompetence of government and their inability to complete even the simplest projects.

Enter the Donald. In late May of 1986 the 39 year-old Trump made an offer to Mayor Ed Koch. Trump would step in and take over the construction and operation of the project for no profit and have it up and running in time for the holiday season. Koch tried mightily and quite snakily tried to reject Trump’s offer. A very public Trump-Koch feud ensued; Donald ultimately prevailed taking on the responsibility to finish the rink in less than six months for no more than $3 million. The city politicos could only hope that when Donald failed it would divert attention from their own incompetence.

Instead of failing, Trump finished the job in just four months at a final cost 25% below the budget. It wasn’t rocket science according Trump. It was common sense and “management.”

Imagine, instead of this ice rink, if Trump could do this for America - clean up the financial mess we're in and get things done on time and under budget. Trump is not a war-hawk - he wants to go in and try to quickly defeat ISIS, get out and get back to the job of building America up. He wants all these other countries to pay their fair share for protection by US military.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/offwhitepapers/2015/08/24/donald-trump-and-the-wollman-rinking-of-american-politics/#3a0f51b226b2Ah, that's nice. An ice rink.

Had Trump been able to do that for, say, the Taj Mahal, Forbes might have a point.

[DMX7]

"Trump doesn't waste money"

:lol he doesn't waste HIS money. :lol

He's been sued for reneging on deals that wasted OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.


Everyone knows risks involved with making business loans.

[rmt]

"Trump doesn't waste money"

:lol he doesn't waste HIS money. :lol

He's been sued for reneging on deals that wasted OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.

As conned as you are by Trump's buffoonery, you also think Trump gives a shit about your money, or you, and that he can single-handedly "deal" and "win" with Congress and the MIC to do whatever the fuck he's telling you he would do. :lol




So you'd rather turn over the nation to Bernie's handling of finances? Do you wonder why almost all of his assets are listed under his wife's name? Why with $174,000 salary as senator, he has $25k-$65 in credit card debt? Why he didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old? This is who you'd rather be involved with our nation's finances instead of Trump?

And I'm pretty positive I'll keep more of my money under Trump than Bernie's redistribution of wealth.

[boutons_deux]

So you'd rather turn over the nation to Bernie's handling of finances? Do you wonder why almost all of his assets are listed under his wife's name? Why with $174,000 salary as senator, he has $25k-$65 in credit card debt? Why he didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old? This is who you'd rather be involved with our nation's finances instead of Trump?

And I'm pretty positive I'll keep more of my money under Trump than Bernie's redistribution of wealth.

... while you're getting your wealth redistributed upwards by BigMedicine, BigTelecom, BigCable, BigFinance, MIC, etc, etc. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

And I'm pretty positive I'll keep more of my money under Trump than Bernie's redistribution of wealth.

I'm sure you would. But is that what's best for the economy as a whole?

You've been noticibly absent from this thread http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=248521&page=6&p=8493566#post8493566

discussing Kansas, where the Tax policies you so fervently support have been tried and have failed.

Why is it that Browback's trickle-down tax policy has failed so miserably in Kansas?

[gambit1990]

closed primaries are such bullshit.

[tlongII]

Who gives a shit what Bernie would do? He doesn't have a snowball's chance at winning the nomination.

[boutons_deux]

Who gives a shit what Bernie would do? He doesn't have a snowball's chance at winning the nomination.

None of them will be able to, or even try to, do anything for the 99%, since the Repug strict obstructionists will very probably control Congress.

[rmt]

Who gives a shit what Bernie would do? He doesn't have a snowball's chance at winning the nomination.

True.

[FkLA]

Shit just isn't adding up in AZ. From reddit, these are the votes made in Maricopa county (Phoenix) compared to 2008:

http://i.imgur.com/Px2szfO.png
http://i.imgur.com/Y4lykuD.png

Record setting turnout, 5 hour long lines, and yet only a third of election day voting compared to 2008? Bernie was winning 60% of the election day voting btw, Shillary got her lead from the early voting by alzheimer's patients.

[FkLA]

1.3 million voters in AZ were denied the opportunity to vote yesterday, as result of the manipulation of their credentials as legal voters, absence of proper ballots at polling stations, thereby disenfranchising legal voters.

We are seeking an attorney (or attorneys) to represent these fraudulently disenfranchised voters in a class action suit against the agency or agencies charged with oversight of elections, with the intention of demanding a new primary or other appropriate remedy.

We are also seeking contact with voters who were disenfranchised/prevented from voting in AZ yesterday.

Please contact Shyla Nelson at [email protected]

[FkLA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmpcpSpXQg

[spurraider21]

CNN's vote tally has over 400k votes accounted for, tbh. seems legit

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/az/Dem

[FkLA]

CNN only has ~215k for Maricopa county, ~185k of which where early voting.

People waiting in line 5 hours in Phx even though only ~30k people showed up? Doesn't add up. The turnout should've shattered the 2008 numbers, at the very least stayed the same. Instead it was 1/3rd of what it was in '08. :lol

[FkLA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41171IWa90M

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Rips Arizona Republicans For Disgraceful Suppression Of The Vote

During a press conference, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) ripped Arizona Republicans who suppressed the vote of thousands of voters by limiting the number of polling places in the state’s largest county.

Video:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/23/bernie-sanders-rips-arizona-republicans-disgraceful-suppression-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

Repugs must suppress voter fraud to guard the sanctity of voting :lol

If Repugs lips are moving, ....

[ColinB]

Sign the petition at the end of this link FkLa.

http://usuncut.com/politics/5-examples-voter-suppression-arizona-primary/

[FkLA]

already did brah :tu

[Splits]

:cry but the real voter fraud is impersonating another voter :cry

[The Reckoning]

the isis shit isn't "real" to you because it hasn't impacted you yet


nor will it ever. i bet my left testicle the only way ISIS will impact me directly is through more TSA screening.

and to make that a central issue for you when there are so many others affecting you each and every day shows that you've fallen for the new boogeyman

[spurraider21]

:cry but the real voter fraud is impersonating another voter :cry
:cry but disenfranchisement only affects minorities and is a ploy of republicans :cry

[DisAsTerBot]

nor will it ever. i bet my left testicle the only way ISIS will impact me directly is through more TSA screening.

and to make that a central issue for you when there are so many others affecting you each and every day shows that you've fallen for the new boogeyman

:tu

[spurraider21]

nor will it ever. i bet my left testicle the only way ISIS will impact me directly is through more TSA screening.

and to make that a central issue for you when there are so many others affecting you each and every day shows that you've fallen for the new boogeyman
not sure where i've ever made it a central issue. ignoring it makes little sense, as well

[ColinB]

already did brah :tu

:tu

[spurraider21]

already have 2/3 of required signatures

[FkLA]

TYT about to interview Sanders. Hopefully they ask about AZ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uVpG3frhJ8

[spurraider21]

if their studio caught fire and they had to cancel, it wouldnt be the worst thing tbh

[Splits]

:cry but disenfranchisement only affects minorities and is a ploy of republicans :cry

Please do point me to Democratic legislatures that have enacted voter ID laws.

[spurraider21]

Please do point me to Democratic legislatures that have enacted voter ID laws.
were republican voters disenfranchised in the arizona primary?

[Splits]

were republican voters disenfranchised in the arizona primary?

Yes. Which was my entire point. Republicans are busy passing laws to prevent a problem that doesn't exist in order to disenfranchise Democratic voters. Meanwhile, actual voting problems do exist and.... I look forward to the Arizona legislature passing sweeping legislation to prevent this again in the future.

[spurraider21]

I look forward to the Arizona legislature passing sweeping legislation to prevent this again in the future.
i can get on board with that :tu

[Splits]

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/weakened-voting-rights-act-some-arizona-voters-wait-hours


Until the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that weakened the Voting Rights Act, Arizona and its local governments were required under the VRA’s Section 5 to get approval from the federal government before making any changes to their election rules. If the change might harm minority voters, it could be blocked.

It was exactly these sorts of local changes, generally made under the radar and without fanfare, that Section 5 was designed to stop. Twice before, in 1980 and 1985, jurisdictions in Arizona were blocked from changing the number or location of polling places under Section 5, according to Justice Department records (https://www.justice.gov/crt/voting-determination-letters-arizona).


Reports suggest the problems Tuesday were county-wide, and affected voters of all races. But Maricopa County’s population is 43 percent non-white or Hispanic, meaning it has a far higher share of minorities than the rest of the state.

[boutons_deux]

i can get on board with that :tu

won't happen, AZ is Repug, they HATE democracy and government.

[boutons_deux]

Phoenix mayor calls for probe of county's handling of presidential nominating vote

Phoenix's mayor on Wednesday urged a federal probe into the local county's handling of voting in Arizona's presidential nominating contest, questioning whether minority voters were granted a fair chance to cast their ballots.

Greg Stanton asked the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate a decision by Maricopa County officials to slash the number of polling locations in Arizona's most populous county and leave minority-heavy areas with seemingly fewer sites.

The Democratic mayor called the vote "a fiasco" after voters had to wait in line for several hours on Tuesday to cast their ballots. Donald Trump won the state's Republican contest, while Hillary Clinton won on the Democratic side.

"Because of the unacceptably disparate distribution of polling locations, I respectfully request the U.S. Department of Justice investigate what took place [...] to ensure all voters are treated equally," Stanton said in the letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-phoenix-probe-idUSKCN0WQ04V?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[boutons_deux]

were republican voters disenfranchised in the arizona primary?

the great reduction in polling places was in minority areas, not Repug/white areas.

[boutons_deux]

Voter suppression comes in many forms – such as fewer polling stations.

Just 60 polling stations were open in Maricopa County yesterday, the most populous in Arizona -- forcing some voters to wait 5 hours in line.

Bernie justifiably called it a “disgrace.”

In 2012 there were at least 200 polling stations;

in 2008, 400.

Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell, a Republican (pictured below) said she took full responsibility but voters could have voted early had they wanted to. “That was their option in this instance," she said.

Baloney. Voting is a right, not a privilege. No one knows how many voters gave up on Wednesday and whom they might have voted for, but the fiasco draws the results into question, and gives our democracy another black eye.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/?fref=nf

Repugs FUCK UP, intentionally, everything they touch.

[spurraider21]

won't happen, AZ is Repug, they HATE democracy and government.
Lol

[Reck]

Tyt Bernie interview.


http://youtu.be/ggFitmOTSok

[boutons_deux]

Lol

... eloquent as always, with tons of supporting evidence, facts. It's so hard to one-up you, spurraider, just so hard.

[boutons_deux]

There Were 5-Hour Lines to Vote in Arizona Because the Supreme Court Gutted the Voting Rights Act (http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/)

The lines were so long because election officials in Phoenix’s Maricopa County, the largest in the state, reduced the number of polling places by 70 percent from 2012 to 2016, from 200 to just 60—one polling place per every 21,000 voters.

Previously, Maricopa County would have needed to receive federal approval for reducing the number of polling sites, because Arizona was one of 16 states where jurisdictions with a long history of discrimination had to submit their voting changes under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (https://www.justice.gov/crt/about-section-5-voting-rights-act).

This type of change would very likely have been blocked since minorities make up 40 percent of Maricopa County’s population and reducing the number of polling places would have left minority voters worse off. Section 5 blocked 22 voting changes (http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/issue_17/06_Arizona_Macro.pdf) from taking effect in Arizona since the state was covered under the VRA in 1975 for discriminating against Hispanic and Native American voters.

But after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/why-the-voting-rights-act-is-once-again-under-threat.html?_r=0) in 2013, Arizona could make election changes without federal oversight. The long lines in Maricopa County last night were the latest example of the disastrous consequences of that decision.

http://www.thenation.com/article/there-were-five-hour-lines-to-vote-in-arizona-because-the-supreme-court-gutted-the-voting-rights-act/

VRWC shills on SCOTUS doing what they were appointed to do: screw Americans and America, while enabling/protecting/enriching BigCorp and 1%.

[spurraider21]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vabeos-F8Kk

[FkLA]

Bernie's ideologies are Jesus-esque. Only difference is he actually exists tbh.

[Mitch]

Just need Obama to pull the trigger on Hillary's email leak, tbh

[Reck]

Bernie's ideologies are Jesus-esque. Only difference is he actually exists tbh.

To be fair, that's how all independents line of thinking is.

Just look at Ralph Nader. Pretty much stands for the same things as Bernie.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie's ideologies are Jesus-esque. Only difference is he actually exists tbh.

All the issues on this website are For ALL The People. He wants to stop the rigging of USA for the plutocracy, the kleptocracy, the oligarchy. Nothing Jesus about it, simply the way the FF imagined the Republic to be, and FFs already were aware of 1%/primogeniture's and BigCorp's risk to the Republic.

[vy65]

Cuck Jew is a genocide denying Turk sympathizer? Can't say I'm surprised

[Th'Pusher]

Cuck Jew is a genocide denying Turk sympathizer? Can't say I'm surprised

...But the Armenians :cry

Kardashian brother :lol

[Th'Pusher]

...But the Armenians :cry

Kardashian brother :lol
:lol OJ

[vy65]

What kinda silly faggot laughs at his own posts

Oh wait ...

[vy65]

Wait, did you seriously lol at a successful defense verdict for Papa Kardashian?

Crofl

[Reck]

What kinda silly faggot laughs at his own posts

Oh wait ...

:lmao

He probably forgot to log out of his main and into his alt. Fail. :lol

[Th'Pusher]

Wait, did you seriously lol at a successful defense verdict for Papa Kardashian?

Crofl

:lol At crediting that verdict to Kardashin.

[Th'Pusher]

He was questioning "uncle OJ's" innocence the whole time :lol

[vy65]

Wow, that's the dumbest insult I've ever heard.

[DMX7]

Just look at Ralph Nader. Pretty much stands for the same things as Bernie.

LOL, that's actually a pretty good observation. He does have a lot in common with Ralph Nader but Nader's tactics were so stupid. He had ZERO chance running for POTUS as an independent and all he did was hurt democrats. Bernie understood there is no viable way to the White House outside the current two party system as of now.

[vy65]

Is this the part where you quote yourself, and then throw in one of these :lol ?

[Th'Pusher]

Wow, that's the dumbest insult I've ever heard.

Are you suggesting Robert Kardashin played a significant role in OJ's not guilty verdict?

[vy65]

Are you suggesting Robert Kardashin played a significant role in OJ's not guilty verdict?

I'm suggesting that I don't give a fuck

[DarrinS]

How did a Bernie Sanders thread become about OJ?

[Th'Pusher]

I'm suggesting that I don't give a fuck

Then why did you say?


Wait, did you seriously lol at a successful defense verdict for Papa Kardashian?

Crofl


I like the way you refer to him as papa. Do you refer to all Armenian men as your papa?

[Th'Pusher]

How did a Bernie Sanders thread become about OJ?

One of the Kardashian brothers piped in with some cuck, jew, turks :cry

[vy65]

Because insulting me by insulting Papa K for a supposedly minimal role in a successful trial is beyond fucking stupid. How do you not understand this?

[vy65]

How did a Bernie Sanders thread become about OJ?

Slurper's been going through Netflix like a madman and didn't want to waste the opportunity to show it

[FkLA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tBtGWSU0Ro

Bernie is the chosen one :cry

[vy65]

Crofl Disney princess candidate

[Reck]

Why is he in Oregon? The race would have been over by then.

[FkLA]

Why is he in Oregon? The race would have been over by then.

He's hitting up the west coast. He's also having a second rally in Seattle right now. Should be his highest turnout ever, it's being held at Safeco which has a 50k capacity.

[Th'Pusher]

Because insulting me by insulting Papa K for a supposedly minimal role in a successful trial is beyond fucking stupid. How do you not understand this?

So you do refer to all Armenian men as papa?

[vy65]

So you do refer to all Armenian men as papa?

Do you refer to all black men as bull?

[Th'Pusher]

Do you refer to all black men as bull?
No.

[FkLA]

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-in-seattle/102382212

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSY3opFK3g

hail to king bernie :worthy:

[Reck]

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-in-seattle/102382212

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSY3opFK3g

hail to king bernie :worthy:

Thanks for the heads up.

I like listening to his message even though I think it is way too ambitious. If he gets to be president, there is no way he'd do half the things he says he wants to. Still nice to hear though.

Also the electric energy from the crowd is awesome too.

[DarrinS]

Slurper's been going through Netflix like a madman and didn't want to waste the opportunity to show it

:lol

[Reck]

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-in-seattle/102382212

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pSY3opFK3g

hail to king bernie :worthy:

Did he fall asleep? :lol

I've been waiting for like an hour. Had to switch to Netflix.

[FkLA]

Did he fall asleep? :lol

I've been waiting for like an hour. Had to switch to Netflix.

:lol

Thousands still in line. They're trying to let everyone in

edit: just started right now

[Nbadan]

What's left belongs to Bernie...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2016.svg/300px-Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2016.svg.png
Hillary:yellow Bernie:green

[Reck]

What's left belongs to Bernie...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2016.svg/300px-Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C _2016.svg.png
Hillary:yellow Bernie:green

He needs to sweep the remaining states. And even that will not be enough.

That dude from CNN John King did a mock up scenario where he wins the rest of the states and he was still off by around 50 or so delegates.

Hillary has too many super delegates in her pocket.

[Nbadan]

He needs to sweep the remaining states. And even that will not be enough.

That dude from CNN John King did a mock up scenario where he wins the rest of the states and he was still off by around 50 or so delegates.

Hillary has too many super delegates in her pocket.

If Bernie can compete in the remaining states, win the Primary popular vote....the super-delegates will fall in line....

[Wild Cobra]

Why is he in Oregon? The race would have been over by then.

Probably because of the media it generates. The exceptionally high turnout for him on the left-coast.

My younger daughter went to the rally, sent me some photos.

[FkLA]

He needs to sweep the remaining states. And even that will not be enough.

That dude from CNN John King did a mock up scenario where he wins the rest of the states and he was still off by around 50 or so delegates.

Hillary has too many super delegates in her pocket.

No he doesn't. CNN if full of shit. Owned by TWC who is one of Shillary's top donors during her 'career'.

He needs to win 58% of remaining delegates. He can lose states as long as he makes up by winning others big. For example, he met his goal and won 58%+ of the delegates on Tues because he won Utah/Idaho by huge margins--losing Arizona didn't prevent him from staying on track. It won't be easy by any means but at the same time don't believe the BS that he has to win all of them.

Obviously they knew his magic number was 58%, since any one with basic math skills can figure it out. But they went with only 55% in all states to try to paint the picture that it's impossible for him to win and that the race is over. No different than counting superdelegates. Or giving his speeches and rallies minimal coverage. They have a vested interest in Shillary winning.

[FkLA]

Actually IIRC after his Tuesday wins he only needs to win 56-57% of the remaining delegates. I haven't done the math myself but I read something along those line. Will be hard but it's not impossible.

[Reck]

No he doesn't. CNN if full of shit. Owned by TWC who is one of Shillary's top donors during her 'career'.

He needs to win 58% of remaining delegates. He can lose states as long as he makes up by winning others big. For example, he met his goal and won 58%+ of the delegates on Tues because he won Utah/Idaho by huge margins--losing Arizona didn't prevent him from staying on track. It won't be easy by any means but at the same time don't believe the BS that he has to win all of them.

Lol it has nothing to do with CNN or whatever. Math is math.

Cant play the biased card.

[FkLA]

Lol it has nothing to do with CNN or whatever. Math is math.

Cant play the biased card.

You really don't think CNN is biased? :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH_0JnJiA0

And yeah, he needs 58% of the remaining delegates. So he wouldn't achieve that even if he won all states with only 55% of the vote. CNN knew that, that's why they showed that example. They could easily have shown an example where Bernie won some states big (i.e. 75% of the vote), won others slightly, lost some and still managed to achieve 58%. But that doesn't fit with their agenda (the race being over) as much as their other example does. It comes off as being possible, whereas if you say 'well he wins all the states and still doesn't catch our horse shillary!' the average person thinks it's over.

Basically the magic number is 56-57% of remaining delegates. That's more important than whether he does or doesn't win every state.

[Reck]

You really don't think CNN is biased? :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH_0JnJiA0

And yeah, he needs 58% of the remaining delegates. So he wouldn't achieve that even if he won all states with only 55% of the vote. CNN knew that, that's why they showed that example. They could easily have shown an example where Bernie won some states big (i.e. 75% of the vote), won others slightly, lost some and still managed to achieve 58%. But that doesn't fit with their agenda (the race being over) as much as their other example does. It comes off as being possible, whereas if you say 'well he wins all the states and still doesn't catch our horse shillary!' the average person thinks it's over.

I have lost faith in the young Turks. They twist actual news to fit their agenda.

But back to winning states. Which states do you think he will win. And which states do you think he'll win big?

New York, Pennsylvania and California are all leaning toward Clinton.

Say he wins those. Those won't be blowout wins.

[Mitch]

Actually IIRC after his Tuesday wins he only needs to win 56-57% of the remaining delegates. I haven't done the math myself but I read something along those line. Will be hard but it's not impossible.

He'll need to show up in California and New York big time. Sadly, Clinton is looking like she'll lock up at least 60% of the vote in NY. Going to need a big upset to swing the momentum, tbh. If Bern had the momentum he had now since Iowa he'd probably have a bigger lead than Hillary has now. Looking on the bright side, he is leaving a mark and opening the doors for non-establishment democrats.

[FkLA]

I have lost faith in the young Turks. They twist actual news to fit their agenda.

But back to winning states. Which states do you think he will win. And which states do you think he'll win big?

New York, Pennsylvania and California are all leaning toward Clinton.

Say he wins those. Those won't be blowout wins.

Wait, you think TYT is biased towards their agenda but CNN, who again is owned by TWC a top Shillary donor, isn't biased? :lol

And I never said it'd be easy for him to end up as the nominee. Honestly, unfortunately it's probably not likely. All I'm saying is there's a higher chance than the mainstream media would like Americans to believe.


He'll need to show up in California and New York big time. Sadly, Clinton is looking like she'll lock up at least 60% of the vote in NY. Going to need a big upset to swing the momentum, tbh. If Bern had the momentum he had now since Iowa he'd probably have a bigger lead than Hillary has now. Looking on the bright side, he is leaving a mark and opening the doors for non-establishment democrats.

Yeah, I don't think the establishment has much time left in either party. People are tired of the same BS. If Bernie doesn't become president someone like him will soon.

[Mitch]

Yeah, I don't think the establishment has much time left in either party. People are tired of the same BS. If Bernie doesn't become president someone like him will soon.

With Bernie & Trump getting all this support, that's probably true. If Hillary gets in the office and things still go downhill we'll see another voter-funded candidate and this time he'll schlong the any establishment candidate like Reagan did Mondale.

[Reck]

Wait, you think TYT is biased towards their agenda but CNN, who again is owned by TWC a top Shillary donor, isn't biased? :lol.

Maybe not entirely, but definitely for Bernie they do.

I don't buy into the whole biased thing outside of Fox.

I watch CNN probably the most and 80% of the time they have some republican faggots on their shows. They have also never shown a Hillary rally I think ever. But have broadcast dozens of Trump's.

Anyways, I would like to see this happen..

https://www.change.org/p/the-young-turks-dnc-debate-on-the-young-turks

I signed it. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

With Bernie & Trump getting all this support, that's probably true. If Hillary gets in the office and things still go downhill we'll see another voter-funded candidate and this time he'll schlong the any establishment candidate like Reagan did Mondale.

If Hillary gets the nomination, it will really bolster Trumps chance of winning the presidency. Sanders has a better chance of defeating trump.

[Mitch]

If Hillary gets the nomination, it will really bolster Trumps chance of winning the presidency. Sanders has a better chance of defeating trump.

Much better chance, Sanders is more appealing and also has that anti-establishment platform that Trump benefits from.

[Reck]

If Hillary gets the nomination, it will really bolster Trumps chance of winning the presidency. Sanders has a better chance of defeating trump.

They both beat him handily.

Does it really matter if you beat him by 20 points or 13? The answer is not really.

[z0sa]

He needs to sweep the remaining states. And even that will not be enough.

That dude from CNN John King did a mock up scenario where he wins the rest of the states and he was still off by around 50 or so delegates.

Hillary has too many super delegates in her pocket.

Thats the problem - honestly, ppl like you writing him because of SD. Dont fall in the trap of public opinion. Bernie can still force action.

That said, gotta lot of respect for JK. just about CNNs only legit (former) anchor now.

[z0sa]

They both beat him handily.

Does it really matter if you beat him by 20 points or 13? The answer is not really.

Trump vs Hillary os well within the margin of error. Both are HIGHLY unfavorable candidates, which means volatility rules election day.

Of coursr Bernie soundly beats Trump and Cruz, but who cares about that independent vote... lol

[Splits]

wv0vtxDRWTw

iHmLljk2t8M

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CefsikEWAAA8qNq.jpg

https://media.giphy.com/media/QwHXdAtKu8OBy/giphy.gif

[DMX7]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CefsikEWAAA8qNq.jpg

That's perfect, hahah. :lol

Where did you get that?

[Splits]

That's perfect, hahah. :lol

Where did you get that?

The social media platform whose mascot is indeed a bird :lol

[Nbadan]

.....Birdy Sanders.........rocks!

[FkLA]

74% in Washington (11% reporting)
82% in Alaska (15% reporting)

King Bernie :worthy:

[hater]

:lmao nobody likes neocon Shillary :lol

:lmao democrats

Think they will dance their way to the white house. Shiklary can't even beat a dead carcasss :lmao

[DMX7]

:lmao nobody likes neocon Shillary :lol

:lmao democrats

Think they will dance their way to the white house. Shiklary can't even beat a dead carcasss :lmao

Hillary is winning almost entirely on her name brand and connections. Her record sucks.

[Mitch]

Strong showing by Bern, he needed statement wins badly. If he can somehow at least stay close to Hillary in NY he's got the momentum needed to win.

[Reck]

Hillary is winning almost entirely on her name brand and connections. Her record sucks.

This was expected. He wins caucuses, she wins primaries.

[DMX7]

Strong showing by Bern, he needed statement wins badly. If he can somehow at least stay close to Hillary in NY he's got the momentum needed to win.

Realistically, he needs to win in New York.

[Mitch]

Realistically, he needs to win in New York.

Would be quite a shocker if he did, tbh. Hillary was up close to 70% last poll

[Reck]

I am looking at that April 26 date. That will really make or break his campaign. If he loses New York then loses Pennsylvania, Connecticut. Maryland and Delaware the next week, he's just done.

[z0sa]

Realistically, he needs to win in New York.

He needs California far more than NY imho.

[DMX7]

He needs California far more than NY imho.

He needs both a lot.

[Reck]

He needs California far more than NY imho.

Yeah he does. But the question is, will California even come into play by then?

April is key. Between New York and Pennsylvania there are 436 delegates to pick up just between those 2 states. If he loses even one of those states, he's essentially finished.

[Mitch]

He needs California far more than NY imho.

Needs both or Hilary will squeeze out a victory even if Bernie completely dominates afterwards.

[z0sa]

Yeah he does. But the question is, will California even come into play by then?

April is key. Between New York and Pennsylvania there are 436 delegates to pick up just between those 2 states. If he loses even one of those states, he's essentially finished.

Depends on what goal youre aiming for. I think Bernies plan is simply extending the race all the way to the DNC, at which point, he argues he is the more viable candidate to win the presidency vs (Trump). Which is actually a solid one. Bernie absolutely DOES poll much better among independents than either front runner and has a much higher likability rating. Most if not all of Hillary's "normal" delegate lead comes from sweeping solid red states that will very likely not go any Democrats way in the general election.

As i always said, it is a long shot and most likely setting up a huge letdown for us folks feelin the Bern. But still well within the realm of possibility.

I admit Most candidates should give up in this scenario, but the root problem they all experience, lack of donations, is NOT an issue for bernie.

[baseline bum]

Most if not all of Hillary's "normal" delegate lead comes from sweeping solid red states that will very likely not go any Democrats way in the general election.


She won Florida by a huge margin, won Virginia pretty big, had a decent win in Ohio, and another in North Carolina, which will all be critical in this election. The only battleground state Sanders has won soundly was Colorado. I guess some people will count Minnesota too, but they haven't given electoral votes to a Republican presidential candidate since Nixon. Clinton also won big in Louisiana, and could have an outside chance at flipping that state considering how pissed people are at Jindal and since they have a Democratic governor now and had another one before Jindal. I don't buy that Bernie's a stronger candidate than Clinton for the presidency, as much as I think he'd be a far superior president. Clinton is winning the states that matter in this election, not just the red states in the south.

[z0sa]

I agree to an extent, but then again, Berne wont be running vs Hillary in those battleground states, he will be facing Trump. For instance I dont honestly remember every demographics votes in every state, but lower income blacks really pushed her over the top in a big way in several of her wins. Those people would be voting for Bernie if he gained the nomination. And then theres the fact independents vastly favor Bernie. Then again, the Republican turnout is record breaking while many democrats (cough hillary supporters) are lethargic. They dont really love Shillary and Bernies proposal are radically progressive (relatively speaking). Meanwhile Bernies stranglehold on the below 35 vote is misleading since many folks in that age range dont get out and vote unfortunately.

[baseline bum]

I agree to an extent, but then again, Berne wont be running vs Hillary in those battleground states, he will be facing Trump. For instance I dont honestly remember every demographics votes in every state, but lower income blacks really pushed her over the top in a big way in several of her wins. Those people would be voting for Bernie if he gained the nomination. And then theres the fact independents vastly favor Bernie. Then again, the Republican turnout is record breaking while many democrats (cough hillary supporters) are lethargic. They dont really love Shillary and Bernies proposal are radically progressive (relatively speaking). Meanwhile Bernies stranglehold on the below 35 vote is misleading since many folks in that age range dont get out and vote unfortunately.

I don't think those black voters in battleground states will show up to vote for Sanders like they will Clinton, and high black turnout is about the most important thing for Democrats in this election. The white Bernie supporters probably will come out and vote for Clinton when the alternative is Trump, Cruz, or Ryan. Independents might favor Bernie but Trump's racism isn't going to play well in a nation that just elected a black man president twice upon independent votes, and then the far right guys like Cruz and Ryan don't seem to hold appeal to independents. So I'd be floored if Clinton didn't win the independents in a general election. Of course ISIS could do Trump a solid and execute a successful attack here and terrified Americans probably would vote him in. But short of that I think the twat is in the driver's seat.

[z0sa]

I don't think those black voters in battleground states will show up to vote for Sanders like they will Clinton, and high black turnout is about the most important thing for Democrats in this election. The white Bernie supporters probably will come out and vote for Clinton when the alternative is Trump, Cruz, or Ryan. Independents might favor Bernie but Trump's racism isn't going to play well in a nation that just elected a black man president twice upon independent votes, and then the far right guys like Cruz and Ryan don't seem to hold appeal to independents. So I'd be floored if Clinton didn't win the independents in a general election. Of course ISIS could do Trump a solid and execute a successful attack here and terrified Americans probably would vote him in. But short of that I think the twat is in the driver's seat.

Cant say I disagree with your analysis. This has been Hillary Clinton's campaign to lose since day 1.

[Reck]

Cant say I disagree with your analysis. This has been Hillary Clinton's campaign to lose since day 1.

I think is very telling she didn't make any efforts to win either of the 3 states that were up for today. She only spent like 50k between the 3 states or something like that I read. She got balls. :lol

[Reck]

On Hawaii..

The Sanders campaign is spending big in search of a blowout. In the last month, the Sanders campaign spent $230,000 on state TV and radio ads while the Clinton campaign has spent just $40,000.

On Alaska..

the Sanders campaign has spent $61,000 on TV and radio advertising in March while Clinton has not spent any money.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-alaska-hawaii-washington-221239

[z0sa]

I think is very telling she didn't make any efforts to win either of the 3 states that were up for today. She only spent like 50k between the 3 states or something like that I read. She got balls. :lol

Shes playing her hand exactly as she should though tbh. Shes been attempting to gear up for the general for, what, 4 months no? :lol