Bernie Sanders

[boutons_deux]

After a rally of 28,000K in hippie Portland,

National Nurses United endorses Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410689/-National-Nurses-United-endorses-Bernie-Sanders-for-the-Democratic-nomination)

National Nurses United, which represents 185,000 nurses, most of them women, hosted a brunch with Sanders on Monday in Oakland, California.

The union's leadership announced there that they would formally back the senator and campaign on his behalf as he competes with front-runner Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

The union's executive director, RoseAnn DeMoro, told The Huffington Post that Sanders had earned the support of NNU's board and had won by a wide margin in a poll of the membership.

"We were stunned by the results," DeMoro said. "It was so overwhelming for Bernie Sanders."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/10/1410689/-National-Nurses-United-endorses-Bernie-Sanders-for-the-Democratic-nomination?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29#

[Clipper Nation]

He can never complain about money in politics again. Especially when Trump is funding his own campaign instead of begging for handouts like Bernie.

[boutons_deux]

He can never complain about money in politics again. Especially when Trump is funding his own campaign instead of begging for handouts like Bernie.

:lol WTF? Bernie wants campaign finance reform (your lovely Repugs want to kill what little finance regs are left), but w/o that, he still needs to raise money.

[DMX7]

He can never complain about money in politics again. Especially when Trump is funding his own campaign instead of begging for handouts like Bernie.

what? :lol

So you have to be a billionaire to run and have any real chance to win?

[Infinite_limit]

Why does this scrub deserve his own thread?

[Clipper Nation]

Bernie is already done:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/

[CosmicCowboy]

Bernie had all the stupid far left liberal/socialist fringe jump on the bus and that's it for him. Moderates are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie had all the stupid far left liberal/socialist fringe jump on the bus and that's it for him. Moderates are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

not far left, but For The People, which you richies and rightwignuts hate.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

[Infinite_limit]

Bernie is already done:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bernie-sanders-surge-appears-to-be-over/
Just saw a local news clip [He's in LA]

Scrub was still talking about racial equality. Disillusioned old man :lol

[hater]

That old man is adorable

[Infinite_limit]

Ouch


http://www.ijreview.com/2015/08/390505-donald-trump-just-called-out-blacklivesmatter-and-theyve-already-responded/

"2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump called out Senator Bernie Sanders Tuesday for allowing #BlackLivesMatter activists to shut down a rally in Seattle on Saturday.

“That was a disgrace,” Trump said at a press conference before a speech in Michigan on Tuesday, vowing it wouldn’t happen to him:


“I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will.”


#BlackLivesMatter Trump just called us out let's make sure we take his ****ing mic!!! Republicans are the real enemies


The #BlackLivesMatter folks better be at a Trump rally in the near future."



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UhUio29PP4

[Blizzardwizard]

Bernie had all the stupid far left liberal/socialist fringe jump on the bus and that's it for him. Moderates are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

I wouldn't describe Bernie as far left all, if anything I thought he'd appeal to the American moderate liberals more. If he loses support it's likely to be over something like gun control.

[m>s]

I wouldn't describe Bernie as far left all, if anything I thought he'd appeal to the American moderate liberals more. If he loses support it's likely to be over something like gun control.
Why is a britcuck so obsessed with American politics and gun laws?

[Blizzardwizard]

Why is a britcuck so obsessed with American politics and gun laws?

Why is an American so obsessed with the failings of another totalitarian movement spearheaded by cucks and feigling?

[m>s]

Why is an American so obsessed with the failings of another totalitarian movement spearheaded by cucks and feigling?
Because I'm German American, now answer my question and not with another question

[Infinite_limit]

I wouldn't describe Bernie as far left all, if anything I thought he'd appeal to the American moderate liberals more. If he loses support it's likely to be over something like gun control.
He is currently the image of the growing PC culture Trump spoke out against


http://i.imgur.com/5NDZ0av.jpg

[Blizzardwizard]

Because I'm German American, now answer my question and not with another question

Do you dictate what I can and cannot do, cuck? Answer that for me would you?

Would you describe me as 'Der Untermensch'? Do you think I promote Bolschewismus?

[Blizzardwizard]

He is currently the image of the growing PC culture Trump spoke out against



Of course Trump would speak out attacking 'young Liberals', younger people isn't where he's going to hoover up votes.

[m>s]

Hmmm interesting, he can't answer the question and reverted into some sort of infantile shit slinging mode

[Blizzardwizard]

Hmmm interesting, he can't answer the question and reverted into some sort of infantile shit slinging mode

'Infantile' :lol

"I just called someone out for talking about something, look how strong a fake Nazi I am :cry."

I would pay money to see you carry a fascist symbol through somewhere like Dusseldorf or Freiburg im Breisgau just to see one all time great ass whooping.

[m>s]

By who antifa? I already whipped their asses once. Are you really this scared of a question?

[Blizzardwizard]

By who antifa? I already whipped their asses once. Are you really this scared of a question?

I'm sure you did. What concern is it of yours that I talk about American politics? Do you want me to fill out a permission slip and e-mail it over to you?

[Infinite_limit]

http://i905.photobucket.com/albums/ac255/kegstermd/bernie%20bro_zpsyzkwk7ow.jpg

[m>s]

I'm sure you did. What concern is it of yours that I talk about America politics? Do you want me to fill out a permission slip and e-mail it over to you?
Did I say you needed permission? I said what is your vested interest in the two areas and you shat yourself.

[Blizzardwizard]

No, you said.


Why is a britcuck so obsessed with American politics and gun laws?

If you were genuinely interested and wanted to have an actual debate, I doubt you would've called me a britcuck. You just wanted a cheap reaction and it backfired.

Try again.

[Infinite_limit]

Of course Trump would speak out attacking 'young Liberals', younger people isn't where he's going to hoover up votes.
Young liberals aren't the first people I think of when I hear PC.

[m>s]

No, you said.



If you were genuinely interested and wanted to have an actual debate, I doubt you would've called me a britcuck. You just wanted a cheap reaction and it backfired.

Try again.this is exactly what I call a cheap reaction so If that's what I wanted then I definitely got it. The question had a twofold purpose: genuine curiosity and to expose you.

[Drachen]

It's over like Durant's chances at a chip.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/lil-b-based-god-black-lives-matter-clinton-sanders/

[Blizzardwizard]

this is exactly what I call a cheap reaction so If that's what I wanted then I definitely got it. The question had a twofold purpose: genuine curiosity and to expose you.

Well, golly, you've certainly exposed me with your double-edged twofold question.

To expose me of what exactly? You seem to be getting at this idea that I should feel bad for talking about American politics, and that I 'shat myself' because of it. I really don't understand what you're trying to do.

[m>s]

Why does a britbong care so much about American politics and gun rights? It really isn't that hard dude

[Blizzardwizard]

Why does a britbong care so much about American politics and gun rights? It really isn't that hard dude

Because I have a vested interest?? What more do you want from me and why do you care? :lmao

I'm not typing out an essay on command because some white trash Nazi sympathiser commanded me to do so.

Go read about democratic socialism, it'll give you good information on what real socialism is rather than your hypocritical leaders who were to pussy too out themselves as fascists so covered it up by pretending to be a utopian answer to Germany's problems.

[m>s]

Man all you've done is attack because you can't answer a simple question. And you just typed pretty close to an essay on command but somehow managed to still not answer the question..bravo. Just answering would have been simpler than typing that.

[m>s]

Because I have a vested interest
Exactly what I was talking about, now who or what are you shilling for. Do you do this because of your own beliefs on your own accord or are you part of something bigger?

[Blizzardwizard]

Exactly what I was talking about, now who or what are you shilling for. Do you do this because of your own beliefs on your own accord or are you part of something bigger?

'Shilling for'? WTF are you talking about :lol

Since you refuse to believe and accept the notion that I am interested because I am curious like a normal rational non-dumbfuck human being, and that I must have a hidden agenda, I'll tell you that I live in a garage draped in Soviet flags, a duvet with Gorbachev's face on it and that I speak perfect Russian in case of a KGB infiltration into my home so that I can cooperate.

Is that good enough for you, sport? Happy yet? Or should I delve into the late 1980s and my youth protests against Apartheid, to fill your quota.

[m>s]

You protested apartheid? You are literally scum. You know that white South Africans are now having their land taken away and being genocided right? Nice going

[Blizzardwizard]

You protested apartheid? You are literally scum. You know that white South Africans are now having their land taken away and being genocided right? Nice going

Protesting against racial segregation makes me scum?

Ok :lol

[Splits]

Bernie Sanders is not done: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/12/9136709/poll-sanders-clinton-biden


A new Franklin Pierce University/Boston Herald poll shows (http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2015/08/poll_bernie_sanders_surges_ahead_of_hillary_clinto n_in_nh_44_37) Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 44-37 percent among likely Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire. In March, the same poll showed Clinton leading Sanders 44-8.

:wow

[m>s]

Protesting against racial segregation makes me scum?

Ok :lol
What is wrong with racial segregation? At least white South Africans weren't being genocided

[boutons_deux]

CBO to Bernie Sanders: Ending sequester could create 1.4 million jobs (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/12/1411368/-CBO-to-Bernie-Sanders-Ending-sequester-could-create-1-4-million-jobs)

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just gave Democratic Leader Harry Reid an extremely useful gift: he asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the effects of ending the sequester—the automatic budget caps imposed by the 2011 Budget Control Act.

The CBO response (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/250862-cbo-full-sequestration-relief-could-add-as-many-as-14m-jobs) should help Reid negotiate a budget deal. Or it would, anyway, if Majority Leader Mitch McConnell really means it when he says he wants to govern.


Easing those ceilings would lead to increased government spending, which in turn would lead to an increase in economic output and higher employment, the CBO said."Fully eliminating the reductions would allow for an increase in appropriations of $90 billion in 2016 and $91 billion in 2017," CBO Director Keith Hall wrote in a letter to Sanders.

If Congress reverses the limits in fiscal 2016, for example, the CBO said it could result in the full-time employment of as few as 200,000 more people or as many as 800,000 more people. If the same were done for fiscal 2017, the CBO said it could similarly add as few as 100,000 jobs or as many as 600,000 jobs.

The CBO said sequestration relief would also cause the gross domestic product to grow by as much as 0.6 percent in 2016 and as much as 0.4 percent in 2017.


As many as 1.4 million jobs in two years is a lot of jobs.

In a short time frame. Of course, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the last year of President Obama's tenure is probably not something that Republicans would enjoy doing, even if they could claim it as their own victory since they control the Congress. No, they'd far rather toss around some bombs, like shutting down government over Planned Parenthood funding. Because that's just what they do.

At the same time, Sanders has given Democrats something very concrete to point to in what's going to be a huge political fight with real ramifications for 2016.

And it's a good political position for Democrats to be in, because it's such a clear, stark contrast.

Vote for the party trying to create jobs, or the one shutting down the government to try to take away women's health care.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/12/1411368/-CBO-to-Bernie-Sanders-Ending-sequester-could-create-1-4-million-jobs?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[SpursforSix]

CBO to Bernie Sanders: Ending sequester could create 1.4 million jobs (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/12/1411368/-CBO-to-Bernie-Sanders-Ending-sequester-could-create-1-4-million-jobs)



Lot's of "could"s in all that. I'll pass.

[Infinite_limit]

Protesting against racial segregation makes me scum?

Ok :lol
How do you sleep at night?

https://saboteur365.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/south-africa-genocide-7.jpg

[Blizzardwizard]

So we're playing the game where we ignore the crimes committed by white people in South Africa?

[Infinite_limit]

So we're playing the game where we ignore the crimes committed by white people in South Africa?
http://www.europeanknightsproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/South-African-Apartheid-Before-and-After.png

[m>s]

So we're playing the game where we ignore the crimes committed by white people in South Africa?
No such crimes were committed, nice try though. And hypothetically crimes committed in the past don't green light genocide today.

[Blizzardwizard]

https://joelsavage1.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/aparthied-6.jpg




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofwLg1vp4y0

[boutons_deux]

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-H.jpgere are the 4 recurring criticisms of Bernie Sanders by the mainstream media, and why they're wrong:

He doesn't appeal to Latinos and blacks.

Wrong. As his name recognition and message grow, Latinos and blacks are joining up because they recognize he's talking about the toxic interaction between racism and economic inequality. Last night's Sanders event in Los Angeles included large numbers of Latinos and blacks.



He's too far to the left to appeal to mainstream voters.

Wrong again. Many who consider themselves conservatives are just as outraged by crony capitalism and abuses of power. Sanders is helping give life to an encompassing progressive movement to take economic and political power away from an elite that's rigged the system against the vast majority.



He's too old.

Nonsense. He's only five years older than Hillary Clinton and two years older than Joe Biden, and anyone who's watched him zip around the country these past few months (usually by commercial aircraft) and give thunderous speeches know he's strong and vital.



He can't be elected.

That's what they said about John F. Kennedy, referring to his Catholicism, and Barack Obama, referring to his race and his name. The "can't be elected" mantra is meaningless this early in the race anyway.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31789-4-recurring-criticisms-of-bernie-sanders-and-why-theyre-wrong

[Infinite_limit]

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-H.jpgere are the 4 recurring criticisms of Bernie Sanders by the mainstream media, and why they're wrong:

He doesn't appeal to Latinos and blacks.

Wrong. As his name recognition and message grow, Latinos and blacks are joining up because they recognize he's talking about the toxic interaction between racism and economic inequality. Last night's Sanders event in Los Angeles included large numbers of Latinos and blacks.



He's too far to the left to appeal to mainstream voters.

Wrong again. Many who consider themselves conservatives are just as outraged by crony capitalism and abuses of power. Sanders is helping give life to an encompassing progressive movement to take economic and political power away from an elite that's rigged the system against the vast majority.



He's too old.

Nonsense. He's only five years older than Hillary Clinton and two years older than Joe Biden, and anyone who's watched him zip around the country these past few months (usually by commercial aircraft) and give thunderous speeches know he's strong and vital.



He can't be elected.

That's what they said about John F. Kennedy, referring to his Catholicism, and Barack Obama, referring to his race and his name. The "can't be elected" mantra is meaningless this early in the race anyway.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31789-4-recurring-criticisms-of-bernie-sanders-and-why-theyre-wrong



Mainstream media?

More like YOUTUBE clips






He doesn't appeal to Latinos and blacks.


Wrong. As his name recognition and message grow, Latinos and blacks are joining up because they recognize he's talking about the toxic interaction between racism and economic inequality. Last night's Sanders event in Los Angeles included large numbers of Latinos and blacks.


^ This is supposed to make him more appealing or less?

[Slutter McGee]

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-H.jpgere are the 4 recurring criticisms of Bernie Sanders by the mainstream media, and why they're wrong:

He doesn't appeal to Latinos and blacks.

Wrong. As his name recognition and message grow, Latinos and blacks are joining up because they recognize he's talking about the toxic interaction between racism and economic inequality. Last night's Sanders event in Los Angeles included large numbers of Latinos and blacks.



He's too far to the left to appeal to mainstream voters.

Wrong again. Many who consider themselves conservatives are just as outraged by crony capitalism and abuses of power. Sanders is helping give life to an encompassing progressive movement to take economic and political power away from an elite that's rigged the system against the vast majority.



He's too old.

Nonsense. He's only five years older than Hillary Clinton and two years older than Joe Biden, and anyone who's watched him zip around the country these past few months (usually by commercial aircraft) and give thunderous speeches know he's strong and vital.



He can't be elected.

That's what they said about John F. Kennedy, referring to his Catholicism, and Barack Obama, referring to his race and his name. The "can't be elected" mantra is meaningless this early in the race anyway.


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31789-4-recurring-criticisms-of-bernie-sanders-and-why-theyre-wrong




Left out one thing. He doesn't understand basic fucking economics.

Slutter McGee

[Nbadan]

This thread needs a graphic image warning in the title...

[boutons_deux]

Left out one thing. He doesn't understand basic fucking economics.

Slutter McGee

give us your profound mastery of economics and why Bernie doesn't understand fucking economics.

[Infinite_limit]

Embarrassing this is the #2 guy for Democrats

[Clipper Nation]

https://imgrush.com/8MaTkMk9Cmzx.png

[DMX7]

https://imgrush.com/8MaTkMk9Cmzx.png

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont Senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.


“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” said the political strategist Harland Dorrinson. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sander’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who is eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sanders-shamelessly-pandering-to-voters-who-want-to-hear-truth

[Clipper Nation]

You do realize that we all still know those articles are (unfunny) satire even when you put the URL in fine print, right?

[boutons_deux]

You do realize that we all still know those articles are (unfunny) satire even when you put the URL in fine print, right?

you're so clever, CN, but you're a rightwingnut, so ignorant, stupid by definition

[SpursforSix]

you're so clever, CN, but you're a rightwingnut, so ignorant, stupid by definition

I just realized that me and you...we could make a great team. I'll provide intelligent insight and commentary. And you can clean up my dog's poop.

[DMX7]

Real talk here, that picture of Bernie getting upstaged by #BLM was hysterical and pathetic. I like Bernie, but he needs to step up. He looked so weak when that happened.

[vy65]

https://imgrush.com/8MaTkMk9Cmzx.png

No better expression of the left's, and Sanders', cuckoldry than this ...

[ChumpDumper]

It wasn't actually Bernie's event, which explains some things.

[Clipper Nation]

http://i.imgur.com/tBlSk1t.jpg

[boutons_deux]

maybe redstaters finally realized that Repugs are screwing, and are ready to vote their own best interests?

Bernie Sanders’ Red State Revolution Causes 2 SC Rallies To Move To Bigger Venues

http://i1.wp.com/www.politicususa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/sanders-maine.jpg?resize=485%2C459


In a statement, the Sanders campaign announced that two upcoming rallies in South Carolina had to be moved to larger venues after crowd projections outgrew the original locations.

The Sanders campaign announced, “With turnout projections mounting, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign has shifted the location of Sunday’s rally in Charleston, South Carolina, to the Charleston Convention Center. The two-day swing includes stops in Greenville, Columbia and Sumter.”

Bernie Sanders has found fantastic success in red states. Sanders has drawn big crowds in Texas and Louisana, and he drew a then 2016 record crowd when 11,000 showed up to support him at a rally in Arizona. (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/18/bernie-sanders-sets-record-11000-show-rally-red-state-arizona.html)

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/19/bernie-sanders-red-state-revolution-2-sc-rallies-move-bigger-venues.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/19/bernie-sanders-red-state-revolution-2-sc-rallies-move-bigger-venues.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

nah, red staters are too fucking stupid to vote smart

[m>s]

Bernie golddimmeyogunzowics will never win, he's a fake candidate only supported by commies ha ha disputed these facts boutons go ahead and try

[boutons_deux]

Nate Silver: 'Stop Comparing Donald Trump And Bernie Sanders' (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/10/1419991/-Nate-Silver-Stop-Comparing-Donald-Trump-And-Bernie-Sanders)

Nate Silver took a look (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/stop-comparing-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders/) at the media's comparisons of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders and found them lacking. He makes ten points, each of which are blockquoted below and followed by my own reactions, but you'll have to click through to read the entirety of Silver's analysis.


1. Trump is “winning” (for now), and Sanders isn’t.

Silver thinks there is reason to believe Trump's lead won't hold. I've tended to agree, assuming that as the ridiculously large GOP field gets narrowed, supporters of mainstream Republicans will coalesce around another mainstream Republican. But I'm no longer sure that will matter. Ben Carson is now second in many polls, and when you add his numbers to those of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Ted Cruz, it appears that there may be enough unhinged GOP voters to carry Trump, after all. This shouldn't frighten Democrats now eyeing the head-to-head general election polls. Most Americans know the personality, but not his politics. Most Americans don't like bigotry and misogyny. My guess is that if Trump is the GOP nominee, Democrats could bring back Michael Dukakis and still win.


2. Sanders is campaigning on substantive policy positions, and Trump is largely campaigning on the force of his personality.

This is the big one, and if we ended up with a Sanders/Trump general election, it would become even more apparent. Trump is an ignorant blow-hole, and Sanders has a long, deep, and wide history of substantively analyzing and taking stands on issues. The guy is a wonk. Trump is an affectation.


3. Sanders is a career politician; Trump isn’t.

To the GOP base, that's a big plus for Trump. For voters who want a president that knows what he or she is doing, that's a big plus for Sanders. It's also another fundamental difference between the two men. Sanders is the real deal, while Trump is a fake tan and a bad toupee.There's more below.


4. Trump is getting considerably more media attention.

This says everything about the media. Silver looked at Yahoo News and found that over the past month, Trump has received more media "hits" than Sanders and Hillary Clinton combined. Of course, the media find it much easier to cover personalities than policies. It's their basic mode of operation.


5. Sanders has a much better “ground game.”

Sanders has a professional campaign apparatus in place, while Trump is more of a TV phenomenon. That can make a huge difference when it comes time for people to vote.


6. Sanders holds policy positions of a typical liberal Democrat; Trump’s are all over the place.

Sanders is not some whacky outsider trying to elbow into the Democratic base: He actually supports Democratic Party positions overwhelmingly often. This means base Democrats will like him. He even voted the same as Hillary Clinton 93 percent of the time when they served in the Senate together. Trump's positions align well with the GOP base on some issues, but are anathema on others. That will make it easier for Democrats to want to vote for Sanders, and harder for Republicans to want to vote for Trump.


7. Sanders’s support divides fairly clearly along ideological and demographic lines; Trump’s doesn’t.

This one may better serve Trump, whose support is ideologically widespread among Republicans. Sanders appeals primarily to white, liberal Democrats. That's not a secret, and it's where Sanders will have to expand his support if he's going to make a serious run at Clinton for the nomination. However, polls do show that Democratic voters who don't prefer Sanders as their first choice are fine with him as their second choice. As is the case in reverse—it's not that Clinton's supporters don't like Sanders, it's just that they like Clinton more.


8. Sanders’s candidacy has clear historical precedents; they’re less obvious for Trump.

Silver compares Sanders to previous insurgent Democratic candidates, such as Bill Bradley, Howard Dean and Eugene McCarthy. They all gave the mainstream candidate a scare, but ultimately fell short. But Trump is more openly hostile to the GOP than were previous insurgent Republican candidates. Given how much the GOP base hates all things government, that may actually help Trump in the primaries.


9. Trump is running against a field of 16 candidates; Sanders is running against one overwhelming front-runner.

The diluted Republican field has prevented the GOP establishment from rallying behind just one of their own, and has helped Trump jump to his current lead. I will add that it also means Trump's lead is a relatively small plurality, which may or may not grow as other candidates drop out. See my comment on Silver's point No. 1. But were the Democratic field as diluted, Sanders might also enjoy a plurality lead.


10. Trump is a much greater threat to his party establishment.

Sanders is an outsider. But because he has aligned with Democrats so often, if he were to win the nomination the Democratic establishment base wouldn't have a lot of trouble aligning behind him. The Republican establishment would have a much tougher time rallying behind Trump. His open hostility to the party, his animosity toward right wing media, and his apostasy on some key Republican issues means that if he did win the nomination, the GOP establishment might not even mind if he lost. The GOP establishment does not like not being in command. As Silver says:


A Trump nomination would be more of an existential threat to the Republican establishment.

Could Trump win without it? Not likely. It's even less likely given his inattention to the ground game, which would make him particularly dependent on the party's. Sanders would have the entire Democratic establishment behind him and he'd have his own ground apparatus. He'd have his long experience both with the politics of politics, with understanding and articulating his understanding of the issues, and he'd have stands on the issues that are much more aligned with those of the electorate than are Trump's.

The media love a simplistic narrative, and for them equating the outsider candidacies of Trump and Sanders is too easy.

But as is so often the case with narratives promoted by the major media, this one is also absurdly wrong.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/10/1419991/-Nate-Silver-Stop-Comparing-Donald-Trump-And-Bernie-Sanders?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos %29

[CosmicCowboy]

It's gonna break Boos heart when Biden announces and Bernie becomes a has been footnote of the 2016 election.

Biden is just waiting for the Pope to come and go to announce so his announcement doesn't get trampled by the news cycle.

[boutons_deux]

It's gonna break Boos heart when Biden announces and Bernie becomes a has been footnote of the 2016 election.

Biden is just waiting for the Pope to come and go to announce so his announcement doesn't get trampled by the news cycle.

I have no expectations for Bernie. Cinderella was a fairy tale.

Bernie will pull both Hillary and Joe from center right to left in the campaign, although of course campaigns are all lies and propaganda, not eventual legislative/executive actions. Insane, anarchical Repug extremists will block all progress.

which of Bernie's campaign issues do you disagree with: https://berniesanders.com/issues/

[m>s]

All of them, stop shilling for this guy

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

Happy merchant Jr. says feel the bern goyim!

http://i.imgur.com/0QsJROT.jpg

Found Blake's twitter account

http://i.imgur.com/xUJU7GV.jpg

[boutons_deux]

As His Leads Grow In Iowa And NH, Bernie Sanders Shows His Foreign Policy Chops

Bernie Sanders is building on his leads in Iowa and New Hampshire by showcasing his knowledge of foreign policy, and his peaceful path forward for the United States.

According to the latest CBS News battleground tracker polls (https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/09/13/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-cbs-battleground-poll/), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has increased his leads Iowa and New Hampshire to ten and twenty points respectively over Hillary Clinton. Sanders now leads Clinton 43%-33% in Iowa and 52%-30% in New Hampshire.

The poll tells a different story in South Carolina as Clinton leads Sanders 46%-23%, and Sanders has the lowest growth potential will only 11% of those polled saying that he would be their second choice in South Carolina.His success in the polls has led to Sanders beginning to broaden the scope of his campaign. On Meet The Press, Sen. Sanders discussed his view of how to handle the Middle East.

Sanders said, “I think clearly the now is not who is at fault. The issue is now what we do, and what we do is bring the region together. Countries like Saudi Arabia, which has the third largest military budget in the world. Turkey, other countries are going to have to get their hands dirty on the ground in taking on ISIS.

I believe strongly that the U.S., the UK, other countries should be supportive, but I disagree strongly that the United States should have combat troops in that area. I fear very much that we will be in perpetual warfare in that region. I do not want to see that occur.”

Sen. Sanders was at risk of being labeled a one-note economic populist candidate, but his status as the leader in Iowa and New Hampshire has given him the time and the platform to expand his campaign. The Sanders foreign policy message is going to be very popular with Democratic primary voters who also fear a return to perpetual war in the Middle East.Bernie Sanders doesn’t have the same kind of foreign policy experience as former Sec. of State Clinton, but he is no slouch in the area of foreign affairs.

The Sanders campaign understands that to win the Democratic nomination, their candidate must be well rounded.

A lot can and will change before voters cast their votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, but Bernie Sanders is morphing from an underdog to a candidate who is battling on equal footing with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/13/leads-grow-iowa-nh-bernie-sanders-shows-foreign-policy-chops.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

This week, Hillary went to hawkish, neocon think tank and gave hawkish, neocon speech. She's been a hawkish neocon forever, probably trying to show that going to war is no problem for a woman.

[Blizzardwizard]

The political alignment is shifting. Bernie leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, the most left wing socialist of the last 40 years in Britain (Jeremy Corbyn) has been made leader of the opposition.

Neo-liberalism is dying.

[boutons_deux]

The political alignment is shifting. Bernie leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, the most left wing socialist of the last 40 years in Britain (Jeremy Corbyn) has been made leader of the opposition.

Neo-liberalism is dying.

In US, Repugs have gerrymandering (safe, unchallenged seats) and voter suppression, so if they can't win Congressional majorities, they can OBSTRUCT 100% of everything Dem as they have since 2011.

America is fucked by the Repugs, and unfuckable. I doubt a Dem Pres in 2016 will have much coattails.

[hater]

Nobody is voting for barney in a general election. Lets move on

[boutons_deux]

Mr Balls Bernie speaking at Liberty "university of bullshit indoctrination" today.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Goes Into The Lion’s Den and Tears Apart GOP Religious Hypocrites At Liberty

In an amazing speech, Sen. Bernie Sanders went to Liberty University this morning and gave right-wing evangelicals a dose of progressive faith, and tore apart the hypocrisy of supposedly faith-based Republicans defending immoral economic policies.Sanders explained why he agreed to speak at Liberty,

“I came here today because I believe that it is important for those with different views in our country to engage in civil discourse – not just to shout at each other or make fun of each other. It is very easy for those in politics to talk to those who agree with us. I do that every day. It is harder, but not less important, to try to communicate with those who do not agree with us and see where, if possible, we can find common ground and, in other words, to reach out of our zone of comfort.”

Later Sen. Sanders turned the Republican support of inequality on its moral ear:

Let me be very frank. I understand that issues such as abortion and gay marriage are very important to you and that we disagree on those issues. I get that. But let me respectfully suggest that there are other issues out there that are of enormous consequence to our country and the world and that maybe, just maybe, we don’t disagree on them. And maybe, just maybe, we can work together in trying to resolve them.

It would, I think, be hard for anyone in this room to make the case that the United States today is a just society or anything close to a just society. In America today, there is massive injustice in terms of income and wealth inequality. Injustice is rampant.

There is no justice when the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. There is no justice when all over this country people are working longer hours for lower wages, while 58 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent.



There is no justice when, in recent years, we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires while, at the same time, the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. Twenty percent of all children – and 40 percent of African-American children – now live in poverty.

There is no justice when, in a rigged economy, the 15 wealthiest people in this country in the last two years saw their wealth increase by $170 billion. That is more wealth, acquired in a two-year period, than is owned by the bottom 130 million Americans.

There is no justice when low-income and working-class mothers are forced to be separated from their new babies one or two weeks after giving birth because they must go back to work to sustain their family and because the United States is the only major country on earth that does not provide paid family and medical leave.

There is no justice when thousands of people in this country die each year because they don’t have health insurance and don’t get to a doctor when they should.

Republicans don’t have an exclusive on morality, justice, and faith. Sen. Sanders called out the Republican hypocrites who warp the Bible to defend income inequality.

Sen. Sanders was brilliant. He turned the Republicans’ moral argument in defense of the billionaires against them.Bernie Sanders made the inequality and poverty in the United States a moral issue.

His argument was compelling. He discussed the immorality of the right’s economic policies.

To progressive Christians, how some Republicans have warped religion to defend policies that harm millions of Americans in need is a matter of outrage.Sen. Sanders said that the poor and the wretched had a right to go to a doctor when they are sick.

Sanders said, “Money and wealth should serve the people. The people should not serve money and wealth.”

Sanders struck at the heart of a basic ideological hypocrisy, and in the process found some common ground with the students at Liberty University.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/14/bernie-sanders-lions-den-tears-gop-religious-hypocrites-liberty.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

No doubt, the brain-washed, indoctrinated stooges heard nothing.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie in Christian Taliban Wonderland

Liberty U pastor tells Bernie Sanders that cops shoot unarmed black people because of sin — not racism

“We would say, and I think I speak for many of our students, that it’s not so much a skin issue as much as it is a sin issue,” Nasser said to thunderous and sustained applause. “That we can change the behavior of police, we could put cameras on them all day long, but behavior modification can only stop so short as identity change. I think we want what you want.”

Nasser, who migrated to the U.S. as a child (http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?PID=18495&MID=123880) from Iran and later converted to Christianity, assured Sanders that he and the Christian students shared the same concerns, but he suggested more pro-business solutions.

“I think where you’re going to find commonality is at Liberty University,” Nasser said. “We’re not interested in making sure people are invited to sit in the bus or even sit at a restaurant table — we want to see them own the bus and own the restaurant.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/liberty-u-pastor-tells-bernie-sanders-that-cops-shoot-unarmed-black-people-because-of-sin-not-racism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

Down the Christian Taliban rabbit hole...

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CO4SC9AVEAAQRUi.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders's $18 trillion in proposed spending is more affordable than it sounds

Implementing the entire Bernie Sanders policy agenda would cost a staggering $18 trillion (http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511), according to a somewhat alarmist Wall Street Journal article about Iowa's favorite social democrat. And it's true. Sanders would substantially increase the size of explicit federal spending.

But his proposals are also more affordable than you might think.

https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/9xsuEjKZpK0Hf46-eOUuJffkE8o=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4063406/sanderscost.jpg

As you can see from the WSJ's handy graphic, this "$18 trillion" cost over 10 years can be basically broken down into two buckets.

There's a $15 trillion Medicare-for-all plan, and then there's everything else. Everything else tallies up to $3 trillion over 10 years. That is a lot of money. It is, however, $400 billion cheaper than Jeb Bush's tax cut plan (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9300871/jeb-bush-tax-plan). So the typical middle-class family will get $942 from Jeb Bush (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9326453/jeb-bush-tax-plan-distribution), while in Sanders-land the typical middle-class family will get free college, paid parental leave, and a bunch of new transportation infrastructure — plus Sanders averts the need to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age.

So what about this $15 trillion business? Well, Sanders is proposing to have the federal government pay for everyone's doctor visits, hospital stays, and medical procedures, just the way it currently does for people over the age of 65. Obviously that's an expensive undertaking. But right now private health insurance plans are projected to spend $14 trillion over the next 10 years, and people are forecast to incur $4 trillion in out-of-pocket expenses. Turning $18 trillion of private spending into $15 trillion of government spending while also expanding access to insurance would actually be an incredibly impressive trick. If you financed it with a broad-based payroll tax (the way Social Security is financed), people with job-based insurance plans wouldn't even notice the difference — today's insurance premium line on your pay stub would become a tax line.

The reasonable question to ask about this is not whether it would be affordable, but whether it's actually true that America could pull off this kind of vast expansion of Medicare while retaining its low cost structure. It's certainly possible in theory, but when Sanders's home state of Vermont tried it, the plan collapsed in the legislature (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin) over working out the details.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9330931/bernie-sanders-spending-cost

[boutons_deux]

Clinton Camp Goes Negative on Bernie Sanders for First Time

A mailer compares Sanders to Britain's Jeremy Corbyn and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.

Clinton's camp has long said it has no plans to attack Sanders. But the super PAC, called Correct the Record, departed from its defense of Clinton's record as a former secretary of state in an email Monday that compares Sanders with Corbyn. Correct the Record, led by Clinton ally David Brock, also has sent trackers after Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley.

Correct the Record shares office space (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CO6nJPnVEAQKakG.png) with Media Matters which has, of late, done virtually no defending of Bernie Sanders while it runs daily counter-spin for Clinton (https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Ammfa%20clinton&src=typd). The last story Media Matters tweeted about the Vermont senator was July 26 (https://twitter.com/mmfa/status/625062992229457921).

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/clinton-camp-goes-negative-bernie-sanders-first-time?akid=13478.187590.er6CH2&rd=1&src=newsletter1042449&t=4

[Infinite_limit]

Bernie the cuck still around?

Dark times for Democratic Party. A cuck or a feminist.

[DMX7]

He's not a cuck or a feminist.

[boutons_deux]

No, Bernie Sanders' Domestic Policy Plan Doesn't Really Cost $18 Trillion


It depends on how you look at it. First, there's a set of proposals that the Journalestimates would cost about $3.4 trillion. That's not pocket change, but it's about as much as Jeb Bush's tax cut. The big difference is that Jeb's tax cuts mostly benefit the rich, while Bernie's proposals mostly benefit the poor and the middle class. You can decide for yourself which you prefer.

Then there's the $15 trillion price tag for universal health care. Is this a fair estimate? It's probably in the ballpark. Private heath insurance accounted for about $1 trillion in spending last year, and assuming reasonable growth that will probably come to around $15 trillion over the course of a decade.

But here's the thing: this is money we already spend. Right now, employers and workers pay insurance companies $1 trillion for health care. Under Bernie's plan, we'd instead pay that money to the federal government. Generally speaking, this would be invisible to most of us. Behind the scenes, our dollars would flow to a different place, and that's about it.

So the Sanders plan wouldn't actually take money out of our pockets. It's a wash. It needs to be evaluated instead on all the usual metrics. Would the government do a better job of holding down costs? Would government control distort market signals? Would innovation suffer? Would most of us have more choice in health care providers? Would more people be covered? Etc.

Bottom line: You should think of the Sanders plan as costing about $3.4 trillion. You may or may not like the idea of universal health care, but it wouldn't have much impact on how much money you actually take home each week.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/no-bernie-sanders-domestic-policy-plan-doesnt-really-cost-18-trillion

Murdoch's Repug WSJ distorting, misinforming, LYING. nah, never

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders's $18 trillion in proposed spending is more affordable than it sounds

Sanders would substantially increase the size of explicit federal spending.

But his proposals are also more affordable than you might think.

As you can see from the WSJ's handy graphic, this "$18 trillion" cost over 10 years can be basically broken down into two buckets.

There's a $15 trillion Medicare-for-all plan, and then there's everything else. Everything else tallies up to $3 trillion over 10 years. That is a lot of money. It is, however, $400 billion cheaper than Jeb Bush's tax cut plan (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9300871/jeb-bush-tax-plan). So the typical middle-class family will get $942 from Jeb Bush (http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9326453/jeb-bush-tax-plan-distribution), while in Sanders-land the typical middle-class family will get free college, paid parental leave, and a bunch of new transportation infrastructure — plus Sanders averts the need to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age.

So what about this $15 trillion business? Well, Sanders is proposing to have the federal government pay for everyone's doctor visits, hospital stays, and medical procedures, just the way it currently does for people over the age of 65. Obviously that's an expensive undertaking. But right now private health insurance plans are projected to spend $14 trillion over the next 10 years, and people are forecast to incur $4 trillion in out-of-pocket expenses.

Turning $18 trillion of private spending into $15 trillion of government spending while also expanding access to insurance would actually be an incredibly impressive trick. If you financed it with a broad-based payroll tax (the way Social Security is financed), people with job-based insurance plans wouldn't even notice the difference — today's insurance premium line on your pay stub would become a tax line.

The reasonable question to ask about this is not whether it would be affordable, but whether it's actually true that America could pull off this kind of vast expansion of Medicare while retaining its low cost structure. It's certainly possible in theory, but when Sanders's home state of Vermont tried it, the plan collapsed in the legislature (http://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin) over working out the details.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/15/9330931/bernie-sanders-spending-cost

[Infinite_limit]

He's not a cuck or a feminist.
Bernie - cuck
Hillary - feminist


Rather have a loud mouth who doesn't shy away from holding people accountable

[DMX7]

Why do you think he's a cuck?

[spurraider21]

Lol boutons and lol that "article"

:lol his plan is 18 trillion but you should think of it as 3.4 trillion
:lol oh ok

[DMX7]

Lol boutons and lol that "article"

:lol his plan is 18 trillion but you should think of it as 3.4 trillion
:lol oh ok

$3.4 trillion over 10 years for a country the size of the USA is not absurd.

In theory at least, it is an investment that will help spark economic growth that will in turn help generate more tax revenue.

[spurraider21]

Except it's not 3.4 trillion it's 18

[boutons_deux]

Except it's not 3.4 trillion it's 18

18 is WSJ's kill-this-idea FUD number.

over 10 years, US economy churns through $150T (if the Banksters don't screw us again)

[Infinite_limit]

Why do you think he's a cuck?
Too idealistic. Would crumble under the scrutiny

https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1439/15/1439150694561.jpg

[boutons_deux]

15 jaw-dropping quotes from Bernie Sanders at Liberty University

1) “Liberty University is a religious school, obviously. [...] And you try to understand, in this very complicated modern world that we live in, what the words of the Bible mean in today's society.”

2) “In the Pope's view, and I agree with him, we are living [...] in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth.”

3) “You know there is a lot of talk in this country from politicians about family values. [...] In my view there is no justice when low income and working class mothers are forced to separate from their babies one or two weeks after birth and go back to work because they need the money that their jobs provide.”

4) “I understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. We disagree on those issues. [But let me respectfully suggest that there are other issues [that] we can try to work together to resolve them.”

5) “I am not a theologian, I am not an expert on the Bible, nor am I a Catholic. I am just a United States senator from the small state of Vermont.”

6) “There is too much shouting at each other. There is too much making fun of each other.”

7) “I am motivated by a vision, [...] so beautifully and clearly stated in Matthew 7:12, and it states, ‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do to you, for this sums up the war and the prophets.’ That is the golden rule.”

8) “Injustice is rampant. We live, [...] in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. But most Americans don't know that. Because almost all of that wealth and income is going to the top one percent.”

9) “In my view, there is no justice, when here, in Virginia and Vermont and all over this country, millions of people are working long hours for abysmally low wages of $7.25 an hour.”

10) “Put this in the context of the Bible, not me, [...] we are living in a time where a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension.”

11) “I think that when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children. The poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick.”

12) “You have to think about it and you have to feel it in your guts. Are you content? Do you think it's moral when 20 percent of the children in this country [are] living in poverty?”

13) “‘The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose,’” he said, quoting Pope Francis.

14) “In your hearts, you will have to determine the morality of that, and the justice of that.”

15) “I conclude with this thought, I would hope very much that as part of that discussion and part of that learning process, some of you will conclude that if we are honest in striving to be a moral and just society, it is imperative that we have the courage to stand with the poor, to stand with working people and when necessary, take on very powerful and wealthy people whose greed, in my view, is doing this country enormous harm.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/15-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-bernie-sanders-at-liberty-university/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

yep, Bernie sounds like the garden-variety, run-of-the-mill bullshitting politician

I wonder if we'll hear how Liberty U's indoctrinated drones responded?

[spurraider21]

18 is WSJ's kill-this-idea FUD number.

over 10 years, US economy churns through $150T (if the Banksters don't screw us again)
Don't compare GDP to budget. It makes you look dumb(er)

[TeyshaBlue]

Lol boutons and lol that "article"

:lol his plan is 18 trillion but you should think of it as 3.4 trillion
:lol oh ok

:lol vox
:lmao mother jones

[boutons_deux]

The SMEAR

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/and0915j_500_376.jpg

and since most Americans are too dumbfuck to know what socialism is, and how https://berniesanders.com/issues/ is not socialism, the Repug/Fox/VRWC smearing, a total lie, will probably work. Conservative political success depends on the emotionality, stupidity, ignorance of conservative voters. A great way to run a country.

[Warlord23]

Lol boutons and lol that "article"

:lol his plan is 18 trillion but you should think of it as 3.4 trillion
:lol oh ok


:lol vox
:lmao mother jones

IDK if you guys are just trolling boutons, but the article makes a valid point. The $15 trillion over 10 years on "Medicare for All" is not new health spending, it's a substitute for the spend that's happening anyway through more inefficient channels. That spend can either go to private insurance firms or to a single payer public model. The US currently spends approximately $3 trillion per year on healthcare. Per capita spending on healthcare is about 80% higher than Germany and nearly 150% higher than the UK.

Having said that, America will not be able to control healthcare costs as well as other developed nations even if Medicare for all is implemented. The data shows that while Medicare is more efficient than private insurance, it is not as efficient as the UK/Canadian/French/German systems or even the VA or Medicaid. One reason is that Medicare doesn't have the same market share/clout as in other countries, and the other reason is that Medicare is prohibited (by the 2003 Medicare law) from negotiating prices with prescription drug makers.

Basically, unless the public holds elected officials accountable for the handouts they give to their donors, the average American will continue to pay steep prices for a mediocre health system.

[boutons_deux]

:lol vox
:lmao mother jones

TB :lol always with the devastating, loquacious, content-free take down.

[boutons_deux]

“If a bank is too big to fail, it is”—he paused,

and a chorus of voices echoed in unison—“too big to exist!”

Sanders cracked a smile. “You know my speeches better than I do," he said.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-sanders-barnstorms-south-speaking-swelling-crowds?akid=13479.187590.W7-0HC&rd=1&src=newsletter1042471&t=4

[Blizzardwizard]

Too idealistic. Would crumble under the scrutiny



Idealistic for not accepting that he should bend over for the corporations and big business like all the other politicians?

[Clipper Nation]

Idealistic for not accepting that he should bend over for the corporations and big business like all the other politicians?
He bent over for a few protesters, imagine what Putin and the lobbyists would do to him :lol

[boutons_deux]

Don't compare GDP to budget. It makes you look dumb(er)

18 is WSJ's kill-this-idea FUD number.

over 10 years, US economy churns through $150T (if the Banksters don't screw us again)

[ducks]

why do you use words if when you state something
anybody can do that

[boutons_deux]

He bent over for a few protesters

what alternative behavior would you, dickless Macho Man, have preferred from Bernie?

[DMX7]

The SMEAR

http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/cartoonuploads/and0915j_500_376.jpg

and since most Americans are too dumbfuck to know what socialism is, and how https://berniesanders.com/issues/ is not socialism, the Repug/Fox/VRWC smearing, a total lie, will probably work. Conservative political success depends on the emotionality, stupidity, ignorance of conservative voters. A great way to run a country.

He self-identifies as a socialist.

[DMX7]

Except it's not 3.4 trillion it's 18

It's not a new expense for Americans though. At least in theory, it's just paying your insurance premium to the government instead of to your employer plan. We have to see the details to see whether it creates a deficit or not.

[boutons_deux]

He self-identifies as a socialist.

socialism is above all the common ownership of the means of production, rather than by capitalists.

Bernie probably should call himself a democratic socialist because he does not now, nor ever, call for the takeover of private enterprise.

Democratic socialism is another phrase for "government of the people, by the people, for the people (shall not perish from the earth)" but such government has perished in the USA as BigCorp and 1% now control govt for themselves, to extract wealth from The People.

[DMX7]

socialism is above all the common ownership of the means of production, rather than by capitalists.

Then what is communism?

[boutons_deux]

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

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

... and there's probably a lot diversity in the definitions. None them describe Bernie's career or campaign planks.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders vows to strike down absurd federal marijuana money laws


“Do you believe that it is the purview of the federal government to legislate the criminalization of marijuana?” Walker asked.

“What the federal government can do is say to the state of Colorado that if you choose to vote to legalize marijuana, we will allow you to do that without restrictions,” said Sanders.

“As I understand it,” he said, “in Colorado, people who run marijuana shops can’t put their money in banks, for example.

That’s a violation of federal law.

So I think there are things that the federal government can do that would make it easier for states that want to go in that direction to be able to do so.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/bernie-sanders-vows-to-strike-down-absurd-federal-marijuana-money-laws/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[boutons_deux]

15 jaw-dropping quotes from Bernie Sanders at Liberty University

1) “Liberty University is a religious school, obviously. [...] And you try to understand, in this very complicated modern world that we live in, what the words of the Bible mean in today's society.”

2) “In the Pope's view, and I agree with him, we are living [...] in a world which worships not love of brothers and sisters, not love of the poor and the sick, but worships the acquisition of money and great wealth.”

3) “You know there is a lot of talk in this country from politicians about family values. [...] In my view there is no justice when low income and working class mothers are forced to separate from their babies one or two weeks after birth and go back to work because they need the money that their jobs provide.”

4) “I understand that the issues of abortion and gay marriage are issues that you feel very strongly about. We disagree on those issues. we can try to work together to resolve them.”

5) “I am not a theologian, I am not an expert on the Bible, nor am I a Catholic. I am just a United States senator from the small state of Vermont.”

6) “There is too much shouting at each other. There is too much making fun of each other.”

7) “I am motivated by a vision, [...] so beautifully and clearly stated in Matthew 7:12, and it states, ‘So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do to you, for this sums up the war and the prophets.’ That is the golden rule.”

8) “Injustice is rampant. We live, [...] in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. But most Americans don't know that. Because almost all of that wealth and income is going to the top one percent.”

9) “In my view, there is no justice, when here, in Virginia and Vermont and all over this country, millions of people are working long hours for abysmally low wages of $7.25 an hour.”

10) “Put this in the context of the Bible, not me, [...] we are living in a time where a handful of people have wealth beyond comprehension.”

11) “I think that when we talk about morality, what we are talking about is all of God's children. The poor, the wretched, they have a right to go to a doctor when they are sick.”

12) “You have to think about it and you have to feel it in your guts. Are you content? Do you think it's moral when 20 percent of the children in this country [are] living in poverty?”

13) “‘The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose,’” he said, quoting Pope Francis.

14) “In your hearts, you will have to determine the morality of that, and the justice of that.”

15) “I conclude with this thought, I would hope very much that as part of that discussion and part of that learning process, some of you will conclude that if we are honest in striving to be a moral and just society, it is imperative that we have the courage to stand with the poor, to stand with working people and when necessary, take on very powerful and wealthy people whose greed, in my view, is doing this country enormous harm.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/15-jaw-dropping-quotes-from-bernie-sanders-at-liberty-university/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

yep, Bernie sounds like the garden-variety, run-of-the-mill bullshitting politician

I wonder if we'll hear how Liberty U's indoctrinated drones responded?


An Evangelical responds to Sanders' speech at Liberty U (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421659/-An-Evangelical-responds-to-Sanders-speech-at-Liberty-U)



He was convicting the Christian leaders and the religious leaders in that university, and calling us out for being complicit in the abandonment of those who suffer, the least of these, and siding with the powerful and rich, the masters of this world.

And he was convicting us and calling us out, and we scorned him, and we stared him down; and, with sour faces, we thought, "Who is this wacko, and why do all these people seem to follow him, seem to like him – this wild-haired Jew, crying out from the wilderness of the political left, in his hoarse voice?"


When I heard Bernie speaking in that way, when I saw that guy on stage at Liberty University, I saw John the Baptist...crying out to the religious leaders, the Pharisees of his day, calling them corrupt and complicit with those who have all the power and all the money and all the wealth, and abandoning the people that God loves, that God cares about...


As I heard Bernie Sanders crying out to the religious leaders at Liberty University, in his hoarse voice, with his wild hair – this Jew – and he proclaimed justice over us, he called us to account, for being complicit with those who are wealthy and those who are powerful, and for abandoning the poor, the least of these, who Jesus said he had come to bring good news to.

And in that moment something occurred to me.

As I saw Bernie Sanders up there, as I watched him, I realized Bernie Sanders for president is good news for the poor.

Bernie Sanders for president is Good News for the poor.

Bernie Sanders is gospel for the poor.

And Jesus said "I have come to bring gospel" – good news – "to the poor."

And lightning hit my heart at that moment.

And I realized that we are evangelical Christians.

We believe the Bible.

We believe in Jesus.

We absolutely shun those who would attempt to find nuance and twisted and tortured interpretations of scripture that they would use to master all other broader interpretations, to find some kind of big message that they want to flout.

We absolutely scorn such things, and yet somehow we commit to the mental gymnastics necessary that allows us to abandon the least of these, to abandon the poor, to abandon the immigrants, to abandon those who are in prison.

I listened to Bernie Sanders as he said he wanted to welcome the immigrants and give them dignity, as he said he wanted to care for the sick children and mothers and fathers who do not have health care, as he said he wanted to decrease the amount of human beings who are corralled like cattle in the prisons, as he said he wanted to do justice for those who have nothing and live homeless.

And I remembered the words of Jesus who warned his disciples that there will be judgement, and on that day he will look to his friends, and he will say "Blessed are you for you cared for me, for I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you cared for me, I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was in prison and you came to visit me, I was homeless and you gave me shelter."



And his disciples said, "When did we do any of those things for you?" And he said, "If you have done it for the least of these, you have done it for me."
Those words echoed in my heart as I listened to that crazy, hoarse-voiced, wild-haired Jew standing in front of the religous leaders of the Evangelical Movement, calling us to account, as a Jew once did before, telling us that he intends to care for the least of these, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to care for the sick, to set the prisoners free.



I wouldn't be much of a Christian if I didn't stand on the side of gospel for the poor, because, the last time I checked, that's where my master Jesus stood, and I'll stand with Him.

[B]And, for now, that means I stand with Bernie Sanders.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421659/-An-Evangelical-responds-to-Sanders-speech-at-Liberty-U?detail=email

[TeyshaBlue]

Fucking Bible Humping Christians!

[TeyshaBlue]

I like Bernie for the same reason I like Trump. He's so far outside of the box he's in another fucking area code.

[Infinite_limit]

what alternative behavior would you, dickless Macho Man, have preferred from Bernie?
Elections are sometimes won on 10-second sound bite. The bullying by BlackLivesMatter destroyed his campaign.

Many Non-Blacks will not be able to get over that. Especially during the PC war raging

[boutons_deux]

Fucking Bible Humping Christians!

some are sincere squirrels, are not ideologically destroyed, nor rejected civil society, and find a nut

[101A]

Democratic socialism is another phrase for "government of the people, by the people, for the people (shall not perish from the earth)"...



Is that the definition now?

Then I'm a socialist.

[101A]

And the "people" can vote out anyone they choose every 2, 4 or 6 years. I agree this government is not for the people, but it is the government the people keep choosing.

[101A]

If you have the "by", does it make the "for" untenable?

Are people too stupid to know what's good for them?

[JoeChalupa]

The real fight begins on the first democratic debate.

[boutons_deux]

Is that the definition now?

Then I'm a socialist.

Welcome!

[boutons_deux]

And the "people" can vote out anyone they choose every 2, 4 or 6 years. I agree this government is not for the people, but it is the government the people keep choosing.

False. the oligarchy finds, grooms, presents, funds the candidates.

People "believe" the myth that their votes "counts", that they are not disenfranchised, but they get policies and programs that help them, only ones that protect, enrich, enable the oligarchy.

[boutons_deux]

If you have the "by", does it make the "for" untenable?

Are people too stupid to know what's good for them?

certainly, red state low-info (stupid, ignorant), low-wage, low-education Repug/tea bagger voters repeatedly vote against their own financial interests while voting for some social issue bullshit dishonestly pushed in their faces as campaign issues.

[Quetzal-X]

certainly, red state low-info (stupid, ignorant), low-wage, low-education Repug/tea bagger voters repeatedly vote against their own financial interests while voting for some social issue bullshit dishonestly pushed in their faces as campaign issues.

THATS RIGHT!

[101A]

certainly, red state low-info (stupid, ignorant), low-wage, low-education Repug/tea bagger voters repeatedly vote against their own financial interests while voting for some social issue bullshit dishonestly pushed in their faces as campaign issues.


SOOOOO. If we had enough blue; for instance, a democratic president AND congress - everything would be fixed? We ought to try that.

[101A]

certainly, red state low-info (stupid, ignorant), low-wage, low-education Repug/tea bagger voters repeatedly vote against their own financial interests while voting for some social issue bullshit dishonestly pushed in their faces as campaign issues.


I'm in a purple state (Pa). Doesn't seem to be working in my financial interest very well. I do fine, but the state works for the state; self-strengthening, self perpetuating. Taxes higher, teachers paid more, but education isn't any better. Kids learn how much we push them to learn/teach them at home in either place (lived in Texas until '05).

[101A]

Your rants would work better Boutons if you'd go ahead and embrace the truth YOU KNOW is there: The Republicans and Democrats are in this together. They BOTH play to their crowds to keep them in power/which they divide nationally about evenly. Creates stability for those at the top, while fomenting constant friction for everyone else.

[boutons_deux]

Like TX, PA is blue in the cities and red elsewhere.

Like JimmyRicky's $5B ed cut, PA cut school budget by $1B, how are teachers getting paid more? And PA just passed, like JimmyRicky, or is passing, a property tax cut. PA is currently much more red in MISgovernance, than blue.

[101A]

Like TX, PA is blue in the cities and red elsewhere.

how are teachers getting paid more?

School age population is down; not as many to educate. Much of the cuts were aimed at University support (wife is a prof. at a state school); tuition is up at university. Property taxes & local income taxes have gone up to compensate for less coming from the state at the school level. Starting teacher salary in the district I live in is $62,000/yr.

[boutons_deux]

Sanders to push a plan to ban private companies from running prisons

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will unveil a plan Thursday to ban privately run jails and prisons, which he says have a “perverse incentive” to increase the number of incarcerated people in the country.
Under the proposal by the Democratic presidential hopeful, the federal government would have three years to end its practice of using private companies to keep people behind bars. The ban would also apply to state and local governments, which have increasingly turned to private contractors in a bid to save money.

“It runs counter to the best interests of our country,” Sanders said in an interview Wednesday. “You should not be making a profit off of putting people in prison.”

Sanders’s “Justice Is Not For Sale Act,” which he plans to introduce as legislation in Congress, also includes several provisions intended to dramatically reduce the number of immigrants who are held in detention facilities while awaiting court hearings on their legal status.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/17/sanders-to-push-a-plan-to-ban-private-companies-from-running-prisons/

[boutons_deux]

SOOOOO. If we had enough blue; for instance, a democratic president AND congress - everything would be fixed? We ought to try that.

no, but maybe it would be so fucked up as it would be under Repug WH and Congress. and even with WH and Congress control by Dems, the scorched-earth Repug obstructionists would find ways to obstruct solutions and PROGRESS.

[ducks]

Like TX, PA is blue in the cities and red elsewhere.

Like JimmyRicky's $5B ed cut, PA cut school budget by $1B, how are teachers getting paid more? And PA just passed, like JimmyRicky, or is passing, a property tax cut. PA is currently much more red in MISgovernance, than blue.

I know teachers getting paid 90 thousand a year for 9 months or less of work and they should get paid more?

[boutons_deux]

I know teachers getting paid 90 thousand a year for 9 months or less of work and they should get paid more?

sure, why not? It's an important job, and they don't get 3 months vacation, and most of them work a lot more than 40 hours/week.

[DMX7]

Doesn't almost everyone with a salaried (i.e., not hourly wage) job work more than 40 hours per week?

[ducks]

sure, why not? It's an important job, and they don't get 3 months vacation, and most of them work a lot more than 40 hours/week.
so you are ok getting taxed more to pay the teachers more then that?
or do you want to eliminate waste spending and not raise taxes for that

I do not think they need more money I think they need 1 teacher for 20 students not 1 teacher 30 students
also less time grading paper so they do not have to work more then that druded over 40 hour a week

[boutons_deux]

so you are ok getting taxed more to pay the teachers more then that?
or do you want to eliminate waste spending and not raise taxes for that

I do not think they need more money I think they need 1 teacher for 20 students not 1 teacher 30 students
also less time grading paper so they do not have to work more then that druded over 40 hour a week

some are teaching 40 students, many are teaching subjects they have no background in, and many are not trained in proven, scientific teaching methods at all. lack of training and subject education really kneecaps many teachers. Many go out of pocket to pay for supplies for their classes.



so you are ok getting taxed more to pay the teachers more then that?
or do you want to eliminate waste spending and not raise taxes for that


I do not think they need more money I think they need 1 teacher for 20 students not 1 teacher 30 students
also less time grading paper so they do not have to work more then that druded over 40 hour a week


some are teaching 40 students, many are teaching subjects they have no background in, and many are not trained in proven, scientific teaching methods at all. lack of training and subject education really kneecaps many teachers. Many go out of pocket to pay for supplies for their classes.


==============
VIDEO: The American Teacher Shortage Is a ‘Symptom of the Sick and Fractured System of Education’

Posted on Sep 17, 2015
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_american_teacher_shortage_symptom_sick_fract ured_education_20150917?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Truthdig+Truthdig%253A+Dril ling+Beneath+the+Headlines

[Blizzardwizard]

He self-identifies as a socialist.

As a socialist, I have to say he barely scrapes socialism, especially on foreign policy and attitude towards the economy. More of a social democrat.

[boutons_deux]

so you are ok getting taxed more to pay the teachers more then that?
or do you want to eliminate waste spending and not raise taxes for that

I do not think they need more money I think they need 1 teacher for 20 students not 1 teacher 30 students
also less time grading paper so they do not have to work more then that druded over 40 hour a week

Teachers Aren’t Dumb


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/opinion/teachers-arent-dumb.html


Teacher Shortages Spur a Nationwide Hiring Scramble (Credentials Optional)


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/teacher-shortages-spur-a-nationwide-hiring-scramble-credentials-optional.html

[101A]

Teachers Aren’t Dumb


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/opinion/teachers-arent-dumb.html


Teacher Shortages Spur a Nationwide Hiring Scramble (Credentials Optional)


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/teacher-shortages-spur-a-nationwide-hiring-scramble-credentials-optional.html



They might not be dumb, but the education department (at the local university) is a joke. Started there own Chemistry class because their (apparently NOT dumb students couldn't pass the one in the actual chemistry department). The Chem class in education is taught by a "Chemistry Education" professor, not a "Chemistry" professor. This is the last couple of years, so testing ALL teachers might be different than just testing new teachers....

[boutons_deux]

The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
17 September 15

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-I.jpg've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/photos/a.404595876219681.103599.142474049098533/1073054849373777/?type=1

Murdoch's toilet paper WSJ with nothing but lies, FUD, just like Murdoch's Fox News

[RD2191]

Happy merchant Jr. says feel the bern goyim!

http://i.imgur.com/0QsJROT.jpg

Found Blake's twitter account

http://i.imgur.com/xUJU7GV.jpg
Lmfao. Ah a haha

[101A]

The Wall Street Journal's $18 Trillion Dollar Lie About Bernie

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page
17 September 15

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-I.jpg've had so many calls about an article appearing earlier this week in the Wall Street Journal -- charging that Bernie Sanders’s proposals would carry a “price tag” of $18 trillion over a 10-year period -- that it's necessary to respond.

The Journal's number is entirely bogus, designed to frighten the public. Please spread the truth:

(1) Bernie’s proposals would cost less than what we’d spend without them. Most of the “cost” the Journal comes up with—$15 trillion—would pay for opening Medicare to everyone. This would be cheaper than relying on our current system of for-profit private health insurers that charge you and me huge administrative costs, advertising, marketing, bloated executive salaries, and high pharmaceutical prices. (Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, estimates a Medicare-for-all system would actually save all of us $10 trillion over 10 years).

(2) The savings from Medicare-for-all would more than cover the costs of the rest of Bernie’s agenda—tuition-free education at public colleges, expanded Social Security benefits, improved infrastructure, and a fund to help cover paid family leave – and still leave us $2 trillion to cut federal deficits for the next ten years.

(3) Many of these other “costs" would also otherwise be paid by individuals and families -- for example, in college tuition and private insurance. So they shouldn't be considered added costs for the country as a whole, and may well save us money.

(4) Finally, Bernie’s proposed spending on education and infrastructure aren’t really “spending” at all, but investments in the nation’s future productivity. If we don’t make them, we’re all poorer.
That Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal would do this giant dump on Bernie, based on misinformation and distortion, confirms Bernie's status as the candidate willing to take on the moneyed interests that the Wall Street Journal represents.

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/photos/a.404595876219681.103599.142474049098533/1073054849373777/?type=1

Murdoch's toilet paper WSJ with nothing but lies, FUD, just like Murdoch's Fox News




Big numbers, but Reich is full of crap if he thinks you are going to save 10 TRILLION dollars by removing insurance companies from the mix. If health insurance companies are "bloating" the industry by a Trillion a year - where's the evidence. Unitedhealthcare - THE BIGGEST health insurer had revenue of $119 Billion - certainly a TON of money; but from this they paid medical claims, which absorbed most of that. Being under the AFA, in fact guarantees that they MUST pay at least 80 (small businesses) - 85 (large) percent of revenues out in claims. I'll assume 83% number for this discussion. That means that UnitedHealthcare is responsible (all bloat, administrative cost, profit, etc....) for $20 Billion in a year. That includes salaries for 184,000 people - all out of jobs, I assume under president Sanders (that doesn't count the other businesses, like insurance brokerages that would also be out of work overnight. For that $24 Billion, UnitedHealthcare insures ~70 million Americans. What percentage savings off of that $20 Billion is Reich assuming? 50%? 80% - or does Medicare cost us nothing to operate? Either way, we can only recoup $20 Billion maximum from the LARGEST insurer. Where's the other $980 Billion coming from???

Reich is full of shit, and if the WSJ is using phony numbers to prop up an agenda, he is just as guilty.

Medicare saves money because, by law, they price control the docs and hospitals. Insurance companies AT BEST pay Medicare PLUS 30% to the providers, and it is usually Medicare + 40! That's IF the patient was at a network facility. If not, hell, we had to pay $120,000 for a $69 set of screws for a repaired knee a couple of years ago because the patient went out of network. Medicare would have paid $75.

It's a lot easier than disrupting everything to control healthcare costs, but the politicians (Reich included) don't want to do it; hell, they ignore it, and glam over it. Price control the hospitals and doctors. It's what Medicare does - it's what German does (universal coverage, private payers with govt. price controls). If you completely eliminated ALL administrative, marketing, bloat, etc...the entire $20 Billion; you would only save HALF of what you would if you simply said to providers that they are ONLY going to get paid what Medicare pays from ANY payer; be it it an insurance company, or a private individual off the street.

[boutons_deux]

WSJ-Cited Economist Says Bernie's Plan SAVES the US $5.081 Trillion on Health Care (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care)

Gerald Friedman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/), the UMass economist whose economic analysis was cited in the Wall Street Journal article that claimed that Bernie Sander's proposals would cost the US $18 trillion thinks it is the Wall Street Journal that doesn't understand the math (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html).

Doing all the calculations Friedman concludes that Single Payer health care and Bernie's plan for it will cost the US $5.081 Trillion LESS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-friedman/the-wall-street-journal-k_b_8143062.html) over the next ten years than the US is currently paying, while also insuring every uninsured person in the United States, and eliminating all copayments and deductibles!

The stunning chart and the Huffington Post article that outlines his math is linked following the julienne carrot:


Projected 10-Year Impact of HR 676 -- (John Conyers' Single Payer Healthcare Bill)

Increased Tax Revenue from Progressive Taxation: $17.568 Trillion

Deficit Reduction from Tax Increase Excess $02.889 Trillion

Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion

Total Savings from Health Care Efficiencies $09.634 Trillion

Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion

Additional Spending -- Cost of Covering Everyone, $04.553 Trillion
and eliminating all co-payments and deductibles!)

Net REDUCED National Health Care Spending $5.081 TRILLION!!!

Thu Sep 17, 2015 at 5:44 AM PT (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care#20150917054406): Really liked Bruh1's comment on the increased tax costs in Gerald Friedman's chart. Although there will be increased taxes, much of that increase is simply a redirection of current corporate healthcare payments, [and employee healthcare payments]. Under the new plan corporations and individual will be taxed for healthcare, rather than paying it directly to health care insurance companies, and the government will use those dollars to fund the single payer healthcare system that effectively allows the government to offer better healthcare benefits to company employees at a lower rate:

Bruh1's Comments:

"These three are paying that money anyway.

The tax is swapping one for the other. It is not on top of what they are paying.

The number that's relevant from a financial stand point is what one saves. You don't buy a car by saying 'well it would cost me 10000 here, but the same car would cost me 7000 there, so the price tag on the 7000 car is too expensive.'

You say 'it saves me 3000 to buy from the other guy.' It's completely irrational to ignore basic finance here. From a financial standpoint, the businesses, employees and individuals are gaining $5 trillion for savings, consumption, wages, profits and building businesses.

The guy who is being paid 50,000 is now may be able to ask for a raise of 53000 because there's that extra money sitting there not going into his health insurance.

The employer may not give him the full savings, but the employer now loses the argument that wages are depressed due to health care. They can now afford to give more to the employee.

And, if you are afraid they won't, you place the tax burden on the employer because its still less than the employer would have paid for health insurance on the open market. That's how you talk about it to the American public.

You point out what they gain from it. Not act as if they are complete idiots who can't get the idea of what a bargain is. Unlike other programs, where the cost is just a new tax, the argument here is fairly easy to make if one is not a far right wing ideologue pretending to be concerned or a partisan trying to support this or that candidate."

by bruh1 on Wed Sep 16, 2015 at 02:07:16 PM PDT
______________________
While, it's not quite that simple, another easy way way of looking at these numbers is provided by ypochris

"The only lines that are pertinent, the two lines used to come up with the figure of a $5.08 trillion savings, are
Additional Federal health Care Spending $14.679 Trillion

Reduced Private Spending $19.759 Trillion
__
Total savings $ 5.08 Trillion

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/16/1421895/-Hey-WSJ-Bernie-s-Plan-SAVES-the-US-5-081-Trillion-on-Health-Care?detail=email

[ducks]

teachers going out of pocket to buy things is wrong and raising their wages is going to make teachers have to do that more

[ducks]

oh I work 55 hour week during the summer in the wintertime I work 80 or more hours a week
so cry me a river if people have to work over 40 hours a week

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Rising, Hillary Fading: How Bernie Sanders Is Winning The Media War


While all eyes have been on Donald Trump’s media dominance andpremature (http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2015/09/19/no-trump-is-not-fading-did-politico-miss-that-trump-drives-the-race/) reports of his media demise, the story that hasn’t been getting much attention is Hillary’s fading media fortunes in the Democratic race.

Much like Donald Trump, Bernie’s entrance fundamentally shifted the media dynamics of the field, capturing one third of all media coverage of Democratic candidates, a position which he has largely held ever since, increasing as high as 40% in recent weeks.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2015/09/20/bernie-rising-hillary-fading-how-bernie-sanders-is-winning-the-media-war/

media "war", (Americans LOVE, HUNGER for WAR fought by Other People's Kids). Still a long way to go, but Bernie is staying solid, surprising just about everybody.

Bernie's "problem" with blacks should be easy to solve, since his economic policies, not specifically "black" policies, would help blacks a lot (since Repug economic policies screw blacks, and browns, the most).

[hater]

Yawn this old cracka is so fucking boring. Anyone in the GOP field can kick his ass back to Montana

[hater]

Lol if he wins Dmocratic nomination it's be like the party is on some strong narcotic sedative. They'll sleep through the entire election :lol

[boutons_deux]

there's no stopping FOR-PROFIT health care from INCREASINGLY sucking down our wealth, redistribution of our wealth upwards to BigMedicine and its investors.

mandatory universal payroll-deduction govt public insurance option is Bernie's answer (but Repug/VRWC will block it)

Healthcare costs rise again, and the burden continues to shift to workers

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-costs-20150922-story.html

[101A]

there's no stopping FOR-PROFIT health care from INCREASINGLY sucking down our wealth, redistribution of our wealth upwards to BigMedicine and its investors.

mandatory universal payroll-deduction govt public insurance option is Bernie's answer (but Repug/VRWC will block it)

Healthcare costs rise again, and the burden continues to shift to workers

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-costs-20150922-story.html

So the answer to costs being shifted to workers is a mandatory payroll deduction?

Got it.

[boutons_deux]

So the answer to costs being shifted to workers is a mandatory payroll deduction?

Got it.

yep, universal payers and universal coverage, replaced for-profit, employer-group insurance (skimmed from salaries already) that employers want to drop anyway.

[boutons_deux]

Why your health bills are getting higher, in one chart


Health-care costs have grown at exceptionally slow rates for the past five years. But for lots of Americans, the growth hasn't felt slow. In polls (http://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/march-2013-tracking-poll/), most will say their medical bills get more and more difficult to afford.
What gives? This fantastic new chart, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, helps explain the discrepancy.
https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EocZxuGojqICVJRvEUL9q_3KgUI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4085062/kff%20deductibles.png(Kaiser Family Foundation)
What you see here are, to some extent, premiums growing faster than workers' earnings. But the real runaway cost is deductibles: they've grown nearly seven times faster than workers' earnings just since 2010.

And rising deductibles are almost certainly part of the explanation of why health care costs are growing slower.

When consumers have to pay a larger share of their bill — or pay all of it, before they hit their deductible — then they tend to use less medical care.

Patients tend to be more hesitant to seek care when they know they'll be stuck with the bill at the end.

At the same time, rising deductibles are also the reason why the public still feels like health-care costs are skyrocketing. Because deductibles are one major way Americans pay for health care, and those really are skyrocketing!

It makes sense that Americans feel like medical costs are going up quickly — they're bearing the brunt of any price increases at all.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9371271/insurance-deductibles-rising

[cool cat]

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

-Bernie Sanders

I know as a socialist democrat, that quote is more of a resume enhancement.

[spurraider21]

Then what is communism?
socialism is when the govt owns everything

communism is the "ideal end game" where there is no need for government because everything belongs to the public

[Nbadan]

They might not be dumb, but the education department (at the local university) is a joke. Started there own Chemistry class because their (apparently NOT dumb students couldn't pass the one in the actual chemistry department). The Chem class in education is taught by a "Chemistry Education" professor, not a "Chemistry" professor. This is the last couple of years, so testing ALL teachers might be different than just testing new teachers....


:lol at 101A being chapped at 'education' because they wouldn't hire his wifey...

[DMX7]

socialism is when the govt owns everything


Read the wikipedia definition. I tend to agree mostly with that.

[spurraider21]

Read the wikipedia definition. I tend to agree mostly with that.
lol it was obviously a dumbed down answer, but the general gist is the state that runs the show. i took a class on marxism a few years back to fill in some extra units, and i recall some of the basics. but yeah the socialism/communism confusion is always there in the public

[boutons_deux]

The media’s lying to you about Bernie Sanders: This is why a socialist can win the Fox-loving red states

I spent days with Sanders fans across red states. They watch Fox, live in the heartland, and are voting for Bernie

Nate Silver has the Bernie Sanders campaign figured out. Ignore what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire, the “data-driven” prognostication wizard wrote back in July, when Sanders was polling a healthy 30 percent to Clinton’s 46 percent in both contests. That’s only, Silver says, because “Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa and Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire are liberal and white, and that’s the core of Sanders’ support.”

Silver has a chart. It shows that when you multiply the number of liberals and whites among state electorates, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa rank first, second, and third. Texas is near the bottom—a place where Bernie Sanders should feel about as welcome as a La Raza convention at the Alamo, right?
I have a new friend who begs to differ.

He’s watching Fox News on his cell phone. He tells me he considers himself a conservative. I tell him I’m a political reporter covering the Bernie Sanders campaign. He perks up: “I like what I’ve heard from him. Kind of middle of the road.”

Eleven days later, I’m at a Bernie Sanders house party in the depressed steel town of Griffith, Indiana, in a state that places in the bottom quartile on Silver’s chart. I approach a young man in his twenties wearing a thrift store T-shirt. I ask him what brings him here tonight.

“I’m just helping out my friends because they asked me to help out,” he tells me. He adds that he’s a conservative: “But I approve of some of the stuff that Bernie stands for. Like appealing to more than just the one percent and just trying to give everybody a leg up who’s needing it these days.”

Sanders has been extraordinarily clear about the kind of shift he’d like to effect: Republicans “divide people on gay marriage. They divide people on abortion. They divide people on immigration. And what my job is, and it’s not just in blue states. . . to bring working people together around an economic agenda that works. People are sick and tired of establishment politics; they are sick and tired of a politics in which candidates continue to represent the rich and the powerful.”

The theory that economic populism unites voters is hardly new.

Lyndon Johnson, in New Orleans and about to lose the South to Barry Goldwater in 1964, expressed it in one of the most remarkable campaign speeches in history. A Southern Democratic politician was on his deathbed, Johnson said.

“He was talking about the economy and what a great future we could have in the South, if we could just meet our economic problems. . . ‘I would like to go back down there and make them one more Democratic speech. I just feel like I have one in me. The poor old state, they haven’t heard a Democratic speech in 30 years. All they ever hear at election time is n****r! n[I]****r! n****r!’”

The theory suggests that when upwards of 60 percent of voters consistently agree that rich people should have their taxes raised, a candidate who promises to do so might be identified as what he actually is: middle of the road. That if Democrats give Democratic speeches on economic issues, voters suckered into Republicanism by refrains like Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! just might try something else.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/12/the_medias_lying_to_you_about_bernie_sanders_this_ is_why_a_socialist_can_win_the_fox_loving_red_stat es/

btw, Bernie 2015 is ahead of Barry 2008 on every measure at this point.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Yeah, I'll totally trust the pedophile sympathizers at Salon over Nate Silver on polling data.

[ducks]

He is worse then hillary

[InRareForm]

Young people are going to vote for him because they can make a cool hash tag #feelthebern

[Jacob1983]

Hahaha! Sad but true.:lol

[boutons_deux]

Sanders blasts broken system: Kids busted for pot while economy-wrecking CEOs are ‘too big to jail’

Speaking at William Penn University (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_knJ7i1b5w&feature=youtu.be), Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders tore into unequal laws that result in young people having criminal records for small amounts of pot while corrupt Wall Street bankers who wrecked the economy have never faced consequences for their actions.

“Here’s an issue, and I think this drives the American people a little bit nuts,” Sanders said, after being asked by a woman about student loan debt.

“You got kids who have police records in this country for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Does any major CEO of a Wall Street financial institution whose greed and recklessness and illegal behavior destroyed this economy, resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, people lost their homes, lost their life savings. Does any one of those guys have a criminal record?”

That reflects the priorities of a system that considers banks “too big to fail” and CEOs “too big to jail,” Sanders said.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/sanders-blasts-broken-system-kids-busted-for-pot-while-economy-wrecking-ceos-are-too-big-to-jail/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[SpursforSix]

“Here’s an issue, and I think this drives the American people a little bit nuts,” Sanders said, after being asked by a woman about student loan debt.

“You got kids who have police records in this country for possessing a small amount of marijuana.

Does any major CEO of a Wall Street financial institution whose greed and recklessness and illegal behavior destroyed this economy, resulted in the loss of millions of jobs, people lost their homes, lost their life savings. Does any one of those guys have a criminal record?”



Sounds like Avante.
"Avante, what do you think about climate change?"
"hmmm....yes....here's a list of 1000 black athletes"

[boutons_deux]

Sounds like Avante.
"Avante, what do you think about climate change?"
"hmmm....yes....here's a list of 1000 black athletes"

have record for mj possession and try to get job to pay off your student loan

[SpursforSix]

have record for mj possession and try to get job to pay off your student loan

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Sounds like Avante.
"Avante, what do you think about climate change?"
"hmmm....yes....here's a list of 1000 black athletes"

"intellectual featherweight" is putting it mildly. At least mouse is entertaining.

[101A]

:lol at 101A being chapped at 'education' because they wouldn't hire his wifey...

Where'd you get that?

"Wifey" is a full professor in the Chemistry Department at the university I'm referencing...

[Nbadan]

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

[Clipper Nation]

Eleven minutes of cuckoldry. I'm surprised nobody bum-rushed the stage and took the old faggot's mic away from him.

[boutons_deux]

Eleven minutes of cuckoldry. I'm surprised nobody bum-rushed the stage and took the old faggot's mic away from him.

cuckconservative paranoia (a Euro-American white conservative male not fighting enough to "take his county back". But, "It's Gone, Jim") and its derivations of "cuck-anything" got old after about 1 week, but CN's rightwingnut brain keeping running around in the same ruts.

This will be difficult if not impossible, but what SPECIFICALLY do you object to in Bernie's positions, policies?

or is just a personality, racist thing of him being an old, white-haired Brooklyn Jewboy?

[Clipper Nation]

cuckconservative paranoia (Euro-American white conservative male not fighting enough to "take his county back". But, "It's Gone, Jim") and its derivations of "cuck-anything" got old after about 1 week, but CN's rightwingnut brain keeping running around in the same ruts.
:lmao Says the faggot with over 41,000 posts of worn-out schticks such as VRWC, rightwingnuts, gun fellators, You Lie, bitch-slapped, The Great Boutards, etc.


This will be difficult if not impossible, but what SPECIFICALLY do you object to in Bernie's positions, policies?
All of them.


or is just a personality, racist thing of him being an old, white-haired Brooklyn Jewboy?
You've spent the last eight years referring to our current president as "The Cool N!gg@." You don't get to play the race card, faggot.

[Th'Pusher]

This will be difficult if not impossible, but what SPECIFICALLY do you object to in Bernie's positions, policies?


All of them.

You're a very stupid little man.

[Clipper Nation]

You're a very stupid little man.

Th'Playtex

[DMX7]

STOP SHOUTING

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders Speaks The Truth: Hillary Clinton Would Be Better Than Any Republican

With one statement, Sen. Bernie Sanders explained why Democrats are more united than Republicans. On ABC’s This Week, Sanders said,

“On her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and president than the Republican candidate on his best day.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-speaks-truth-hillary-clinton-republican.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29 (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/11/08/bernie-sanders-speaks-truth-hillary-clinton-republican.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29)

[boutons_deux]

The Case for Bernie Sanders

The New York Times published a piece over the weekend about the political prospects of Bernie Sanders, a politician who apparently does not kiss enough babies (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/us/politics/bernie-sanders-doesnt-kiss-babies-that-a-problem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0):
"[Sanders] rarely drops by diners or coffee shops with news cameras in tow, unlike most politicians. He hardly ever kisses babies, aides say, and does not mingle much at fund-raisers.

"His high-minded style carries risk. :lol :lol

As effective as his policy-laden speeches may be in impressing potential supporters, Mr. Sanders is missing opportunities to lock down uncommitted voters face to face in Iowa and New Hampshire, where campaigns are highly personal."

The media response to the Sanders campaign has been alternately predictable, condescending, confused and condescending again.

The tone of most of the coverage shows reporters deigning to treat his campaign like it's real, like he has a chance. John Cassidy of The New Yorker, for instance, swore he wouldn't be patronizing about the Sanders run. "Indeed, I welcomed Sanders to the race (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/welcome-to-the-2016-race-bernie-sanders)!" Cassidy wrote recently (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/welcome-to-the-2016-race-bernie-sanders).

But Cassidy's hokey "Welcome to the 2016 Race, Bernie Sanders!" piece from last spring had a small catch. It basically said that Sanders was welcome because he would be a boon to the real candidate, Hillary Clinton.

"[Sanders] can't win the primary," Cassidy wrote. "And he will occupy the space to the left of Clinton, thus denying it to more plausible candidates, such as Martin O'Malley."
(!)

Noting that Sanders held positions that were "eminently defensible, if unrealistic," Cassidy nonetheless said he was glad Sanders was running, because he would "provide a voice to those Democrats who agree with him that the U.S. political system has been bought, lock, stock, and barrel."

This passage he wrote just after arguing that Sanders cannot win and was only useful insofar as he would help the bought-off candidate win.

So what Cassidy really meant is that the Sanders campaign was allowing people who are justifiably pissed about our corrupted system to blow off steam, before they ultimately surrender to give their support to the system candidate.

And he welcomed that! But he wasn't being condescending or anything.

Cassidy referred back to that old piece recently, after he became among the first of many pundits pronouncing Hillary the knockout winner of a debate that most actual human beings (http://www.alternet.org/media/bernie-won-all-focus-groups-online-polls-so-why-media-saying-hillary-won-debate) seemed to think Sanders handled quite well. Cassidy went so far as to ask (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-media-get-the-democratic-debate-wrong), "Did the media get the Democratic debate wrong?"

He thought and thought on this, then decided he/it didn't.

"Based on Clinton's manner," he wrote, "and her deftness in evading awkward questions, I think she delivered the best performance."

Campaign-trail reporting is like high school: a brutish, interminable exercise in policing mindless social rules. In school, if someone is fat or has zits or wears the wrong clothes, the cool kids rag on that person until they run home crying or worse.

The Heathers of the campaign trail do the same thing. Sanders is just the latest in a long line of candidates – Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, to name a few – whom my media colleagues decided in advance were not electable, and covered accordingly, with a sneer.

When we reporters are introduced to a politician, the first thing we ask ourselves is if he or she is acceptable to the political establishment. We don't admit that we ask this as a prerequisite, but we do.

Anyone who's survived without felony conviction a few terms as a senator, governor or congressperson, has an expensive enough haircut, and has never once said anything interesting will likely be judged a potentially "serious" candidate.

If you're wondering why no Mozarts or Einsteins ever end up running for president in America, but an endless succession of blockheads like Rick Perry are sold to us on the cover of Time magazine (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20110926,00.html) as contenders, it's because of this absurd prerequisite.

Ultimately, what we're looking for is someone who's enough of a morally flexible gasbag to get over with the money people, and then also charming enough on some politically irrelevant level to attract voters. ("I'm a war hero, and Sharon Stone's cousin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0Pkmp1gW5U)" was Chris Rock's take on acceptable presidential self-salesmanship).

Bernie Sanders bluntly fails the Rick Perry test. In fact he pretty much defines what it means to fail that test. It isn't just that he doesn't kiss babies or comb his hair or "deftly evade answers." He's also unapologetically described himself as a socialist, which makes him a giant bespectacled block of Kryptonite for Beltway donors and mainstream journalists alike.

If questioned, most reporters would justify this by noting that an effective president must be able to bridge the gap between powerful interests and populist concerns. So it makes some sense to interrogate candidates accordingly, to make sure they're acceptable to both sides.

The flaw in this reasoning is that it assumes that Wall Street and Silicon Valley and Big Pharma and the rest need the help of us reporters to weed out the undesirables.

They don't, of course. Big money already has a stranglehold on the process of government. It outright owns most of the members of Congress, and its lobbyists write much of our important legislation. With Citizens United, buying elections is now more or less legal. Big money even owns most of the media companies that employ those pundits who are all telling us now to worry about how "realistic" Sanders isn't.

Everybody knows this. In fact, this numbing reality of how completely corrupted the modern American political process is bends the brains of those whose job it is to cover it. What happens over time is that you lose hope, and you begin to view everything through the prism of the corruption to which you're so accustomed.

When you stop believing in the electoral process, then the only questions left to interest a professional observer are who wins, and how many laughs there will be along the way. We've gotten good at thinking about these things. Cassidy's bit about Sanders harmlessly occupying the left flank and blocking more "plausible" candidates from threatening Hillary is exactly the kind of sounds-smart observation we've been trained to believe passes for political journalism today.

Conversely, we've been trained not to care about which old ladies are freezing to death this week because some utility somewhere is turning the heat off, or who's having their furniture put on the street by a sheriff executing a foreclosure order, or who's losing a leg to diabetes because they didn't have the money for a simple checkup two years ago, etc.

None of those characters make it into campaign reporting. As good as we are at the horse-race idiocy, we suck that much at writing about these other things.

Watching Bernie slog forward to an audience of political gatekeepers who wish he would stop being a bummer and just kiss more babies shames me into a confession. I find myself giving up on this process all the time.

Donald Trump, a man whose idea of policy is a big wall, was the Republican frontrunner for months, and ceded the lead to a man who wants to fight immigrants with drones.

This whole thing is a joke. At times, the only thing you can take seriously about any of this is the gambler's question of who wins.

I got into the act (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trey-gowdy-just-elected-hillary-clinton-president-20151023) a few weeks back, gushing about how Trey Gowdy's Benghazi hearing solved Hillary Clinton's voter-sympathy problem. Quite a development in the soap opera! But a million miles from anything that matters.

Successful politicians today on both sides of the aisle are sprawling celebrity franchises. They seem always to be making piles of money and hobnobbing with Beautiful People when they're finished moving the status quo in some incremental direction, which some hack somewhere will always be willing to call change.

Whether it's the Clintons with their foundations or Al Gore with his movies and his carbon-trading interests or the Bush/Cheney axis of hereditary politics and energy commerce, we expect the politicians who make it to the big time to cash in somewhere along the line because, hey, this is America. Donald Trump, if elected, would find a way to turn being the president into a moneymaking operation.

Sanders is a clear outlier in a generation that has forgotten what it means to be a public servant.

The Times remarks upon his "grumpy demeanor (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/us/politics/bernie-sanders-evokes-obama-of-08-but-with-less-hope.html)." But Bernie is grumpy because he's thinking about vets who need surgeries, guest workers who've had their wages ripped off, kids without access to dentists or some other godforsaken problem that most of us normal people can care about for maybe a few minutes on a good day, but Bernie worries about more or less all the time.

I first met Bernie Sanders ten years ago (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-horror-show-that-is-congress-20050825), and I don't believe there's anything else he really thinks about. There's no other endgame for him. He's not looking for a book deal or a membership in a Martha's Vineyard golf club or a cameo in a Guy Ritchie movie. This election isn't a game to him; it's not the awesomely repulsive dark joke it is to me and many others.

And the only reason this attention-averse, sometimes socially uncomfortable person is subjecting himself to this asinine process is because he genuinely believes the system is not beyond repair.

Not all of us can say that. But that doesn't make us right, and him "unrealistic." More than any other politician in recent memory, Bernie Sanders is focused on reality. It's the rest of us who are lost.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-case-for-bernie-sanders-20151103

[rmt]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

[boutons_deux]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

nothing wrong with USA being in debt. Bond buyers still buying US bonds. We need more for $Ts in govt spending to fix infrastructure, the environment, renewables, scientific research.

yes, the 1%, the 5% have enough, not gonna take it away, but we should stop them from accumulating $Ts more.

If high-tax, high-cost countries like Canada, Germany, Scandinavia can do it, why can't falling-behind, ruthlessly brutal USA?

[DMX7]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

Corporations should pay for parental leave (and many already do). I don't think Bernie is arguing for free health care, nearly everyone will have to contribute something in the form of higher taxes. We can figure out something for free college tuition at state universities.

[boutons_deux]

here's one way, SURE to be killed by VRWC/Billionaire Boy Toy Repugs

Sanders, Warren introduce bill to hike Social Security checks

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are teaming up on a bill that would hand Social Security recipients a $580 check and pay for it by trimming tax perks for corporate executives.
The progressive duo unveiled new legislation Thursday that would cut checks for millions of Americans that rely on Social Security benefits, weeks after the Obama administration announced (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257006-no-cost-of-living-increase-for-social-security-in-2016)there would be no cost-of-living increase to payments in 2016.

“At a time when senior poverty is going up and more than two-thirds of the elderly population rely on Social Security for more than half of their income, our job must be to expand, not cut, Social Security," said Sanders, who is running for president."

At the very least, we must do everything we can to make sure that every senior citizen and disabled veteran in this country receives a fair cost-of-living adjustment to keep up with the skyrocketing cost of prescription drugs and health care."

Sanders has made expanding Social Security one of the signature issues of his presidential campaign, and has repeatedly called for taxing the wealthy to pay for an expansion of benefits.

Under his bill with Warren, Americans who receive benefits from Social Security, veterans benefits or equivalent state or local programs would receive a one-time payment. The pair noted that the check would equal 3.9 percent of existing benefits, the same percentage that CEO pay rose in 2014.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/259264-warren-sanders-team-up-on-bill-to-hike-social-security-checks

[boutons_deux]

How Does Bernie Sanders Plan to Pay for all this "Free" Stuff?
http://berniementum.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-does-bernie-sanders-plan-to-pay-for_29.html?m=1

[Warlord23]

So you Bernie supporters, how are WE going to pay for free college tuition, free health care for all and free parental leave when we are already 18+ trillion in debt? Think the 1% has enough money for all that?

First off, you need to re-educate yourself on the concept of debt. I've probably posted about this a couple of times before, but most people treat the topic of aggregate debt just like they would treat household/individual debt. That doesn't quite work in a debt-based monetary system. Because 95%+ of the money in circulation is created by the creation of debt, repaying all this debt would be tantamount to extinguishing money.

If you want to know more about this, watch these videos:
XcGh1Dex4Yo
jqvKjsIxT_8

The corollary is simple: it is not possible for the world to be free of debt. Some of the debt will be repaid, some of it will be restructured, some of it will be forgiven. But more new debt will keep getting created.

Therefore what is important is not the absolute debt, or even debt to GDP. What is important is the rate of growth of debt compared to rate of growth of GDP. And with the drastic reduction of the deficit as a % of GDP in Obama's 8 year term, the rate of growth of debt is starting to get under control. The $18 Trillion number sounds huge but is meaningless by itself.

[rmt]

nothing wrong with USA being in debt. Bond buyers still buying US bonds. We need more for $Ts in govt spending to fix infrastructure, the environment, renewables, scientific research.

yes, the 1%, the 5% have enough, not gonna take it away, but we should stop them from accumulating $Ts more.

If high-tax, high-cost countries like Canada, Germany, Scandinavia can do it, why can't falling-behind, ruthlessly brutal USA?

Soon the payment of interest on our increasing debt will overwhelm us. That will accelerate the printing of more money which will devalue our dollar. Remember that 18+ trillion doesn't include Social Security and Medicare obligations. 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and people are living longer and longer. Just staying the same (without more debt for those things you mentioned above) and keeping our heads above water with the coming aging of baby boomers will be a task.

Because those high-tax, high-cost countries don't spend much of their budget on defense and don't lead the world in innovations in drugs, medical research, technology, etc. as the US does.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

[boutons_deux]

Soon the payment of interest on our increasing debt will overwhelm us. That will accelerate the printing of more money which will devalue our dollar. Remember that 18+ trillion doesn't include Social Security and Medicare obligations. 10,000 baby boomers retire every day and people are living longer and longer. Just staying the same (without more debt for those things you mentioned above) and keeping our heads above water with the coming aging of baby boomers will be a task.

Because those high-tax, high-cost countries don't spend much of their budget on defense and don't lead the world in innovations in drugs, medical research, technology, etc. as the US does.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/

with govt bond rate being SO CHEAP now, it's the PERFECT time to sell them.

BigPharma spends twice as much on advertising as it does on research, so your point sucks, like so many of them.

The MIC's corporate welfare sucks down $600B+ every year, and hasn't won a war, or had any positive effect, since 1945. And another $500B spent by Dept of State on supporting the Corporate Imperial Empire.

[boutons_deux]

A Bernie supporter goes on book tour

Robert Reich: What Happened on My Tour Through Red State America

I’ve just returned from three weeks in “red” America.

It was ostensibly a book tour but I wanted to talk with conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers.

I intended to put into practice what I tell my students – that the best way to learn is to talk with people who disagree you. I wanted to learn from red America, and hoped they’d also learn a bit from me (and perhaps also buy my book).

But something odd happened. It turned out that many of the conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers I met agreed with much of what I had to say, and I agreed with them.

For example, most condemned what they called “crony capitalism,” by which they mean big corporations getting sweetheart deals from the government because of lobbying and campaign contributions.

I met with group of small farmers in Missouri who were livid about growth of “factory farms” owned and run by big corporations, that abused land and cattle, damaged the environment, and ultimately harmed consumers.

They claimed giant food processors were using their monopoly power to squeeze the farmers dry, and the government was doing squat about it because of Big Agriculture’s money.

I met in Cincinnati with Republican small-business owners who are still hurting from the bursting of the housing bubble and the bailout of Wall Street.

“Why didn’t underwater homeowners get any help?” one of them asked rhetorically. “Because Wall Street has all the power.” Others nodded in agreement.

Whenever I suggested that big Wall Street banks be busted up – “any bank that’s too big to fail is too big, period” – I got loud applause.

In Kansas City I met with Tea Partiers who were angry that hedge-fund managers had wangled their own special “carried interest” tax deal.

“No reason for it,” said one. “They’re not investing a dime of their own money. But they’ve paid off the politicians.”

In Raleigh, I heard from local bankers who thought Bill Clinton should never have repealed the Glass-Steagall Act. “Clinton was in the pockets of Wall Street just like George W. Bush was,” said one.

Most of the people I met in America’s heartland want big money out of politics, and think the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision was shameful.

Most are also dead-set against the Trans Pacific Partnership. In fact, they’re opposed to trade agreements, including NAFTA, that they believe have made it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs abroad.

A surprising number think the economic system is biased in favor of the rich. (That’s consistent with a recent Quinnipiac poll in which 46 percent (http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm) [3] of Republicans believe “the system favors the wealthy.”)

The more conversations I had, the more I understood the connection between their view of “crony capitalism” and their dislike of government.

They don’t oppose government per se. In fact, as the Pew Research Center has found (http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/) [4], more Republicans favor additional spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and infrastructure than want to cut those programs.

Rather, they see government as the vehicle for big corporations and Wall Street to exert their power in ways that hurt the little guy.

They call themselves Republicans but many of the inhabitants of America’s heartland are populists in the tradition of William Jennings Brian.

I also began to understand why many of them are attracted to Donald Trump. I had assumed they were attracted by Trump’s blunderbuss and his scapegoating of immigrants.

That’s part of it. But mostly, I think, they see Trump as someone who’ll stand up for them – a countervailing power against the perceived conspiracy of big corporations, Wall Street, and big government.

Trump isn’t saying what the moneyed interests in the GOP want to hear. He’d impose tariffs on American companies that send manufacturing overseas, for example.

He’d raise taxes on hedge-fund managers. (“The hedge-fund guys didn’t build this country,” Trump says (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-the-hedge-fund-guys-are-getting-away-with-murder/) [5]. “They’re “getting away with murder.”)

He’d protect Social Security and Medicare.

I kept hearing “Trump is so rich he can’t be bought.”

Heartland Republicans and progressive Democrats remain wide apart on social and cultural issues.

But there’s a growing overlap on economics. The populist upsurge is real.

I sincerely hope Donald Trump doesn’t become president. He’s a divider and a buffoon.

But I do hope the economic populists in both parties come together.

http://www.alternet.org/print/tea-party-and-right/robert-reich-what-happened-my-tour-through-red-state-america

Robert, don't you realize that the slave staters and red staters vote abortion, vote Christian Sharia, vote LGBT hate, vote xenophobia, vote racism, vote hate-govt, vote guns, etc, BEFORE they'll vote their own self interests?

[rmt]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

[boutons_deux]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

the national debt is directly tied to tax revenues which were greatly reduced by the Repug Reign of Error, make much worse by Repugs tripling the national debt with their bullshit Iraq War for Oil.

The annual deficit, and national debt, would go down if tax revenues were raised.

you are really, really way out of your depth

[Warlord23]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies…

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

- Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), March 20, 2006

When 90%+ of the population is largely ignorant about our monetary system, this is exactly what you'd expect politicians to say. They know that voters don't know any better. It's why Trump can claim that he'll renegotiate the entire national debt and still be taken seriously. Or Rubio, Jeb, Cruz, Carson proposing steep tax cuts without explaining how they'll reduce the deficit.

Mercifully they have largely tended to abandon this rhetoric when governing. Which is why the debt ceiling has been raised 70+ times in the last 50-odd years. Only 3 times was the debt ceiling increase accompanied by political theater:
1995 when Clinton was President; Gingrich shut down the government
2011 when Obama was President; the US government's credit rating was downgraded
2013 when Obama was President; the sequester happened

So while both parties play up the rhetoric on debt to an uninformed public, only one of them has attempted to use it as political football - and that too only when the other side has the Presidency. We get the government we deserve.

[boutons_deux]

Why has Wasserman-Schultz has so severely limited the number of Dem debates (for which she has been vehemently opposed by many Dems), and put them on Saturday nights?

Hillary is already well known, and can only hurt herself if she gaffes badly in one or more weeknight debates. Presumptive nominee, she has nothing to gain from debates.

Hillary's challengers are much less well known, so hiding, smothering them in a fewer debates on Sat nights will keep them unknown.

[rmt]

Why has Wasserman-Schultz has so severely limited the number of Dem debates (for which she has been vehemently opposed by many Dems), and put them on Saturday nights?

Hillary is already well known, and can only hurt herself if she gaffes badly in one or more weeknight debates. Presumptive nominee, she has nothing to gain from debates.

Hillary's challengers are much less well known, so hiding, smothering them in a fewer debates on Sat nights will keep them unknown.




Wow, boutons - we actually agree on something.

[boutons_deux]

Wow, boutons - we actually agree on something.

more precisely, for once you are unwrong.

[rmt]

more precisely, for once you are unwrong.

Never short of a reply, eh? You should post without a link more often - higher chance of it being read.

[boutons_deux]

Never short of a reply, eh? You should post without a link more often - higher chance of it being read.

you should read what I post, lower chance of being stupid

[spurraider21]

cucky sanders: climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism

[rmt]

you should read what I post, lower chance of being stupid

What is with this forum and the negative personal comments? People just can't discuss their opinions. They have to resort to insults. Or is this the way you normally talk?

[spurraider21]

What is with this forum and the negative personal comments? People just can't discuss their opinions. They have to resort to insults. Or is this the way you normally talk?
boutons is one of the more delusional folks around, dont mind him

[boutons_deux]

cucky sanders: climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism

the cuck insult, wannabe Macho Man shtick, lasted about 2 weeks max.

AGW and Repugs are much bigger threats, more fatal, more destructive, than terrorism.

[spurraider21]

that kind of over the top alarmism is why people tune out climate change as a pressing issue

:cry we're going to run out of oil by 2000
:cry we're going to run out of oil by 2010

etc etc

[boutons_deux]

America has never recovered from Ronald Reagan. That’s why Bernie Sanders is so important.

reminding everyone that some of the most popular social programs we have today — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — were all once labeled socialist and aggressively opposed by monied interests, who FDR called “economic royalists.”

Not only were social programs opposed and called socialism; so were any kind of laws or regulations that intervened with the “free market” for the betterment of society. “Unemployment insurance, abolishing child labor, the 40-hour work week, collective bargaining, strong banking regulations, deposit insurance, and job programs that put millions of people to work were all described, in one way or another, as ‘socialist,’” explained Sanders.

Of course, capitalists never come out and say that they want the government to get out of their way so that they can take advantage of workers or employ children or contaminate the water supply. They fear-monger about the threat of socialism and claim that as long as the government intervenes with their business, we can never have true freedom.

A young propagandist named Ronald Reagan (http://billmoyers.com/content/deja-vu-all-over-a-look-back-at-some-of-the-tirades-against-social-security-and-medicare/4/) issued such a warning in the early sixties, in opposition to what is seen as the predecessor to Medicare. “Federal programs,” Reagan warned, “will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until one day… we will wake to find that we have socialism.” Sounds familiar.

The truth, of course, is that an unfettered free market has disastrous affects on society, and that the freedom the Koch brothers and people like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KT) promote is a kind of barbaric freedom.

This was witnessed back 2011, when Rand’s father, Ron Paul, was questioned at a GOP primary debate whether a healthy uninsured 30-year-old man who fell into a coma after something “terrible happened” should be treated or simply left to die.

“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/), “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk,” which was followed by some fans shouting “Yes!” to the question of whether he should simply be left to die (which led Paul to backtrack, realizing the barbarity of his answer).

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/america_has_never_recovered_from_ronald_reagan_tha ts_why_bernie_sanders_is_so_important/

[boutons_deux]

Democratic candidate Sanders condemns Pfizer-Allergan deal as 'disaster

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders condemned the Pfizer Inc acquisition of Allergan Plc on Monday and urged the Obama administration to block the deal.

Pfizer said it would buy Botox maker Allergan in a record-breaking deal worth $160 billion to cut its U.S. tax bill by moving its headquarters to Ireland.

"The Pfizer-Allergan merger would be a disaster for American consumers who already pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/us-allergan-m-a-pfizer-sanders-idUSKBN0TC1UO20151123?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews#pOQXcZ1uiac4RwI3.97

Any Repugs gonna object to this patient-crushing BigPharma consolidation?

[boutons_deux]

With $160 billion merger, Pfizer moves to Ireland and dodges taxes

In what’s called a “reverse-inversion,” Allergan, a small Dublin-based drug company that makes products such as Botox, will technically buy the US-based pharmaceutical behemoth Pfizer, which makes products such as Viagra and Lipitor.

The $160 billion merger, officially announced Monday (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151123005580/en/Pfizer-Allergan-Combine), will allow Pfizer to move its executive offices to Ireland, thus lowering its tax rate, while also morphing into the world’s largest drug maker.

Such inversions, which are said to cost the American government billions in lost tax revenue, have drawn scorn from the Obama Administration and the Treasury Department. Last year, President Obama referred to the deals as “unpatriotic” loopholes (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/us/obama-to-urge-end-to-loophole-letting-firms-shield-profits-abroad-.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&assetType=nyt_now&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&gwh=495B92C548F2CEE040E0D9B8BB4ECBAD&gwt=pay&assetType=nyt_now) and proposed to close them. And last week, the Treasury announced new rules (https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0281.aspx) to make such deals more difficult.

But Pfizer’s reverse-inversion skirts the rules, in part by keeping ownership split somewhat evenly between the two companies. After the deal is complete, current shareholders of Allergan, which has the majority of its operations in the US, will own 44 percent of the mega company. The remaining 56 percent will be owned by current Pfizer shareholders.

In Monday’s announcement, Pfizer said that the deal will deliver $2 billion in cost savings per year for the first three years. By 2018, the combined company, which will also be called Pfizer, will have an operating cash flow of $25 billion.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/with-160-billion-merger-pfizer-moves-to-ireland-and-dodges-taxes/

[boutons_deux]

Republicans Are in Corporations' Pockets on Tax Inversions -- Democratic Senate Candidates Should Hammer Them for It


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/republicans-are-in-corpor_b_5915924.html

Where's the Repug outrage about US corporations using inversions to avoid $Bs in taxes?

[rmt]

Republicans Are in Corporations' Pockets on Tax Inversions -- Democratic Senate Candidates Should Hammer Them for It


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-reifowitz/republicans-are-in-corpor_b_5915924.html

Where's the Repug outrage about US corporations using inversions to avoid $Bs in taxes?






Repubs want to lower the corporate tax rate to attract the corporations - so that US is the tax haven - not Ireland (Actavis/Allergan) or Canada (Burger King).

They want to have an amnesty period to bring back the trillions parked out of the country and tax at 10% iirc. Dems just want to tax, tax, tax - don't know how Bernie's gonna pay for his free college tuition, free health care and free parental leave.

[boutons_deux]

American voters shift to Clinton as the Democrat gains ground against Republicans:




47 - 41 percent over Trump, compared to 46 - 43 percent November 4;
Clinton at 45 percent to Rubio's 44 percent, compared to a 46 - 41 percent Rubio lead last month;
Clinton tops Cruz 47 - 42 percent, compared to Cruz at 46 percent to Clinton's 43 percent last month;
Clinton at 46 percent to Carson's 43 percent compared to Carson's 50 - 40 percent lead last month.





Sanders does just as well, or even better, against top Republicans:




Topping Trump 49 - 41 percent;
Getting 44 percent to Rubio's 43 percent;
Beating Cruz 49 - 39 percent;
Leading Carson 47 - 41 percent.


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2307

[boutons_deux]

Media Blackout Bombs As Bernie Sanders Has More Support Than Every GOP Candidate In Iowa

http://mx2.politicususa.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sanders-smile-ad-485x384.jpg

The media has been blacking out the message of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, but the numbers don’t lie. Sanders has more support in Iowa than every single Republican presidential candidate.

In the new Iowa Poll (http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/rIOKpWrnjUxM)released by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics, Sen. Bernie Sanders had eight points more support than the highest polling Republican presidential candidate.

Sanders trailed Hillary Clinton 48%-39% in the latest poll, but his level of support was eight points higher than Ted Cruz (31%) and ten points higher than media darling Donald Trump (21%).

Sen. Sanders has nearly twice the level of support that Trump has in Iowa but has gotten thirty times less coverage on the network news broadcasts.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said, “We have come a long way in Iowa since we were at 5 percent in the same poll last January and very few people knew who Bernie Sanders was or what he stood for.

This poll shows there is a very clear path to victory in Iowa.”Bernie Sanders has come a long way in a very short period of time.

His 80% approval rating trails Hillary Clinton by two points and President Obama by seven points. Sanders has quickly risen to be one of the most popular figures within the Democratic Party.

The Sanders approval rating is higher than all of the Republican presidential candidates. Sanders’ approval rating is seven points higher than Ted Cruz(73%), ten points higher than Marco Rubio (70%), and 22 points higher than Donald Trump (58%).

The network news decision to ignore the presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/11/abc-cbs-nbc-news-intentional-decision-ignore-bernie-sanders.html) has been a major miscalculation. Sanders has developed into one of the most popular candidates in the entire country, and he exponentially more popular than every single Republican contender that the nightly news broadcasts on ABC, NBC, and CBS waste their airtime on.

The corporate network news blackout of Sanders campaign (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/11/bernie-sanders-media-bias-blackout.html)is not working.

The message is spreading. Iowa is the perfect state for a political revolutionary to spread his message about income inequality, and the influence of corporations and billionaires who are trying to buy the federal government.

Network news has chosen to ignore Sen. Bernie Sanders, but his message is spreading across the country.

The message can’t be stopped, and it is the reason why the messenger from Vermont has more support than all of the Republican presidential candidates in Iowa.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/14/media-blackout-bombs-bernie-sanders-support-gop-candidate-iowa.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

Poll: Clinton adds to lead in Iowa

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton added 4 points to her lead over Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the race for the 2016 nomination among Iowa voters, according to a new poll.

Clinton now has a 9-point lead over Sanders in that state, 48 to 39 percent, according to the Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register survey (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-14/clinton-increases-iowa-lead-over-sanders-ii5uqc99). Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley ranks third, with 4 percent. About 6 percent remain uncommitted, while 2 percent are not sure.Clinton receives higher marks than Sanders in rankings of multiple leadership qualities.

About 60 percent say she has the most appropriate life experience for that role, versus 29 percent for Sanders.

Approximately 55 percent, meanwhile, believe Clinton would make the best commander in chief, contrasted with 28 percent for Sanders.

And roughly 49 percent picked Clinton as having the best temperament for the presidency and about 45 percent say she would work most effectively with Congress.

But Sanders edges out Clinton in several ratings of relatability, pollsters added.

About 49 percent say he cares the most about people like the respondents, versus 38 percent for Clinton.

Approximately 56 percent also said he would fight the hardest for the middle class, contrasted with 36 percent for the former secretary of State.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263094-poll-clinton-grows-her-lead-over-sanders-in-iowa

[boutons_deux]

'Socialism' the most looked-up word of 2015 on Merriam-Webster

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/16/socialism-most-looked-up-word-2015-merriam-webster-bernie-sanders

and people found out that Bernie isn't a classic socialist AT ALL

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

He's social democrat or democratic socialist who wants a govt that serves all of society, not just the 1% and BigCorp.

[boutons_deux]

Sanders won't go away, getting endorsements, so the blatanly biased, pro-Clinton Wasserman-Schultz trying to take Sanders down

DNC: Sanders campaign improperly accessed Clinton voter data

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-sanders-campaign-improperly-accessed-clinton-voter-data/2015/12/17/a2e2e14e-a522-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html?ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

[boutons_deux]

Follow

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

See, Sanders backed Hillary on E-mails at the debate, hurting himself, and then she threw him under the bus (but failed). Disloyal person!



RETWEETS3,740
LIKES8,577
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/664229449836007424/yZZIJykh_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/roff1948)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1281149129/image_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/samizia)https://abs.twimg.com/sticky/default_profile_images/default_profile_6_normal.png (https://twitter.com/jam2999)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1973505387/163728_10150109428291208_687361207_8037967_107172_ n_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/swood777)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/672445565179924480/gz1DAQwM_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/Classic_Michael)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/378800000712327315/ade7e976921e8b2cea10679d8bb7c213_normal.jpeg (https://twitter.com/wclark40)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/467044615393398784/8eyJXbEp_normal.jpeg (https://twitter.com/MorrisMelicia)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3303786831/7f19211e947d4b1a6cdb9980084705e7_normal.jpeg (https://twitter.com/imhiigh)https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/646053883731546112/m_ZAc2pN_normal.jpg (https://twitter.com/Obetron1967)


7:56 AM - 19 Dec 20

[baseline bum]

As much as I think Sanders would be a far superior president to Clinton, he's not going to raise the money she will and thus he's not electable. Best case scenario is the twat gets elected so we have someone to veto all the retarded crap coming out of the house.

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

is it just me or is Trump starting to grow on boutons?

[boutons_deux]

Bernie SCHLONGS Donny T!

In blockbuster poll, Sanders destroys Trump by 13 points

Stop the presses! According to a new poll by Quinnipiac University on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) destroys Republican candidate Donald Trump in a general election by 13 percentage points.

In this new poll, Sanders has 51 percent to Trump's 38 percent. If this margin held in a general election, Democrats would almost certainly regain control of the United States Senate and very possibly the House of Representatives.

It is high time and long overdue for television networks such as CNN to end their obsession with Trump and report the all-important fact that in most polls, both Hillary Clinton and Sanders would defeat Trump by landslide margins. In the new Quinnipiac poll, Clinton would defeat Trump by 7 percentage points, which is itself impressive and would qualify as a landslide, while the Sanders lead of 13 points would bring a landslide of epic proportions.

It is noteworthy that in this Quinnipiac poll, Sanders runs so much stronger than Clinton against Trump. It is also noteworthy and important that both Sanders and Clinton run so far ahead of Trump in general election match-up polling.

And it is profoundly important and revealing that Sanders would defeat Trump by such a huge margin — 13 points in this poll — that analysts would be talking about a national political realignment and new progressive era in American history if an enlightened candidate such as Sanders would defeat a retrograde race-baiting candidate such as Trump by a potentially epic and historic margin.

It is time for the mainstream media to end their obsession with Trump and their virtual news blackout of the Sanders campaign when discussing presidential campaign polling.

How about, from now on, when any analyst on television discusses how strong Trump allegedly is, that it be emphasized that this strength is only within the GOP, and that in a general election, the real heavyweight champion of presidential polling is Bernie Sanders, not Donald Trump!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/264023-in-blockbuster-poll-sanders-destroys-trump-by-13

Looks like the Hillary + Wasserman-Schultz strategy of burying, hiding Bernie with Sat night debates, and only a few debates. The last 3 debates are on a Sun, Thu, Wed

http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/8O5rSB5.jpg

[boutons_deux]

The Kochs Worst Nightmares Come True As Bernie Sanders Smashes Fundraising Records

The presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders announced that they have set a new all-time record with more than 2.5 million donations from more than a million Americans in 2015.The Sanders campaign broke down the data a statement:

The 2,513,665 donations to Sanders’ campaign broke the record set four years ago by President Barack Obama’s re-election committee. Through Dec. 31, 2011, Obama had chalked up 2,209,636 donations.The more than 1 million donors to Sanders also is a milestone unmatched by any first-time White House candidate. Obama’s millionth donor in his 2008 campaign came on Feb. 27 of that election year. (In the next election cycle, the incumbent president’s re-election campaign hit the 1-million- donors mark on Oct. 17, 2011.)

Unlike other campaigns, small contributions made up the vast majority of all the money Sanders’ campaign raised. The average donation to Sanders during the past three months was $27.16.

All told, Sanders supporters gave $33,281,952 during the Federal Election Commission reporting period that ended at midnight on New Year’s Eve. Secretary Clinton’s campaign announced on Friday that she raised $37 million in the last quarter for use in the Democratic primary. The total for Sanders far surpassed donations in either of the previous two quarters of his eight-month long campaign and brought the fundraising total for 2015 to $72.8 million. Sanders ended the year with $28.4 million cash on hand.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver added, “This people-powered campaign is revolutionizing American politics,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. “What we are showing is that we can run a strong, national campaign without a super PAC and without depending on millionaires and billionaires for their support. We are making history and we are proud of it.”

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/02/kochs-worst-nightmares-true-bernie-sanders-smashes-fundraising-records.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders vs. the world: How the political & media elite are trying to set him up to fail

Politics, reporters intone, is now all about national security. And that’s mandatory. Political figures who persist in insisting that Americans do or should care about anything else will be declared out of touch. Irrelevant.

“Bernie Sanders Falls Behind in a Race Centered on Security,” the New York Times headline (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/bernie-sanders-falls-behind-in-a-race-centered-on-security.html?_r=0) announced, seemingly unaware of their pivotal role in centering the race.
Hillary Clinton is a longtime supporter of the sort of militaristic foreign policy adventures that help to foment terrorism. Nonetheless, the Times reports, “all of this plays to Mrs. Clinton’s strengths — not only as a hawkish former secretary of state but also as a savvy politician who follows the public mood.”
This media diktat was first issued after Paris and had become conventional wisdom by the time a disaffected and ISIS-inspired county worker and his wife shot down coworkers in San Bernardino. Sanders has disobeyed orders, maintaining that poverty and global warming are the greatest threat to Americans. That this has the virtue of being true does not impress the arbiters of consensus political wisdom.

“In his opening remarks at the Democratic presidential debate on Saturday, Senator Bernie Sanders railed against ‘establishment politics and establishment economics’ and then the nation’s ‘rigged economy.’ He moved on to the ‘corrupt’ campaign finance system, then the ‘planetary crisis of climate change,'” the Times yawned. “Only after that did he say he wanted to destroy the Islamic State. It was a litany of priorities that made good sense when Mr. Sanders announced his presidential bid in April. But after the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., he made fighting terrorism sound like an afterthought.”



History, in the guise of political reporting, is repeating itself. It’s both farcical and terrifying.

It was recently reported reported that (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428) ABC’s “World News Tonight” devoted 81 minutes to covering the Trump campaign this year compared to just about 20 seconds on Sanders. The media is unimpressed by these findings.

The horse race approach blows Trump’s frightening bigotry out of proportion, encouraging people both here and abroad to falsely conclude that Americans are far worse than they actually are. A large minority of Americans believe that (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/upshot/how-unpopular-is-trumps-muslim-ban-depends-how-you-ask.html) Muslims should be barred from entering the country. That’s scary.

But more than a third of young people, according to a YouGov survey (https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/11/one-third-millennials-like-socialism/), view socialism favorably.

rising public fears over terrorism plays to Clinton’s advantage. But that narrative is also a creature of a media echo chamber that makes the Washington consensus into an historical inevitability.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/21/bernie_sanders_vs_the_world_how_the_political_medi a_elite_are_trying_to_set_him_up_to_fail

[boutons_deux]

The vital Bernie Sanders proposal that no one’s talking about — including Bernie

Sanders has made criminal justice reform an issue this campaign. One of his proposals deserves more attention

Bernie Sanders has made a pledge to abolish private prisons in the federal system a centerpiece of his criminal justice reform platform, expounding on it in speeches, tweets and a bill that he introduced in the Senate. “The profit motivation of private companies running prisons works at cross purposes with the goals of criminal justice,” Sanders said, according to USA Today (http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/09/17/bernie-sanders-seeks-to-ban-private-prisons/). “Criminal justice and public safety are without a doubt the responsibility of the citizens of our country, not private corporations. They should be carried out by those who answer to voters, not those who answer to investors.”

What people, including Sanders, don’t mention about the bill is that it does something far more radical as well: It would reestablish federal parole, the abolition of which three decades ago was a key ingredient in fueling the explosive growth of the American prison system.

Two key factors have driven prison population growth since the 1980s.

One is the length of sentences, which where were increased by measures like the passage of harsh mandatory minimums for drug offenses and tough sentencing guidelines imposed on judges.

Another is the percentage of those sentences that a prisoner actually serves, which the abolition of parole greatly extended. Inmates would thenceforth serve the near entirety of their sentence—a so-called determinate sentence—aside from a maximum of 15-percent reduced for good behavior.

Parole eligibility was abolished for all those convicted of committing a federal crime on or after November 1, 1987 as a result of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. The impact was swift and severe. Those entering prison in 1996 could expect to serve 87 percent of their sentences behind bars, compared with 58 percent a decade earlier,”

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/04/the_vital_bernie_sanders_proposal_that_no_ones_tal king_about_including_bernie/

And of course the '84, and '87 laws were racist Repug laws, and of course, screwed blacks the most.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Sanders makes the case for banking at post offices


“[We] need to give Americans affordable banking options. The reality is that, unbelievably, millions of low-income Americans live in communities where there are no normal banking services. Today, if you live in a low-income community and you need to cash a check or get a loan to pay for a car repair or a medical emergency, where do you go?

“You go to a payday lender who could charge an interest rate of over 300 percent and trap you into a vicious cycle of debt. That is unacceptable.

“We need to stop payday lenders from ripping off millions of Americans. Post offices exist in almost every community in our country. One important way to provide decent banking opportunities for low income communities is to allow the U.S. Postal Service to engage in basic banking services, and that’s what I will fight for.”


To be sure, as Sanders supporters know, this isn’t exactly a new part of his policy platform. But it’s a really interesting idea that’s worth broader consideration.

Sanders has a much better idea: let’s not only keep post offices, let’s also expand the role they can play in a community.

The Atlantic had a good piece (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/bernie-sanders-lets-turn-post-offices-into-banks/411589/) on this in the fall:

…Sanders’s idea is quite sensible. “Postal banking” – which just means that post offices run savings accounts, cash checks, and perform other basic financial services – is common in most of Asia and Europe, and only about 7 percent of the world’s national postal systems don’t offer some bank-like services. Postal banking is a really good way to reach people who haven’t had access to standard savings accounts. One estimate figures that more than 1 billion people have used post offices for making deposits.

The reason why this would be so useful in the U.S. is that somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the population has to rely on check-cashing or payday-lending services, which in some places charge usurious rates that send people into spirals of recurring debt.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bernie-sanders-makes-the-case-banking-post-offices?cid=eml_mra_20160106

Reports are that blacks will go for Clinton, so Bernie has to get them the message that his non-black-specific policies that help all poor people will help the blacks and browns the most.

[Clipper Nation]

684479753710120961

How dare those robber-baron banks charge a small fee to use a service that requires electricity and maintenance to run!

[Th'Pusher]

684479753710120961

How dare those robber-baron banks charge a small fee to use a service that requires electricity and maintenance to run!

:lol You're such a moron Godord. You realize ATM Machines reduce cost of labor for banks. Still, are you actually suggesting banks aren't making significant margins on transaction fees? I don't have the analysis at hand, but I seem to recall the average cost per transaction being ~$.17.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao the US Postal Service does such a great job delivering mail efficiently I can't wait to see how they do as bankers.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao the US Postal Service does such a great job delivering mail efficiently I can't wait to see how they do as bankers.

I can tell you that if banks ran the postal service, stamps would cost $9 and there would be additional fees for front door delivery.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao the US Postal Service does such a great job delivering mail efficiently I can't wait to see how they do as bankers.

evidence-free, as always

[CosmicCowboy]

I can tell you that if banks ran the postal service, stamps would cost $9 and there would be additional fees for front door delivery.

Funny, UPS and FedEx both "evil for profit corporations" kick the USPS's ass on price and service. The only way USPS can even try to compete is by being subsidized by the government because they are losing billions a year, year after year.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol crickets from the peanut gallery

[TheSanityAnnex]

Funny, UPS and FedEx both "evil for profit corporations" kick the USPS's ass on price and service. The only way USPS can even try to compete is by being subsidized by the government because they are losing billions a year, year after year.

I sell a lot of stuff on ebay and gunbroker and the priority shipping from USPS is always cheaper and faster for me.

[CosmicCowboy]

I sell a lot of stuff on ebay and gunbroker and the priority shipping from USPS is always cheaper and faster for me.

Interesting. I have had the opposite experience on reliability and have received some horribly mangled packages from USPS. On the other hand, it's not hard to be cheaper when you can lose billions every year and get bailed out year after year by the Government.

[Th'Pusher]

Funny, UPS and FedEx both "evil for profit corporations" kick the USPS's ass on price and service. The only way USPS can even try to compete is by being subsidized by the government because they are losing billions a year, year after year.
UPS and FedEx aren't banks.

[spurraider21]

684479753710120961

How dare those robber-baron banks charge a small fee to use a service that requires electricity and maintenance to run!
:lol... i've never had to pay a penny for using an atm

[spurraider21]

.

[CosmicCowboy]

UPS and FedEx aren't banks.

Got Damn, Einstein is in the building!

[Th'Pusher]

Got Damn, Einstein is in the building!
Then why are you conflating the two? You commented on how usps would be horrible bankers and I rebutted that banks would gouge users with fees if they were responsible for the usps. So tell me cc, how the fuck does fedex and ups play into the conversation?

[CosmicCowboy]

Then why are you conflating the two? You commented on how usps would be horrible bankers and I rebutted that banks would gouge users with fees if they were responsible for the usps. So tell me cc, how the fuck does fedex and ups play into the conversation?

They are all evil, predatory, for profit corporations, Einstein.

[baseline bum]

Funny, UPS and FedEx both "evil for profit corporations" kick the USPS's ass on price and service. The only way USPS can even try to compete is by being subsidized by the government because they are losing billions a year, year after year.

The USPS is great for shipping to rural areas. For instance, sometimes when I go backpacking I'll mail food supplies Priority Mail and the post office will hold onto it for me until I can hike there. I can't get that service out of UPS or FedEx in small towns and no way I want to buy food supplies in town and spend forever repacking them to fit in a bear canister (which is a must hiking in parts of California, since the bears there know how to take down food that's tied up even when you do it perfectly).

[Th'Pusher]

They are all evil, predatory, for profit corporations, Einstein.
But that's just it, they're not. You don't seem to be able to grasp that basic concept.

[baseline bum]

Interesting. I have had the opposite experience on reliability and have received some horribly mangled packages from USPS. On the other hand, it's not hard to be cheaper when you can lose billions every year and get bailed out year after year by the Government.

UPS is far and away the worst for me when it comes to mangled packages, with FedEx the best and USPS so-so.

[boutons_deux]

"lose billions every year and get bailed out year after year by the Government."

USPS wouldn't be losing if the Repugs hadn't destroyed profitability, tried to destroy USPS, with requirement to fund upfront 75 years of pensions. No other organization, public or private, does that.

And for-profit orgs often show "profit" by stealing or underfunding their CONTRACTUAL pension obligations.

[CosmicCowboy]

"lose billions every year and get bailed out year after year by the Government."

USPS wouldn't be losing if the Repugs hadn't destroyed profitably, tried to destroy USPS, with requiremen to fund upfront 75 years of pensions. No other organization, public or private, does that.

And for-profit orgs often show "profit" by stealing or underfunding their CONTRACTUAL pension obligations.



You don't think companies should fund their future pension obligations?

[boutons_deux]

You don't think companies should fund their future pension obligations?

sure, so why don't all for-profit companies do it?

but through 1975? and decades in advance? That's pure bad-faith, destructive, hate-govt Repug ideology. Fuck the Repugs to hell.

And all those rural USPS offices the Repugs want to close? They're used DAILY by their rural base.

[CosmicCowboy]

sure, so why don't all for-profit companies do it?

but through 1975? and decades in advance? That's pure bad-faith, destructive, hate-govt Repug ideology. Fuck the Repugs to hell.

And all those rural USPS offices the Repugs want to close? They're used DAILY by their rural base.

Isn't the Federal government supposed to be a model enterprise?

also, are you claiming that UPS and FEdEx will default on their pension obligations?

[MultiTroll]

Bernie says he is leading both Trump and Hillary in the polls.
Huh?
What polls?

[boutons_deux]

Isn't the Federal government supposed to be a model enterprise?

federal govt is supposed to the federal govt. it's not an "enterprise", if you mean "profit making" enterprise

"are you claiming that UPS and FEdEx will default on their pension obligations"

who knows? if they get in trouble, mgmt and investors come first, employees come last.

anyway, haven't their drivers been "ubered" into being self-employed, independent contractors?

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

http://i.imgur.com/PTHjYM0.jpg

[HI-FI]

^ :lol

[boutons_deux]

Poll: Sanders cutting close to Clinton nationally

the poll shows her way behind with voters under 45 years of age. Sanders has 60 percent support in that cohort, with Clinton at 31 percent.

Clinton has a double-digit lead among women in the poll, taking 53 percent support over Sanders’s 39 percent. Still, the Vermont senator has cut significantly into her lead, picking up 10 points among women over the same survey from December.

Sanders has huge leads over Clinton among self-described liberals and younger voters, while the former secretary of State boasts big leads over Sanders among self-described moderates and older voters.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/265656-poll-sanders-cutting-close-to-clinton-nationally

[boutons_deux]

Hillary says she's not worried, but she and Chelsea, probably Slick Willy soon, gettin nasty spewing bullshit about Bernie

Sanders Decries Clinton's 'Karl Rove Tactics' In Health Care Criticism

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Wednesday blasted Hillary Clinton over her campaign's recent criticism of his health care proposals.

"Hillary Clinton once said it 'undermined core Democratic values' and gives 'aid and comfort' to the special interests and 'their allies in the Republican Party' for Democrats to attack each other’s health care plans. Today, in another flip-flop, she’s doing exactly what she once decried," a statement (https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clinton-flip-flops-health-care/) from Sanders' campaign reads.

"Clinton’s attacks on a Democratic Party rival over universal health care marks a very public flip flop by her and her campaign. She is now using the same Karl Rove tactics she once decried in this video," the statement continues, linking to a video of Clinton (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFOujExdPpw) criticizing Barack Obama's presidential campaign for attacking her proposal for universal health care during the 2008 campaign.

Over the past few days, Clinton's campaign has been critical of Sanders' proposal for universal health care. The former secretary of state suggested in November (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-taxes-middle-class-bernie-sanders-215958) that Sanders' plan would raise taxes on the middle class. And this week, she characterized his state-based plan as a "risky deal" that would turn "over your and my health insurance to governors."

While campaigning for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Chelsea Clinton expanded on her mother's characterization of Sanders' plan. Chelsea Clinton warned voters against Sanders' health care policy and argued that his state-based, single-payer plan would give too much power to governors, who could block the plan's full implementation.

"Sen. Sanders wants to dismantle Obamacare, dismantle the CHIP program, dismantle Medicare, and dismantle private insurance," she said, according to NBC News (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/chelsea-clinton-takes-aim-sanders-over-health-policy-n494846). "I worry if we give Republicans democratic permission to do that, we'll go back to an era -- before we had the Affordable Care Act -- that would strip millions and millions and millions of people of their health insurance."

”I don’t want to live in a country that has an unequal health care system again," she continued, according to The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265719-sanders-chelsea-clintons-healthcare-claims-absolutely). "So I don’t want to empower Republican governors to take away Medicaid, to take away health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans. And I think very much that’s what Sen. Sanders plan would do."
Hillary Clinton then backed her daughter up in a Wednesday morning interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-defends-chelsea-clintons-attacks-bernie-sanders/story?id=36263047)

"You know, I adore my daughter and I know what she was saying," Hillary Clinton said. "Because if you look at Senator Sanders’ proposals going back nine times in the Congress, that’s exactly what he’s proposed. To take everything we currently know as health care, Medicare, Medicaid, the CHIP Program, private insurance, now of the Affordable Care Act, and roll it together."

Sanders hit back against both Clintons' remarks on Tuesday night and Wednesday.

During an interview on CNN (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/265719-sanders-chelsea-clintons-healthcare-claims-absolutely) following the State of the Union address Tuesday night, Sanders said that Chelsea Clinton's characterization of his program was wrong.

"Unfortunately, I have to say, as much as I admire Chelsea, she didn't read the plan," he said. "And where she is absolutely wrong — this is a plan that works in 50 states in this country, whether you have conservative Republicans or progressive Democrats. It's a national program,"

Sanders elaborated on his defense in a Wednesday afternoon interview on MSNBC, calling Chelsea Clinton's comments "factually incorrect."

"The way the legislation we have introduced in the past was written -- and obviously is what we believe in -- is that if a Republican governor doesn't want it, it will be implemented by the federal government," Sanders said, adding that he hopes the Clinton campaign will stop using that line of attack.

In his statement released on Wednesday, Sanders' campaign chalked up the Clinton campaign's ramped up criticism of his health care proposals to fear that he is doing well in the polls.

"In the wake of new polls showing that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign is gaining ground or leading in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton’s campaign has stepped up attacks on Sanders and his health care proposal," the statement reads.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-chelsea-clinton-health-care?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/t31.0-8/12418834_961117337276604_738955163890215699_o.jpg

[boutons_deux]

81% of Democrats Support Single Payer, as well as 58% of all Americans (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/12/1469108/-81-of-Democrats-Support-Single-Payer-and-58-of-all-Americans)


From the Kaiser Health Tracking poll, (http://ilsinglepayer.org/kaiser-poll-democrats-and-independents-overwhelmingly-support-single-payer)December 2015:

When asked their opinion, nearly 6 in 10 Americans (58 percent) say they favor the idea of Medicare-for-all, including 34 percent who say they strongly favor it.

This is compared to 34 percent who say they oppose it, including 25 percent who strongly oppose it. Opinions vary widely by political party identification, with 8 in 10 Democrats (81 percent) and 6 in 10 independents (60 percent) saying they favor the idea, while 63 percent of Republicans say they oppose it.


Hillary Clinton’s opposition to Single Payer, and it is worth Chelsea Clinton bemoaned the elimination of private insurance today, is a deeply minority position within the Democratic Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/12/1469108/-81-of-Democrats-Support-Single-Payer-and-58-of-all-Americans?detail=email

[Nathan89]

Bernie is surging.

[CosmicCowboy]

you guys are dreaming. Bernie has zero chance.

If or when Hillary stumbles the Dems will come up with another alternative....Brown, Biden, etc.

[angrydude]

Hillary exudes charisma........... the only thing necessary to get elected in 2016............ lol.

nope.

BTW, Bernie comes off as a crazy old man.

President Trump is happening sadly.

[boutons_deux]

Clinton’s attacks produce windfall of campaign cash for Sanders

Hillary Clinton’s new barrage against Bernie Sanders, the Democratic presidential primary opponent she has all but ignored through most of her campaign, is having an effect — though probably not the one she intended.

Sanders’s underdog campaign said it is seeing a surge of contributions as a direct result of the new attention it is getting from the Democratic front-runner, with money coming in at a clip nearly four times the average daily rate reported in the last quarter of 2015.

In its email appeals for money, the campaign accused the Clinton campaign of making “vicious and coordinated attacks” on Sanders’s health-care plan, which calls for a government-run system. Sanders’s strategists are also considering rolling out advertising beyond the early-contest states where it is airing spots now.

The former secretary of state and her team have stepped up their criticism of Sanders on a variety of fronts in recent days as polls have begun to show him edging even with her in Iowa — and, for the first time, looking competitive in a national poll. But the Clinton strategy may be backfiring in some ways.

“Thanks, Team Clinton,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said Wednesday afternoon.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-attacks-produce-windfall-of-campaign-cash-for-sanders/2016/01/13/d95b3d38-ba27-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html?tid=ss_fb-bottom

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/)

Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/11/clinton-in-iowa-attacks-sanders-health-care-plan-as-a-risky-deal/) on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.

Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.

That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.

But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.

This means that Clinton brought in almost as much in speech fees from the health care industry as she did from the banking industry (https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/). As a matter of perspective, recall that most Americans don’t earn $2.8 million over their lifetimes.

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-12-at-3.18.06-PM-1000x732.png

Hillary Clinton’s record on single-payer dates back to 1993, when she was tasked to help formulate White House policy. According to the notes of former Clinton confidante Diane Blair, Clinton told her husband (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/10/report-documents-reveal-hillary-clintons-private-reaction-to-her-husbands-cheating-scandal-with-monica-lewinsky/) during a dinner in February 1993 that “managed competition” — a private health insurance market — was “a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”

she told them they made a “convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?”

“by the year 2000 we will have a single-payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t think it’s a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single-payer system will sweep the country.”

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

BigHealthCare makes govt policy to protect/enrich itself while looting Human-Americans

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton on Universal Health Care in 2008

Hillary Clinton once said it “undermined core Democratic values” and gives “aid and comfort” to the special interests and “their allies in the Republican Party” for Democrats to attack each other’s health care plans.

Today, in another flip-flop, she’s doing exactly what she once decried.

https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/vb.124955570892789/961157863939218/?type=2&theater