Reply With Quote
would be ideal
^ Bernie's a dead man walking. Though I do support him staying in the race to pull Shillary to the left and take the nomination if the Justice dept indicts her and she can't run.
would be ideal
I did the math and Bernie winning 64% of the remaining delegates would result in him winning by over 200 delegates. 58% is enough to overtake Shillary tbh.
I dont get why so many delegates go unawarded.
So much votes go to the "other" category.
Take Florida for instance. 214 delegates for grabs but Hillary only got 130 something and Bernie got around 60. Where the is the extra 16 or in Illinois case where 21 delegates went to no one.
Those should be split between the two imo.
If I'm not mistaken, the Dems are proportional? Some republican states are winner take all or winner take most. So it's easier to rack up delegates on the republican side.
The establishment newspaper of record politicking against perceived threats from non-establishment politician
'How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders'
The New York Times spins Bernie Sanders' ability to effectively achieve legislative action for his party into a fault.
Editor's Note:
On Monday, the New York Times published an article led "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories" by congressional reporter Jennifer Steinhauer that cast a dim light on Bernie Sanders’ legislative achievements by tacking on his agenda to larger bills, not unlike Democrats complain that Republicans do maliciously when making compromises.
But as Medium picked up on Tuesday in an article led “Proof That the New York Times Isn’t Feeling the Bern,” the New York Times’ bias could be tracked publicly thanks to the earlier draft that “many people, including Sanders himself, had already shared ... widely on social media and other sites” —
and a side-by-side comparison shows how the New York Times’ editors wrote their own pro-Hillary Clinton, anti-Bernie Sanders spin on what should have been a wide sample size of proof of Sanders’ experience getting hard results for his cons uents.
Matt Taibbi performed a brilliant close analysis of the two articles for Rolling Stone — the original NYT le being the far less harsh “Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors” — using his experience having written what he calls “essentially the same article nearly 11 years ago” for Rolling Stone, his being led “Four Amendments and a Funeral.”
—Jenny Pierson, AlterNet
In 2015 we saw how the New York Times was instrumental in erecting a wall of silence around the Sanders campaign as Bernie struggled to overcome a large deficit in name recognition against an almost universally known opponent. Then late last year silence turned into unremitting negativity.
By Matt Taibbi
... Sanders was skilled at the amendment process and also had a unique ability to reach across the aisle to make deals.
…
Steinhauer the other day wrote very nearly the same thing. She described how Bernie managed to get a $1.5 billion youth jobs amendment tacked onto an immigration bill through "wheeling and dealing, shaming and cajoling."
The amendment, she wrote, was "classic Bernie Sanders," a man she described as having "spent a quarter-century in Congress working the side door, tacking on amendments to larger bills that scratch his particular policy itches, generally focused on working-class Americans, income inequality and the environment."
Now, Steinhauer's piece wasn't all flattering. This is, after all, the New York Times, which has practically been an official mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign this election season.
Though we both operated on the same set of facts — i.e., that Sanders had an extensive history of building coalitions to pass amendments — Steinhauer implied that Sanders often acted as a kind of lefty obstructionist, using Republicans to thwart more centrist initiatives. "Mr. Sanders is not unlike Tea Party Republicans in his tactics, except his are a decaf version," she wrote.
...
First, as noted in the Medium piece, they changed the headline. It went from:Bernie Sanders Scored Victories for Years Via Legislative Side Doors
to:
Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories
Then they yanked a quote from Bernie's longtime policy adviser Warren Gunnels that read, "It has been a very successful strategy."
They then added the following two paragraphs:
"But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach to suggest that he could succeed.
"Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical."
This stuff could have been written by the Clinton campaign. It's stridently derisive, essentially saying there's no evidence Bernie's "small-ball" approach (I guess Republicans aren't the only ones not above testicular innuendo) could ever succeed on the big stage.
...
Online content does change a bit from time to time, but I've never been in a situation where an editor has asked me to alter the overall meaning of a piece, which is what happened in this case.
Taibbi shows how a candidate for president apparently was smeared by the editors at our so-called "Paper of Record."
IT WOULD SEEM THE NY TIMES HASN’T BEEN FAIR WITH EITHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DURING THIS CAMPAIGN CYCLE, AND WE SHOULD FIND THAT DISTURBING NO MATTER WHO WE SUPPORT.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...bernie-sanders
NY Times' 'Stealth Editing' to Undermine Sanders Was Unethical, Writes Public Editor
The decision by the New York Times to make edits that dimmed Bernie Sanders' legislative achievements have created controversy not just by Matt Taibbi and readers, but also within the paper itself.
to criticism by Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi and others that Jennifer Steinhauer's article's editing by the New York Times was unethical.
To add to the complexity of NYT editorial opinion, she agrees with the criticism:Matt Purdy, a deputy executive director at the NYT, is among the NYT editorial staff Sullivan quotes as defending the edits.
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders’s legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media; it’s hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
Given the level of revision, transparency with the readers required that they be given some kind of heads-up, and even an explanation.
But she grants the readers' responses in an update to her article that considering that the Steinhauer article covered Sanders' legislative history, rather than breaking news, it should have been properly edited into the current election context before being published, since there is little justification that the edits were dependent on any breaking news.
http://www.alternet.org/media/new-yo...-public-editor
==============
Matt Taibbi: 'How the New York Times Sandbagged Bernie Sanders'
The New York Times spins Bernie Sanders' ability to effectively achieve legislative action for his party into a fault.
http://www.alternet.org/election-201...erlay-context=
Which would be better. Abolish the IRS, and their rules that allow the rich to avoid paying taxes, or forgiveness of all debt for those making less than 100k per year?
Less than 100K is not even close to middle class. Median income is around $53K yearly. Anyone making about 50K should easily pay monthly installments for whatever debt they have.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/up...edia.html?_r=0Over the course of the campaign, he has earned close to $2 billion worth of media attention, about twice the all-in price of the most expensive presidential campaigns in history. It is also twice the estimated $746 million that Hillary Clinton, the next best at earning media, took in. Senator Bernie Sanders has earned more media than any of the Republicans except Mr. Trump.
Sanders surprises with controversial superdelegate strategy
Strictly speaking, Democratic primary and caucus voters are principally responsible for choosing their presidential nominee, but the power is not entirely in their hands. While those voters elect pledged delegates for the party’s national convention, the Democratic process also includes superdelegates – party officials who are able to cast their own votes, separate from primary and caucus results.
The system is not without critics. Though it’s never happened, the existing Democratic process leaves open the possibility that actual, rank-and-file voters – the folks who participate in state-by-state elections – will rally behind one presidential candidate, only to have party officials override their decision, handing the nomination to someone else. For many, such a scenario seems un-democratic (and un-Democratic).
It therefore came as something of a surprise this week when Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign first raised the prospect of doing exactly that. Sanders aides told reporters that he may not be able to catch Hillary Clinton through the primary/caucus delegate process, but the campaign might come close, at which point Team Bernie might ask superdelegates to give Sanders the nomination anyway, even if he’s trailing Clinton after voters have had their say.
On the show last night, Rachel asked the senator himself about the possibility. Initially, Sanders responded by talking about his optimism regarding upcoming contests and some national polling, but he didn’t answer the question directly.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Amy Goodman Blasts CNN for Airing Trump’s Empty Stage Instead of Sanders’ Speech
In a live segment on CNN, Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, shamed the three biggest corporate media outlets for ignoring Bernie Sanders’ March 15 speech so they could broadcast an empty podium at a Donald Trump rally.
“Let’s look at Super Tuesday 3; you had major coverage here at CNN, at MSNBC, at Fox — all the networks across all through the night as the polls are closing,” Goodman told Brian Stelter on CNN’s Reliable Sources on March 20. “You see the concession speeches and the great victory speeches, you see Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Kasich, you see Donald Trump. You’re waiting here at CNN, at MSNBC. They said he’s going to hold a news conference… and that’s it.”
Goodman is right. Even though Sanders — who is only slightly behind Hillary Clinton in terms of pledged delegates, making him a serious contender for the Democratic nomination — was speaking on the night after Democrats in 5 states voted in primaries, his speech wasn’t covered by CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News.
“This time, they didn’t even record and show after Bernie Sanders,” Goodman said. “He was completely absent.”
http://usuncut.com/politics/amy-good...ernies-speech/
Sounds like Bernie is desperate.
Why do you even like Shillary? Not talking , just genuinely want to know what would compel someone to support that snake.
"Sounds like Bernie is desperate."
He's behind, playing catchup. He polls beating Donny T better than Hillary does.
Not nearly as desperate, as PANICKED as the Repug establishment is.
Who says I do?
I'd rather Bernie get the nod.
I just defend her more because people give her more than she deserves. A lot of unfair bull is thrown her way.
Bernie's supporters dont help either. They act like en led s.
To be honest no one knew Bernie before a year ago. He doesn't have the 30 year old baggage that she does.
Bernie's not a saint by a long shot.
I'm a democrat though so either one will get my vote.
Ah allright. You just came off as a Shillary supporter, my bad.Who says I do?
I'd rather Bernie get the nod.
I just defend her more because people give her more than she deserves. A lot of unfair bull is thrown her way.
Bernie's supporters dont help either. They act like en led s.
To be honest no one knew Bernie before a year ago. He doesn't have the 30 year old baggage that she does.
Bernie's not a saint by a long shot.
I'm a democrat though so either one will get my vote.
And yes she really is that bad. Also if Bernie had any major baggage it would've been brought to light by now. The only thing they have on him is that interview about Castro to try to paint him as a Castro sympathizer but everyone knows the notion that he'd be an authoritarian socialist is BS.
Huge Crowd Of 20,000-30,000 Estimated At Bernie Sanders Seattle Rally
Hours before Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was set to speak in Seattle, WA an estimated crowd of 20,000-30,000 lined up to get into an arena that holds 17,000.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29
Bernie Sanders Makes His Move And Presses Superdelegates To Go With The Popular Vote
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is pressed superdelegates to go with the popular vote in their states during an interview on CBS's Face The Nation.
SANDERS: The whole concept of superdelegates is problematic.But I would say that, in states where we have won by 20, 25 points, you know what? I think it might be good idea for superdelegates to listen to the people in their home state. I just talked to a person the other day who said, you know what, I am going to listen to my state, and if my state votes for you, Bernie, you’re going to have my vote.I think that — I would hope that a lot of the superdelegates will take that factor into consideration.The easiest way to persuade superdelegates to win. Sanders needs to win in big states, and he needs to win by a lot. If Bernie Sanders can’t win in Pennsylvania, New York, and California, he frankly has no argument for being the Democratic nominee.
SANDERS: Well, to say to a superdelegate, Bernie Sanders won your state by 20 or 30 points, you might want to listen to your state, I think that that is common sense and I think superdelegates should do that.
SANDERS: Well, that’s — legally, they have their own decision to be made. They have their own right to make that decision.
But I would argue that many of these superdelegates, for them, what is most important, as it is for me and Secretary Clinton, by the way, is making sure that no Republican occupies the White House.
And if people conclude by the end of this campaign, if we have the energy — and it’s an if — if we win a number of states — that’s also an if — but if that is the factor, and it appears that I am the stronger candidate against Trump, I think you’re going to see some superdelegates saying, you know what?
I like Hillary Clinton, but I want to win this thing. Bernie is our guy.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29
Bernie Sanders out-raises Hillary Clinton by $13.4 million in February
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outraised rival Hillary Clinton in February but spent at a faster pace, leaving him with less money, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.Sanders raised $43.5 million in the month, compared with Clinton, who raised $30.1 million.
The U.S. senator from Vermont has amassed much of his fundraising haul from online donations driven by supporters contributing small amounts of money.
While Sanders raised more than Clinton, he also spent more than the former secretary of state. At the end of February, Sanders had $17.2 million in cash remaining, the Post said. Clinton had $31 million, according to her campaign
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/bern...e+Raw+Story%29
Bernie said in the showtime show The Circus he is already happy win or lose... he started off at 3% when it all began... and now look where it is. Also he has made hillary more bernie like through the whole campaign, and that is a good thing.
yes, Hillary's talk has become more proressive, but she wouldn't act more progessive in the WH. Her incrementalism is code for "I'll make 99%'s decline a little less painful, but y'all 99%ers gonna decline inevitably as I go higher up the 1%. I'll sign all kinds of nasty the Repugs pass, just like my husband"
Bernie Sanders Made the Right Decision to ‘Pro-Israel’ AIPIC Conference
Rabbis don’t want Trump giving a speech there. Bernie Sanders, who is Jewish, could. But he won’t. He’ll be campaigning in the West instead. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, along with Ted Cruz, John Kasich and others, is a featured as a speaker at AIPIC this week.In fact, as The Washington Post points out, Sanders will be the only presidential hopeful to not attend AIPIC. Donald Trump is due to speak tonight, trying to explain how he can be pro-Israel while championing an antisemitic movement.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPIC, represents the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, saying, “The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.” It regularly invites the presidential candidates to the conference. Salon’s Ben Norton called Sanders’ decision a “bold move.”
not “unequivocally pro-Israel” that is the issue, but rather an “Israel first” stance: giving control of American foreign policy to Israel, a gambit embraced by hawks in both countries. What conservatives don’t understand is that Democrats can be pro-Israel. They just can’t put Israel above the United States.
Netanyahu fans among American voters are unlikely to vote for Sanders in any case, and anyone who thinks Israel should control America’s foreign policy are unlikely to be persuaded by anything Sanders says.
Trump is the guy with the real problem, proving to be the an hesis of the conservative position equating opposition to Israeli policies with antisemitism by proving that loving Israel does not equate with loving Jews.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...iticus+USA+%29
Here are 9 hatemongers — besides Trump — who will be honored guests at this year’s AIPAC summit
Here are just nine of the hateful figures welcomed by AIPAC as featured guests.
1. Steven Emerson: This notoriously Islamophobic author and pundit made the following statement about Muslims in 2011: “If I had to guess, based on what I know, based on my experience and this is all anecdotal, I would say to you at least thirty to forty percent support cultural jihad. That is, at least, they support the notion that it’s okay to blow up a bus of Israelis, it’s okay to bomb the World Trade Center, it’s okay to impose the Sharia, the code of Islamic law, it’s okay to beat women or wives, as part of the Sharia.”
In 2015, Emerson appeared on Fox to make fallacious claims about Muslim no-go zones in Europe, saying: “They’re sort of amorphous, they’re not contiguous necessarily, but they’re sort of safe havens. And they’re places where the governments, like France, Britain, Sweden, Germany, they don’t exercise any sovereignty so you basically have zones where Sharia courts are set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where police don’t go in… There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in.”
Fox later issued numerous corrections and apologies for Emerson’s statements.
2. Josh Block: Block was fired from the Truman National Security Project in 2011 for smearing Israel critics as anti-Semites. “Josh was removed from our community because he’s unable to differentiate between an honest debate and a personal attack,”said Truman spokesman David Solimini. “There is real anti-Semitism in the world and we can’t debase the term by using it for everyone who disagrees with us on Israel policy. There is a clear pattern here. Over time many of our community members had come to realize Josh isn’t interested in an honest debate.”
An email exchange between Block and a Voice Of America staffer, Block denigrated journalist Rula Jebreal, heaping scorn on her appearance and her Palestinian background, calling her a “crazy person” and (what else?) an “anti-Semite.”
As he campaigned against the Iran nuclear deal, Block claimed that Iran wanted to dominate and enslave every man, woman and child they can reach w/ their nuclear terrorist totalitarian regime.”
3. Jerry Cox: The president of the Family Council Action Committee in Little Rock once argued that California’s Harvey Milk Day would force students to change their gender presentations and hold mock gay weddings. “If a person has left-leaning philosophies, a left-leaning theology, a left-leaning view of the world, then it seems that it’s always in vogue to honor those people and to have a special holiday for them,” Cox said of the slain leader.
4. Ralph Reed: The far-right conservative activist and first executive director of the Christian Coalition spoke out against civil rights protections for LGBTQ people in the mid-’90s, declaring: “No one should have special rights or privileges or minority status because of their sexual behavior. We don’t have it for people who are polygamists; we don’t have it for people who have affairs on their wives or husbands.” He bizarrely proclaimed to a Virginia newspaper in 1991, “I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don’t know it’s over until you’re in a body bag. You don’t know until election night.”
5. Benjamin Netanyahu: The Prime Minister of Israel declared as a young junior minister in 1989, “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.”
As he campaigned for a fourth term as prime minister after slaughtering 551 children in the besieged Gaza Strip, Netanyahu warned that “Arab voters are heading to the polls in droves.” More recently, Netanyahu insisted that a Palestinian — not Hitler — was responsible for the Final Solution.
6. Paul Ryan: The Speaker of the House from Wisconsin made dogwhistle racist statements during a 2014 interview with conservative radio host Bill Bennett. “We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work,” he said.
7. Edwin Harper: As AlterNet senior editor Max Blumenthal reported this week, Bishop Harper is a self-described fanatic eagerly awaiting the Rapture. Harper proclaimed that Anti-Christ “has to be a Jew.”
“Is Obama the Anti-Christ?” Harper asked his audience at the Apostolic Life Cathedral in Martinsburg, West Virginia in 2012. “No. He don’t qualify. He’s not a Jew! You’ve got to have a Jew!”
8. Nir Barkat: The Mayor of Jerusalem was condemned for incitement against Palestinians after releasing a statement in October which states, “The mayor encourages licensed gun owners to carry their weapons to increase security. He himself serves as a personal example of this.” Barkat told Israel’s Army Radio, “In a way, it’s like military reserve duty.” Barkat has presided over the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements across occupied East Jerusalem, driving Palestinians out of their own homes by force and replacing them with Jewish religious extremists.
9. Raheem Kassam: The Breitbart editor-in-chief ran an article in January under the headline, “Breitbart’s Raheem Kassam Tells Sean Hannity:
If Merkel Took a Million Rapey Migrants, Hillary Will Take 20 Million.” The piece details his interview with Sean Hannity, in which Kassem declared:
“Merkel isn’t the only dumpy old hag that’s for mass migration… If Hilary is elected, you can see her doing exactly what Angela Merkel has done.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/here...e+Raw+Story%29
Major Research Findings: Sanders’ Tax Wall Street Plan Would Raise $300 Billion And Create Millions of New Jobs
New research findings from a team of progressive economists provides do entary evidence that the financial footing for Sen. Bernie Sanders visionary social change agenda is not only plausible, but would create far more socially productive jobs, as well as moving us down the road to the more humane society that is at the heart of the Sanders campaign.
In their push to vilify Sanders, Democratic Party acolytes from the media to academia have fallen in line attacking the economic foundations of his campaign for free public college tuition, Medicare for all, job creation through infrastructure repair, and other critical needs.
But a new report from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Political Economy Research Ins ute do ents how a key Sanders proposal — a tax on Wall Street speculation -would bring at least $300 billion a year in new revenues from those who can most afford to pay it for the critical reforms the country so desperately needs.
Further, the report by Robert Pollin, lead author, and his colleagues James Heintz and Thomas Herndon, breaks new ground in do enting that the tax would be a huge boon to the economy in creating millions of new jobs in education beyond what the same spending creates on Wall Street.
And contrary to the critics would not dampen productive investment, which has fallen sharply under the reckless Wall Street behavior of recent decades.
Taxing Wall Street speculation to finance free public college tuition, as Sanders talks about on the campaign trail, and has introduced in legislation, S 1373, the College for All Act, could create a net expansion of 4.2 million jobs. Not to mention securing equal educational opportunity for everyone, regardless of background or ability to pay.
Investing in education produces more than 8 times the number of jobs created by the same spending in financial services, the authors explain.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...00-billion-and
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
