Mods... can we get a new one?

Can Bernie pull out an upset?

Will Trump lock up all 95 delegates in his home state?

LOL I'm feeling the title. I'm registered Green Party officially but changed to Dem in mid March. Yeah I know I know, we had to do it in Oct, but they got that judge ruling whether it's an open primary for 9AM, I hear. I'm gonna see what's up. Go Bernie!

then even the most hardcore Hil supports will have to recognize how viable he is.
but if he doesn't, theres really no path for him going forward and i'd really like my Facebook wall back.

it's Hillary's second home yo, don't get upset if she wins a close one and Bern sticks around.

read the post below, the actual delegate count isn't that wide.

for him to have virtually no chance
it says he needs 56% of all remaining delegates
even a narrow loss, while impressive, just rachets that number up
i don't expect another Michigan in a closed primary
but if it happens, hats off to the man.
and yes i also expect him to stay in well past his sell by date either way.

If a man with an accent like that cannot pull out a win in New York, there's no point even attempting to spin it as a win.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-delegates-accurate-count/

After recent come-from-behind wins in three states, Bernie Sanders is now within striking distance of Hillary Clinton’s pledged delegate lead. At this time, Sanders needs less than 56% of the remaining pledged delegates to secure a majority of pledged delegates.

Sanders is within 200 pledged delegates in the wake of new boosts from Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada. With over 1,600 pledged delegates still to be allocated throughout the remainder of the Democratic primary, and with several major states with triple-digit delegate counts on the horizon, Sanders has plenty of room to catch up to Clinton before the Democratic National Convention in July.

So why is the media insisting on the tired narrative of inevitability? Partly because they haven’t paid attention to the latest developments.

In early April, Sen. Sanders flipped Clark County, by far Nevada’s largest county, at the Clark County Democratic Party Convention, ending up with 2,964 county delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 2,386. Clinton had previously won Clark County 4,774 to 3,928 during the February caucus. However, more of Sanders’ delegates showed up at the convention than Clinton’s, meaning unelected alternate delegates could take the place of Clinton’s absent delegates, who ultimately went for Sanders.

Several days after flipping Clark County, Sanders ended up beating Clinton in county delegates at the Missouri Democratic Party’s mass meetings on April 7. Should Sanders’ delegates show up at the Congressional District meetings in May, Sanders will have won 37 of Missouri’s pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton’s 34.

To further pad his delegate total, Sanders won Colorado by an even larger margin at this weekend’s state convention than he did on March 1. According to the Denver Post, Sanders walked away with 41 of the 66 pledged delegates, while Hillary Clinton won just 25. When Sanders won on Super Tuesday, the split was only 38-28.

That Sanders managed to cut the former First Lady and Secretary of State’s lead by 24 pledged delegates in the last two weeks is a testament to how the senator and his supporters work tirelessly at securing the Democratic nomination — even when the mainstream media isn’t paying attention.

Before this week’s new shifts in pledged delegate totals, Vox’s delegate tracker had 1,310 pledged delegates for Hillary Clinton and 1,094 for Bernie Sanders. But as of Saturday night, Sanders has 1,105 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,299, a difference of only 194 — hardly an “insurmountable” lead for the “presumptive nominee.” Furthermore, Sanders is likely to pick up even more when other caucus states have their statewide Democratic conventions over the next month.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to grossly inflate the delegate gap, either by including superdelegates (despite direct instruction from Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC not to do so), by discounting Washington’s tentative delegate count, or by simply not staying on top of the recent state-level shifts detailed above. The reported gap in delegate totals between Sanders and Clinton from even the most non-partisan media outlets are misleading (FiveThirtyEight: 206, New York Times: 220), while others are downright deceitful (NBC: 664, CBS: 695).

While Clinton still maintains a considerable lead when superdelegates are factored in, there are still roughly three months to go before those superdelegates cast their ballots at the Democratic National Convention. Should Bernie Sanders win the New York primary, even if just by a slim margin, and if he manages to win at least three of the five states voting on April 26, many of Clinton’s superdelegates may start to reconsider their positions.

http://time.com/3988970/donald-trump-business/

Maybe he really is in the $1.5B to $2.5B range

It's not her message, it's the mechanics.

New York is a closed primary and you have to register your party affiliation months in advance. A lot of Sanders supporters are either late to the party or new to the game and aren't registered to vote in this election today. Key words being: THIS ELECTION TODAY.

On the flipside, HRC's campaign apparatus is built to mobilize her constituencies and get them to the polls. She's got the ground game on lock and that's gonna be crucial in running up the score in New York City.

Meanwhile, Bernie's got 30,000 people coming to see him at a rally with only a third of those folks actually eligible to vote in this election today.

This is the difference between being popular and being effective and understanding that, at the end of the day, the important thing is winning. Clinton's team is going to win because they understand the battlefield better than their opponent.

Don't expect it to be close, votes beat enthusiasm.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

I've seen the polls, but I think you have to play out the actual voting process. When the fat lady sings we'll see.

An endorsement isn't just a politician coming out and verbally saying that they like a candidate, it's them pledging to put their people and their apparatus behind them as well.

HRC has every Democratic machine operation working on her behalf. We're talking about old school retail politics. The type of shit where you pull the van up to the Senior's Center or get a bus at the Union Hall and drive folks to the polls. That's something you can't build overnight or co-opt from folks who aren't already organized.

This is why Bernie has problems in primaries and especially why he has trouble in closed primaries. When it's Dem on Dem voting, without the support of Independents or folks who are only tangentially connected to the process, he can't break through the... well... establishment because they're, you know, established.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

I'll give up lol

Whisper of a dream.... what if Bernie wins...New Yawk.... ::gasp::

and this is the state she was a senator for 8 years...

it's laughable to pat her on the back for winning NY.

The point I'm making is simple: Clinton has an operational advantage over Sanders and that is what will propel her to a win.

Sanders has staked out the moral high ground on every issue and has been able to cast a rhetorical shadow over everything Clinton does. But to what end? He's still losing, he'll most likely lose today and again next week and he won't be able to close the gap in delegates to win the nomination.

Sometimes you win on touchdowns, sometimes you win on field goals, but as long as it's a W, that's all that matters.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

it's a 7 game series and you guys want the crown after winning 3 games.

Gotta finish strong bro

NY isn't the end.

1.) Bernie Sanders can't win the Democratic nomination because the math isn't on his side.

He's behind by a couple million votes and a few hundred pledged delegates.

2.) Bernie Sanders won't win the Democratic nomination because he is not a Democrat.

He's trying to stage a coup within the party when there are rules and structures in place to prevent just that.

Bernie Sanders lacks the votes, the delegates, and the party support to win the nomination. Full stop.

Read that again.

Bernie Sanders is "winning" with a vocal segment of the Democratic electorate that is also a minority within the party.

Bernie Sanders is losing the rest of the Democratic party. The party for which he seeks the presidential nomination.

If you think the media has been lying to you, they have. They want you to believe that Sanders has a shot at this when he actually doesn't.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

Bernie's contingent is definitely a loud minority in the overall Democratic party.

We are probably close in comparison to the Tea Party of the 2008 election cycle. That small minority was able to flip state in the 2010 midterms and completely change the political landscape.

I find it funny though that as destructive as the Tea Party has been able to be on a state a local level, Bernie supporters are still being told "that's not the way politics works" or about what can't get done.

I think we have more power than we think. I also kinda feel like a majority of Democrats/Hillary supporters are in this "let me just vote for President and wake me up in 4 years" mode that is hard to combat.

I'm down though, and I'm still eyeing 65% for Bernie today (based on the polls I've witness in the city).

and conversely what Sanders supports may be able to do with the coalition they've built
if they are able to really transform local politics the way the Tea Party did, that would be a massive win for liberals and a democratic president.

BUT if you think bernie is winning 65% today you've lost your goddamn mind 😂😂😂

"I find it funny though that as destructive as the Tea Party has been able to be on a state a local level, Bernie supporters are still being told "that's not the way politics works" or about what can't get done."

You don't see how Bernie Sanders supporters have been just as destructive because you're rooting for them, but they have been.

When your side is clamoring to take down the "establishment" your side is just as destructive as the Tea Party, just for a different set of principles.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

that left; there is a legit beef here internally as opposed to what was happening with the tea party.

Hell, Id almost venture to say that the US democratic party would be considered borderline right-wing in Europe.

Unlike the Repub's who have been double down on their beliefs for the past few decades the Democrats were afraid to espouse leftist ideals out of fear of alienating moderates (and the vain hope of appealing to compassionate conservatism).

While the Tea Party had a 'LET IT ALL BURN' disposition that was primarily fueled by big business consolidating their political power in a post recession environment decisively anti-big business, it seems that all the Bernie movement has done is let supposed left leaning politicians actually be left leaning.

YUGE difference. And they have reason to be.

Bernie speaks to the person like myself who YES got health insurance this year, but it is not a better situation for me. It almost ruined me financially. Now I'm not against paying but I would rather there be a better trade off for the money I am putting into the system.

For people to say Hillary should consider what people say is not destructive, it's democracy.

Even further, I hate this narrative that Bernie and his supporters are making things harder for Hillary by bringing up her dirt. That is an indictment on HILLARY though, not us or Bernie.

If you have a beef with the questionable stuff in Hillary's record and past, then take that up with her, not us.

Just like Obamacare isn't going to be repealed and abortion is going to remain legal, Bernie's proposals for socialized medicine and free college are non-starters.

They won't happen.

But like the dead-enders on the right who would shut down the government or risk the full faith and credit of the United States, Sanders supporters are on the left clamoring for changes that are only going to end in fruitless tantrums.

So then what?

What happens when you don't get what Bernie Sanders promised? Do you shut down the government? Do you protest en masse? Do you disrupt town hall meetings? What do you do when the other 50% of Americans who don't hold your values actively block your agenda?

The other side of that is that fact that Bernie Sanders is actively alienating the Democratic party that he'd need on his side (even in a minority) to get anything done. He's not fielding a slate of like minded candidates down-ballot, he's not putting money into the DNC's victory fund, and he's not actively laying any groundwork for any political revolution.

So then what?

What happens when President Sanders doesn't get you a new bike and Paul Ryan shuts his shit down?



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

I am loathing the idea of having to fight for ideas that should be commonplace. I am getting my skills together, and I somewhat feel if Bernie isn't the nominee, I won't "bust" but voting for Hillary may be my last move.

It is crazy to me that these agendas of the people are so well suppressed by the powers that be. Broke and middle class people like yourself are always like "Tuition free college won't work! WE can't pay for it!" based on no calculations. Free college? Can't afford it. War in Iraq? Spare no expense.

It is like a way that the establishment has puppeteer'd the status quo into feeling like there is only one way we can go, or throttle our expectations. Put it is so wild seeing THEIR message come out of people's mouths, against their interest.

My mom is dead set on voting for Hillary because she wants to see a woman President. Fair, do that. But then she says it's because she wants her granddaughter to grow up knowing that she could even be President 1 day! Yeah, she can if she navigates the struggles of growing up poor, and hopefully not different or disabled or of certain sexual orientation, then HOPEFULLY can go to college to even get a degree in the field....oh and then MILLIONS of dollars to finance a campaign.

It baffles me that Hillary had made her fight so many people's personal battle. But her fight is NOT our fight. I'm with Bernie. If we can't truly progress this country to where much of the rest of the world is, then I'm down to relocate.

What makes you believe that your values are right? What makes you assume that you know what's best for America?

This is why I'm exhausted with the Berniebots who can't get it through their heads that right and wrong or correct and incorrect aren't static concepts. There are some pretty good conservative ideas and there are some really bad progressive ideas. That's why we have a system based on compromise, otherwise, there would be no consistency.

But I digress...

I'm ultimately going to look back at this time as the official death of nuance in America. It's sad and scary that there's a whole generation of people who think that if they don't get their way then they shouldn't be engaged at all.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

and the other side is saying "discussions are closed"

When we have a healthy population of people bringing up legit gripes about society and all we are met with is "welp, America aint ready yet" then what options are left?

This whole political season has been based on logic. Logically I'm willing to give yall Hillary. But afterwards I think I'm making moves.

if liberals actually took the time to vote in midterms there wouldn't be all this need for all this revolution talk. it would just be an active progressive contingent pressuring a democratic congress to be more progressive.

i know it's generally the message he's pushing, but until bernie's movement makes actual inroads, it's more compareable to occupy wall street than the tea party

Not because they're bad people or aren't all in for the revolution, it's just that young people don't vote in midterms like old people because they got other shit to do.



my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

YOU were the one that didn't participate in that window. YOU were the young person that didn't show up. I was there. MY generation has been there about Bush v Gore/Bush v Kerry. These new "millennials" aint bout that life. We have student loan debt and no job prospects. Dont put that evil on us, lol

>if liberals actually took the time to vote in midterms

Oh, hey, that was also spearheaded by an old-line progressive (i.e. what the Democratic Party USED to stand for), but was attributed instead to Clintonite Rahm Emanuel, who was in charge of the DCCC at the time.

Republican legislatures redrew the districts and locked in their majority in the House until 2020.

So that's the structural change that is working against a "progressive" agenda.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

The DNC had TURNOUT covered thanks to Obama excitement and couldn't organize a two-car parade behind it.

the Bush run had crippled the republican brand.

Obama represented a stark change in direction. down ticket dems benefited, but they had already taken the senate back in 06

06 midterms were largely about Iraq.

but the last two midterms, Dems been MIA. All the energy coming from anger on the right. now with gerrymandering, they'll need nothing less than massive turnout to ever get the house back

Yep...Because those black folks that voted for Clinton in the south, tipping the scales in many states, were DUMB as fuck....

*blank stare*

I'm going to stay out of it until the results come in....Shit is nasty out here....

I do think that with all the info about her and Bill out there for public consumption as well as the info out there about her opponent, it lends some credibility to folks thinking that folks are just plain ignorant or blind to the facts.

How can we trust her at this point given the facts about her finagling of the truth sooooo many times. It's sad that people are willfully blind to that.

cause there is no reason IMO to be this loyal to a family who screwed over a generation of our people

I think those who support her ignore this the most. Sometimes I think that people want a dynasty just because and not because of the substance.

My personal belief is that you want people in office who will govern with wisdom, grace, and a conscience. I don't think that any of these traits are her strengths.

dumb and uninformed. SMH.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

something something "bring them to heel" somethiing something...

I wouldn't give her a pass for the Super predator comment. But she at least apologized for it.

Has Bernie done the same?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Bernie:
https://youtu.be/LTn3jUoMdVI

Hillary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno

You tell me the difference.
If you see none, then I can judge.

I do believe you are trying to prey on the stupidity of others because you personally are invested financially in someone like Bernie not being president

...time to WAKE UP ..stop believing everything CNN tells you

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He's only talking about the democrats in the south regardless of race who voted with their pockets

Mass disenfranchisement throughout the south & y'all capin for the electorate smh

They like things how they are because they benefit & they are scared Bernie will take it away from them

Typical right leaning capitalists who cloak themselves in "Democratic" rhetoric to hide their utter lack of progressive values & self interested greed

It's why they love calling economic justice a "single issue" because they're afraid with Bernie the poors will get too much of their money

Is uninformed and ignorant?
This is why people who don't support Bernie fucking hate you guys.

Actually, that's been an ongoing talking point from Bernie's supporters....And then it doesn't help when Bernie says that Hillary winning the south isn't a big deal and that those votes should be dismissed....Bad optics....Ya know?

Like I said...Between Hillary's hot sauce tap dancing and this ^^^ bullshit, I just want this shit to end...Like right now...

It'll be over soon.

I was never here.....Poof....

Come on dog...Let's keep it light....Jokes...

Because they're ideologues.
And its impossible to discuss anything with an ideologue.
How are you going to exchange ideas with someone who thinks any opinion other than theirs is uninformed and ignorant from jump?

"It's about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason to the cause."

And the irony is that Bernie supports are more uninformed and ignorant of both the political process and Bernie's record than anyone.

ideologue. 1 : an impractical idealist : theorist. 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology.

I don't think a lot of Bernie supporters are impractical necessarily. I would say that the ideas such as access to "free" higher education and "free" healthcare he champions are being done around the globe and so there is a base model to follow. What we do know is that the current model has been disastrous and will get worse in the longterm.

I also don't think it's blind advocation. We've had about a year to vet his policies and further scrutinize them as they've developed. There is a lot of info out there about how these ideas could work. So why not think they will?

I think it's up to the electorate to seek out the best pro-Bernie arguments even though it's hard for him to get a fair shake in the mass media. It's unfortunate, really. It seems like Hillary doesn't have to try because polarizing figures like herself and Trump get ratings off of shadiness.

...does not make you a bad person ..just dumb ..and there are PLENTY of dumb fucking pale face people voting for this disgusting criminal today in New York ..chances are she wins here ...point being, NY probably IS as ignorant and uninformed as the south


good news, the scum is getting indicted, so win or lose today.. Bernie is still likely going to the White House..

you packed a lot of ignorant and uninformed statements in that little post.
I'm sure you're not a total piece of shit, but you know that's how you come off, right?
whatever. carry on.

...if so, you're the sucker being lied to ...you're the sucker she's counting on for BLIND support ...she fucking COUNTING on you being ignorant to her shady and criminal dealings ...she NEEDS you to blissfully look the other way while casting your vote ..and she's the one that will take a massive SHIT on you once she's in office

don't be mad at me ..it's her you should be mad at ..and it's her you WILL eventually be mad at if she manages to slither her way into office somehow

sorry if you think i come off like an asshole.. i guess is why people don't like to have political discussions with friends.. i'm having the same discussions with family members and friends..and it gets heated... it's 50/50 ...and mostly the uninformed CNN watching older generation who's on her side..

But if i have to choose, i choose her, hands down
I'm aware of all the things about her that you're pointing to. Some of them are true (and troubling). Some of them are bullshit.
Regardless, I think she would be a strong president, and he would be a hapless one.

Out of curiosity, can you give a couple of examples? I truly want to hear your understanding of it.

person.

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.jnw1q7sxj



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

how come she never mentions any of Hillary's numerous investigations and accusations of wrongdoing throughout her political career? She's been connected to some shady figures including the fairly recently released Panama Papers.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/08/the-panama-papers-make-the-case-against-hillary-clinton/#ifrndnloc

Bernie released his taxes and made last year roughly what Hillary makes in one of her speeches. I consistently get the impression that Hillary is on some quid quo pro. Who would Bernie be beholden to... the general electorate and not the corporations..

As long as it fits what they already think.


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

Interesting how that "research" didn't yield any substantive results that link Clinton's Super PACS, non-profits, and lobbying connections to main industries that she is bound to (be it pharma, defense contractors, fossil fuel companies, or prison-industrial corporations). Also interesting how this "research" doesn't reveal a disastrous Clinton record on foreign policy & war.

Very hard to take this kind of blind-eyed sophomoric politico think-piece serious.

-->

>Interesting how that "research" didn't yield any substantive
>results that link Clinton's Super PACS, non-profits, and
>lobbying connections to main industries that she is bound to
>(be it pharma, defense contractors, fossil fuel companies, or
>prison-industrial corporations).


yeah but no one has found that. That's her point. No one has been able to point to in any way that Clinton's record has been compromised by folks donating and paying for her.

Also good explanation of this how industries that she is bound to. If Bernie is the general election candidate, he will have to be bound to those very same industries (unless of course the young people rise up and give the individual limit in an unprecedented manner).


Also interesting how this
>"research" doesn't reveal a disastrous Clinton record on
>foreign policy & war.
>
>Very hard to take this kind of blind-eyed sophomoric politico
>think-piece serious.
>
>-->


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>yeah but no one has found that. That's her point. No one has
>been able to point to in any way that Clinton's record has
>been compromised by folks donating and paying for her.


**whistles** over here!
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/us/politics/the-vote-for-bankruptcy-reform-that-haunts-hillary-clinton.html

if you don't feel like reading it.. Basically Hilary was against the bankruptcy bill which makes it harder for people to declare bankruptcy.. she was against it for years.. that is until she started getting huge donations from the banking industry.. then she suddenly decided to vote FOR the Bankruptcy bill..

if you don't think she's catering to special interests, you're not thinking at all.. and you know why she isn't releasing those speeches she's given to wall street?? because there WERE NO SPEECHES.. thats also illegal.. STRAIGHT UP BRIBERY!! but who cares right? she's more electable.. a strong leader right?

...so YES, i hope i'm more trustworthy than some wealthy lawyer who defends the special interests groups who are fucking this country over ...that bitch is lying right from the line one

You just said you were more informed. Now you are more trust worthy.

Why she got to be a bitch though?

You are exactly that Bernie Bro that gives Bernie Bros a bad name. SMH.




>...so YES, i hope i'm more trustworthy than some wealthy
>lawyer who defends the special interests groups who are
>fucking this country over ...that bitch is lying right from
>the line one
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

...you got NOTHING to say about the fact that she's a major hedge fund lawyer who protects the special interests and shes here PRETENDING to be some former Bernie supporter for a fucking blog??


ohhh no!!! you said a bad word!!! seriously?? Bitch is more than fitting, and i think thats being pretty kind in this situation..

edit: my wife said she's a cunt, so there..

So yeah I don't see how that disqualifies her. And she is not that prominent of an attorney and I don't see how the work she does have anything to do with lobbying for a special interest.


>...you got NOTHING to say about the fact that she's a major
>hedge fund lawyer who protects the special interests and shes
>here PRETENDING to be some former Bernie supporter for a
>fucking blog??
>
>
>ohhh no!!! you said a bad word!!! seriously?? Bitch is
>more than fitting, and i think thats being pretty kind in this
>situation..
>
>edit: my wife said she's a cunt, so there..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I think the connotation is pretty off base, honestly. It's been widely documented that millions of socially aware women are in support of Bernie Sanders.

>
>You are exactly that Bernie Bro that gives Bernie Bros a bad
>name. SMH.
>

you guys say this shit every other day to the same 2 posters.

grow a pair.

You got folks talking about purity contests when the real purity test is "are you a true member of the Democrat party"

Smh

2 - who was it that decided to run for the DEMOCRATIC nomination? ill give you one guess.

And Bernie ran as a dem bc he knows it's only possible to actually become president if you work in the two party system

and clearly his values are more in line with democrats that repubs

But here he is trying to do it the way the system is set up to do it & that's a problem now?

Which brings us right back to this purity test of "he's not a real member of our party"

Dude, FUCK your jackass party, this is exactly why the trend is for folks to be independents because both parties ain't shit even if one is more ain't shit than the other

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=13002339&mesg_id=13002339&listing_type=search#13002560

if she does win NY...then I'll no longer support Bernie

country niggas don't know no betta....this aint even no secret so I don't know why erybody coming at u like that lol

>if she does win NY...then I'll no longer support Bernie
>
>country niggas don't know no betta....this aint even no secret
>so I don't know why erybody coming at u like that lol
>
>

Welp..


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

...if these polls are right, I'm embarrassed to be from this state ..fucking ashamed

.

Albany
Rochester
Buffalo
Syracuse

I'm not sure how all of these places will play out. I think they tend to be more conservative than NYC tho.

I first moved here, their idea of "conservative" is way different.

They actually have a platform more in line with Bernie, because the middle class has been crunched, and it makes more sense to invest into people than corporations. Going door to door completely reversed my idea of what a "conservative White man" is.

but we'll see.

>RE: Yup, but from having campaigned in a lot of these places when
>I first moved here, their idea of "conservative" is way
>different.


>They actually have a platform more in line with Bernie,


>Going door to door completely reversed my idea of what a "conservative White
>man" is.



Can you flesh out these 3 items more please?
I kind of "forget" that Syracuse and Rochester and Albany are in the same state as Harlem and Flatbush.

1. What "brand" of conservatism do they have in Western NY?

2. What platform do they have out there?

3. Specifically, how was your view/definition of "conservative" white male changed?

4. Compare/contrast these Western NYers with GOPers, please.

>Can you flesh out these 3 items more please?
>I kind of "forget" that Syracuse and Rochester and Albany are
>in the same state as Harlem and Flatbush.
>
>1. What "brand" of conservatism do they have in Western NY?
>
>2. What platform do they have out there?
>
>3. Specifically, how was your view/definition of
>"conservative" white male changed?
>
>4. Compare/contrast these Western NYers with GOPers, please.

Sure thing. My experience with "White conservative males" is completely different from growing up in NC. My earliest political memory is going to the public library with my Dad. I was wearing a Clinton/Gore hat as we were walking in, and walking out this older white dude saw my hat and like swatted it off my head. Growing up with that and all of the racially tinged legislation, and the Darryl Hunt case in the background (RIP) really shaped my Black Political Thought.

Up here, I expected NYers to be a bit of the same from the conservative mindset but they aren't. Most are middle class or above in the upstate/west NY areas. They live modestly and have suburban lifestyles. But their conservatism is anti-prison, pro-environment, pro wage increase, anti-wall street deregulation, pro-single payer system. Beyond the moral justifications they understand or at least have considered the monetary approach to policy. It is better to invest in schools than prisons. It is better to protect the environment than clean up spills or disasters. If the minimum wage is raised more people have money to participate in the economy. They didn't want another housing bubble/market crash that wiped out their savings.

Their conversations helped hone my liberal idealism into actually looking at achievable legislation. Conservatives I met were less Tea Party and more Working Families Party. Same with many of the independents. However, racism is everywhere, and there will always be those types of people, but it was really refreshing to have so many of those conversations up in Syracuse, Niagara, and out on Long Island as well.

This is true, but you also have to consider that in many ways they are like Michigan. A good amount of jobs have been shipped overseas and Bernie's platform is very appealing to people who feel marginalized by "the establishment". He could do very well in these places like Michigan.

cause all we talking about is Harlem world and NYC

and Albany, while Hillary took the urban centers -- NYC, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.

Trump needs more than 50% to get all 95 delegates. Pretty sure he's on target for that. If anything....it would be a surprise if he doesn't make it. True?

Hillary should win...something around 55 to 45. True?

I wasn't expecting much when I clicked on the song 'Fuck Donald Trump'. Pleasantly surprised. The lyrics got me sparked and the beat sounds like a DJ Quik-esque type thing. Check it out if you haven't:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkZ5e94QnWk

Let's see what the rest of NY did

Lighting up the Empire State Building to show who is protected go win

but I don't associate Hillary with NY, except for her Senate Seat

I associate her with Arkansas (and Illinois) more than anything else

because NY's law were flexible enough to let that be enough residency to be able to run for Senate, which she did and won.

It's hardly her "home" but yeah she was here like Jordan was born in Brooklyn.

an Independent? Don't know if you've been paying attention but he beats her by 2 points in national polls and trails only by a few million votes with millions of people not able to weigh in on primaries.

AND HE DOESN'T NEED WALL STREET OR THE DNC'S MONEY. WE FINANCE HIM. He beats Hillary in a general election, no doubt. He doesn't need the Democratic nomination to be President. This is what a political revolution looks like.

I fill like Hillary supporters feel like the undefeated Pats beating the Giants in the regular season. Wait til the Super Bowl tho bruh.

to the number of voters that were disenfranchised in the last couple days.

hmmm.

my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

i'm not saying it's factual. i don't know.

i do know a lot of people that likely would have voted Sanders didn't get to vote today though.

Is a yuge problem in Brooklyn.

Too bad no one gives a fuck about those "southern states" where it's like, you know, a real thing.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

but whatever folks have to tell themselves

Even Kasich has 10 points on him

the packed ballroom completely ignored his speech and acted like he wasnt there

ppl are eating, clanking glasses, having table convo's and getting up to walk around


nice reception for mr 'new york values'

Bernie's done.

Seriously, fork in him. Done.

It was fun while it lasted though.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

Revolution!

then ask for their vote in the general.

enjoy that Trump presidency.

YOURE A FUCKING IDIOT. PERIOD POINT BLANK

the point is, and i see this on here, on FB, on Twitter, etc...Hillary's supporters are like sore winners.

they like to throw Hill's W's in Sander supporters' faces and make little comments like stravinskian's.

BUT, Hillary is going need Bernie's people. that's why she brought it up in her victory speech tonight. she assumes she's secured the nomination and is already trying to court them.

so yes, keep shit talking them and then ask them to vote for her. that's wise.

that will get you Trump - when you've created enough disdain for Hillary as a supporter that your actions encourage Bernie's people to just stay home.

wtf??? so youre saying bernie supporters are that silly and childish that they lose in the primary and just dont vote bcz its hilldawg who wins and who was going to win alll along?? these are grown folks we talking bout right? sure bernie gained a lil momentum...but lets be fucking realistic...you niggas are getting caught up in some shit you cant even explain how this fool gonna pay for half the shit he proposing...you think if barack could barely get healthcare thru this dude gonna get free college and healthcare??? you cant push ALL THE WAY left just like you cant push all the way right..shit has to be done in baby steps..

when you question how Bernie is going to accomplish/pay for his policies then I suggest you go to his website if you have not. all of that is laid out there. i don't know why this continues to be a thing when it's right there in black and white.

additionally, as Hillary has shifted left to keep up with Bernie, she will either have to break those new ideal she took form Bernie, just like Bernie would, or shift right (which is what she'll do) because she'll have to work with the exact same Congress.

the point being she's going to struggle to get things done just as Bernie would unless she shifts right, which is bad for every liberal that actually wants to achieve liberal goals.

it seems like Hillary supporters just don't understand that there's a sizeable amount of Bernie supporters that just don't like her and either won't vote for her or have serious concerns about voting for her - so, since she's the pragmatic candidate - it's not so pragmatic for she, her employees or her supporters to badmouth Bernie's people since they will need their votes to beat whomever the Republicans run.

Hillary has no message and people don't care about her like they do Bernie. For me, Hillary has to earn my vote if she wants it. I'm gonna start looking real hard at that Green party in the meanwhile. Dr. Jill Stein looking real sexy over there...

Jesus.

If his supporters actually care about any of the issues they claim to, they'll get over their petulant childishness. If they don't, then they wouldn't have voted anyway.

Bernie should have kept it positive and focused on issues. If he refuses to go there now, fuck him.

>supporters actually care about any of the issues they claim to, >they'll get over their petulant childishness. If they don't, then >they wouldn't have voted anyway.

or, they don't think Hillary cares about the issues they care about. she's only moved left (where most Bernie supporters are) to pay lip service to things Bernie stood for, and she'll move back to the right if/when Bernie is out of it. so, you can call it petulant childishness or it could just be them seeing Hillary as a candidate that doesn't represent them.

>Bernie should have kept it positive and focused on issues. If
>he refuses to go there now, fuck him.
>

was Bernie not talking about issues? did we watch different debates?

>Jesus.
>
>If his supporters actually care about any of the issues they
>claim to, they'll get over their petulant childishness. If
>they don't, then they wouldn't have voted anyway.
>
>Bernie should have kept it positive and focused on issues. If
>he refuses to go there now, fuck him.



you are so out of touch.. Bernie has been nothing but CLASS this ENTIRE race... in fact, he's probably the nicest political opponent anyone could ask for ...the fact that you morons cried "Sexist!" on the least sexist candidate EVER is going to backfire on you once Trump starts up on Hillary ..he will have no mercy on your girl

Bernie has been pretty soft on Hillary, it's really going to get ugly in the general and yes, they will use sexism as a primary defense.

I cant wait for Hillary to hold a press conference on feminism to shut up the haters.

Also cant wait to see more from her Kim Jung Korea collection of dictator jackets.

Congratulations on a Hillary Clinton presidency. We'll see how that works out.

-->

lol

The old man put up a good fight.

If he started seriously running for pres. a little earlier than he did, I think he would have taken it

but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHl2OzgPlgA

But I think he should run in the general as an Independent. He should ride out the rest of the primary to endear himself to voters in these areas via his rallies, and then join Jill Stein as an Independent ticket. I wasn't Bern or bust before but after yesterday's voting irregularities how can you not be? The Democratic party is basically saying our vote doesn't matter. I'd vote for Hillary vs Trump clearly, but I'd rather vote for Bernie. I'd like to see him in the general with all people able to weigh in with their vote instead of these closed primaries.

And don't say he would Nader the situation either. It's a completely different context.

>But I think he should run in the general as an Independent.
>He should ride out the rest of the primary to endear himself
>to voters in these areas via his rallies, and then join Jill
>Stein as an Independent ticket. I wasn't Bern or bust before
>but after yesterday's voting irregularities how can you not
>be? The Democratic party is basically saying our vote doesn't
>matter. I'd vote for Hillary vs Trump clearly, but I'd rather
>vote for Bernie. I'd like to see him in the general with all
>people able to weigh in with their vote instead of these
>closed primaries.

Um...wow.....

but imagine if Trump AND Bernie went 3rd party...

talk about a shit show

We talked about that at work today:

GOP - Cruz
Dems - Clinton
Ind - Trump
Green - Sanders

good lord, but that's what revolution looks like.

You're probably looking at either the Goggle-Eyed Homunculus chosen by Koch Industries to run their Midwestern Subsidy Previously Known as the State of Wisconsin or the Dead-Eyed Granny-Starver (c) Chuck Pierce

I kinda want to see it JUST to see the calamity.

But if Bernie didn't go Indy then I'd vote for her.

But I'm seriously am looking at new countries to locate to with wifey. It shouldn't take this much convincing to do the right thing, but so many other places already have this figured out to some extent.

I would be impressed, I can't believe people actually move over Presidential elections

It's not about Bernie Sanders.

It's about health care, and education, mass incarceration, homelessness, pay equity, civil liberties, etc.

All those things are basically being seen as unachieveable when plenty of other places have those things. It is a better quality of life. If America is like naw, lets approach it incrementally, but we can tackle LGBT bathrooms in one session of legislation, then naw. I'd rather go somewhere and earn my same money, with healthcare and education for my loved ones and future kids and a 4 day work week. Tax me, I'd gladly do it.

America aint caught up yet, and apparently doesn't want to.

but the few countries I have been too

IRT 'Murica, greatest country on earth, etc...

yeah, they lied to us.

....but even then, the republican house would likely end up deciding the election ..and that could go a number of directions since so many republicans hate Trump & Hillary both

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bZfQEmG4i8

sorry, not sorry

IDC if I have to write his name in

I can't support HRC

standing in the Michelle Alexander line

we need viable candidates outside the 2 party system

this 'process' is nonsense.

But please know, you're gonna need to get in line.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

...but if i was in a red state, i'd have to vote the Dem nominee ...i dont want to see abortion outlawed ..i dont want to see gay marriage abolished, i dont want cannabis legalization set back in this country ...i know Hillary will at least not set these things back (i hope) ...she's not going to do much to push them ahead tho either

...yesterday was a sad day for this country, i had big hopes for a positive future with great leadership ...this is the first election ive been a part of as a parent, and it means so much more now ..so seeing a future with Trump or Clinton president really bums me out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uYoMUw1EI

Riddle me this, for real...

If Bernie Sanders can't win the nomination of the Democratic party, how in the fuck is he supposed to win the general election?

Like, if he's pulling in a solid 30%-40% of a faction of the electorate, how does that bode for him when that number gets winnowed down to 15% of the total population?


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

been able to weigh in the primaries because of party affiliations and voting day shenanagins? I think the margins would be completely different in the general as he could pick up Dems, Indy, Conservative, and even Republican votes. That would just be a democracy. For a party that has all but shut him out, though nationally he beats Hillary by 2 points, I say put it on the line.

For the most part Hillary supporters (yourself included) haven't really championed her candidacy. It's been "she's a woman" or "she's a Democrat". But the issues Sanders have brought up haven't been ignored. Blindly vote Democratic if you want but we can do better. Let's see how it all lays out. At least this would be the closest thing to democracy, and America can end up with the President it deserves.

>been able to weigh in the primaries because of party
>affiliations and voting day shenanagins? I think the margins
>would be completely different in the general as he could pick
>up Dems, Indy, Conservative, and even Republican votes. That
>would just be a democracy. For a party that has all but shut
>him out, though nationally he beats Hillary by 2 points, I say
>put it on the line.

Nah....I'll walk the other way. Gotta let y'all Bernie folk calm down first. There's some good, rationale people in that bunch. The whole stolen election meme is turning very Trump-ian....Gonna let y'all rock....

1.) No matter how you slice it, when it comes to raw vote totals, Bernie Sanders is losing. Badly. He's outside of the envelope of reason in terms of saying he's in striking distance. It's one thing to say he's only behind by 260 delegates (which is substantial), but it's the nearly 3million votes that he's down by that can't be overlooked. Sorry, that's just the numbers.

2.) I'm not "excited" about Hillary Clinton because I know what she's going to do and it's exactly what I want her to do. Continue to iterate on Barack Obama's policy agenda, tweak what needs tweaking, throw out what needs throwing out, and responsibly steward the government through America's shift back to the left.

I'm not asking for a savior. Things for me ain't that bad, I'm asking for an able administrator who can make things be not that bad for everyone else too.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

especially on foreign policy... this will affect domestic policy negatively. She's not about "change". If she gets the nom we will see her start to shift.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/hillaryclintonisscary.jpg

lizard people lol

That whole thing with Clampett going in on the BLM folks was an early indication that she's gonna strongly court center-right voters who don't want their taxes giving "free stuff" to "those people"

>1.) No matter how you slice it, when it comes to raw vote
>totals, Bernie Sanders is losing. Badly. He's outside of the
>envelope of reason in terms of saying he's in striking
>distance. It's one thing to say he's only behind by 260
>delegates (which is substantial), but it's the nearly 3million
>votes that he's down by that can't be overlooked. Sorry,
>that's just the numbers.

Bruh, there's 3 million voters who couldn't vote in NY alone simply because they aren't registered Republican or Democrat. Now, obviously all those people, had they voted, would not have voted for Sanders. That said, NY isn't the only place where this happens and it should be noted.

>
>2.) I'm not "excited" about Hillary Clinton because I know
>what she's going to do and it's exactly what I want her to do.
> Continue to iterate on Barack Obama's policy agenda, tweak
>what needs tweaking, throw out what needs throwing out, and
>responsibly steward the government through America's shift
>back to the left.
>
>I'm not asking for a savior. Things for me ain't that bad,
>I'm asking for an able administrator who can make things be
>not that bad for everyone else too.

Right. That's the problem. Things for YOU ain't that bad so the status quo seems fine. Despite all of the good Barack has done, the economic standing of the vast majority of Americans has gotten WORSE over his presidency (I'm not blaming him for that, per se, BTW). Hillary isn't going to do as much as Barack did while in office, soooooooo...how will it get better for those folks? Also, like dude below said, she's gonna shift right, not left.

Oh that's right he would pretty much be irrelevant right now because he wouldn't have been able to use Democratic platform to get his message out.

Wasn't none of yal complaining about closed primaries in states he was winning

Now it's an issue

Cry.
____________
Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

>Oh that's right he would pretty much be irrelevant right now
>because he wouldn't have been able to use Democratic platform
>to get his message out.
>
>Wasn't none of yal complaining about closed primaries in
>states he was winning
>
>Now it's an issue
>
>Cry.

First, let's bring up the stupid fact that you have to run as one of ONLY two parties to get your message out. Is that democracy? fuck no. but you know, get your giggles off fam.

Second, people complained about closed primaries in every state where there was closed primaries which ties back to the first point of having to claim a party to be heard. those people were still disenfranchised. however, since most independents skew towards Bernie, then luckily for the majority of them the guy they would have chose won w/out their votes. that still doesn't make it not an issue.

Cry? Why? You're the one that sounds miserable. Maybe you need a tissue.

run as a Dem. Then if the Dems say naw, then run as independent.

It's like if an artist signs to a major, builds their fan base, then goes indie to have the better deal but same mass appeal.

System is broken after all. Minus well get SOME kinda positivity from it.

Like Iv been saying about him this campaign is just self serving political theatre

He could give a fuck about a movement or really having a viable impact on the political landscape.

Shame he conned alot of folk into thinking he did


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

is the disingenuous one.

One panders when the camera is on.

The other has been down even when not in the spotlight.

these cats are devoid of hope.

edit: wild two hunnid

But not even backing senators in races that support him that could help usher in policies needed for REAL change.

Yea homie I get it. Yal in a world of hurt right now and can't see the forest from the trees

Well I can't even say that because yal not even concerned with details of how shyt could get done

Yal emotionally invested in bernie and what he represents to yal

But not thinking about all the other shyt in play

I don't care too much about Hillary

Never have

But I know she's a tool to get a less conservative supreme court

A democrats in the house and Senate

Once that happens then u can get the ball rolling on more progressive policies and even more progressive candidates

But that shyt is not going to happen if republicans get the white house and maintain the majority in congress.

U can talk about not living on fear and all that dumb shyt but I choose to live in reality

And the reality is republicans in Congress and the conservative supreme court have already done enough bullshyt with a democrat as president

ie parts of the voting rights act of 1965 getting repealed basically making it open season on discrimination at the poles this November in 9 states. I'm in Texas and they immediately implemented a voter I.D. measure that had been blocked.

The other side ain't playing fair

This the type of shyt that's at stake this November

Am I comfortable with Hillary accepting money from wall street

No

Was I cool with Obama doing it too?

No

Would I want corporate money out of the process all together?

Of course

But I know that shyt is not happening with a Republican president and congress

There's more Dems in favor of campaign finance reform than republicans

There's more Dems in favor of tighter regulations on wall street than Republicans

Etc etc

So im voting Democrat

And voting

Yal can take ya ball and go home all u want

But It's a shame yal can't see that or refuse to understand the complexities of this shyt and going with the all or nothing approach like that accomplishes anything

This shyt reminds me so much of the occupy wall street movement and u see how that ended up




____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

Has benefited the Democratic party and their candidate as well.

Bernie will run as an independent. Bernie will win with diverse support. He will do it on the DNC's and then later his supporters dollar.

And there is nothing you can do about it. Don't believe me? Just watch.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

Ever

Too bad we dont have a prime minister.. would be interesting to see what they could do together..

Berns and Hotsauce Hilldawg I mean

He could get himself in a solid role as Secretary of Labor or head of the NLRB.

It's not like the overall make-up of a Clinton or a Sanders administration would be all that different when it comes to core players.

Bernie just needs to make sure he lands it right so that he's still got a seat at the table when it's all said and done.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

If you're not seated at the table, you're probably on the menu.

I Sanders and his people are serious about "political revolution" then they need to recognize that Hillary Clinton is the best thing going to get them to their goals right now. You can't let perfect be the enemy of the good or overlook the fact that 50% of an opportunity is better than 100% of a dream.

Sorry, but the revolution ain't happening this year. That doesn't mean the game stops or you take your ball and go home. It means you work with whatcha got to get closer to whatcha want.


my avy: Deep in your heart, you know he's right: http://coreyrichardsonneedsajob.com/
my hustle: http://SupaSoulSounds.com

*RIP: John T. "220v" Richardson, Blessing Benson, and Dilla*

that Cruz, and especially Kasich fade into oblivion.

I do not need either of those jabronis on any GOP ticket. This one, the Dems will have to go for a strict 2004 win path and anything else they get beyond that is gravy. Wisconsin could be fucked because of Scott Walker's monkey ass

Kasich ends up on that ballot and Ohio could be fucked in the goat ass. Especially since the sec of state there is a GOP cheatin' ass rasshole

the turnout will not be 2008/12 levels, even with Trump on the bill

get those bums the fuck outta there, please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OKA7ZIAbZ8

Bernie's campaign hasn't talked about this, nor has the media really, but like legsdiamond said, this will see the light of day. They've had a year to build the case. Bernie doesn't need to do anything but keep Berning.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/557b41f8e4b0e197d1188067/t/55d55760e4b0e9be3d6a8fe1/1460128652048/?format=1500w

saw this on a car the other day... I laughed

In the comments section I was reading they said Barack would pardon Hillary even though it would implicate himself. Some of those top secret emails, I believe, came from his office.

She's Machiavellian with it.

>In the comments section I was reading they said Barack would
>pardon Hillary even though it would implicate himself. Some of
>those top secret emails, I believe, came from his office.
>
>She's Machiavellian with it.


Sounds like u wishing she will be indicted....

U sure Rush Limbaugh don't have u tied up somewhere in a basement in Missouri? lol...

Deal with it. I don't know anything other than the FBI is tuning up. We'll find out at the same time I guess.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OKA7ZIAbZ8
>
>Bernie's campaign hasn't talked about this, nor has the media
>really, but like legsdiamond said, this will see the light of
>day. They've had a year to build the case. Bernie doesn't
>need to do anything but keep Berning.


And so it begins.....Trump/Cruz don't even have to start up the machine....I'm seeing this more and more online...That hardcore Bernie CREW wants blood....Hopefully, the man himself will instruct them to turn it down.

(*Also...everyone and their mama knows that the Republicans will make Emails/Benghazi a heavy talking point...This is not news...I don't think the Dems and Hillary Clinton are worried about REPUGS going THERE. Par-for-the-course. But u know what's news? That some Bernie supporters think that Clinton is actually going to jail or be indicted....This is some progressive-meets-FOX Bizarro world shit....I can't....*)

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

We'll probably see soon, buddy.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/siteupload/2013/01/hillary-wink.jpg

>We'll probably see soon, buddy.


See what?

What Democrat is rubbing their hands together Birdman style on some CLINTON GOING TO JAIL shit? What Democrat is doing that when Trump and Cruz are on the other side?

But I have to remember....I keep forgetting that a lot of Bernie's more hardcore supporters r not really Dems...So posts like yours r not at all surprising...Like I said, hopefully Bernie doesn't get desperate and take that bait....

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0wzLJA8rSBhTIh9tMlqjyjDUfJQ=/0x174:4664x3283/1280x853/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48734059/GettyImages-507932872.0.0.jpg

>https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/0wzLJA8rSBhTIh9tMlqjyjDUfJQ=/0x174:4664x3283/1280x853/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/48734059/GettyImages-507932872.0.0.jpg


Great shot of the Bernie Bros.....Did u take the picture?....lol

That's me with the pizza box.

>That's me with the pizza box.


No shit?

Sad

>http://i.imgur.com/mCtpccV.jpg


It's crazy.....Most of the folks on the left taking it THERE r not Democrats in the traditional sense, so I'm not too worried about them...

Keeping my fingers crossed that Bernie doesn't go all Joker on some LET THE WORLD BURN shit....He's a smart, good dude...I'm keeping hope that he doesn't go that route while letting the Bernie heads let it all out...It's a very emotional time. I remember how some Clinton supporters lashing out when Obama got into that huge lead...Only human nature...

gotta regroup and figure out the next step. there's lots on the line.

i hope homie does the right thing.

The idea that the party is one thing and one thing only is a sign of stagnation and things that don't move die. Is that what you want? Hillary is a dinosaur ideologically. We ain't on that no mo'.

If u know that u r losing and yet attempt to sabotage the leading candidate in the party u r running under, which happens to be Democrat, then yeah, u r not a Dem..

Bernie has the right to talk about Clinton's foreign policy missteps...He has to right to speak about her dizzying stance on TPP trade....Point that shit out....Keep the heat on Hilldawg to keep her on that left path....But this talk of trying to flip delegates? Come on, dog...lol...That's desperation at this point....

Bernie will probably stay in the race until June, which is fine by me...He has the money...Let him spread his message to he can get a seat at the table to kick off some real change

Hopefully he doesn't start going off the cliff....

It's a ticking time bomb.

It's been here all along. It never went anywhere. Do you think it will go away quietly? She is a heavily flawed candidate in many numerous ways and this is perhaps the most damning... she is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigations. She's the best candidate? She's lucky that Bernie's campaign has kept it on the issues.

>It's been here all along. It never went anywhere. Do you
>think it will go away quietly? She is a heavily flawed
>candidate in many numerous ways and this is perhaps the most
>damning... she is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of
>Investigations. She's the best candidate? She's lucky that
>Bernie's campaign has kept it on the issues.


Dog...Stop it...It's bullshit...Just like Benghazi was some bullshit that got exposed...Don't get it twisted, Clinton has some real bones in her closet....But while I've gone on record as saying that the whole Email thing had me spooked in the beginning...It's serious....But I'm not going to go off the cliff and say she's headed for jail or will be indicted...lol

That's the difference....

And how is Clinton lucky? Bernie is running as a Democrat....And as such he knows he can't do the Republicans dirty work....He knows he would be a pariah with the party he caucuses with...

Let's chill and get back to reality.....

so please stop with the fake poutrage...

>so please stop with the fake poutrage...


No...I said it was only thing in Clinton's campaign that gave me SERIOUS pause and had me spooked...

But not once have u ever heard me say I think she's going to jail...lol...Because that's not going to happen...That's MY point.

And I'm certainly not *wishing* on an indictment like some Bernie heads seem to be doing...Stating that something is a serious issue while pointing out that it is still being used a ham-fisted political weapon by the Right is not at all too complicated to understand....

I'm just saying that that is an angle that gets swept under the rug. As you said it's a serious oversight by everyone involved. You got former FBI out here writing letters saying they support the current FBI's investigation and recommendations. I think that hints at something coming down the pipe that Hillary supporters are not gonna like. Don't kill the messenger over self inflicted wounds.

The "wishing" part is def. going down...To a lot of Bernie's more fervent supporters Clinton is the second coming of Nixon...She's a Republican is Democrats clothing...And she has apparently found to cheat code to becoming the most dishonest, law breaking politician of her era...On some evil genius, shit...

All of this makes me laugh, of course....Because I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans were painting Clinton as the poster child for unchecked Liberal activism in the '90s.....The irony is real...

Compared to Bernie's record I'd paint her like that as well. The way her campaign reaches to call his campaign misogynistic or disingenuous, it's just purely ludicrous to me. Hillary does have issues with being for something one minute and changing her stripes when convenient for one reason or the other. As a career politician, if you hold her next to Bernie, she falls woefully short. Do you disagree with this assessment? It seems like you don't care that for once we have an option here(Bernie) that actually appears to have scruples and standards.

>Compared to Bernie's record I'd paint her like that as well.

Bernie is the purest liberal to ever walk the earth....Dude makes George McGovern look like a Right Wing hack.....

At least that's what I've heard...

Based on your knowledge of both candidates platforms and political records, do you think Hillary is more or less trustworthy than Sanders as far as political agenda? I'll take your answer and leave it there for now. I'm truly curious.

Nah...I'm just saying...That's the appeal of Bernie to the hardcore faithful. He's Captain Liberal.....

In their eyes no one can measure up to Bernie unless they follow his way....That Uber Left Tea Party vibe I'm getting from some of his supporters is fascinating....

Seriously... clue me in. Hillary doesn't compare. She doesn't have the scruples, my friend. When you find genuine people you don't throw them on the scrap heap. I don't quite understand the fervor over Hillary who has so many flaws. I thought the idea was to elect the best candidate. From my understanding she's not the best on pretty much anything regarding US citizens or the world for that matter.

I think the person that's "better" is the person that has shown the ability to get things done in a very political format...In my view, that's Clinton....

I believe Bernie has always been a strong voice...And he's represented with honor. But I also think that he has always been a bit of a cage shaker...a rebel rouser....To me he's the guy that makes it his business to keep u honest....

It;a a rarity that the rebel rouser reaches the presidency....Usually, two-fisted politicians like Bernie contribute more by staying out of the muck....

I think I'm more inclined to say that maybe a rabble rouser is the right "tool" for the job here. I'm calling for the bulldozer and you're calling for the socket wrench.

As far as getting things done, I don't really see it. If Bernie can accomplish 2-3 of his programs then the nation would be better off than pretty much anything I think is on Hillary's agenda.

Does not mean that person is not dishonest or dangerous

But you have to move beyond middle school social studies to understand these things I guess

Sad

#twitterfingers

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13048117_1369207306439672_2610056181308521090_o.png.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoidCJ9

is devastating.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/19/us/elections/new-york-city-democratic-primary-results.html#11/40.7100/-73.9800

Less than a million votes in NYC....a pop of 8 million +

These numbers are very telling, but damn I wish people had shown up (and been allowed to show up).

THIS is what I mean as far as in the general. Sure there are folx who may have voted for Hillary if they had the correct party affiliation, but clearly a healthy population of the city and overall state were kept out of the process for various reason.

first UNC, now this.

blk women were at 75% to 25


wow. hope they know something i dont know



her crushing in 4 cities and losing the entire rest of the state seems to show what the establishment and having the machine behind u can do



and lol at drumpf losing manhattan

given this hypothetical:

Bernie as a Republican
Hillary as an Independent
Trump as a Democrat

who are you voting for in that scenario?

And that baby made another baby with Bull Connor and that baby was raised by Richard Nixon, I would vote for her for POTUS in the general election if she were nominated by the current Dem party.

so you are saying Hillary would be your candidate no matter what. Fair enough.

We get each other.

Need more details.

Are they adopting the platforms of those parties? Or sticking with their own platforms but just changing their name affiliation?

I don't even think clarifying will help. Still won't make much sense

are people REALLY voting for "the Democrat" or for the candidate.

Would people vote for a Democrat trump? Or an independent Hillary? That is the logic I am seeing from people, and I am still perplexed as to why.

I voted for Hillary in my state's primary. Bernie was on the ballot. I did not choose him. I do not want him to be the next POTUS. I want Hillary to be the next POTUS.

In the general I will vote for whomever wins the Dem nomination bc above all I want the next POTUS to be a Dem. bc by and large the Dem party members in all levels of gov't tend to hold positions that are favorable to me and issues that matter to me. A Dem POTUS is likely going to work with other Dems nationwide to accomplish goals I dig. That POTUS will select other Dems for her Cabinet. She will support other Dems in elections. She will nominate federal judges who are likely to interpret the law as I think it should be interpreted.

In short, yes when it comes to the general election I vote for the party. At the primary I vote for a candidate. This year Hillary was that candidate. I chose her over Bernie and others. I would do it again if presented with the same choice.

>given this hypothetical:
>
>Bernie as a Republican
>Hillary as an Independent
>Trump as a Democrat
>
>who are you voting for in that scenario?


WTF?...lol

yes, are people truly beholden to the "true Democrat" line or is it the candidate?

If Bernie somehow won the Democratic nomination, and Hillary went Indie, would folks move to her? or stay "Democratic"? Same for Trump.

Again, given the hypothetical.

If Hillary leaves the party I will not vote for her in the general though I voted for her in the primary. I am voting for the Dem in the general. Period. I say that bc I am willing to vote for either of the 2 candidates who have a shot at winning the nomination.

>yes, are people truly beholden to the "true Democrat" line or
>is it the candidate?

It's all good homie....Bernie is your guy....I dig it....If he was the general candidate I would vote for him....Because I'm voting for whoever is leading the Democratic ticket....

But as is, I think Clinton's ground game and experience works better in a general...And I think she is more likely to extend on what Obama has achieved.....It's not an emotional choice for me...Clinton is no savior....It's very analytical for me...Very wonkish....

Basically people aren't voting for Hillary, but for the Democratic party.

I don't see how people vote for her on merit or political experience, and it turns out they aren't.

So it confirmed my suspicion. It really wasn't that deep.

I am the oppisite, and would vote for Bernie regardless of party affiliation vecause of his actual political agenda and my interests. Very interesting. And very discouraging, but we'll see how this all shakes out.

that's fucking hilarious

except that hers is generally smarter, more comprehensive, and better planned out.

But I'll admit, I believe in the party more than I believe in ANY individual person, including Hillary or even Obama. People have flaws, including Bernie (and his flaws are massive); parties have principles. If you don't like the principles of a party, you have to find a better party, or work to influence the principles of the party you have. That's all Bernie meant to do from the beginning, and to that extent, I support him. (Though he isn't *really* to the left of Clinton; that's a simplistic reading of the situation.)

Marx didn't say "Everybody vote for Lenin, he'll break up the big banks!" He said "Workers of the world, unite!" It's the unity that matters, not the leader.

Momma Hillary got your cookies & milk warm & ready & your blankie smells like fabric softener & stacks of crisp 100s

as VP?

Not saying it's going to happen but that would be a damn slick move if she did.

I mean what does the Vin Diagram of HRC Haters and Elizabeth Warren Lovers look like? Within the Dem Party it's got to be one circle.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Teamed with Hillary.

People think Hillary is what Elizabeth Warren ACTUALLY is. She actually has fought on our behalf and been on the right side of policies, AND is Anti Wall Street and establishment. MAYBE a cabinet position but not VP. She has been vocally against Clinton on her switching based on special interests.

Besides, we too focused on voting in the general for Bernie now. We ready either way.

and your mind would not literally explode. It would be figuratively.


>Teamed with Hillary.
>
>People think Hillary is what Elizabeth Warren ACTUALLY is. She
>actually has fought on our behalf and been on the right side
>of policies, AND is Anti Wall Street and establishment. MAYBE
>a cabinet position but not VP. She has been vocally against
>Clinton on her switching based on special interests.
>
>Besides, we too focused on voting in the general for Bernie
>now. We ready either way.
>
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

LOL

Hillary is THOUGHT to be just like Warren because she's THOUGHT to be much more liberal than she actually is because people become aware of what Hillary SAYS but they stay ignorant to what she actually DOES which is far more conservative than what she actually talks about.

these uneducated cretins who like Hillary probably have not even heard of Warren. b/c if they knew Warren of course they'd love her and if they love her then they'd be w/Bernie.

DUH.

no one is as informed as Bernie supporters. everyone else just doesn't even know what they don't know. that's how uninformed and ignorant we are.

sweeping liberal Democrat who gets things done with an impeccable record.

Actually she isn't. That person would be Elizabeth Warren. I have said before that I wished EW was running so that people could see what an actual progressive transformative WOMAN candidate looked like, because they assume it is Hillary because of her Democratic affiliation and vagina.

That is not the case though. No one literally thinks she is Elizabeth Warren, but they think Hillary embodies those elements. By the same measure I'm sure they would also consider a lake deep if they've never been to the ocean.

>sweeping liberal Democrat who gets things done with an
>impeccable record.

LOL

no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rg3PgKLA-Q

okay.

as soon as i saw "Hillary supporters don't care about her terrible record" i was done.

as a Hillary supporter, what i don't care about are biased opinions put forth by ppl who clearly have some axe to grind. i don't care what you ppl think of her or her record or my decision to vote for her and my willingness to do so again in November.

http://i.imgur.com/vYUWVxB.png

actually, I didn't expect you to watch. I haven't been watching the vids you've linked either to be honest.

Fight the good fight though bruh.

And keeping that good pseudo-liberal network of effete elites running full steam ahead


We get it...the poors need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps & stop getting in the way of your queen to be

This is fun though. You telling a person why they supports Hillary over Bernie instead of actually asking a person who supports Hillary or Bernie why.

Let's hear more.


>sweeping liberal Democrat who gets things done with an
>impeccable record.
>
>Actually she isn't. That person would be Elizabeth Warren. I
>have said before that I wished EW was running so that people
>could see what an actual progressive transformative WOMAN
>candidate looked like, because they assume it is Hillary
>because of her Democratic affiliation and vagina.
>
>That is not the case though. No one literally thinks she is
>Elizabeth Warren, but they think Hillary embodies those
>elements. By the same measure I'm sure they would also
>consider a lake deep if they've never been to the ocean.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rg3PgKLA-Q

and there are those who know she doesn't, but don't care.

Bernie has an impeccable record?

The Bernie who voted for the 94 Crime bill?



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

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

::SWIPE::


https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/

FLINT, Mich. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager on Thursday reiterated the senator’s reasoning for voting in favor of the Clinton administration’s 1994 Crime Bill despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version included not only the assault weapons ban but also the Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these efforts to protect women.

In Sanders’ statement at the time, he criticized the mass incarceration and death penalty provisions in the bill, saying:

“…it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.

And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all of the executions in the world, will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails.

Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance.”

During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased incarceration, labeling at risk youth as “super-predators” who had to be “brought to heel.”

“When this so-called crime bill was being considered, Bernie Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty provisions,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager. “Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and he’s right now. We need to invest in those communities that have been neglected in this country. Poor communities – more often than not, communities of color – deserve the same opportunities and education that other communities have. Bernie Sanders has always known jails and incarceration are not the answer. Nor is heated rhetoric against young people of any race. You can’t throw vulnerable people under the bus just because it’s politically expedient.”

and 2.) isn't it morally worse to vote for it when he fully realized that the bill was "dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence."?

That's fcuked up.


>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luxkUPezssM
>
>::SWIPE::
>
>
>https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/
>
>FLINT, Mich. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign manager
>on Thursday reiterated the senator’s reasoning for voting in
>favor of the Clinton administration’s 1994 Crime Bill
>despite serious reservations. The House version of the bill
>included a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. Sanders had
>supported the ban since 1988. The conference committee version
>included not only the assault weapons ban but also the
>Violence Against Women Act provisions. Sanders supported these
>efforts to protect women.
>
>In Sanders’ statement at the time, he criticized the mass
>incarceration and death penalty provisions in the bill,
>saying:
>
>“…it is also my view that through the neglect of our
>Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities,
>we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of
>bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence.
>
>And Mr. Speaker, all the jails in the world, and we already
>imprison more people per capita than any other country, and
>all of the executions in the world, will not make that
>situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can
>create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can
>build more jails.
>
>Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion,
>not one of hate and vengeance.”
>
>During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to
>weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted
>separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First
>Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased
>incarceration, labeling at risk youth as “super-predators”
>who had to be “brought to heel.”
>
>“When this so-called crime bill was being considered, Bernie
>Sanders criticized its harsh incarceration and death penalty
>provisions,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager.
>“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, resorted to dog whistle
>politics and dehumanizing language. Bernie was right then and
>he’s right now. We need to invest in those communities that
>have been neglected in this country. Poor communities – more
>often than not, communities of color – deserve the same
>opportunities and education that other communities have.
>Bernie Sanders has always known jails and incarceration are
>not the answer. Nor is heated rhetoric against young people of
>any race. You can’t throw vulnerable people under the bus
>just because it’s politically expedient.”


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

He had his remarks for posterity on the floor as seen in the video I provided, but if you don't sign the bill and vote against it then you don't get the violence against women provision and you don't get the provision against automatic weapons.

Also:
>During consideration of the bill, Sanders voted six times to
>weaken or eliminate the death penalty provisions and voted
>separately against creating new mandatory minimums. Then-First
>Lady Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in favor of increased
>incarceration, labeling at risk youth as “super-predators”
>who had to be “brought to heel.”

His judgement of the bill still stands as correct. It's unfortunate that sometimes our representatives are put into that position. Just don't tell me Hillary was the answer in that case.

https://medium.com/@robinalperstein/on-becoming-anti-bernie-ee87943ae699#.x8u5gngf0


He claimed that he supported it in part because it included an assault weapons ban. This is false. He voted in favor of an earlier version of the bill, which did not include that assault weapons ban. Other Democrats — not Sanders (who never pushes for gun safety legislation) — then insisted on that assault weapons ban and he voted for the new version of bill after that language was added. It’s dishonest for him to take other people to task for the consequences of a bill he himself voted for, which was the product of having to compromise with the GOP to get anything done, while blaming Hillary for the GOP’s actions, lying about his reasons for voting for it, and refusing to acknowledge or take any responsibility for his own role. It would be so much more productive to have a national dialogue about what we learned as a nation from these mistakes, the role of systemic racism in mass incarceration, and a proposed set of recommendations and legislation to correct it now, instead of disingenuously attacking, blaming, and lying by omission about Hillary, and further erasing the historical reality in which that bill was passed.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/surprise-author-of-viral-becoming-anti-bernie-piece-is-corporate-lawyer-who-defends-hedge-funds/

A true rebuttal would be if you found evidence that Sanders did 'not' vote for the earlier version of the crime bill that lacked the assault weapons ban.

That's a lot of googling, if such evidence exists. But I would happily concede, for your peace of mind, if you find some

I don't think he'd lie about his record based on the way he carries himself in general. If nothing else he's pretty honorable. I think his remarks about it reflect his feeling about the whole thing.

Maybe you could substantiate that what the author said about Bernie is even true

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/03/bernie-sanders-voted-for-criminal-justice-measures-hes-denouncing/

"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 passed the House just one week after Sanders made his impassioned speech, and Sanders voted for it. That act called for expanding the application of the death penalty on many more crimes, including large-scale drug trafficking. It also included a federal version of the “three strikes law,” requiring a mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of a third serious crime.

That version of the bill ultimately didn’t become law, but instead a similar bill, the Omnibus Crime Bill, which not only expanded the death penalty but also decreased the minimum age for minors to be tried as adults, passed the House, once again with Sanders’ vote, and became law."



HR 4092, crime bill that lacked assault weapons ban. Passed house April 1994, did not advance.

https://votesmart.org/bill/2673/8308/27110/violent-crime-control-and-law-enforcement-act-of-1994#.VxoiK7fmqdW


Omnibus crime bill, HR 3355, that contained assault weapons ban. Amended version signed into law August 1994.(initially passed house and senate prior to amendment late in 1993)

https://votesmart.org/bill/2666/8585/27110/omnibus-crime-bill#22018










>Maybe you could substantiate that what the author said about
>Bernie is even true

Firstly, it looks to me that Bernie says there were 6 occasions where he did vote to weaken the death penalty laws and/or the assault weapons ban. That doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere I see other than the votes you've posted. Are we ignoring everything else he's stated on the record?

Secondly, the medium.com piece you've posted seems to be written like a hit piece. The whole 5% growth aspect can be explained here (essentially it looks like different models are being used):
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/gerald-friedman-responds-to-the-romers-on-the-sanders-plan-different-models-different-politics.html

The argument that he only got 3 bills through congress seems not to be very nuanced in that he has been called the "ammendment king" while in the House:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/

Thirdly, in the medium.com I'm looking at links to sites like http://thepeoplesview.net that seem to be purely biased in their reporting and don't even try to write anything about Hillary or anyone else in the campaigns. I don't know if I can take places like that seriously, especially if every headline is going to be anti. With everything negative there is to say about Hillary, including the fact she is being investigated... again, it's very disconcerting to see "news" outlets focusing on things like "Bernie Math". His policies have been outlined and verified by many economists:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/14/170-economists-bernie-sanders-plan-reform-wall-st-rein-greed.html

Fourthly, Bernie has supported several down-ticket Dems and has the potential to support more.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887

What I find interesting is how the Hillary Victory Fund appears to be funneling money back into Hillary Clinton's campaign:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/19/3770542/bernie-hillary-dnc-fundraising/


Fifthly, I'll just leave the excerpt about Bernie's apparent sexism from his "writings"(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride) in the sixties and early seventies. The author from the medium.com article doesn't really give any context but writes this:

"Sexist:
I went back and read several of Sanders’ writings from the 70s. I realize these are from quite a few years ago. However, he was in his early 30s when he wrote them. And I found them to be pathetic — not just poor and embarrassing writing you might expect from an oversexed sophomoric boy, but very limited, reductive, lazy thinking. He bought into the idea that repression causes cancer, and illustrated that through a hypothetical in which he argued that if some nice young boy “has an old bitch for a teacher (and there are a lot of them)…” who tells him what to do, the boy will repress his feelings; a lifetime of repression will give him prostate cancer. Why do I care about this idiotic piece he wrote at the age of 31? I’ll tell you why. He assumed that the supposedly repression-causing behavior came from women telling boys what to do — he could have picked a male teacher to be the one instilling discipline in his hypothetical — but he assumed years of specifically female teachers would cause boys to repress themselves and lead to prostate cancer. And he had no problem referring to them as “bitch.” He wasn’t 16 when he wrote this.

He was 31.

He’s basically the same age as my dad. My dad at 31 had three children and a job and didn’t refer to our teachers as “bitches” and didn’t blame women for for the actions, thoughts, or health of men. Sanders’ writing reveals an adolescent and sexist mindset, not to mention very limited capacity for analysis and scientific reason. Sanders also wrote about the dangers of sexual repression in other ways, including through a hypothetical about based around women’s supposedly fantasizing about being “raped simultaneously by three men” and men fantasizing about raping women. Yuck. He also wrote that because girls reach puberty by 13, they ought to be sexually active as teenagers. Putting aside the ick factor, his writing and analytical capacity aren’t as good as most high schoolers’. This is not my idea of a champion for women."

I think she was definitely reaching by going back to the man's late 20's and pulling this without any context.

That's all I got for now. If you've made it this far then I commend you okayplayer lol

until the mid 90s.

I'm so amused by Warren's deification as some paragon of the political left, lol.She exemplifies a "flip-flop" far more extreme than any of HRC's evolutions.

Which is actually perfectly ok, in the real world. Both have made critical contributions to US policy and programming from which millions of Americans benefit. The path to doing so is often winding and dynamic.

But Sanders supporters have this uncanny habit of demonizing HRC for things that their favoured politicians actually supported. Like the 1994 Crime bill, which Bernie Sanders voted for. Or the financial system bailout/TARP, which Elizabeth Warren actually chaired the Congressional Oversight Panel for. Lol

Wouldn't want your head to explode tho.




>sweeping liberal Democrat who gets things done with an
>impeccable record.
>
>Actually she isn't. That person would be Elizabeth Warren. I
>have said before that I wished EW was running so that people
>could see what an actual progressive transformative WOMAN
>candidate looked like, because they assume it is Hillary
>because of her Democratic affiliation and vagina.
>
>That is not the case though. No one literally thinks she is
>Elizabeth Warren, but they think Hillary embodies those
>elements. By the same measure I'm sure they would also
>consider a lake deep if they've never been to the ocean.

>until the mid 90s.
>
>I'm so amused by Warren's deification as some paragon of the
>political left, lol.She exemplifies a "flip-flop" far more
>extreme than any of HRC's evolutions.

a change of direction 20 years ago isn't a flip-flop, FYI.

Or the financial system bailout/TARP, which
>Elizabeth Warren actually chaired the Congressional Oversight
>Panel for.

wait, how is this a knock against Warren?

>>until the mid 90s.
>>
>>I'm so amused by Warren's deification as some paragon of the
>>political left, lol.She exemplifies a "flip-flop" far more
>>extreme than any of HRC's evolutions.


>
>a change of direction 20 years ago isn't a flip-flop, FYI.

And yet, Sanders supporters wanted to burn HRC on a stake for volunteering for a Republican over 50 YEARS ago.



>
> Or the financial system bailout/TARP, which
>>Elizabeth Warren actually chaired the Congressional
>Oversight
>>Panel for.
>
>wait, how is this a knock against Warren?

Sanders opposed TARP, and both he and his supporters like to rage incessantly about HRC's ties to the financial industry. So I find it interesting when Sanders supporters deify Elizabeth Warren, when she was a Republican lawyer who, at one time, worked in support of big financial institutions during her time at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and then decades later steered the implementation of a bailout program that Sanders continues to criticize.

Not so much a knock against Warren than a knock against some people's logic lol

>>>until the mid 90s.
>>>
>>>I'm so amused by Warren's deification as some paragon of
>the
>>>political left, lol.She exemplifies a "flip-flop" far more
>>>extreme than any of HRC's evolutions.
>
>
>>
>>a change of direction 20 years ago isn't a flip-flop, FYI.
>
>And yet, Sanders supporters wanted to burn HRC on a stake for
>volunteering for a Republican over 50 YEARS ago.


i hadn't heard that. didn't even know she did that. also, those Sanders supporters are dumb if true.


>>
>> Or the financial system bailout/TARP, which
>>>Elizabeth Warren actually chaired the Congressional
>>Oversight
>>>Panel for.
>>
>>wait, how is this a knock against Warren?
>
>Sanders opposed TARP, and both he and his supporters like to
>rage incessantly about HRC's ties to the financial industry.
>So I find it interesting when Sanders supporters deify
>Elizabeth Warren, when she was a Republican lawyer who, at one
>time, worked in support of big financial institutions during
>her time at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and then decades
>later steered the implementation of a bailout program that
>Sanders continues to criticize.
>

i'm not well-versed on the full particulars of the bailout, but it's my understanding that she was part of committee vs. a dictator making singular rulings about the banks. i do know republicans and the banks were very much against her inclusion in the process, so i'd have to assume that she herself at least had issues with the bailout despite it going through. if she was pro-bailout i'd think those banks would have been happy to have her involved. just my thoughts.

>
>
>>>
>>> Or the financial system bailout/TARP, which
>>>>Elizabeth Warren actually chaired the Congressional
>>>Oversight
>>>>Panel for.

>>>
>>>wait, how is this a knock against Warren?
>>

>>Sanders opposed TARP, and both he and his supporters like to
>>rage incessantly about HRC's ties to the financial industry.
>>So I find it interesting when Sanders supporters deify
>>Elizabeth Warren, when she was a Republican lawyer who, at
>one
>>time, worked in support of big financial institutions during
>>her time at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and then decades
>>later steered the implementation of a bailout program that
>>Sanders continues to criticize.
>>
>

>i'm not well-versed on the full particulars of the bailout,
>but it's my understanding that she was part of committee vs. a
>dictator making singular rulings about the banks. i do know
>republicans and the banks were very much against her inclusion
>in the process, so i'd have to assume that she herself at
>least had issues with the bailout despite it going through. if
>she was pro-bailout i'd think those banks would have been
>happy to have her involved. just my thoughts.
>

All good points. Btw, wasn't insinuating she played a dictator-like role. I actually don't even have a major problem with Elizabeth Warren.

But I do find the overzealous, contradictory, and concurrent support of Sanders, deification of Warren, and demonization of HRC illogical when pieced together into one perspective lol

I stand by my observations, though.

so sensitive though.

among the best, really.

*knocks on wood*

my mind literally would not compute that, but stranger things have happened.

that is

she was the best candidate for this cycle, IMO

she chose not to run

her reasoning being that she wanted to get things done in the senate

fair enough

but I was already questioning her based on that

the backlash came when she didn't endorse Bern, being a progressive you would think that was a natural reflex

and her state was a razor edge margin for HRC (pretty sure her endorsement would have swung it to a W for Bern)

if she chose to accept a VP tap

from HRC

yeah, I'm calling BS and still not voting for that ticket

she'd have less power as VP than in the senate, IMO

let me know what Joe Biden's done in 7 years other than groping women

and for her not to run, then cool.

But then she didn't give Bernie an endorsement during MA's primary.

Cool again, you want Hillary? Que, but duly noted.

If she then came out with Hillary it would be on some NWO shit.

....no way Hillary tries to tap that ...and I love her, but i wish she would have had Bernies back this year ...2020 is her's tho, and thats when shit gets real

*thumbs up*

Edit: no need to search, I did the same a few days ago right on these boards...in a much cooler fashion and about a music playlist not a candidate for president but yeah errbody hypocrites now & again

Bernies revolution will not end with this election. Win or lose.

he should run as independent. We've propped him up and he can run with the support he's built over the course of this campaign. He wins in a general election with non Dems allowed to vote, AND it would serve as a check and balances against the voter suppression. Suppress too many voters and hello President Trump.

Bernie has a plan B, I believe. If not we need to demand it of him. In the meantime, lets make sure everyone is registered and ID'd and etc for the General in November. We got this #bernitdown

a race, mind you, that also includes Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

clear path to victory

- Independents (which is the largest voting base in America, more than Dems and Repubs)

- Even in NY State, he lost with a few million people out of the process. He doesn't get 100% of those people, but he does get between 65-70% of that contigent, PLUS his base, plus Dems who support him, PLUS Repubs who are not voting for Trump.

- As an Independent he gets to keep getting financed by his supporters to stay in the race to the end. In the meantime millions of voters can get their registration in order for the general election.

With that as the landscape, and with the support and enthusiasm he has built, I don't know why he wouldn't play his odds. He is a point above Hillary in current polls, and after Trump takes her down through there I think a lot of people will reconsider the shit show.

If he's won 15 states against her head to head, why wouldn't he be able to win states in the general?

You really have no clue don't u?

I'm going to assume ur just still emotional over Bernie losing NY and the inevitable Hillary nomination that you refuse to come to terms with reality.

1) Most independents reliably vote either Democratic or Republican. They are indie for whatever personal/ideological reason.

2) There's probably little..if anything, that even a majority of the independents—to say nothing of a consensus—could agree on. So what platform would they organize around, except for "we're not Democrats or Republicans"?

So why would you think all these Independents would magically be for Bernie and his platform? Or why are you not factoring in the majority of Dems who would most likely stay with the Parties nomination (including close to a majority of Bernie supporters)

But really how do you think Bernie has the support to even pull that off? Democratic turnout ain't even close to 2008 numbers and he doesn't even have the majority of that support.

What states do u actually think he can win?

How do you think he can organize a ground game and fundraising in 4 months to compete with the Democratic and Republican party and he couldn't even accomplish that during his nomination run?

Like I said u didn't think none of this thru and just posting off u emotions.







____________
Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

But as a Indie, he takes his support with him.

As a Democrat I would support him, and millions of others would as well. He is not Ralph Nader. If you are that shook about whether the party would be split and Trump *might* win, then sounds like Bernie can count on your vote as well.

worst case scenario, there is always Canada #bernitdown

And the movement would all but fizzle

The smarter and logical thing to do is use this opportunity to make changes WITHIN the Democratic party. Push more candidates forward that are in line with Bernie's message. Keep the younger voters involved so the next Bernie can take helm. Hopefully Bern is smart enough to push that message. Or else the movement dies with him going down the reactionary "Bernitdown" road

If Bernie supporters can use the energy and become a part of the Democratic Party, they can use that influence to shift the direction in the long-term.

The key to getting the things done he talk about is not to break away from the establishment, but BECOME the establishment. The Democratic party of today isn't the same as the Goldwater Democrats. Trying to blow it is going to go nothing bUT helping u feel better like a kid throwing a tantrum in his room.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

while Bernie has won 15 States. Not the same argument.

There's plenty other insurgent Democrats that had the same message before him. He's not the 1st.


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

I say he give it a shot, and let the chips fall where they may when we ALL people can weigh in on the process.

hell, what's the worst that can happen? If Hillary can have a change of heart, maybe Trump can too, no?

>- Independents (which is the largest voting base in America,
>more than Dems and Repubs)
>
>- Even in NY State, he lost with a few million people out of
>the process. He doesn't get 100% of those people, but he does
>get between 65-70% of that contigent, PLUS his base, plus Dems
>who support him, PLUS Repubs who are not voting for Trump.
>
>- As an Independent he gets to keep getting financed by his
>supporters to stay in the race to the end. In the meantime
>millions of voters can get their registration in order for the
>general election.
>
>With that as the landscape, and with the support and
>enthusiasm he has built, I don't know why he wouldn't play his
>odds. He is a point above Hillary in current polls, and after
>Trump takes her down through there I think a lot of people
>will reconsider the shit show.
>
>If he's won 15 states against her head to head, why wouldn't
>he be able to win states in the general?

Wow....

Then nobody wins a majority of electors.

And you know what happens if nobody wins a majority of electors?

No, it doesn't go to whoever has the most electors.

The decision is made by the House of Representatives. The current, Republican-led House of Representatives.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html

So unless you literally want Donald Trump, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, or someone like that to be President, then no, Bernie should not run as an independent.

This is why Michael Bloomberg didn't run, by the way. It wasn't just that he'd split the party, it's that the Constitution itself would likely pass the decision on to the house. If former Republican Michael Bloomberg is bothered enough by the Republicans to pass on an independent run, hopefully Bernie would be too.

He's lost. It's over. He'll be able to make his movement known in the party platform at the convention, and Hillary will go out of her way to make him happy to soothe his voters. But his political career will advance no further.

This surely looms large for the Hillary supporters... right? Would this hurt her argument? You damn skippy. Maybe she's lost and doesn't know it yet.

No, there will not be an indictment, because there hasn't been a crime.

You're grasping at straws, and those straws are literally being handed to you by Trey Gowdy.

We'll see soon, folks.

U wishing hard....I mean, it's one thing to say the email thing is something that should at the very least be taken seriously....It's quite another to be posting links for Right Wing hacks screaming indictment.....

I can't, dog....

I'm starting to think you're wishing hard, Murph. Do you think what she did was wrong and worthy of a trial? Do you think it was "gross negligence"? You think she's the best candidate knowing she possibly committed a crime while SoS? Does it matter if we have a criminal as Democratic nominee?

Biden said it the other day... she doesn't think big. I think she doesn't move the needle out here with Independents.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/joe-biden-clinton-criticism-bernie-sanders-222264

U doing too much...

Like seriously....

U not doing enuff to sway the evidence in your favor, because I believe you know what's up with it. It doesn't look good.

Yes, split the electorate. If Bernie doesn't get to 270, I believe he'd have more of the national vote.

If the Electoral College STILL plucks Hillary, then yall still got what you wanted, but I rather her earn it that for he to be gifted it the way she apparently has been.

BOTTOM LINE, this is a democracy. Hillary has had money funneled into her campaign by her contributors. Well Bernie has a group of contributors who are willing to see him run on the Independent side. As a Democratic who voted for him in the primary, I think plenty more can follow suit, and they he can win that 55-70% of Independants and suppressed voters that didn't get to cast a vote at all. That plus grassroots organizing = a Sanders win, imho.

But we'll see. I'm ready to #bernitdown

worst case scenario, there's always Canada.

The electoral college becomes irrelevant at that point and the Republicans literally choose who to appoint as president. It's not like the electoral college could "still go with Hillary."

If, say, Bernie gets 265 electors, Hillary gets 173, and Trump gets 100. Then Trump is the new president. You wouldn't be fighting for anything anymore. You really would just be "berning it down."

Based on some quick reading it appears the reps from each state vote as a delegation

Now most states have more republican reps but each state has only one vote and several states are on the borderline where turning a republican or 2 could swing that state to a dem candidate and, as many of us are aware despite our desire to oversimplify this election into "elect Hillary or die by the hand of Trump", if Trump/Hill/Bern were the top 3 electoral vote getters many establishment republicans would likely be favorable to a neo-liberal like Hillary over Trump who is widely disliked by establishment republicans

So your foregone conclusion is shortsighted & apparently very simplistic

You guys always have such great hare-brained schemes.

No. House Republicans are not gonna support Hillary Clinton over the Republican candidate. And more than "1 or 2" would need to.

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

Currently, Democrats hold majorities in the House delegations from 14 states. Republicans, 33. The remaining 3 are evenly split.

So in order to win a contest like this, we would need to flip 12 states (and hope they don't flip any back!). Note that each state we might hope to flip would require at least one congressperson to to completely surrender their lifelong views and career prospects. So it would not be an easy thing to do.

But hey, let's be optimistic.

Imagine we can flip the three evenly-split states. That brings our number up to 17.

Among the Republican-majority states, I counted seven (AK, AZ, MT, NE, ND, SD, WY) where flipping a single member would change the majority).

That ludicrously optimistic scenario puts us at 24 states. Still two short of a majority.

If the Democrats are split, the Republicans win.

The fantasyland where Bernie runs and wins as an independent, and the FBI raids the convention and hauls off Hillary in shackles. And unicorns.

I think it wouldn't go over as well as some people think. I still think he can win the nomination outright, although it would take a great deal to make it happen.

The more I research about the opinions about the email scandal, the more I think it has real teeth and could take Hillary down whether in the Primaries or the General. If the FBI is going to do something then they need to make it crack soon before we're all left in the lurch.

I'm pretty sure that Bernie's camp feels like the case against Clinton will have some kind of resolution soon and may have some level of confidence that the hit she would take can take her down significantly. Bernie should continue regardless and bring his message to the people.

I mean....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/us/politics/hillary-clinton-money.html

Long Primary Carries Costs for Hillary Clinton: Money and Time

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SARAH COHEN
APRIL 21, 2016

Hillary Clinton has burned through tens of millions of dollars to counter Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in states that are unlikely to be general election battlegrounds, delaying any pivot to the general election and shrinking her potential financial advantage over the eventual Republican nominee.

While Mrs. Clinton has built a significant advantage in pledged delegates over Mr. Sanders in the Democratic nominating contest, her lead has come at a significant cost. She spent more than she raised in each of the first three months of the year, according to Federal Election Commission data, including more than $12 million on ads in March alone. According to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Mrs. Clinton has spent at least $20 million on advertising in states like New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, money that could otherwise have been saved for the general election.

Even as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign begins preparing for the general election in November, it has been forced to respond to an advertising blitz by Mr. Sanders, financed by a seemingly unending gusher of small donations. Mr. Sanders spent $46 million in March alone, according to campaign finance records released on Wednesday. Mr. Sanders poured more than $5 million into the expensive New York media market, according to media buyers, hoping to replicate his upset victory in Michigan.

Mr. Sanders’s spending — and his ability to keep raising huge amounts of money even while slipping behind in delegates — is likely to intensify criticism from Democratic Party officials and leading donors, who now see Mr. Sanders as waging a costly and quixotic crusade at Mrs. Clinton’s expense.

“He is making Hillary Clinton spend money that should be spent defeating the Republicans,” said John Morgan, a Florida trial lawyer who will host a Clinton fund-raiser at his Lake Mary home next week. “Bernie Sanders has the real possibility of being the modern-day Ralph Nader. All he’s doing now is hurting Hillary.”

The lengthening primary poses potential problems not just on the spending side of the ledger, but also has delayed a shift to raising money for the general election, where Mrs. Clinton lags well behind the pace set by President Obama during his 2012 campaign, according to data from the commission.

Aides to Mrs. Clinton say they had always planned for an extended and cash-hungry primary, hoping to avoid a repeat of her 2008 blunder, when she had to lend her campaign millions of dollars to stay afloat after running short of primary cash. Much of Mrs. Clinton’s spending has gone to build long-term capabilities with data, in the field and prospecting for small donors that will pay continuing dividends through an increasingly likely fall campaign, they said, and Mrs. Clinton remained on budget for the primary race. Her campaign had $30.8 million on hand.

“We head into the homestretch of the primary in strong financial shape with the resources we need to continue to run a competitive race through the end of the primary and the road ahead,” said Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager.

But as the Clinton campaign and its allies see the challenge from Mr. Sanders fading and have grown more comfortable with their delegate lead, they are shifting some of their attention away from the primary and looking toward the general election, mapping out fund-raising plans and sharpening their message.

The campaign has begun discussions with senior “bundlers” — donors who volunteer to collect checks from dozens of other donors — to step up contributions to the Hillary Victory Committee, a joint fund-raising effort with the Democratic National Committee and many state Democratic organizations. By directing her largest donors to give more to party organizations, Mrs. Clinton can sock away tens of millions of dollars that would benefit her campaign during a general election effort while avoiding the appearance of presumption that might come with raising general election money while Mr. Sanders remains in the race.

The victory committee had raised $61 million through the end of March, according to commission filings, with most of the money ending up back in Mrs. Clinton’s campaign or at the Democratic National Committee. Much as Mr. Obama did in 2012, Mrs. Clinton’s team has used party contributions to the joint committee to subsidize some costs of her presidential campaign, including prospecting for small donors. Mr. Sanders attacked the arrangement this week as unethical, though campaign lawyers said it was legal.

On Wednesday, fresh off a victory in the New York primary, the campaign hosted hundreds of bundlers for a conference at a Sheraton hotel in Manhattan, where some of Mrs. Clinton’s top advisers urged donors to focus on bolstering her fund-raising for the contest against Mr. Sanders. Advisers to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said it was remaining focused on primary dollars in part because that money — up to $2,700 from each supporter — could be used during the general election, too, while general election contributions could not be spent until after the party’s convention in July.

The shift in focus has been apparent in Mrs. Clinton’s messaging. In her advertisements, particularly in New York, Mrs. Clinton has started to turn her attention toward Donald J. Trump, who is leading the Republican field in delegates. Her first ad in the state took unsubtle jabs at the Republican front-runner, and a week later, she ran her first ad directly targeting Mr. Trump, explicitly criticizing his statements.

The Clinton campaign also created and ran a Spanish-language ad, titled “Una Bandera,” which recalled that Mr. Trump called immigrants criminals and rapists. The ad made no mention or allusion to Mr. Sanders or a Democratic primary until the end, when it asked people to vote on April 19.

Allies of Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Trump remained a wild card despite his high unpopularity with large swaths of Americans. Mr. Trump has not yet set up a real fund-raising operation for either large or small donors; in March, according to his commission filings, Mr. Trump lent his campaign an additional $11.5 million, bringing his self-funding total to almost $36 million through the end of March. It remains unclear what kind of resources Mr. Trump, an avowed multibillionaire, would bring to a general election campaign.

A “super PAC” backing Mrs. Clinton is preparing for the worst. Priorities USA Action raised $11.8 million dollars in March and had $44.7 million in cash on hand at the start of April, far ahead of the group’s pace during Mr. Obama’s re-election campaign.

Some of the largest contributions in March came from the family of Haim Saban, an entertainment mogul, and James H. Simons, a billionaire investor who gave $3.5 million. And the group has spent relatively little in the fight against Mr. Sanders, meaning it will enter the general election contest with a sizable campaign war chest.

Banking on Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly likely victory in the Democratic primary contest, and those pledges, the group has begun reserving $125 million in television and digital advertising for the general election campaign — a significant sum this early in the race.

“Priorities will be ready to fight back against the billion-dollar onslaught Republicans are readying against Hillary Clinton,” said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for Priorities USA.

he should stay in to the nomination and beyond.

if you aint wanna have to spend the millions then maybe you should consider campaign finance reform. She wanted to raise $2 billy, now she can spend it.

She supports campaign finance reform just as strongly as Bernie. I'd argue moreso, in fact, because she has a plausible plan for getting elected.

Bernie does not have a plausible plan for getting elected. He is literally a waste of resources at this point, resources that should be spent against the Republican candidate. If we don't beat the Republican candidate, any hopes of campaign finance reform are dead for decades.

She's a hard one to trust. Also, her plan to get elected sucks if she's supposed to be courting millennials. She seems to think they don't matter.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-young-people-are-right-about-hillary-clinton-20160325?page=3

Don't forget, the Citizens United case was fought over outside money being spent specifically to smear Hillary Clinton!

Just because she does all she can to minimize the extent to which it hurts her, that doesn't mean she benefits from it. If I'm playing basketball and I score 5 points while the other guy scores 15, that's not a benefit to me.

It wasn't hard for us to understand that Barack Obama could despise the Citizens United decision but still refuse unilateral disarmament in 2012. You can't win by losing. If Bernie ever had to fight a nationwide general election, he would either realize the value of superpacs (which also allow unlimited union spending, by the way, which is a big deal for Democrats), or he would lose.

>She's a hard one to trust. Also, her plan to get elected
>sucks if she's supposed to be courting millennials. She seems
>to think they don't matter.

She's reaching out to millennials in every speech. That said, if they don't vote, they don't matter. That's how politics works. The fact that Bernie's overwhelming strength with young voters is still leaving him behind by millions of votes and hundreds of delegates, is itself a direct indication that in this race, millennials don't matter.

This piece touches on it.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/21/14140/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-candidate

She definitely exploits it to the fullest extent. Not saying that she can't but with that comes the corporate money that we all know is the antithesis of democracy that she champions. Bernie opposes this in principal and practice.

Also, she hasn't won yet. Until it's done it's not done. We will continue to fight.

>She definitely exploits it to the fullest extent.

As any politician who actually cares about governing should! You don't get to choose the rules in the middle of the game.

If a team is playing Golden State, and they're tired of giving up so many 3 pointers, they can't just come out and say: "The 3-point rule is unfair. We're gonna stop shooting them ourselves to try to shame Curry into stopping." That's not winning, that's surrender. And in politics, winning is a precondition for everything else.

>Bernie opposes this in principal and practice.

And if he continued that opposition in a general election, he would lose. And as a result, all the issues he cares about, including campaign finance reform, would be set back.

>
>She supports campaign finance reform just as strongly as
>Bernie. I'd argue moreso

But at least I am not crazy.

Wildest thing I've read in any of these threads.

would read again.

All he ever mentions is "overturning Citizens United", which Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and every mainstream Democrat are also on record vehemently supporting.

How do you do it? Nobody's gonna amend the Constitution over something like this. So all you can do is try to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, and leave it to them. Barack Obama has already nominated someone who would shift the balance of the court. Hillary would either stick with him or choose someone younger and/or to the left of him. Bernie would do the same.

They have identical positions on campaign finance reform.

It's hilarisad that this Bernie doesn't have a plan meme has life, but you just typed a bunch of words that equated to HRC and BHO have the same plan...in rhetoric

2 seconds with google =

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.
Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.
Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.
Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.
Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.
Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

>Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a
>priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that
>corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.

So, an identical position to Hillary and Obama.

>Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that
>Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in
>elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of
>such an amendment in the Senate.

So, a feel-good statement for something that will never happen.

>Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign
>financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of
>the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to
>co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for
>president.

Public financing, really? Have you watched the news for the last forty years?

It's a nice goal, but that's the really long game.

>Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of
>campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to
>outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the
>Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election
>Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an
>executive order requiring government contractors to disclose
>their political spending.

Standard campaign finance reform proposals. Mainstream Democrats would not oppose that.

>Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending
>abuses.

Identical to Hillary and Obama's positions.

>Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

Vague boilerplate.


Again, everything he has is either ludicrous (constitutional amendment), or completely conventional.

oh, so you didn't want to see his plan

you want a plan that meets your approval

say that then.

http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-interview-vox-conversation/obama-domestic-policy-transcript

"I would love to see some constitutional process that would allow us to actually regulate campaign spending the way we used to, and maybe even improve it." (c) BHO

I missed that part where you disagree

only ONE of them actually doesn't have a Super PAC.

I think that would qualify him to be "EVEN MORESO" a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.

the fact that he has been this close in a race where almost everything is against him is a true testament to both his campaign and the support he has been able to allocate.

Because that on its own (on top of a few other reasons) means he could never win a general election, which in turn means he could never do anything about campaign finance.

that is like saying BLM is against police brutality, but the NYPD is MORE against police brutality because BLM isn't willing to adopt the system as is, which is exactly what they want to change.

If Hillary wanted campaign finance reform, there is NOTHING stopping her from doing so. She easily to could turn away Super PACs and corporate money (unless that goes against what she told them in closed door meetings, which it obviously does).

But Bernie is walking the walk. The way you paint is as if getting elected in a corrupt system somehow makes you more prudent. No, she isn't for campaign finance reform because she benefits from it. The Clintons make per engagement what Bernie makes in a year. Just because she says something doesn't make it true. If that were the case she would still be against marriage equality. It doesn't cost her anything to say anything, but it could cost her what she holds dear if she were to actually do something. She wants that money and influence, and to each their own.

But I'm with Bernie on this topic, and others. She legit said during a debate "we can't have universal health care! I tried in the 90s and failed! it can't be done, but hey, Obamacare!" Wackest shit I heard from a candidate telling a country that something is off the table because she was bought and asked to shoot for the middle. Nah, we done with that.

When was the last time someone told the President he/eventually she couldn't get something done... like categorically you won't and can't. Let him be president and watch it get done. ACA was a compromise because Obama didn't play hardball from jump and his time was wasted cleaning up Bush's mess. Bernie will play hardball. It's called the bully pulpit for a reason.

Obama's last 8 years have been an exercise in incremental progressivism. He wanted to do more, and didn't because of the nature of Congress and special interests. If you don't fix that, then nothing is ever going to get done. Only ONE candidate is looking to do so AND walk the walk to get it done.

but man, these Hillary supporters just don't care about progress. as long as it's not a repub in the WH, they are good.

...forest for the trees, my brother.

>
>All he ever mentions is "overturning Citizens United", which
>Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and every mainstream Democrat
>are also on record vehemently supporting.
>
>How do you do it? Nobody's gonna amend the Constitution over
>something like this. So all you can do is try to change the
>makeup of the Supreme Court, and leave it to them. Barack
>Obama has already nominated someone who would shift the
>balance of the court. Hillary would either stick with him or
>choose someone younger and/or to the left of him. Bernie would
>do the same.
>
>They have identical positions on campaign finance reform.

Oh wow, you were like actually serious. Um, are you familiar with Bernie's current campaign finance system? Bernie has actually gone BEYOND rhetoric and has overturned Citizens United himself. He doesn't have a Super PAC or take corporate contributions to his campaign. What he is demonstrating is that you do not need to be beholding to these special interests pouring tons of money into the political process. It is the basis for his entire point about Hillary's Wall Street transcripts: how can you expect someone to be hard on an entity where they have accepted millions of dollars of contributions from them?

I get it, a politicians #1 priority is to be elected, and reelected. Without that they can't do anything. But the process we have in place now makes it to where our elected officials spend 70-90% of their time fundraising, and it makes them prone to special interests and lobbies, because having that person in their pocket puts less financial pressure on them for fundraising. However, in exchange they have to be more lenient on these entities, and prioritize them in legislative considerations. Even Obama in all of his glowing rhetoric about transparency and lobbyists in Washington reneged on his positions once Wall Street poured a ton of money into his campaign.

Bernie doesn't have that problem because he was actually bold enough to buck the system. He is an anti establishment candidate who has an anti establishment investment and cache of support. He is not beholden to them because he doesn't represent them. He has been staunchly against their corporate welfare for DECADES. Rhetoric given in a debate for PR isn't going to fly from Hillary. Bernie talks and walks, and his campaign has further backed it up.

The last legislation I saw for introducing campaign finance reform was to make the buy in an option on tax returns for citizens. They could either elect to pay $3 of their refunds to a pool of money which will be used on the federal level to help provide funds to ANY PERSON who wants to run for political office. This would level the playing field and get citizens into the political process instead of the vast majorities of millionaire we see who use the political process to get richer.




^^^^^right or wrong, a detailed answer you won't get from a Hillary supporter^^^^^^

I was wondering

if the media are under federal authority

FCC, etc...

couldn't they mandate an allotted amount of time during campaign cycles for candidates to present their platforms

i.e., if campaigns are spending money on advertising

could there be a regulation that mandated a block of time to candidates

= eliminate the cost

?

that we already have publicly financed airwaves. We could funnel those stations for debates and other party based forums, or add a new station purely for that.

Candidates could still spend money on commecial spots if they need to, but they would just have to take a bigger hit to do so.

But this would be a relatively unprecedented undertaking, so there is not an exact blueprint for doing so, but the conversation is already being had, based on people who are willing to come to the table (and not just talk about the table).

>Oh wow, you were like actually serious. Um, are you familiar
>with Bernie's current campaign finance system? Bernie has
>actually gone BEYOND rhetoric and has overturned Citizens
>United himself.

LOL. No, he hasn't! Saying "I'm not gonna play along!" does not constitute changing the rules of the game. The only thing that going without a superpac means is that he's willing to LOSE rather than endanger his holier-than-thou self image. It's proof that he doesn't actually care about the issue, he just cares about what looks good.

People are quick to dismiss his platform as "lofty" or "ambitious". The same could be said of trying to run for President of the United States with no corporate backing. And yet here we are. If he didn't have the Democratic establishment pushing against him this way, how much closer would the race be? But MORE than that, he has MATCHED Hillary in campaign fundraising:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/2016-bernie-sanders-fundraising-hillary-clinton/

the difference is Bernie is beholden to a diverse group of contributors, including myself. Hillary technically doesn't even NEED big money behind her to be competitive, if all things were equal. Yet SHE is the one with name recognition, and Bernie was the virtual unknown.

BUT MORE THAN THAT, what if we were bold enough to try his same process and apply it to health care? What if we took the exact same budget and were bold enough to stand up to the insurance and pharmaceutical industry and get our COSTS down, and insure more people more efficiently? Why is that even the "bold" position? It is 100% logical. But let "them" tell it, we can't afford it.

I'm not surprised when I hear Hillary say that though. She is speaking for who she represents. Bernie speaks for me.

I'm picturing a bewildered look on the writer's face.
How the hell is he generating so much money? Those $4 donations really add up.

>
>Even as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign begins preparing for the
>general election in November, it has been forced to respond to
>an advertising blitz by Mr. Sanders, financed by a seemingly
>unending gusher of small donations. Mr. Sanders spent $46
>million in March alone, according to campaign finance records
>released on Wednesday.
>

and understand why we don't want to fuck with Hillary.

"Some of the largest contributions in March came from the family of Haim Saban, an entertainment mogul, and James H. Simons, a billionaire investor who gave $3.5 million. And the group has spent relatively little in the fight against Mr. Sanders, meaning it will enter the general election contest with a sizable campaign war chest."

One guys is pro-Israel hawk who'd love nothing more that to shit down the throats of Muslims and the other guy is a hedge fund billionair who, along with a handful of banks, manipulated trading to screw the US Govt out of 6 BILLION DOLLARS of tax revenue.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE BEHIND HILLARY CLINTON.

Then you wonder why Sanders people want to stay way the fuck away from her.

Those are two people behind Hillary Clinton. That's one of the sad things about politics. To win you have to bring a lot of people into the tent, and not everyone's gonna agree.

You know how many Sanders supporters are utter pieces of shit? Just statistically speaking, one can guess it's a very large number.

At any rate, as much as I might despise these two people, the fact remains that they're donating money to defeat Republicans. There's no way for them to demand anything else. I say we should be willing to take it.

This guy breaks it down succinctly about the danger Hillary is in from the FBI investigation. The first 15 minutes it's outlined.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?406228-4/washington-journal-joseph-digenova-hillary-clintons-emails

Shocking!

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

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discredited-republican-la/207839

You're being exploited.

Nothing I saw sounded like he was weighing heavily against Hillary unnecessarily. He explained everything in a rational way that was easy to understand. I'm a left-leaning guy, but Hillary did what she did. We'll know soon whether it was criminal or not.

If you watch the video maybe you'll come to the same conclusion. Callers didn't like what they heard either during that segment.

I think a lot of people don't understand the grave situation of where Clinton stands. If they did they may not feel so good about their casted vote.

It's not a 'grave situation', it's a manufactured scandal. Manufactured specifically by guys like this. They've literally been doing this for two and a half decades.

We can go back and forth over the validity but time will tell as it always does. I don't think they would spend a year building the case and expending all those resources if there was no case to be made. It's apparent that she broke the law.

>I don't think they would spend a year
>building the case and expending all those resources if there
>was no case to be made.

Also, it appears like it's about 12 full-time agents. Nothing to sneeze at.