Dude might be a fraud yo

All this talk about revolution and he's not going to help out any Dems in their congress races?

Bernie heads please explain.

Edit: ok he said, 'we'll see' http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-fundraise-down-ballot-democrats-maddow?utm_content=buffer0a166&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

But still

That's a bit troubling he ain't answer with a yes.
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

.
.
.

So was Obama when he did it too


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

.
.
.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

Who? Name'em?
.
.
.

U really don't even know what's being discussed r to even argue anything of validity

Get gone my nygga
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

My question to you is why does it matter? No one is complaining. You act like he's crapping on folks.

Plus he's running a campaign that is counter to the traditional BS


.
.
.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

You do know that this man has successfully navigated the political scene without your help for may years. You do understand this right?
.
.
.

.
.
.

Like nothing

It's almost impressive


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

the opposite of his brand, the opposite of what his supporters claim to believe. It's supposed to be a revolution, It's supposed to not be just about him. Whenever anyone asks how he'll get anything done without the help of either house of Congress, the Bernie supporters always say something to the effect of "it's a revolution, we'll win the Congress too." That's unlikely even in normal times, but if he's not even trying, it's not a good look.

We will stump for others at a later date.
.
.
.

"Right now, our job is to, what I'm trying to do is win the democratic nomination."

Do candidates raise money for each other during primary season?

I think they usually don't. Unless they're directly tied to together. The fundraising would come after the candidates, top of ticket and down ballot, have been selected.

>"Right now, our job is to, what I'm trying to do is win the
>democratic nomination."
>
>Do candidates raise money for each other during primary
>season?


Yes...Presidential candidates have raised money for down ticket candidates...At least historically they have....Obama raised money...H. Clinton is raising money....

Hopefully Bernie starts doing the same...He has a lot of heat right now...

Before or after the primaries? Of course the official candidate should hold fundraisers, but should primary candidates?
Clinton being the exception because she's been party fundraising for nearly twenty years. But did Edwards, Biden, O'Malley, Kucinich, Feingold, Bill Richardson do so?

Before and after.....

When Obama had all that heat during his first run against Hillary, he did some fund raising for down ticket candidates...Appeared with candidates too......Hillary did as well in 2008....Other candidates over the years have done the same....

I think Sanders will do so as well......He's a good, smart dude...He knows he needs that Democratic support...

Are we saying that Bernie has done none of the latter nor the former or none of the latter? Because he's had appearances with surrogates and candidates.


I feel like I'm splitting hairs. But I also feel like this article is doing the same. So I'm maneuvering within those rules.

Nah..they are both important...If u have heat and are commanding large fundraising numbers and audiences, then u can def. help a down ticket candidate just by vouching for them onstage, shaking hands and raising money...

Even when Obama received criticism for not sharing his fundraising war chest with down ticket candidates he made sure to give up some of that loot...Obama knew he needed EVERYBODY to win the whole thing.....And that included down ticket candidates and delegates...Obama knew he had to be a good teammate...

I think Bernie will come around...

So far, Bernie doesn't seem to be doing neither...But I think that will change...

Have contributed to down ticket elections

It's kinda expected for high profile candidates

I know Bernie wants to be viewed as an outsider but he can't have it both ways

If he's going to benefit materially and significantly from Democratic Party fundraising

then he needs to participate in it.

One foot in and one foot out where the in-foot takes advantage of the platform that wouldn't of been given to him as an independent candidate and the out-foot gives nothing back.

Yea that ain't principled


It's opportunistic bullshyt
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

I'm not in disagreement about that. But I'm curious as to what point it usually happens. And I don't think it's clear at this moment.

And the fact republican congress is as vulnerable as its been in years he should jump at this opportunity to help out


____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

I've gotten two mailings at my houses. Well multiple mailings from two candidates running for the congressional seat.
I do t know if the seat is open. I think it's been vacated.
But up until the primary neither one of them is the democratic candidate.
Should I expect Bernie or Hillary to cape for either of them at this point? Or should I expect that kind of support after there's am established candidate?

Bernie's whole agenda is based on a system of campaign finance reform, THEREFORE:

1. if candidates believe in his platform on the Democratic side then they can adopt the same principled stance he is taking for the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.

2. The whole POINT of campaign finance reform is so that politicians don't have to fundraise, to eliminate the potential beholdeness to special interests and lobbyists....

3. Some of these same Democrats were/are vilifying Bernie AND did the same thing to Obama in the last midterms. Now they want help from the Stah? Nahhhhh.

>Bernie's whole agenda is based on a system of campaign
>finance reform, THEREFORE:
>
>1. if candidates believe in his platform on the Democratic
>side then they can adopt the same principled stance he is
>taking for the PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION.
>
>2. The whole POINT of campaign finance reform is so that
>politicians don't have to fundraise, to eliminate the
>potential beholdeness to special interests and lobbyists....
>
>3. Some of these same Democrats were/are vilifying Bernie AND
>did the same thing to Obama in the last midterms. Now they
>want help from the Stah? Nahhhhh.


This is all cool...But in the world of reality, down ticket Dems need all the help they can get when it comes to winning the House/Senate....

U mentioned the Dems vilifying Bernie? Back in 2008, a lot of Dems were cheerleading Hillary Clinton before Obama started to catch fire and pull away late in the race...A lot of them had grimy shit to say about Obama (About how a TOO young and green Senator didn't have the experience to win it all and would sink the Democratic party in November)...And yet Obama appeared with them during their campaign stops and helped raise money for them...

Obama saw the big picture...

But Bernie is trying to change the game.

When I last campaigned on campaign finance reform the principle is that about $3 from people's tax returns can be allocated to a pool of resources to be allocated equally to persons in pursuit of a government office.

Campaigns don't NEED to cost millions of dollars - hell, Hillary wants to raise $2 Billion for her campaign alone, for what? I would much rather myself or a neighbor of mine who is inspired to be a public servant be able to finance and budget on the same platform. When you make politics a financial arms race, for people who may actually be well intentioned, how can you expect that to not breed corruption?

I totally see why Bernie isn't wanted to support in that regard. Bernie is the first person I have made a financial contribution towards, because in THIS climate, he needs it. But if everyone did it how he is doing it we would be much better off. How many billions of dollars are being spent on losing campaigns? We can do better.

This is not a game to play...It's called being a part of a political party....U can't change the game without utilizing party coalitions....

So is $15 an hour a republican or democratic issue?

Neither, it is an American working class issue. Our party affiliation has largely been beholden to the Democratic party, but they seem to want to run to the middle on all of these progressive issues. BY what metric do they calculate that Americans actually DON'T need $15 an hour, and that $12 is enough? That sound like they are arguing for their interests and not our own. THAT is why we need campaign finance reform.

We are sick of games, and parties. We need RESULTS. 2016 and we are still talking about minimum wage, war on drugs, abortion, immigration, education, etc like it's still 1996. Let's get some things actually done and not just pass and punt political footballs while these politicians cake up on the corporate take. That shit is wack.

U r mixing apples with oranges...

A living wage is connected to down ticket voting....

U can't change the wage issue without changing the House/Senate....That's what supporting down ticket candidates is all about...All of the issues that Bernie heads are passionate about can be changed through local and Senate/House elections....

I get the feeling that a lot of Bernie supporters feel like things will change just because he is elected president....It doesn't work that way...

I have said campaign finance reform makes it to where more people can participate. It makes to where my neighbor down the block can throw their hat in the ring to bring about change based on merit, not how much money they were able to raise.

I am not beholden to down the ticket Democrats who have been on the sideline the whole time minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour, have been told we can't have universal health care or student debt relief. Maybe Democrats should have to start earning the vote they receive. Otherwise, let's get them out of there and replace them with persons looking to get things done.

winning each and every one of the current races AND on the Dems picking up seats in the upcoming 2018 mid-terms.

his 'revolution' is dead on arrival w/o that shit.

unless i'm missing something.

if you can't elect a majority in the Congress that supports that reform.

The Sanders "strategy" on campaign finance, to whatever extent it exists, is completely nonsensical. He says it's the most important thing for any politician to do, that it's the centerpiece of his revolution, but he doesn't seem to have any plan for it.

>
>if you can't elect a majority in the Congress that supports
>that reform.

That is a completely separate issue. So the idea of campaign finance reform is elected by persons running for office. It doesn't take legislation to get politicians to adopt this method. Bernie and many other candidates are using the same platform, almost as a proof of concept.

However if we DO want Congress to adopt the legislation, then of course they are going to block such changes. Political science 101 is 1. Get elected. 2. Get reelected. Too much of Congress is sitting there to collect checks, sit in a position of influence, and accept money from special interests all in the spirit of "fundraising". Meanwhile many Americans vote strictly along party lines, so keeping your elected seat is almost a guarantee. THIS is also a side effect of helping out Democrats/Repubs blindly - people become sheep to the process and turn in to "I vote Democrat" on major issues. Luckily we have a VOTE that we can use to oust people from these positions. We can force the campaign finance reform through OUR voting power, not Bernie's. It is our civic duty to do so.

>The Sanders "strategy" on campaign finance, to whatever extent
>it exists, is completely nonsensical. He says it's the most
>important thing for any politician to do, that it's the
>centerpiece of his revolution, but he doesn't seem to have any
>plan for it.


When I last campaigned on campaign finance reform the principle is that about $3 from people's tax returns can be allocated to a pool of resources to be allocated equally to persons in pursuit of a government office. Plus HE IS PRACTICING IT RIGHT NOW. He is going toe to toe with HILLARY CLINTON, who has a goal of $2 Billion dollars for campaign fundraising. He is using this approach and will having all of the momentum because of his platform, not advertising budget. He certainly seems like a man with a nonsensical plan to me, and it is working.

So Bernie is claiming that he needs to refuse to raise funds for Democrats "on principle," because he disagrees with the way money currently works in traditional party politics

but is nonetheless willing to exploit the high-profile venues that money provides.

If he wants to exercise principled resistance to traditional party politics(and I believe there is a damb good reason to do that)

then he shouldn't attend the debates or the national convention.

____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

I'm going to see Bernie today at St. Mary's park. That aint no glamorous venue. That is where I go on Saturdays to get my Uncle Rico on. Lol those sound like indictments of the Democratic Party, not Bernie Sanders.

*edit* Hell Bernie is using the Democratic Party the same way many Blacks do: using their resources and stage because if we didn't MUCH of our issues would never even be heard. I would call it pragmatic, and it is exactly why he didn't run as an Independent. It's like when Kendrick raps on a trap beat: he's hijacking what is mainstream so that ears that need the message can hear.

The DNC pays for all these debates

They help him fundraise

They pay for the convention

He signed a pact to help fundraise for the party when he decided to run

He hasn't contributed anything.

Meanwhile as I said he's taking full advantage of the partys infrastructure in raising money for himself and getting his message out there to the point he's a relevant candidate

Hes 'hijacking the airwaves' for self serving purposes being that he chose to run as a Democrat and is refusing to play ball which does nothing for his cause. In order to fulfill his promises he is going to have to work with the party. And working with the party is getting a progressive leaning congress. He really seems like all talk and political theatre.





____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

>The DNC pays for all these debates
>
>They help him fundraise
>
>They pay for the convention
>
>He signed a pact to help fundraise for the party when he
>decided to run
>
>He hasn't contributed anything.
>
>Meanwhile as I said he's taking full advantage of the partys
>infrastructure in raising money for himself and getting his
>message out there to the point he's a relevant candidate
>
>Hes 'hijacking the airwaves' for self serving purposes being
>that he chose to run as a Democrat and is refusing to play
>ball which does nothing for his cause. In order to fulfill his
>promises he is going to have to work with the party. And
>working with the party is getting a progressive leaning
>congress. He really seems like all talk and political
>theatre.

So you are surprised that a guy who says and demonstrates that he wants to revitalize and transform current politics, redistribute wealth, and finance social programs via the budget we already have is *gasp* using the Democratic brand to push his platform???

1. How is that any different from what Democrats are doing and have always done since JFK? LITERALLY the only thing he isn't doing is giving them some sort of kickback, because his ambition is for the people.

2. This gripe is legitimate for the Democratic Party to make. They have their money and want it, and want to keep the machine moving. But I am NOT going to get mad at somebody for coming in and using the vehicle as it is supposed to be used for the betterment of the country, or at least most Democrats. That would be like being upset at me for going to an Ivy League school for finance only to run to the hood and use my degree to teach low income students.

3. YOU cape'n so hard for this is particularly odd. How many rappers are independent but using major label distribution to get their product to the masses? This is common place. You sound like some salty dude that asked a girl out, she said you aint gonna hit, but then you spent mad money on her wooing her - yet she won't put out and now you feel like she gamed you. Naw bruh, you played yaself.

Wish I could still have a romanticized view of how change is supposed to happen in our country

But I watched for 8yrs republicans block every progressive legislature introduced

Yet somehow bernie is going to be able to implement all these policies with just the enthusiasm of the people alone

He has great ideas but they call it politics for a reason

He's not going to get none of that shyt he's promising to the people without playing the game

It's just how it is

And always going to be

Our system is set up to prevent anything that could cause instability so shyt happens slowly

It seems Bernie has people thinking all its going to take is to get him elected and shyts going to pop off

Naw

But I ain't about to keep arguing this




____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

>Wish I could still have a romanticized view of how change is
>supposed to happen in our country
>
>But I watched for 8yrs republicans block every progressive
>legislature introduced
>
>Yet somehow bernie is going to be able to implement all these
>policies with just the enthusiasm of the people alone
>
>He has great ideas but they call it politics for a reason
>
>He's not going to get none of that shyt he's promising to the
>people without playing the game
>
>It's just how it is
>
>And always going to be
>
>Our system is set up to prevent anything that could cause
>instability so shyt happens slowly
>
>It seems Bernie has people thinking all its going to take is
>to get him elected and shyts going to pop off
>
>Naw
>
>But I ain't about to keep arguing this


You know, I bet you are older than me, but I have probably voted in more elections than you. There definitely is a generational divide. Did you vote for Gore? Could you vote for Clinton? I just wonder because the first general election I participated in was Kerry in 2004 when I was of age. I have never had the benefit of being passive politically. I was a Mass Comm/Poli Sci major at an HBCU with a 3.9 GPA that had to withdraw from school to work full time to save my Mom's house from going under. Let alone for 4 knee reconstructions I had to have. Politics is more than the games people play, it is our everyday lives. Bernie isn't going to implement all these things, because he can't do it alone. I've seen people run out to elect Obama in droves in 2008 and 2012, and then flat out disappear in the midterms. THAT is why there is stagnation, because WE have done a half-assed job. If people really wanted Obama's legislation then we would have given him a Congress to work with. That is on US. We got out-coached and the Tea Party out-hustled us. It has NOTHING to do with idealism. We just need to do better.

1st time of age to vote

Democrats ain't field contestant in the 2002 senate race against Warner

They didn't either in the House race in my district so I voted for some green party nygga

Think he was an East Indian or Pakistani

Don't know what this has to do with anything

Or how ur knee surgeries and GPA would make u think ur more politicaly aware than I am but iight




____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

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 supporters expect the Super Delegates to switch up and support him because he "won" their state.

That's nice, but what has he done for the party.


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 supporters expect the Super Delegates to switch up and
>support him because he "won" their state.

Naw, Bernie Supporters expect Super Delegates to honor the American vote, and the democratic process and reflect the will of their state accordingly.

>That's nice, but what has he done for the party.

He has invigorated the base and added plenty of new voters who are willing to ENGAGE in the process. The world is waiting on his candidacy. But that don't sell tickets I suppose.

Hillary:Bernie::Drake:Kendrick

but to each their own.

And those invigorated activists are gonna vote regardless, but it costs money to get those non-activist voters out. It costs money to print signs, send emails, fuel up campaign vans, and operate a campaign that can win.

If Bernie doesn't want to spread the wealth to other members of the party, then what's their incentive to support him?

To paraphrase the movie School Daze, even revolutionaries eat Kentucky Fried Chicken. Folks really out here believing that the democratic process can somehow be divorced from money when the basics of running a campaign like opening an office or getting a phone or just having paper costs something.

But keep on thinking that somehow this shit's gonna pay for itself.


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*

be a team player, they could all cake up!

Yet he doesn't want to be of that establishment.

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*

Capitalism only works when you have people on which to capitalize. The capitalism portfolio is VERY diversified, through so many people being infringed upon, all to have some people at the top have a better margin this year than last. We can only be squeezed so much, and for what? $30,000 umbrella stands? People over money man.

We're talkin' 'bout a guy who is allegedly raising money the "right" way who doesn't deem it necessary to support like minded candidates in his own party with said money. Literally asking him to put his money where his mouth is.

You talkin' 'bout capitalism and yadda yadda yadda that ain't got shit to do with shit when it comes to the basics of financing a political campaign.


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*

putting his money where his mouth is.

There are actually criteria to even giving to his campaign to attempt to keep things above board.

AGAIN, NOTHING IS STOPPING ANY POLITICIAN, INCLUDING HILLARY, FROM FINANCING THEMSELVES THE SAME WAY.

But to the question you asked (which is what I was talking about) no, I wouldn't want to play. But I certainly see why they would. It has been very lucrative and kept most things the same ever since they have been "fighting for us".

I think u need this in your life....

Read Jamelle Bouie's Twitter roll....He basically breaks down why changing the system doesn't equate to pushing it away...Smart dude....

https://twitter.com/jbouie

the revolution isn't about Bernie Sanders. the revolution is about the active American electorate and their feeling about their individual political efficacy. To "change" in the sense you are saying doesn't mean to get the politicians in power to change their ways. I don't think many can. But perhaps the approach to individual activism can result in more marginalized people running for offices and overall participation. We are kept in the dark for a reason, and not socialized to the process which controls who get what, when, and where. All of it needs t be brought to light.

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 money isn't rich peoples. It didn't just POOF up. We are paying into the system. By mandate. And then on top of that we are not supposed to have a say in who/what/where the monies go? What planet are you on? Let alone country you are in?

>the revolution isn't about Bernie Sanders. the revolution is
>about the active American electorate and their feeling about
>their individual political efficacy. To "change" in the sense
>you are saying doesn't mean to get the politicians in power to
>change their ways. I don't think many can. But perhaps the
>approach to individual activism can result in more
>marginalized people running for offices and overall
>participation. We are kept in the dark for a reason, and not
>socialized to the process which controls who get what, when,
>and where. All of it needs t be brought to light.


The "people" can do what they have to do within a revolution....

Bernie is in a different position though. He can turn on the people to make a change. But he still has to uplift fellow like minded politicians who he agrees with 90 percent of the time...Bernie's vehicle is politics...He is a politician not a deity...So he needs to do political things to actually get things done on a basic level...

If he doesn't there's no way his revolution can come to fruition...

the Congress he envisions helping to push his agenda isn't currently in office?

Ever consider that WE are part of the process? It is bigger than Bernie.

Do you even REALIZE that we get to vote for Congress too? Stop acting like the Democrats in there who have been just as disloyal and flipfloppy are our saviors. THEY AREN'T. These same mofos tried to distance themselves from Obama in 2014, and Republicans went ham in open seats. What allegiance should we show to them? Why, cause they're Democrats? By what measure? Expect more of the process and yourself man. It's embarrassing.

Dudes a fraud
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

it's why i don't see him gaining enough s/d's to win the nomination. but maybe he will. we saw them jump from the Hillary ship in 2008 - but they went w/Obama who was definitely down to play nice w/the DNC and cooperate w/the party and its objectives. so far i dunno that Sanders is so willing or that he'll come around later. i dunno if enough s/d's will trust him - considering he is not really a Democrat. if he wants their support i think he'd do well to show more willingness to $upport and endor$e the party's candidates generally.

.
.
.

Nah...the critique is he doesn't share the ball....

But again, I think he will....He's too smart not to....

>
>
>Nah...the critique is he doesn't share the ball....
>
>But again, I think he will....He's too smart not to....


No the team is stetting picks for him because they recognize that he's got the HOT HAND and the Coach has given him the GREEN LIGHT to shoot.


.
.
.

the parties really have built up a system that is so resistant to change that people can't even handle bernie doing it slightly differently. all we do nowadays is escalate money and partisanship...and the dnc and rnc certainly aren't going to do anything to fix it until the country falls apart.

let's not pretend that all we need to do is play the game and vote HARDER for the same democrats and they'll do something about it.

How does he expect to find success politically as President? I'd think with the amount of cash he's receiving, and as a sitting Senator, he'd make an effort to sway the Senate majority away from the GOP this election year. Campaigns like the one johnfetterman.com is running to oust PA's Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey, fully support Sanders, sad to see there's no reciprocation.

He's so independent, I'm not voting for him.

Also, what Sanders is not, is a Socialist. If you want to qualify it beyond personal ideology, since he holds no current or historic membership in any of the Socialist Party groups.

That with the people's will - you can accomplish far more than a conventional politician who is only interested in incremental reform (at best).

The only apt comparison to the tea-party is on the civic participation that took place with that movement. On the local level - tea-party candidates began replacing conventional republicans at a rate that was alarming to the RNC. Alike, you will see a wave of new people engaged in the political process that will be challenging seats on the local level - and Bernie has lit the match to that process.


-->

.
.
.

It wasn't just the popular will of vocal conservatives, it was also a group of very rich people who wanted to make sure they got airtime.


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 is bank-rolled by a record amount of grass-roots fund-raising by the people - who he is beholden to.

Any other questions?


-->

The proof is in the pudding.

When you do it above board you get the best of both worlds: Trump style numbers with REAL effective important politics.

he only became one for convenience when he decided to run for POTUS b/c he understands that an independent can't win the office.

2. many/all those are 'establishment' candidates and Bernie is running on a 'revolutionary' platform.

3. by cooperating w/the party Bernie would undercut the main thrust of his message - that whole 'revolution' thing. Bernie isn't calling for an ACTUAL revolution but at least some of his supporters seem to think that's what he's on. from what i can tell (and i'm not paying close attention b/c - why?) he's not exactly disabusing them of that notion. of course, Bernie's 'revolution' doesn't involve over-throwing any aspect of the government - it's about PARTICIPATING in governance. at least some of his ppl seem to think his 'revolution' is a more traditional one.

The less confident I feel about my understanding of the capacity of human intelligence. I imagine it's a lot like you for law.
It's like that for me with math and science.
I should be used to it by now, but each time I'm consistently disappointed in what I see.

If you didn't even realize that Bernie's been an Independent for decades (although he has voted with Democrats 99% of the time) - then it's difficult to even engage in a discussion on why he's not in-line w/ the DNC.

But as for the 'revolution' - it's obviously not a revolution in the sense of overthrowing government. It's a revolution in the ballot-box - in civic participation (as you noted). And in actuality - getting more people (particularly younger people) more engaged in the political process would absolutely be revolutionary and unprecedented in this country.

-->

those 'down ticket' Democrats undercuts his goals. b/c he needs those folks in office in order to accomplish most of what he's promising.

i understand why he's not doing it and i think it's a mistake. but...this is a reason why i suspect Bernie won't be able to deliver what he's promising and a reason i didn't vote for him in my state's recent primary.

i'll vote for the Democrat in the general election even if that's Bernie.

>those 'down ticket' Democrats undercuts his goals. b/c he
>needs those folks in office in order to accomplish most of
>what he's promising.


Again....This^^^^^

But I think Bernie will def. come around...At least that's the hope...

especially if he secures the DNC nomination for POTUS - he has to get w/the program. for the success of his potential administration he has to do what he can to be sure DNC nominees for Senate and House seats win each and every 2016 race and then he's gotta do the same in 2018.

>If you didn't even realize that Bernie's been an Independent
>for decades (although he has voted with Democrats 99% of the
>time) - then it's difficult to even engage in a discussion on
>why he's not in-line w/ the DNC.

Yeah...But WHAT also made the point that some of Bernie's more fervent supporters equate his "Revolution" with something a lot more unrealistic....

> Bernie isn't calling for an ACTUAL revolution but at least some of
>his supporters seem to think that's what he's on.


This^^^^

I def. know a few Bernie heads that "get it"...But that Bernie Or Bust crowd...They really think Bernie is talking REVOLUTION......

thinks Trump's election will result in a revolution and that's a reason she says she might vote for Trump if Clinton is the Democrat's nominee.

i am fucking astounded by that ridiculousness. i hope she doesn't represent a large number of Bernie supporters. b/c that shit is dangerous.

>thinks Trump's election will result in a revolution and
>that's a reason she says she might vote for Trump if Clinton
>is the Democrat's nominee.
>
>i am fucking astounded by that ridiculousness. i hope she
>doesn't represent a large number of Bernie supporters. b/c
>that shit is dangerous.


That has been my only issue with some of the Bernie supporters I've come across...Otherwise, if he happens to pull off a major come from behind win he will get my vote...

IF we see the sort of revolution for which Sarandon pines, SHE will probably not fair well in the end - b/c she's not one of US she's one of THEM. she thinks the USA needs a revolution to bring on fair (re)distribution of wealth - she is RICH AS FUCK. if there's a revolution we are coming for HER and everyone else like her. that she doesn't see that is amazing. LOL

she never said anything about her and/or Bernie supporters voting for Trump

watch the f'n clip homie

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12992065&mesg_id=12992065&page=#12996692

that headline is a deflection from the content of the interview.

she did cop out w/that 'some ppl' shit which is ridiculous enough.

>she did cop out w/that 'some ppl' shit which is ridiculous
>enough.


Basically...news flash: U DON'T HAVE TO EXACTLY SAY THE WORDS TO IMPLY...

Susan was being glib as fuck....lol....And she got caught out there....

you think that implication is an accurate take away from the content of that interview

removing your obvious bias

if you were actually neutral

of a 7min interview

where about 6.45 is contrasting Bernie w/HRC

your take away would be equating what she said with her and Bernie supporters voting for Trump?

Y/N

not that the actual quote in and of itself isn't accurate as we watch a major political party implode based on Trump being the likely candidate (I think I said this already)

we can do this in either thread

but this is some BS.

Yes...I'm a writer/editor....

And yes I watched it...And for the 100th time, Susan did NOT say I WOULD RATHER VOTE FOR TRUMP....

But she did get cute...She did imply that while she would not vote for Hillary Clinton that SHE WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WOULD DO AND THAT AT LEAST A TRUMP WINNING WOULD SPARK A REVOLUTION...

This ^^^^ is what we call in the journalism field a "wink line"....She smiled when she made the statement. Susan knew what she was "implying"

The implication: She sees no difference between Clinton and Trump...Which by itself is WACKED OUT bullshit...lol

That's why people were upset...Not because they thought Susan said she would vote for Trump....

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12992065&mesg_id=12992065&page=#12995281

this is you right?

= you lost me fam

I've asked you an abundance of direct questions of the past couple of days

you deflect

w/o a bias, agenda and remaining neutral, would you right that headline based on the content of that interview

Y/N

?

She tried to play cute....Got called out...Now she's tap dancing....

And BTW, U think Susan was only getting called out just by Clinton supporters? There were Bernie folks PISSED at her too for even making the IMPLICATION....Hell, Dan Savage is not even a fan of Clinton...He has talked about voting for Bernie...And even he was like CHICK PLEASE....

Bottom line: If Trump is the nominee I would hope any Bernie supporter, if he doesn't win the ticket, would vote for a candidate that could beat him as well....

Because checking out and not voting at all is just as worse....

But hey, if u want to go that holier than thou route, do u...

I think this is about the 4th

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12994729&mesg_id=12994729&listing_type=search

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12995259&mesg_id=12995259&listing_type=search

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12988376&mesg_id=12988376&listing_type=search

^^ Weird ^^^ given the running narrative on Bernie supporters

dem margins = got alot of HilStan buttholes tight.

.
.
.

Isn't this Sev's first stand alone political post of this nature though? Up until a few days ago, I didn't even know dude was politically engaged...He's a dude u usually catch in OK Sports repping Bron/the Cavs or in GD shooting the breeze about the latest Drake joint....

I think the Sev's of the world represent the general public...the folks who look at the news but don't go all in on the political talk until something truly catches their eye...

Also, stop being so conspiratorial....Bernie will win Wisconsin, too....That doesn't mean people who are supporting Clinton r freaking out with anti-Bernie posts...lol

I think most Clinton folks who have been engaged in this heavily on this board are just trying to keep it clean and let the Bernie heads let it all out....Let them celebrate their victories...Because the numbers r still on Clinton's side....She is the likely winner...

But u know the cool thing about all this? I would vote for either Clinton or Bernie....I'm good...

Guys: Believe it or not he's doing things that will hurt him at the convention.

It's totally valid to question the system, but it's an entire nother thing to trash the party and the power structure that's in place.

They're almost as bad as the Freedom Caucus.


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*

a contested primary

you mean that party

as I said in the other post

see Michelle Alexander

democrats are just as complicit in anything

while we pop bottles watching the R titanic sink

why not the democratic party

why not overhaul the whole thing

should be evident, at least, the process is f'd and needs to be overhauled

i.e. the democratic party is not the solution

also, that's been part of Bern's message from go

= political revolution

get more people, young people, involved

so the system might actually work for us

this ish ain't.

it's not the party's fault their campaigns were stagnant

LOL, really though

I did forget Chaffey (was it him or Webb that switched parties to get in?)

and only remember Webb because of some racist BS in his record

but you're assuming your answer somehow contradicts what I said

you typed some names

that were never competing

2 dropped after the first debate

O'Malley as a viable POTUS candidate = FOH

like I said, the party needed Bern to join as an independent just to keep it relevant this long

speaks for itself

but yes, they did manage to get a bunch on dudes on stage for 1 event

>but you're assuming your answer somehow contradicts what I
>said

um, it does. stop being extra

in 16'

>a contested primary
>
>you mean that party
>
>as I said in the other post
>
>see Michelle Alexander
>
>democrats are just as complicit in anything
>
>while we pop bottles watching the R titanic sink
>
>why not the democratic party
>
>why not overhaul the whole thing
>
>should be evident, at least, the process is f'd and needs to
>be overhauled
>
>i.e. the democratic party is not the solution
>
>also, that's been part of Bern's message from go
>
>= political revolution


Slate's Jamelle Bouie breaks it down better than me....Someone asked him the same question on Twitter: Why not just blow up the Democratic party?..Why should anyone expect Bernie to help out with down ticket Democratic candidates?....Roll tape...

Question--@jbouie--I think here's our fundamental disagreement. Best thing Sanders could do is blow up the Dem Party as it currently exists

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
Folks have a habit of treating parties and organizations as monolithic when they really aren't.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
You're much more likely to change a party's direction by becoming an indispensable part of it than by withdrawing from it entirely.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
When you win elections for the party and expand participation, you also win influence.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
20 of their friends & 20 of theirs can win local elections in most places.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
In most places in this country, you and twenty of your friends can take over a local party organization.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
It has entry points at every level of government—county, city, state—and critically, few people participate at those levels.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
And while the Democratic Party is a deeply flawed, compromised institution, it also—in the fashion of American parties—is highly porous.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
Electoral politics are not the sine qua non of making change but they are a large and important part of it.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
The Democratic establishment is a collection of groups and people with varied and cross-cutting interests. Jamelle Bouie added,

Jamelle Bouie Retweeted 7/11 truther
I want you to explain how leftists—a distinct ideological minority—attain anything without coalition politics?

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 4h4 hours ago
What I'm learning this morning is quite a few people *want* it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Jamelle Bouie
Maybe it should be done differently. But that's a battle for a different day. You have to win *now*

7/11 truther @austinjmichaels
@jbouie Honestly think you've never considered that maybe the way things are done isn't the way they have to be done

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 5h5 hours ago
To repeat a point, if independents are given a voice in the party selection process, then it is fair to give party officials extra weight.

Jamelle Bouie ‏@jbouie 5h5 hours ago
Honestly think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary process.

blow up the party?

ummm...how about the various 'revolutionaries' GETTING INVOLVED w/the party at the local level which is what their cult of personality/leader recommends anyway (considering he's running as a Democrat and encourages greater participation in government).

and Bernie can show up at the convention w/his delegates and push for his proposals to be added to the party's platform as clearly MILLION$ of voters are interested in seeing his goals added to the party's platform. and if his issues are added then he's willing to encourage his supporters to vote for the DNC presidential nominee AND the 'down ticket' nominees in various races.

i don't have a sophisticated understanding of this shit but that ^ is pretty obvious i think.

something about independents being given a voice in the party

to my knowledge, that hasn't happened

Bernie came in from outside

and, as per the superdelegate example, is being stifled by members of the party = party officials

it works both ways, IMO

to critique Bern for not fundraising for down ticket democrats

seems like a another faiLed logic, IMO

i.e. he's been an independent until now, and party members aren't supporting him now

IRT people wanting it to be one way

those party officials chose their candidate last year

now that Bern is showing out, this is some crocodile tears ish

Bernie has lots of legitimate reasons for not wanting to support the DNC

but anyone who wants to be an effective president has to have a governing majority

or as close to a governing majority as is possible

This is something u don't seem to comprehend

Bern can have all the amazing progressive ideas in the world but if he doesn't have a Congress that will enact those ideas..

then they're not worth shyt

He needs to help elect progressive policymakers regardless of ideological views in order to be an effective progressive president

I thought he was doing that

He votes Democrat despite being Independent

He was even critical of Obama for not continuing his momentum after the inauguration and keeping people engaged

Then it turns out he's not even on board with rest of the ticket

Wtf?

What's all this for if he's just going to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get the nom?

That shyt kinda irks me

I voted for him in the primary off GP even tho I fully expect hillary to get the nod






____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

"He needs to help elect progressive policymakers regardless of ideological views"

are those policymakers already within the democratic party?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would imagine somebody who's operated outside of the democratic party

does so because they don't identify with the members and/or their policies

i.e. if the democratic party was already progressive/progressive policymakers, he'd probably have already joined

you follow

anyway, I have no problem with how he answered the question

homie just joined the party, like what, 5 minutes ago

he's focused on winning the nomination.

expecting him to save the party, etc...

1 step at a time

LOL@a big money party trying to shame an indepedent candidate with a talent for raising money into raising money for their party

smh

again, IRT superdelegates, pretty clear illustration of the party and it's members not supporting Bern and his policies

but hey, we'd like your money though

LOL

This is a basic of the PARTY system.

This isn't "corrupt" or "DOMCORATRIX-ism" it's a basic way how parties support their TICKET.

In November there's a TICKET, not just a single race.

So: Start another fucking party and change it around and have a revolution - or admit you just want to use the existing party structure to only support your single race.

And act surprised when he's at the PARTY'S CONVENTION and they aren't thrilled with him.

>
>So: Start another fucking party and change it around and have
>a revolution - or admit you just want to use the existing
>party structure to only support your single race.


This ^^^^^^ is what a lot of the more fervent Bernie heads really want to do (Not all, but some)...

Pointing this out does't mean u not down for the revolution...Or showing your age...Or whatever other excuse....

I think Bernie is less destructive than some of his more Bernie Or Bust supporters though...At least that's my hope...

and folks are not pissed that he's not bending his butt over to kiss the political party machine.

No, Rev...

The argument is Bernie needs the political machine to win the whole thing....

Most people commenting in this thread (except maybe Sev and Strav) would vote for Bernie if he wins the Dem nomination....

People are just utilizing some political common sense.....

I also guess that as long as he's still in the hunt without having to play by the regular rules he will still hang on the outside.


.
.
.

No...he's being a political idiot...lol

But like I said, Bernie's going to turn around on this...Because he has to in order to win it all....

.
.
.

Yes...U need the Dem's political coalition inside the party to win...

U know why the Tea Party folks started losing elections left and right? Because they failed to make connections with other parts of the Republican party...In fact, they would often attack fellow Republicans and voice their opposition to candidates and members of the Repug party because they didn't fit under a certain litmus purity test of what a true conservative truly is...

Like I said, I don't believe Bernie will go this route considering he's running as a Democrat....And I believe that the majority of his supporters will support the Democratic candidate no matter who they r...

But I'm still shook when I see that BernieOrBust tag line on social media....Hopefully if it's Trump or Cruz against Clinton/Bernie people who call themselves progressives won't be playing that BLOW IT UP card...

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it seems to be working for him. He already knows that most Hillary supporters are entrenched and are not going to change. Plus if he loses he won't be held hostage by special interest and other temporary political allies.





>
>Yes...U need the Dem's political coalition inside the party to
>win...
>
>U know why the Tea Party folks started losing elections left
>and right? Because they failed to make connections with other
>parts of the Republican party...In fact, they would often
>attack fellow Republicans and voice their opposition to
>candidates and members of the Repug party because they didn't
>fit under a certain litmus purity test of what a true
>conservative truly is...
>
>Like I said, I don't believe Bernie will go this route
>considering he's running as a Democrat....And I believe that
>the majority of his supporters will support the Democratic
>candidate no matter who they r...
>
>But I'm still shook when I see that BernieOrBust tag line on
>social media....Hopefully if it's Trump or Cruz against
>Clinton/Bernie people who call themselves progressives won't
>be playing that BLOW IT UP card...


.
.
.

If he loses?...lol

Dog...Bernie will be a pariah if he shits on the party like that....

That dude doesn't care about how people feel about him, especially his peers that be faking the funk.
.
.
.

He's dead meat if he pulls any bullshit...


Trust....But this is all a moot point because Bernie ain't THAT wild....

But he is setting himself up to be a powerful player on the Hill

.
.
.

That's a good plea cop....

1.) All political campaigns require money. It costs to file, get on the ballot, set up a campaign apparatus, and get people out to vote. From the person running for dog catcher all the way up to the president, all campaigns need basic financing or else they don't happen.

2.) Political endorsements are the spoken way of saying that, "I'm going to direct some of the resources (see: money or people) from my political operation to support another candidate's political operation." Not just coming out and saying that you agree with another person's views. That's why it's so important to lock up endorsements not just for the optics, but for the infrastructure.

3.) State-wide and national candidates run political organizations that are large and far reaching. As such, it's not unusual for them to leverage the scale of their operation to help other candidates in smaller districts or local races who may not have access to the same kind of funding or people.

4.) One of the ways that politicians build up their base is by leveraging their resources to form coalitions of like-minded candidates to support who can them help them if and when they get elected in enacting their agenda.

5.) Bernie Sanders isn't upending the current order, he's ignoring the basics of how to build a political coalition by supporting other candidates who may not have the same resources he does.

6.) It's not revolutionary, it's almost just greedy.

Does that help?






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*

Is Bernie gaining or is he losing ground? Y'all acting like this man has never ran for office. Like he's new to the game.

Good God y'all can be so full of yourselves.
.
.
.

And doesn't have a clue what's going on so he just says random shyt and ask dumb questions so he doesn't look completely incompetent
____________

Dallas Cavericks LETS GO!!

So save all the BS Sev and keep that tight Hillary Shirt clean. I'm sure that the Bernie campaign understand this process and what it needs to do and what its goal is.

Why did a DNC vice chair say "fuck this"?

Why have Dems lost control of nearly every state?

Why does the DNC chair need so much special attention to keep her spot?

Why are Dems not even fronting serious campaigns in so many districts and local elections? We have elections where they don't even bother to put up Governors and Senators.

The money has been there for the Dems. Hillary has raised BILLLLLLLLLIONS over the years. She's barely been able to get herself elected, let alone anyone else.

Y'all are saying "But if Bernie just raised some more money right now for them, then we could finally overcome this and put in some rules." That's ridiculous. Expecting minds and consciences to change by rewarding overspending is more of a fantasy than socialism.

Y'all are saying "This is just the way it is and has always been." This is a very recent system, where both parties have used exactly these tactics to build up barriers to entry. Networks and connections and organization matter, but those are not synonyms for spending.

That isn't on Bernie. The patronage and finance systems we have are broken, and they are getting worse each cycle. The networks y'all are championing are a big part of the problem, because they conflate spending and campaign offices with the work that actually needs to get done after the election. And, increasingly, they've blurred the lines between the work that parties do to get elected and the lobbying/financing that comes from outside the parties.

It is *not* a good thing that we have a constant election cycle and a multi-billion dollar bill for it. And it's not greedy or bad politics to opt-out or suggest that we need to do better.

There's a logic to buying in, and I'm sure Bernie will buy in, in his own way, when it makes sense for his campaign. He has been in this game for decades, after all. But he doesn't have to do it on someone else's made-up terms.

Download my new mixtape featuring Lecrae, Andy Mineo, Christon Gray and more. Positive Hip Hop: http://www.noisetrade.com/wadeoradio

.
.
.

Download my new mixtape featuring Lecrae, Andy Mineo, Christon Gray and more. Positive Hip Hop: http://www.noisetrade.com/wadeoradio

shits disgusting

.
.
.

I can't speak for others....But I'm riding for the Democratic candidate whether it's Clinton or Bernie....

What about u?

-->

No, Captain Troll....I've been very consistent...

I'M VOTING FOR CLINTON BECAUSE I THINK SHE HAS THE BEST CHANCE IN THE GENERAL.....

And if Clinton loses by some unforeseen miracle? I'm voting for Bernie...He will be my candidate...Because he has my best interests; vastly more than the Repugs...

U notice, all of my posts are less about BERNIE VS. HILLARY and more about people like yourself saying uninformed, dogmatic shit...

In my world, Bernie and Clinton represent most of the issues I believe in....

In your world, Hillary Clinton is the devil and Bernie is Jesus....

I'm going to let u party, dog....

-->

Man...Chill with yo' trolling, silly ass....lol

U want me to say one thing when I won't....U want me to shit on Bernie because it fits your whole sky-is-falling political mindset...

I never had any beef with Bernie...Never shitted on him...Never said dumb shit like if Clinton doesn't win, I'm not voting for Bernie...I talk about their differences and keep it moving....

In fact, I've stayed away from Bernie vs. Clinton after a few back and forth posts because they are politically idiotic and a waste of time...

U continually say uninformed shit...real talk....

I'm a Democrat, homie....I'm a grown ass man with a grown ass mindset...

If u think Bernie is the better candidate, do u...But don't come to me with some made up fuck shit just to spark a back and forth....

That about it....

Bernie would destroy either of Trump or Cruz in the general election. He's the only likeable candidate of the entire lot.

>Bernie would destroy either of Trump or Cruz in the general
>election. He's the only likeable candidate of the entire lot.


Like I have said a shit load of times on this board, u can believe those early polls if u want to, dog...But u do know that Bernie hasn't been hit with that oppo research yet, right? He hasn't even gone through that Republican ad machine...There is a reason why the Republicans are going hard at Clinton with commercials, and hit jobs....They haven't "touched" Bernie...They want Bernie to run...

I think most people on this board truly know what socialism is...Shit Medicare is socialism...That's why I would have no problem voting for him if he wins the nomination....Unfortunately I don't have that kind of faith in the general public who don't know the difference between Communism and Socialism...When the Repugs are finished with Bernie they r going to have dude looking like a Russian Czar.....

Nobody's checking for your political posts anyway - but at least be honest.

-->

I've always admitted that's the "old man" pessimism in me, Vexy....

I'm over 40...So what that means is I still have a memory of how the general public reacts to any candidate that would say this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/meganapper/sanders-in-1985-sandinista-leader-impressive-castro-totally#.nyLGOPZPBn

Again...It's all strategy for me....If John Kasich was leading the race I would be voting for Bernie if he was in the lead....Because Kasich would KILL Clinton....

But I don't trust Bernie against a Cruz or Trump....I think Bernie allows the Republicans to paint too much of extreme LEFT WING caricature of Bernie...And Bernie would lose that "moderate" high ground u need for people outside of that liberal/conservative bubble to support u...Basically it would be the UBER LEFT vs. UBER RIGHT....That's not a battle I think Bernie would win or at the very least would be too close for comfort...

I know it frustrates u that I'm not doing backflips over my reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton....I don't think she has always been trustworthy....And yeah, I think she has been too close to Wall Street...

But here's the rub....I believe that she will carry on Obama's policies....And more importantly, as a woman, she is the perfect kryptonite for Trump or Cruz....I think once the Republicans start to work on Bernie those numbers will plummet....

I also believe there is no better opponent for Hilldawg than Trump....It's the perfect match up...A man who says woman should be punished for having an abortion vs a.............WOMAN....

Try not to think too hard about any of this....It ain't complex....

However - I am continually dumbfounded at how there's little concern about the foreign policy prescriptions that would be featured in a Clinton presidency. She would invade Syria and continue the interventionist wars that failed in Libya and Iraq - and I don't know how that is so easily glossed over by her supporters.

-->

>However - I am continually dumbfounded at how there's little
>concern about the foreign policy prescriptions that would be
>featured in a Clinton presidency. She would invade Syria and
>continue the interventionist wars that failed in Libya and
>Iraq - and I don't know how that is so easily glossed over by
>her supporters.


Because it's a new era, dog....

Clinton, who did differ from Obama in foreign policy while in his administration, is now too attached to his legacy to go full on Hawk....

Also, I think Bernie's impact has been YUUUUUUGE....When Clinton wins this primary, your boy will hold some cards coming into the convention. He will make it known: TO GET MY VOTERS I NEED U TO FIGHT FOR THE LITTLE GUY/GIRL...

And Hillary will respectfully give Bernie a pound, bless him with a BIG speech at the convention, and come out in support for a raise in the minimum wage and tone down all that Hawk talk....

It's all the circle of life, homie...Politics is messy, but in the end it usually comes together....

would love to see Bernie in the WH


but common sense tells me its going to be Hillary thats our best chance to beat the GOP

>would love to see Bernie in the WH
>
>
>but common sense tells me its going to be Hillary thats our
>best chance to beat the GOP


Measured, mature response^^^^^^^^

U see how it's done Vex?

smart, clearly educated guy


but just way too in your face about why we should all vote for him


comes across very elitist

>smart, clearly educated guy
>
>
>but just way too in your face about why we should all vote for
>him
>
>
>comes across very elitist


I don't think Vex is elitist...He's just VERY passionate and (sometimes) seems new to this whole political process....

these same dudes who were kee keeing to Chappelle talm'bout "hell nawl I don't vote" but then wanna be like "Bill Clinton is the first Black President"...now you tryna tell this new generation to listen to you after Kerry and Gore came up short based on niggas general apathy to politics? Never again, its too important. I'm not beholden to Democrats, and it is long past time to have them earn their vote, cause being "better than Republicans" aint enough.

.
.
.

>these same dudes who were kee keeing to Chappelle talm'bout
>"hell nawl I don't vote" but then wanna be like "Bill Clinton
>is the first Black President"...now you tryna tell this new
>generation to listen to you after Kerry and Gore came up short
>based on niggas general apathy to politics? Never again, its
>too important. I'm not beholden to Democrats, and it is long
>past time to have them earn their vote, cause being "better
>than Republicans" aint enough.


Um...what does this have to do with Clinton (or Bernie) beating the hell out of Trump/Cruz in a general election....?

And let's be real here..Kerry's loss had nothing to do with apathetic voters and everything to do with TERRORISM....Bush was seen as strong....Kerry as weak...

And Gore lost for two reasons: Silly ass Nader voters and the Conservative Supreme Court....

None of the shit u typed has nothing to do with THIS election...Like for real....NONE...lol

>Um...what does this have to do with Clinton (or Bernie)
>beating the hell out of Trump/Cruz in a general election....?

What is has to do with Clinton or Bernie is these same people who were and are apathetic to the political process are the same ones posting on Facebook "oh I don't care which candidate gets the nomination, I'm gonna vote Democrat" as if that has any depth of thought. That is such a lazy approach because these candidates are vastly different in approach. I don't see how people can be passive to this.

>And let's be real here..Kerry's loss had nothing to do with
>apathetic voters and everything to do with TERRORISM....Bush
>was seen as strong....Kerry as weak...
>
>And Gore lost for two reasons: Silly ass Nader voters and the
>Conservative Supreme Court....
>


Ok so,

Gore won, but lost because establishment politics decided Bush should be President, and because Black people weren't necessarily excited about voting for a boring politician talm'bout the enviroment when we were riding off Clinton's surplus.

Kerry lost because he was even more boring than Bush, and actually no, MANY people were mobilizing against the reelection of Bush. Conservatives got duped into the sanctity of marriage and abortion and evangelical congregations used fear politics to have the miracle of Bush being reelected even after 9/11 and the War in Iraq.

>None of the shit u typed have nothing to do with THIS
>election...Like for real....NONE...lol

So to bring things full cirle we have one candidate who was on the right side of those issues since the 90s who wants to provide a social safety net to American citizens, empower the Middle East to heal the mess we've made there, reestablish fair trade, institute college and health care for all, save the environment....oh but there is Hillary with her name recognition (like Bush) she's safe and familiar, and there is Trump who we cannot have...we CERTAINLY can't have him President. Lets just play it safe and go with Hillary "the sure thing" because she got so much done as a Senator in NY and as Secretary of State.......yeah, none of that is relevant at all, but I'll let you cook.

>
>>Um...what does this have to do with Clinton (or Bernie)
>>beating the hell out of Trump/Cruz in a general
>election....?
>
>What is has to do with Clinton or Bernie is these same people
>who were and are apathetic to the political process are the
>same ones posting on Facebook "oh I don't care which candidate
>gets the nomination, I'm gonna vote Democrat" as if that has
>any depth of thought. That is such a lazy approach because
>these candidates are vastly different in approach. I don't see
>how people can be passive to this.

Dog...with all due respect, that's three different stories...Ain't nobody apathetic in THIS election cycle...lol...Clinton has more votes than Trump and Bernie....People are HOT right now...And Trump has basically heated up the Democratic party...

U see...what a lot of y'all get mixed up is the large crowds both Trump and Bernie have been enjoying...That's cool....Sure, there are some Bernie heads who act like he has found the cure for cancer...They will ride with dude no matter what...THEY ARE DEF MORE TURNED ON BY BERNIE THAN THEY ARE HILLDAWG....

But u start to peel back all of that and u know what u get? Clinton with more votes and a more consistent demographic....


>Gore won, but lost because establishment politics decided Bush
>should be President, and because Black people weren't
>necessarily excited about voting for a boring politician
>talm'bout the enviroment when we were riding off Clinton's
>surplus.



No...Gore lost because silly ass Democratic voters tried to get too cute by voting for Nader which led to a stacked Supreme Court giving the edge to a Republican...Black folk had nothing to do with it. We vote Democratic by pretty strong numbers damn near every election...What pushed us to take that L was the hardcore mostly white liberals who wanted to make a statement....BTW, fuck those people....


>Kerry lost because he was even more boring than Bush, and
>actually no, MANY people were mobilizing against the
>reelection of Bush. Conservatives got duped into the sanctity
>of marriage and abortion and evangelical congregations used
>fear politics to have the miracle of Bush being reelected even
>after 9/11 and the War in Iraq.

No...U can't erase history....two words: SWIFT BOATING...That's what happened to Kerry...He was painted as a soft liberal who didn't even deserve his props as a war hero...And since terrorism was the hot topic and Bush was still riding that WAR PRESIDENT wave, Kerry took the L...

>>None of the shit u typed have nothing to do with THIS
>>election...Like for real....NONE...lol
>
>So to bring things full cirle we have one candidate who was on
>the right side of those issues since the 90s who wants to
>provide a social safety net to American citizens, empower the
>Middle East to heal the mess we've made there, reestablish
>fair trade, institute college and health care for all, save
>the environment....oh but there is Hillary with her name
>recognition (like Bush) she's safe and familiar, and there is
>Trump who we cannot have...we CERTAINLY can't have him
>President. Lets just play it safe and go with Hillary "the
>sure thing" because she got so much done as a Senator in NY
>and as Secretary of State.......yeah, none of that is relevant
>at all, but I'll let you cook.


There's no full circle..U can't fit a triangle into a round peg....

I get it...U guys want this to be a storyline that walks hand in hand with Bernie's revolution....But that's not the script....

Here's the script: Obama has a 53 percent approval rating right now...Clinton was in his administration and therefore is gunning for a Obeezy 2.0...Bernie is capturing the hearts and minds of youth voters and white progressive hardcore liberals....Clinton will get more votes than Bernie....And the Dems will come out and support Clinton with the realization that Trump or Cruz will be on the other side...

The best part of all this? The same thing I just posted can be said if Bernie wins the nomination....

Don't mistake people not passing out at Clinton rallies for apathy...lol

"No...Gore lost because silly ass Democratic voters tried to get too cute by voting for Nader which led to a stacked Supreme Court giving the edge to a Republican...Black folk had nothing to do with it. We vote Democratic by pretty strong numbers damn near every election...What pushed us to take that L was the hardcore mostly white liberals who wanted to make a statement....BTW, fuck those people...."

I'm actually glad you brought this up because I forgot to mention it earlier. So the premise of this post is that Bernie isn't fundraising for down ticket Democrats. So what was he supposed to do? Pull a Nader, run as an Independent, and split the Dem vote to get Trump elected? Or do what he said, which is never pull a Nadar, run as a Democrat and attempt to win the nomination. Why would he lend his grass roots goodwill to Democrats who want to see him fail so Hillary can keep the party going?

"No...U can't erase history....two words: SWIFT BOATING...That's what happened to Kerry...He was painted as a soft liberal who didn't even deserve his props as a war hero...And since terrorism was the hot topic and Bush was still riding that WAR PRESIDENT wave, Kerry took the L..."

Clinton Stans have had plenty of opportunities to wipe away memory. They just have selective Men In Black memories about her "swift boat" level issues. Yeah you believed Bush was more War knowledgeable than John Kerry. Thanks bro.

Speaking of Men In Black I need to head to the Bronx to check out Bernie and Rosario Dawson...I'm sure that doesn't match in your head too but it's been fun.

#sienteelfuego

>I'm actually glad you brought this up because I forgot to
>mention it earlier. So the premise of this post is that Bernie
>isn't fundraising for down ticket Democrats. So what was he
>supposed to do? Pull a Nader, run as an Independent, and split
>the Dem vote to get Trump elected? Or do what he said, which
>is never pull a Nadar, run as a Democrat and attempt to win
>the nomination. Why would he lend his grass roots goodwill to
>Democrats who want to see him fail so Hillary can keep the
>party going?


Bernie caucuses with the Dems in the Senate...So he's basically a Dem...And because he votes with the Dems he knew he couldn't pull a Nader...So I'm not handing dude a gold star for not going independent...He would be crucified and ran out of office if he did that.....lol


>Clinton Stans have had plenty of opportunities to wipe away
>memory. They just have selective Men In Black memories about
>her "swift boat" level issues. Yeah you believed Bush was more
>War knowledgeable than John Kerry. Thanks bro.

I don't think u understand....I NEVER SAID BUSH WAS MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN KERRY WHEN IT CAME TO WAR...

No, dog...BUSH'S TEAM PULLED THAT OFF...They were the ones that convinced the public that Kerry, a decorated war hero who damn near died trying to save his men, was a soft Liberal...And how did they pull it off? Dirty smear campaigns (they got some of Kerry's own men to say his his war hero credibility was bullshit)....Historically war Presidents win elections....The public got duped and shit happened....

This is called Politics 101 (also see Papa Bush's Willie Horton ad which turned a solid law and order guy like Dukakis into a soft bitch...)

there it is!!

***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

Shhhhhh......

So the more people enabled to vote, by population, the less people have turned out to vote.

So when women, AAs, Natives, etc all eventually earned the right to vote those greater numbers actually had a downturn in overall participation. The reason? Because the more people there are eligible and with the right to vote the more people think that someone else will vote on their behalf, or that if there is a "clear winner" that it will just work itself out (see Kerry 2004).

The scariest scenario I see is that Clinton beats Sanders for the nom, Trump lays into Hillary speaking these actual factuals, Hillary takes a hit with this blind good will she's gotten, and then we end up with another 2004 scenario where Repubs galvanize and show up (and cheat) to win, and Hillary's passive crowd don't show up because they either NOW listen to the growing dissent of her potential presidency, or flat out think that since she's up against Trump that it will merely take care of itself.

We got this, dog.....

Either Clinton or Bernie should be able to wrap this up...

Bernie saying IDK IRT Democratic fundraising = wild hunnid

SMH

>Bernie saying IDK IRT Democratic fundraising = wild hunnid
>
>SMH


U voting for Trump or the Green Party candidate?

http://revcom.us/i/429/BillClinton-Stone%20MtnAP_920303067-600.jpg

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=12994579&mesg_id=12994579&page=#12996562

Nah...I'm not at all...No bullshit....I'm dead serious....When Bernie doesn't get the nomination I assume u r going to vote for the Green candidate, right?

Because I know it's not Trump....Or better yet, u won;t vote at all, right?

Yeah, I think that's more like it....

who would do such a thing?

.
.
.

Nope...I'm living that life...Trump is proving himself to be a Democratic plant...

We good...(Clinton/Bernie or Bust!!!!!!!!)

.
.
.

If Bernie is the nominee, he'll fundraise for down ticket Dems.

If Hillary is the nominee, he will fundraise for down ticket Dems.

That keeps being the passive approach to Bern vs Hill so let's rock with that.

When the DNC is boobie trapping Bernie for this whole shit, plus spotted Hillary a YUGE superdelegate lead, who on Earf would he decided to campaign for party people who don't even have his back? THAT is politics 101.

Heading to Bronx Is Berning 8)

And if so how does he plan to make up for it? Especially since the GOP is going to spend big dollar$ going at him. And if he takes the money is he a hypocrite? (c) Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite

I could see him rejecting it. And maybe he can win the general w/o that money. That'd be something.

like, are you a hypocrite or suicidal?

but the ewoks defeated the imperial army with slingshots, so, maybe

>but the ewoks defeated the imperial army with slingshots, so,
>maybe

http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/02/guns_of_navarone.jpg
http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2015/08/13/han-solo-return-of-the-jedi.jpg

>http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/02/guns_of_navarone.jpg
>http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/i/2015/08/13/han-solo-return-of-the-jedi.jpg
>

But he's having zero problems raising money - and would be able to raise even more money in a general election.

You can go back to that $27 well *often* -- not so much when you rely on bulk sums from SuperPacs to drive your campaign finances.

-->

it's part of why he was doomed from the start.

He's running as a Dem becase he knows as an independent he'll give the white house to republicans, and he doesn't want that on his conscience.

but it's kind of fucked up for the DNC and more establishment type dems who clearly don't want him, and at this point just want him out of the way, to flip it like HE'S the one turning his back on them. He's in the middle of an uphill battle, and focusing on that. i didn't really see anything wrong with what he said.

I'm more than likely gonna vote for him in the primary, and not even because I think he'll be a more effective president. I just respect what he's about and trying to accomplish. (plus he's gonna lose my state anyway). he just doesn't have enough steam to get up this hill, especially from inside the deomocratic party, and in one election cycle

he's trying to win right now, and shit can get contentious. when he doesn't win, he'll ride for Hillary and other dems. I have zero doubt of this. Hopefully some good comes out of this run.

U sir, r a gentleman.....Respect....

>
>
>U sir, r a gentleman.....Respect....

I agree 100%

link: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000

"Donors who are rich — and willing — can give $5,400 to the Clinton campaign, $33,400 to the Democratic National Committee and $10,000 to each of the state parties, about $360,000 in all. A joint fundraising committee lets the donor do it all with a single check.

On Jan. 1, the contribution limits reset for the party committees, and the Hillary Victory Fund can go back to its donors for another $350,000 in party funds.

All told, a single donor can give more than $700,000 for the election. That's serious money, according to campaign finance lawyer Brett Kappel. He said, 'It also shows you where campaign finance law has gone. We're now back in the era of soft money.'"


how the DNC rationalizes this

"DNC spokesman Eric Walker said the victory fund's mission is to win more than just the White House. 'We do not want it to be a lonely victory for the Democratic nominee, who is eventually going to win the presidency,' he said."


They sell it as a means to get money in the hands of state Democratic parties so that they can compete with the GOP (who usually bombards your TV, lawns, etc. with advertising in election years); in reality, that money isn't going to stay with the state parties, it's going right back to Hillary's campaign.

I get that Bernie isn't going to do it himself because he's not really a Democrat, the establishment treats him as such etc

but let's not pretend that Hillary is being so altruistic herself

Asking Sanders to replicate what the Hillary Victory Fund allows rich donors to do with contributions up to $700,000 a pop is a bullshit diversion. Her fundraising model exemplifies everything that is wrong with SuperPACs and endless fundraising events with registered lobbyists and the super-rich. Sanders is running the most viable primary campaign in history off of small donations. That's why he can actually take progressive positions on healthcare, college tuition, the minimum wage, trade agreements, foreign policy, and the environment, while she transparently caters to corporate interests on all of those issues. Most of the people contributing to Sanders are donating small amounts. They want to use what money they can spare to help him win the primaries. Unlike a lot of Clinton donors, they don't have loose cash to spread around on a bunch of races simultaneously.

But apparently he's supposed to win the primaries while asking people to divide up their $27 checks into smaller increments. And, as you point out, most of that "downticket" money ends up back in the Clinton campaign anyway.