Bernie Sanders 2016?

crank · **#2741** by **crank** » Apr 27, 2016 11:21 am

proudfootz wrote:
“It became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Sanders’ campaign spokesperson told The New York Times. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

I have a feeling the other candidate would have the guy promoted.

This is just about SOP for the repuglicans. When they get caught playing dirty, they show obvious regret, chagrined enough for anyone, but it's because they were caught, they are esteemed for the deeds and for how well and long they pulled it off, they clearly don't feel anything they did was wrong, no matter how low-life, despicable the act. Hillary's camp, like Hillary herself, seem just as impervious to exposure.

Teague · **#2742** by **Teague** » Apr 27, 2016 1:29 pm

Hillary Clinton Trolls Shut Down Pro-Bernie Sanders Facebook Groups

Some of the biggest pro-Bernie Sanders groups on Facebook were briefly taken down Monday evening in a targeted attack by Hillary Clinton supporters.

The groups Bernie Sanders Activists, Bernie Believers, BERNIE OR BUST, Bernie Sanders Revolutionaries, Bay Area for Bernie, Bernie Sanders 2016 — Ideas Welcome, Bernie Sanders is my HERO, and Bernie Sanders for President 2016 were all taken down in the attack. The pages in question were reported to be down for about three hours, from 9 p.m. to midnight Monday night.

Collectively, these groups are home to more than a quarter million Bernie Sanders supporters, and some have been in existence for nearly a year, having been launched shortly after the Vermont senator declared his intent to run for president in 2015.

The groups were targeted by online trolls, who posted pornographic images and reported the groups to Facebook admins. Some legitimate Bernie supporters even reported seeing images containing pedophilia, according to reporting from Heavy.com.

Erica Libenow, a Sanders supporter and member of one of the pro-Bernie groups, said, “We had what looked like a kiddie porn posted in one of our groups today. I reported that one. Seriously made me want to vomit.”

There is at least one culprit to be found in Facebook user Casey Champagne, who bragged about taking down the pages in the pro-Hillary Clinton group BROS 4 HILLARY – #GiveEmHill — the pro-Clinton page was briefly taken down, but was restored on Tuesday.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-facebook-groups-trolled/

proudfootz · **#2743** by **proudfootz** » Apr 27, 2016 9:05 pm

crank wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
“It became clear that one of our staffers accessed some modeling data from another campaign,” Sanders’ campaign spokesperson told The New York Times. “That behavior is unacceptable and that staffer was immediately fired.”

I have a feeling the other candidate would have the guy promoted.

This is just about SOP for the repuglicans. When they get caught playing dirty, they show obvious regret, chagrined enough for anyone, but it's because they were caught, they are esteemed for the deeds and for how well and long they pulled it off, they clearly don't feel anything they did was wrong, no matter how low-life, despicable the act. Hillary's camp, like Hillary herself, seem just as impervious to exposure.

Yes. The Clinton operatives are quite proud of their underhanded and dirty tactics, as shown in the Facebook fiasco.

proudfootz · **#2744** by **proudfootz** » Apr 27, 2016 9:08 pm

Teague wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Teague wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

I'm talking about Clinton. What she says and what she actually believes and what she'll do will come out after November.

If Clinton is good enough for the Koch brothers, she should be good enough for the rest of us.

Right?

LOL maybe - we'll find out after November - she might have been pulling a double-Palpatine (Or an inverse Palpatine) all these years and she's about to kick ass.

Yes, Clinton is really a progressive in disguise and has been luring her big money backers into a false sense of security...

:lol:

No, I can't say that with a straight face. :nono:

proudfootz · **#2745** by **proudfootz** » Apr 27, 2016 9:14 pm

crank wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
crank wrote:Comparing any of the candidates to Nixon and his CREEP are overblown. Those guys were seriously CREEPY, what an apt name, did they mean it that way? Probably. Don't forget what Watergate was, they were breaking into a psychiatrist office to steal documents in order to, well, 'dox' someone by exposing their psychiatric reports. There was more ugly BS, some worse than this. Another one I remember was ordering the IRS to basically fuck over enemies. The new guys haven't gotten that crazy, yet.

I don't know what's worse, Swiftboating or Watergate, the Swiftboating seems slimier to me, but less criminal.

Edit: The IRS thing wasn't carried out, it was a Nixon idea that his people didn't let him have carried out, if I remember it right.

Watergate began with the break in of the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building, with Nixon's guys trying to steal files. Bernie's guys just used computers for that sort of thing.

Yes, I really blew that one, mixed it up with some other part, which now my brain is too muddled to figure out, but I think maybe it was plans to do the same to Daniel Ellsberg's office. You could have legitimately if childishly gloated over that, but you couldn't resist lying, so you had to throw in the bogus charge about the 'hacking'. That smear was shown to be bogus very quickly, anyone have aware could see that just from the way it was handled.

It's funny that right after the story of Hillary pouring in a $ million to generate fake social media content that numerous Sanders supporters FB pages got attacked by a guy 'liking' the very people Hillary paid. Do I think there is something there? very likely not, but sure is an funny coincidence.

Well, Watergate was just one of the activities of Nixon's 'Plumbers' who were organized to plug leaks like the Pentagon Papers (which showed the Vietnam War was a sham using the Pentagon's own 'insider history' of the war), and undoubtedly Nixon would be concerned about his treason in persuading the South Vietnam government into rejecting the peace plan Johnson laid out was another factor.

proudfootz · **#2746** by **proudfootz** » Apr 27, 2016 9:16 pm

Teague wrote:
crank wrote:Brings back old times. Now, who thinks this isn't classy?

I don't know what an avatar has to do with what you post or how that's even something to argue about on the forums.

Deflecting onto usernames and avatars is a well-known trolling tactic.

NineOneFour · **#2747** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 27, 2016 11:52 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Teague wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Teague wrote:

Yeah we'll see about that after November.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the Republican party is going to reverse its position on those issue come the election? I don't think you are. But then, what?

I'm talking about Clinton. What she says and what she actually believes and what she'll do will come out after November.

If Clinton is good enough for the Koch brothers, she should be good enough for the rest of us.

Right?

Hillary told them she didn't want any Koch.

NineOneFour · **#2748** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 27, 2016 11:52 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Teague wrote:
crank wrote:Brings back old times. Now, who thinks this isn't classy?

I don't know what an avatar has to do with what you post or how that's even something to argue about on the forums.

Deflecting onto usernames and avatars is a well-known trolling tactic.

Shut up, Lennon!

/ kidding

Oldskeptic · **#2749** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 1:00 am

Teague wrote:
The main point in this election, that we're all talking about, is the effect the crime bill had on the black community.

Why should that even be an issue in the campaign? Both Sanders and Clinton supported the crime bill. Sanders voted for it and Clinton would have if she would have had a vote. The majority of the congressional black caucus supported and voted for it, and many black leaders and people in the black community without a vote supported the crime bill.

What's going on is that Bernie and some of his more rabid supporters want make the crime bill an issue because in describing who the bill was aimed at Hillary said a bad thing, and they want to use that bad thing to paint her as a racist, and in the process maybe sway some of the black vote away from Hillary.

As a campaign issue the crime bill isn't. Bernie is just as responsible as Hillary for the passage of the crime bill and pointing to the bad thing that Hillary said as racist is at best disingenuous given that Bernie said something just as bad if you decide to interpret it that way.

Hillary said:

"They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘superpredators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."

Bernie said:

"There are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them."

If Hillary's statement is racist then so is Bernie's, but the truth is that neither is racist. Even if they were talking about young people in gangs and by gang some people take that to mean only black gangs neither meant all young black men are supepredators without conscience or empathy, or horribly violent, deeply sick sociopaths.

Whilst it may not have been the bill itself, when coupled with the disproportionate rates that black are arrested at, what effect do you think those two things had together?

Hind sight is always easy, isn't it? A whole lot of people both black and white and others now regret the perceived asymmetry of the consequences of parts of the crime bill and have said so, from the original sponsors, to those that pushed for it, to those that voted for it or merely didn't oppose it.

If Bernie now wants to claim that he knew what would happen, and that he said so, it doesn't change the fact that he voted not only for the final draft of bill that had the assault weapon ban and the violence against women act, he voted for the earlier draft of the bill before those provisions were part of it.

GT2211 · **#2750** by **GT2211** » Apr 28, 2016 1:55 am

Teague wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
GT2211 wrote:
crank wrote:In my last post, I'm not trying to say the crime bill caused the mass incarceration, I agree there was a trend already underway, I'm saying to say it didn't make things worse can't be proven with that chart, and saying it didn't doesn't make much sense.

I agree it probably contributed, I just think its contribution was rather minor whereas Teague and others seem to be focusing on it if as it were the primary cause. And there seems to be an attempt to dissociate Sanders role in this legislation.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

Of course, you will be able to find the post where I declared him holy won't you. No, of course you won't because just like every post you make, you're full of vapidity and are unable to recognise a decent politician when you see one.

I might "seem" to be focusing on it as a primary cause whereas what I'm actually doing is drawing a character trait of Clinton and any disassociation with Sander's is more nonsense. I've already quoted him about his decision - perhaps you would like to discuss that or are we just point scoring here. "Oh look everyone Sanders also voted for that Bill!!!" Yeah, and what other stuff are in those bills that have many things in them, some good, some bad that required thought and judgement into it or is everyone trying to convince themselves now that Sander's record is as bad as Clinton's because they know they're stuck with her now?

I'm not going to respond to the whole thing since OS already replied. But I do want to point out that is exactly what we are saying on this particular issue. Bernie supported tough on crime legislation. He voted for this bill. He touted his votes in his campaigns afterwards.

laklak · **#2751** by **laklak** » Apr 28, 2016 2:41 am

I don't get why 'superpredator' is racist. But then I don't understand lots of words these days, they keep changing the meanings. Did I miss a memo? Am I no longer one of the cool kids? Is 'cool' even a cool word these days?

Oldskeptic · **#2752** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 4:13 am

Teague wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
Teague wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

Never the less all of Gish's accusations and arguments have been countered. I've yet to see even a slight attempt here to counter any of Alperstein's "accusations".

But thank you for the Gish Gallop comparison here because it applies to the Sanders camp and its accusations towards Hillary far more than it could ever apply to Clinton's.

I find it amusing that no one in the Bernie camp here is willing to counter any of Alperstein's accusations and opinions. You'd all rather just complain that there are to many to counter.

I'll do this one....

Sanders voted for a 1994 crime bill that he attacked Clinton for supporting.

In 1994, for example, he said that he would support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, which helped crack down on domestic violence and rape. Sanders said:

I have a number of serious problems with the crime bill, but one part of it that I vigorously support is the Violence Against Women Act. We urgently need the $1.8 billion in this bill to combat the epidemic of violence against women on the streets and in the homes of America.

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

Oh, sad day for you.

Bullshit! Sanders also claims that he voted for the bill because it included the assault weapons ban, but he also voted for an earlier version that did not include the assault weapons ban or the violence against women act.

Something interesting in Bernie's excuses like this is the inconsistency. Bernie claims that he only voted for the crime bill because it had the assault weapons ban and the violence against women acts knowing full well (according to his comments at the time) that it increased death penalty offenses, and would increase sentencing for certain crimes, and would increase prison populations.

He also claims to have voted for the auto industry bailout, because without it 4,000,000 people could loose their jobs.

So far this is true, but that bill failed to pass congress. When the auto industry bailout was bundled into the the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Program release of funds and Bernie had another chance to vote for saving the jobs of 4,000,000 people he voted against it.

In the first case, according to Bernie, he was able to sacrifice his principle for what good it could do for gun safety and protection of women from violence. But in the case of the auto industry bailout he stood on principle and was willing to let 4,000,000 people become unemployed.

The auto industry/TARP vote just seems like spite to me. Bernie hates "Wall Street" and "Big Banks" so much that he was willing to sacrifice the well being of 4,000,000 middle class Americans and their families by voting no. And in the case of the 1994 crime bill he was willing to sacrifice the lives and well being of possibly millions of young less fortunate people.

It's bullshit that there was violence against women?

You know fucking well that that isn't what I said or anything that could be misunderstood to being meaning that. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what I said?

So what was in the 2nd Auto-bailout bill and what were his reasons for voting it down?

Money for the bailout of the "big banks" that Bernie hates so venomously. He was willing to throw autoworkers under the bus because he just couldn't stand the "Wall Street" bailout. Never mind that it was intended to avoid a depression that could have wiped out financially the middle class that he professes to be so concerned about. Fifty billion dollars of the second allotment was earmarked for helping middle class families avoid foreclosure on their homes and more was aimed at small businesses owners from the same fate, Bernie apparently didn't care about any of them.

And never mind that the second allotment included a restriction of giving bonuses to executives of companies receiving tarp money; one of Bernie's main complaints about the bailout. I can't think of a good reason for Bernie to have voted against the second allotment other than spite and his irrational hatred of "Wall Street"; and that's not a good reason.

Over the last 4 decades and a declining middle class, how many millions of Americans do you think have lost their jobs or get paid less and how many jobs were moved overseas and how many people got fucked over from the huge crash of 08? Who gave a shit about the tens of millions around the world that were affected by that?

a) The decline of the American middle class is a myth that too many fucking people, including people on the far left and the far right, have become too fucking fond of repeating.

The impending disappearance of the middle class is an even bigger myth.

In 1971 75% of adults were in the upper and middle middle class tiers (14% upper 61% middle). In 2015 71% of adults were in the upper and middle tiers (20% upper 51% middle). A part of the 10% difference is that between '71 and 2015 6% of the middle tier of the middle class moved to the upper tier. And while 4% of the middle tier moved to the lower tier of the middle class I'll point out that the boundary line is $59,000 - $48,250 for a family of four - $41,750 for a family of 3 - $34,000 for a family of 2.

And while there has been a shift of parts of the middle tier of the middle class to the upper middle class and the lower middle class the poverty rate in 1971 was about 13% with highs of %15 and lows of 11%-12%, it is now around %14.5. Also the poverty rate in 1959 was around %22.5 and declined steadily to below %15 in 1965 and has since constantly fluctuated with two high of%15 and two lows of around %12.

So, the truth is that there is, and has been, no vanishing of the American middle class, and no danger of an impending disappearance of the middle class, only movement within the middle class with a fairly a steady poverty rate since the mid '60s. Rising poverty rates, the vanishing middle class, and "Make America Great Again" sure makes for great campaign slogans though, don't they?

b) Exhibit (a) above and the current unemployment rate just about takes care of the rest of your trite diatribe. Since the end of WW2 the US unemployment rate has fluctuated from just below %5 and around %10 and now stands at %5.

So, since 1971 til now the middle class has changed little, the poverty rate is about as low as it has ever been and has remained fairly steady since 1965, and not including the WW2 years the unemployment rate is about as good as it gets and damn near as low as has ever been going back to 1890.

Oh my! Somebody should do something about this fucking disaster.

Oldskeptic · **#2753** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 4:43 am

crank wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
Watergate began with the break in of the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building, with Nixon's guys trying to steal files. Bernie's guys just used computers for that sort of thing.

Yes, I really blew that one, mixed it up with some other part, which now my brain is too muddled to figure out, but I think maybe it was plans to do the same to Daniel Ellsberg's office. You could have legitimately if childishly gloated over that, but you couldn't resist lying, so you had to throw in the bogus charge about the 'hacking'. That smear was shown to be bogus very quickly, anyone have aware could see that just from the way it was handled.

So, at least four people on Bernie's campaign didn't access Clinton campaign files 24 times and save them to their own folders? I'll have ring up NPR and let them know that they got it wrong.

It's funny that right after the story of Hillary pouring in a $ million to generate fake social media content...

There was no story other than BernieBros trying to spin the announcement of Correct the Record that they were putting a million dollars into fighting the constant lies and half truths of the Bernie campaign. Never have they said that they were hiring or paying anyone to go online, nor does anyone have any evidence that they have or have ever intended to. There have also been accusations on the internet that the Bernie campaign was paying BernieBros like you to spread lies and half truths. I didn't and don't believe those stories anymore than I believe it of the Hillary campaign and would not spread the story either.

...that numerous Sanders supporters FB pages got attacked by a guy 'liking' the very people Hillary paid. Do I think there is something there? very likely not, but sure is an funny coincidence.

There are internet fuckheads on both sides, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that some of the people fucking with Clinton supporters are the same people that are fucking with Sanders supports. Fucking with everyone just for shits and giggles.

Oldskeptic · **#2754** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 5:04 am

laklak wrote:I don't get why 'superpredator' is racist. But then I don't understand lots of words these days, they keep changing the meanings. Did I miss a memo? Am I no longer one of the cool kids? Is 'cool' even a cool word these days?

The term originated in the '90 by a fellow by the name of John DiIulio a professor of political science.

Definition - superpredator: A youth who repeatedly commits violent crimes as a result of being raised without morals.

As far as I can tell he never singled out black youth. Some people just ass-u-me-d that he meant black youths. Probably some of the same people that awhile ago were pushing micro-aggression "theory" and leading figurative lynchings of well meaning professors that corrected the grammar of a student "of color".

Macdoc · **#2755** by **Macdoc** » Apr 28, 2016 5:18 am

So a professor of political science is doing psychology and sociology now.... :nono:

Ethics are innate except for those with FAS and a few genetically linked crime families where it takes both the genetics and an abuse trigger.
FAS in particular is a challenge to society ....the kids didn't do anything wrong ...their fucking drunkard mother did. :coffee:

Oldskeptic · **#2756** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 7:47 am

Macdoc wrote:So a professor of political science is doing psychology and sociology now....

Ethics are innate except for those with FAS and a few genetically linked crime families where it takes both the genetics and an abuse trigger.
FAS in particular is a challenge to society ....the kids didn't do anything wrong ...their fucking drunkard mother did.

I get it, nature over nurture, right? I'm glad that you have settled the debate over the two that has been going on for at least 300 years. Sorry to burst your bubble but research has shown that the biggest influence on modern young people regarding their values and behavior during their formative years is not parents, it's not brothers or sisters, and it's not family elders as behaviorists have wanted to believe and make everyone believe for years. And it's not genetics either. The surprise really isn't that surprising when you think back to your younger days. The largest influence on young people is other young people - their peers, their friends, their gang or whatever you want to call them. It's the other kids that they hang with. The group of other humans that they have to compete with for acceptance, a place in the social hierarchy.

When Dilulio wrote: " A youth who repeatedly commits violent crimes as a result of being raised without morals." it doesn't necessarily mean that his or her parents, older brothers or sisters, or elders never tried to teach them "morals". It means what it says, "raised without morals" and if the largest influence on a young person's life is a group of other young people that have inherited their amorality and lack of empathy from other young people a bit older and looked up to they are going to lack and or ignore the morality taught at home or any other place.

This is not say that there is no innate sense of empathy or that empathy isn't heritable. It means that an innate empathy can be overridden by environmental factors.

To serve as an example overriding innate empathy I'll cite loving and kind mothers and fathers, loving and kind grandmothers and grandfathers, and other "good" people known for their fine morals and empathy having their smiling faces photographed while standing in the background with the corpse of another human hanging from a tree or burning on a pyre.

[Reveal] Spoiler: NSFW

Not to say that nature sometimes can't win out over nurture/environment. There are plenty of examples of that happening also, but to deny that nurture/environment is a very large factor would be having to claim that the violence and cruelty demonstrated by white southerners and young black gang members was/is genetic and inherited.

That's not a place that I think that any of us wants to go.

Some people now want to hypothesize, as you seem to want to do, that fetal alcohol syndrome is to blame for the increase of youth violence from 1960 to the mid '90s, but in doing so it needs the premise that every mother of an anti-social gang member was a severe alcoholic drinking through her pregnancy, and I find that hard to justify.

Another hypothesis is that lead paint and leaded gasoline is responsible for the rise in violent anti-social behavior. While that may be a contributing factor in some cases I find the argument weak, and think that the proponents of that and the fetal alcohol syndrome hypothesis are trying to look everywhere but where the actual cause was/is. And that is that an under-culture of cruelty and violence developed in certain areas and among certain people. What can be called gang mentality.

And saying that we need not point a finger at any ethnic group or leave out any ethnic group. It is not a racist position, there are gangs of white, oriental, Hispanic, black youths, and any other ethnic demographic you can think of, and it isn't just an inner city problem. Rural areas and suburban areas are not immune to what is generally seen as a urban problem, and it was and is everyone's problem.

So to get back to what actually started this train of discussion, in the early to mid '90s the increase in violent crime by young people, young men to be specific, was not a myth. It was distressing and alarming to almost everyone regardless of race. People that could do something about it did what they could do and one of the things that they did was get tough on violent crime and what they thought was behind it; drugs.

In hindsight they can be faulted for not foreseeing what were unforeseen and unintended consequences, but they cannot be faulted for doing what they thought would help solve what they saw as alarming and an emergency. And if there is blame then it must be spread wide and thin, enough to cover just about everyone in any position of power or influence at the time.

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Oldskeptic, put graphic images such as those behind spoiler tags as I have done above. The_Metatron

NineOneFour · **#2757** by **NineOneFour** » Apr 28, 2016 9:29 am

Bernie's last stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/po ... paign.html

Oldskeptic · **#2758** by **Oldskeptic** » Apr 28, 2016 9:48 am

NineOneFour wrote:Bernie's last stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/po ... paign.html

Bernie seems to think that if he can just make it to the finish line he can limp into the convention bloody and beaten, raising his tattered standard high and demand that everyone there, including Clinton, adopt his agenda.

Kind of reminds me of:

Bloody, armless, and legless Bernie/the Black Knight says, "Alright then, we'll call it a draw," as Hillary rides off, not looking back.

Teague · **#2759** by **Teague** » Apr 28, 2016 11:54 am

GT2211 wrote:
Teague wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
GT2211 wrote:
I agree it probably contributed, I just think its contribution was rather minor whereas Teague and others seem to be focusing on it if as it were the primary cause. And there seems to be an attempt to dissociate Sanders role in this legislation.

Well he is declared holy by Teague and can do no wrong.

Of course, you will be able to find the post where I declared him holy won't you. No, of course you won't because just like every post you make, you're full of vapidity and are unable to recognise a decent politician when you see one.

I might "seem" to be focusing on it as a primary cause whereas what I'm actually doing is drawing a character trait of Clinton and any disassociation with Sander's is more nonsense. I've already quoted him about his decision - perhaps you would like to discuss that or are we just point scoring here. "Oh look everyone Sanders also voted for that Bill!!!" Yeah, and what other stuff are in those bills that have many things in them, some good, some bad that required thought and judgement into it or is everyone trying to convince themselves now that Sander's record is as bad as Clinton's because they know they're stuck with her now?

I'm not going to respond to the whole thing since OS already replied. But I do want to point out that is exactly what we are saying on this particular issue. Bernie supported tough on crime legislation. He voted for this bill. He touted his votes in his campaigns afterwards.

Do you think politicians always vote for things they agree with in a bill? I quoted him saying there were many things wrong with the legislation and his stance against violence for women. Politicians will vote for some things because there's other stuff in a bill that's important - this isn't an excuse of course but the whole point of all this "Sander's voted for this and that" is to tar him with the same brush? Did anyone here think they were going to agree with everything Sanders stands for? Whatever you do think, he's a far more progressive candidate than Clinton and was the only candidate talking about childhood poverty, money in politics, the collapse of the middle class and the only one wanting to go after the banks.

Given all that he's said for the last 40 years and has done, I get the feeling that Sanders choice to vote on that bill was reasoned whereas Clinton would have only done it because it was popular.

Teague · **#2760** by **Teague** » Apr 28, 2016 12:08 pm

NineOneFour wrote:Bernie's last stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/po ... paign.html

He stressed he was in the race to “win and become the Democratic nominee.” But he also said if he did not succeed he would try to get as many delegates as possible and “put together the strongest progressive agenda any political party has ever seen.”

He can't drop out now because he's been saying the same stuff for decades and he's the voice of the people that are fed up with the system. Given that he was 62 points down a year ago and he is where he is today shows that Clinton's campaign has been utter shit. That she came this close to losing to a socialist is laughable.

If he dropped out now, he could lose the momentum of the revolution that is coming and he's exposed the corrupt system of voting as well as the money in politics that's in the public eye now. Once the primaries are over, I want to see what he's going to do from there as it looks as though he's not going to be done.

Who knows, maybe not winning the presidency might work out better.

Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Re: Bernie Sanders 2016?

Who is online