Teague wrote:

As he moved on to a rehashing of his positions on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, Sanders hit on familiar themes, framing the failure of Middle Eastern nations to stop ISIS, in part, as a failure of wealthy elites. If Qatar could spend $200 billion on World Cup soccer stadiums, he said, it could surely spend as much fighting terrorists. Singling out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, both of which have benefited from America's defense budget, Sanders added that, "wealthy and powerful nations in the region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them."

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Teague wrote:As has been explained to you numerous times Scot, through the people at the political revolution Sander's is proposing.

Funny thing is, they all said the same things you were saying to Martin Luther King.

What that pipe dream. The great revolution Please return to the real world.

Do blacks in America have complete equality yet?

quas wrote:

Teague wrote:

As he moved on to a rehashing of his positions on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, Sanders hit on familiar themes, framing the failure of Middle Eastern nations to stop ISIS, in part, as a failure of wealthy elites. If Qatar could spend $200 billion on World Cup soccer stadiums, he said, it could surely spend as much fighting terrorists. Singling out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, both of which have benefited from America's defense budget, Sanders added that, "wealthy and powerful nations in the region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them."

What business incentive does the Arabs have for fighting terrorists?

MarkP80 wrote:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/marijn-nieuwenhuis/netherlands'-disgrace-racism-and-police-brutality
Just a drive by post, while I throw some chicken nuggets on the oven.
Carry on.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

Teague wrote:So Sander's got on TYT last night. Cenk made a great point about the questions Sanders got that were just set up to be against him, playing some videos of Anderson Cooper asking him 4 questions about Castro and framed in a way that were negative. Cenk asked something like, "Why don't you fight back and start asking them why they're not asking important questions" and Sander's pretty much agreed though pointed out all the fighting they have to do with the media anyway. I'm hoping in future debates Sander's is going to go along the lines of "Why are you asking me that blatantly set up question when we have X Y and Z issues to talk about which are much more important to the American people - do you have ANYTHING of substance for four-eyed twat?"

OK maybe not the insult and apologies to anyone that wear glasses but I'm hoping we'll see Sanders kicking back on stupid-ass questions. The viewers reached about 70k but I have no idea if that's good or bad.

WASHINGTON — A day after beating Hillary Clinton in two states, Bernie Sanders griped that he lost an untold number of votes in the third state of Arizona because of problems at the polls.

“People should not have to wait five hours to vote. What happened yesterday in Arizona is a disgrace,” Sanders said Wednesday after long lines led some voters to give up.

“We don’t know how many thousands of people who wanted to vote yesterday in Arizona did not vote,” he added.

Sanders more than doubled Clinton in ad spending in Arizona and results showing he was losing by double digits shocked his campaign.

Still, Sanders won big in Utah and Idaho, picking up a combined 73 delegates to Clinton’s 55.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/23/bernie-san ... n-arizona/

But on Election Day — among voters who’ve been present and attentive for each candidate’s commercials, local news coverage, and live events — Sanders tends to tie or beat Clinton.

In fact, that’s the real reason Sanders does well in caucuses.

It’s not because caucuses “require a real time investment,” as the media likes to euphemistically say, but because caucuses require that you vote on Election Day rather than well before it.

Consider: in North Carolina, Hillary Clinton only won Election Day voting 52% to 48%. Given the shenanigans in evidence during the live voting there — thousands of college students were turned away from the polls due to insufficient identification under a new voter-suppression statute in the state — it wouldn’t be unfair to call that 4-point race more like a 2-point one (51% to 49% for Clinton).

Consider: on Super Tuesday 3, because early voting is always reported first, Clinton’s margins of victory were originally believed to be 25 points in Missouri, 30 points in Illinois, and 30 points in Ohio. Missouri, which doesn’t have conventional early voting, ended up a tie. Illinois ended up with a 1.8% margin for Clinton (after being a 42-point race in Clinton’s favor just a week earlier) and Ohio a 13.8% margin.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abra ... 28076.html

Bernie Sanders's campaign is still raising far more money than Hillary Clinton's

Bernie Sanders's well-oiled fundraising machine is showing no signs of slowing down.

For the second straight month, Sanders relied on small donors to outraise Hillary Clinton, raking in $14 million more in February, according to numbers released on Sunday by the Federal Election Commission.

Sanders has now received $77 million from those giving less than $200, while Clinton has received $32 million from the same category, data from the Campaign Finance Institute shows.

Sanders's strength with these kinds of donors has been clear for months. But most campaign finance experts say they have been awed by the durability of his fundraising prowess: Sanders has now received more in small contributions than even Barack Obama had at this point in 2008, according to Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/23/11286028/s ... ng-clinton

Teague wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/its-all-over-for-bernie-sanders-heres-how-the-maths-stacks-up-against-him-a6934141.html

Oh look, another negative piece full of bullshit about Sanders.

Teague wrote:

quas wrote:

Teague wrote:

As he moved on to a rehashing of his positions on ISIS and the Iran nuclear deal, Sanders hit on familiar themes, framing the failure of Middle Eastern nations to stop ISIS, in part, as a failure of wealthy elites. If Qatar could spend $200 billion on World Cup soccer stadiums, he said, it could surely spend as much fighting terrorists. Singling out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, both of which have benefited from America's defense budget, Sanders added that, "wealthy and powerful nations in the region can no longer expect the United States to do their work for them."

What business incentive does the Arabs have for fighting terrorists?

Withdrawal of US support/funding?

quas wrote:

Teague wrote:

quas wrote:

Teague wrote:

What business incentive does the Arabs have for fighting terrorists?

Withdrawal of US support/funding?

Surely it benefits the US more to support/fund them?

Teague wrote:So Sander's got on TYT last night. Cenk made a great point about the questions Sanders got that were just set up to be against him, playing some videos of Anderson Cooper asking him 4 questions about Castro and framed in a way that were negative. Cenk asked something like, "Why don't you fight back and start asking them why they're not asking important questions" and Sander's pretty much agreed though pointed out all the fighting they have to do with the media anyway. I'm hoping in future debates Sander's is going to go along the lines of "Why are you asking me that blatantly set up question when we have X Y and Z issues to talk about which are much more important to the American people - do you have ANYTHING of substance for four-eyed twat?"

OK maybe not the insult and apologies to anyone that wear glasses but I'm hoping we'll see Sanders kicking back on stupid-ass questions. The viewers reached about 70k but I have no idea if that's good or bad.

Willie71 wrote:

Teague wrote:So Sander's got on TYT last night. Cenk made a great point about the questions Sanders got that were just set up to be against him, playing some videos of Anderson Cooper asking him 4 questions about Castro and framed in a way that were negative. Cenk asked something like, "Why don't you fight back and start asking them why they're not asking important questions" and Sander's pretty much agreed though pointed out all the fighting they have to do with the media anyway. I'm hoping in future debates Sander's is going to go along the lines of "Why are you asking me that blatantly set up question when we have X Y and Z issues to talk about which are much more important to the American people - do you have ANYTHING of substance for four-eyed twat?"

OK maybe not the insult and apologies to anyone that wear glasses but I'm hoping we'll see Sanders kicking back on stupid-ass questions. The viewers reached about 70k but I have no idea if that's good or bad.

In therapy, a reversal of pressure is a very effective skill. "Are you trying to misrepresent my position? I thought I presented my position in a clear, easy to understand way. What part of it is unclear for YOU?" Either the person admits they're bullshitting/lying, or too stupid to get it. A few exchanges like that at the beginning of an interview would change the tone quite quickly.

Teague wrote:I don't know but something needs to be done. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to put pressure on them.

quas wrote:

Teague wrote:I don't know but something needs to be done. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to put pressure on them.

Sanders seems to be throwing out empty rhetorics, with no solution in sight. Getting desperate.

I don't know but something needs to be done. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to put pressure on them.

Teague wrote:

WASHINGTON — A day after beating Hillary Clinton in two states, Bernie Sanders griped that he lost an untold number of votes in the third state of Arizona because of problems at the polls.

“People should not have to wait five hours to vote. What happened yesterday in Arizona is a disgrace,” Sanders said Wednesday after long lines led some voters to give up.

“We don’t know how many thousands of people who wanted to vote yesterday in Arizona did not vote,” he added.

Sanders more than doubled Clinton in ad spending in Arizona and results showing he was losing by double digits shocked his campaign.

Still, Sanders won big in Utah and Idaho, picking up a combined 73 delegates to Clinton’s 55.

http://nypost.com/2016/03/23/bernie-san ... n-arizona/

So there were issues getting to vote anyway. This "piece" is an obvious negative attack on Sanders "Griping" and "Shocked" - what, his campaign staff hadn't been looking at numbers and suddenly they were "WTF!!??"

I would imagine that Sanders was upset that people couldn't vote rather than voting for him and making a different outcome which would have been unlikely unless it was only Sanders voters that were delayed (or places where he was more popular).

You'd think in The World's Greatest DemocracyTM we'd have figured out how to allow people who want to vote to have their votes counted.