Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[sgtsabai]

lannarebirth, I believe that really was a message to Hillary and the DNC. He may actually give a nodding endorsement but I can't see him campaigning for or actively supporting her and without him and the real Democrats that believe in the old Democrat Party of the New Deal the maniacs on the extreme right will take the White House.

[keemapoot]

Sarge Bernie on Young Turks the best interview I have seen Bernie do. No way on this Planet would mainstream media allow such an interview to go on air.

My big takeaway: Bernie's not going to endorse Hillary Clinton. He's placed some pretty steep conditions on his endorsement.

Yeah, he really does expose it all on the Witch of the East. Do you think there is any way he could end up as her running mate, and keep his integrity intact?

I don't like everything he stands for, but certainly more than any other candidate in the mix right now, and I can even live with some things I think he is wrong on.

[lannarebirth]

Sarge Bernie on Young Turks the best interview I have seen Bernie do. No way on this Planet would mainstream media allow such an interview to go on air.

My big takeaway: Bernie's not going to endorse Hillary Clinton. He's placed some pretty steep conditions on his endorsement.

Yeah, he really does expose it all on the Witch of the East. Do you think there is any way he could end up as her running mate, and keep his integrity intact?

I don't like everything he stands for, but certainly more than any other candidate in the mix right now, and I can even live with some things I think he is wrong on.

No, I don't think he could be her running mate. She'll pick a photogenic ethnic that some pollster told her would give her **% extra votes amongst some constituency or battleground state.

I like Bernie. First and foremost because he's honest and authentic. That's just the kind of person I don't mind disagreeing with sometimes. Like you, I don't agree with all of his agenda, but I agree with a lot of it. I don't see it as particularly "progressive". I see it mostly as centrist and that tells you a lot at how far agendas have shifted to the right.

Mostly what I see from Bernie is someone who will represent all Americans whether they count themselves amongst his supporters or not. Everyone else is trying to fracture the populace by either pandering to fears or offering targeted handouts. I hate this climate where everyone hates each other. Their friends, neighbors, relatives and co-workers are their enemies on some level because they voted for this person or that or they hold this view or that. I think Bernie could go a long way towards healing some of those rifts.

WA caucus starts in 3 1/2 hours..

[sgtsabai]

Bernie would, in my estimation, never accept any position from her. He knows who and what she is and who she truly represents, certainly isn't the people. He is too valuable in the Senate, as is Elizabeth Warren. Bernie speaks clearly, without evasion unlike all the other candidates. He doesn't speak the "I" speak, he speaks the people, the movement, the program. In other words, he's not full of egomaniac crap like the rest. He knows that without the support and power of the people nothing can or will get done especially with the traitorous Republican obstruction. Hell, one candidate thinks the Constitution should be the bible and his gawd sent him.

[Yunla]

Sanders has labelled himself that way, socialist, so that's the deal breaker aside from the other stuff.

Of course all candidates support some socialist style programs, even the republicans.

That's not the point.

The U.S. is still not Europe. Like it or not.

America hopefully will never be like the failed states of Europe. See the muppets running the show in the EU. That's why I hope the American people make Donald trump the next president.

America as a capitalist country with all of it horrible "corporations" brought you the computer you are using and the internet it's interfacing with. It brought you most of the other software on it in addition to the operating system.

All of this within your lifetime. Before that and perhaps within your lifetime was the TV and so many other things. Now everyone has all of this but protests that they are "poorer".

We have so much more technology and convenience than our grandparents had. How can anyone say we are poorer? How did they really live? Did I mention medical breakthroughs brought to us by big corporations including Big Pharma? We live a lot longer now too. How can we say this isn't some benefit from "big business"?

A big corporation named IBM which pioneered and owns much of the infrastructure that provides bandwidth for the internet (who would have stretched out all of that cable?) published a dictionary of more than 18,000 NEW AMERICAN ENGLISH WORDS brought to us by technology. Most of them are new within the last 50 years and more than half of them are much newer than that.

BTW and for the haters, there isn't a European socialist on the entire planet who can pronounce even one of the English words in this book correctly.

Just think of all of the things you have that your grandparents didn't have and tell me where they came from, and then how you are poorer.

Cheers.

71RYBQCEWHL._SX374_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Francois Mitterrand, the socialist and hero of many current Euro socialists, visited Mao in 1961, at the height of the famine, and returned to Europe to praise "a great scholar" and "genius" and to assert that infact reports of any famine were just lies.

Socialism is a very broad spectrum, and constantly morphing. For this reason it is hard to criticise somebody for being a socialist, as it could mean so many things.

One of the dangers that I saw in my very early life, was that in Sweden the socialists taxed some professions very heavily based on their "usefulness." My grandfather was violinist at the King's Orchestra in Sweden, and violin teacher at the Royal Academy of Music in Stockholm, working both of these jobs for decades. He was very popular on the radio too. He came from a very poor background, and saved up for his first cheap violin over a period of many years. He worked very hard almost every day for fifty years, did not drink or gamble, and then retired in abject poverty. The socialists taxed him at 73% of his earnings, because he was "an artistic person" and therefor not productive. However, crushing taxes were also the norm for most other trades too.

Sweden famously is socialist, and also famously has had the highest suicide rate in the world for many years. Many might say that the crushing taxes are partly responsible.

So I do despise that type of socialism, but I am more willing to listen to more sensible hybrid forms of socialism, should they arrive one day. I support the aspirational working class, the aspirational middle class. I could never vote for anyone who imposes crushing life-destroying taxes on those essential social groups.

[Publicus]

Maybe they should raise the voting age if kids are going to vote for who they think is cool...

“Young people for Bernie are very vocal, and it’s not exactly cool to be for Hillary,” said Brendan Cohen, 21, a political science major.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

A professor is being quoted by the WP presenting his own characterisation of "young people."

Your post talks about "kids" and about disqualifying currently eligible voters, i.e., "young people" because the prof used the word "cool" in talking about our youngest voters.

The whingeing is typical OTT over reaction, being overheated, going to excess. The mixing and the mismatching is a classic instance of a rightwhinging close encounter of the first kind. It's anothe case of the right wanting to disqualify people we don't like from voting for reasons we like.

Republican controlled states have already arranged to make voters in Democratic party areas wait in line up to five hours to vote on election day, November 8th. Where I come from it's called trying to win by preventing the opposition from voting. There's no doubt It precludes embarrassing chads, for sure. A more obvious yet much cleaner way.

[Publicus]

lannarebirth, I believe that really was a message to Hillary and the DNC. He may actually give a nodding endorsement but I can't see him campaigning for or actively supporting her and without him and the real Democrats that believe in the old Democrat Party of the New Deal the maniacs on the extreme right will take the White House.

Relax.

Whether it's Bernie or Hillary Republican controlled states have already reorganised their voting stations to make Democrats in Democratic areas wait in line for up to 5 hours to vote.

The Republicans this election have adopted new prevent the evil enemy from voting strategies and tactics radically different from the past. This reorganisation is pretty much immune from being challenged in court. Previous prevention strategies and tactics had been successfully challenged in the courts.

This throwing of the election is not likely to get any standing in a court.

[Publicus]

Sanders has labelled himself that way, socialist, so that's the deal breaker aside from the other stuff.

Of course all candidates support some socialist style programs, even the republicans.

That's not the point.

The U.S. is still not Europe. Like it or not.

America hopefully will never be like the failed states of Europe. See the muppets running the show in the EU. That's why I hope the American people make Donald trump the next president.

America as a capitalist country with all of it horrible "corporations" brought you the computer you are using and the internet it's interfacing with. It brought you most of the other software on it in addition to the operating system.

All of this within your lifetime. Before that and perhaps within your lifetime was the TV and so many other things. Now everyone has all of this but protests that they are "poorer".

We have so much more technology and convenience than our grandparents had. How can anyone say we are poorer? How did they really live? Did I mention medical breakthroughs brought to us by big corporations including Big Pharma? We live a lot longer now too. How can we say this isn't some benefit from "big business"?

A big corporation named IBM which pioneered and owns much of the infrastructure that provides bandwidth for the internet (who would have stretched out all of that cable?) published a dictionary of more than 18,000 NEW AMERICAN ENGLISH WORDS brought to us by technology. Most of them are new within the last 50 years and more than half of them are much newer than that.

BTW and for the haters, there isn't a European socialist on the entire planet who can pronounce even one of the English words in this book correctly.

Just think of all of the things you have that your grandparents didn't have and tell me where they came from, and then how you are poorer.

Cheers.

71RYBQCEWHL._SX374_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Francois Mitterrand, the socialist and hero of many current Euro socialists, visited Mao in 1961, at the height of the famine, and returned to Europe to praise "a great scholar" and "genius" and to assert that infact reports of any famine were just lies.

Socialism is a very broad spectrum, and constantly morphing. For this reason it is hard to criticise somebody for being a socialist, as it could mean so many things.

One of the dangers that I saw in my very early life, was that in Sweden the socialists taxed some professions very heavily based on their "usefulness." My grandfather was violinist at the King's Orchestra in Sweden, and violin teacher at the Royal Academy of Music in Stockholm, working both of these jobs for decades. He was very popular on the radio too. He came from a very poor background, and saved up for his first cheap violin over a period of many years. He worked very hard almost every day for fifty years, did not drink or gamble, and then retired in abject poverty. The socialists taxed him at 73% of his earnings, because he was "an artistic person" and therefor not productive. However, crushing taxes were also the norm for most other trades too.

Sweden famously is socialist, and also famously has had the highest suicide rate in the world for many years. Many might say that the crushing taxes are partly responsible.

So I do despise that type of socialism, but I am more willing to listen to more sensible hybrid forms of socialism, should they arrive one day. I support the aspirational working class, the aspirational middle class. I could never vote for anyone who imposes crushing life-destroying taxes on those essential social groups.

Sweden famously is socialist, and also famously has had the highest suicide rate in the world for many years

It's because Sweden is very close to Russia.

Get your cause-effect straight.

Or at least your associations.

"For many years" is right btw cause that one goes all the way back to Goldwater while he wuz getting crushed in 1964. Probably even before then.

[CWMcMurray]

and still missed the direct utube link:

Really good interview

[Publicus]

Sarge Bernie on Young Turks the best interview I have seen Bernie do. No way on this Planet would mainstream media allow such an interview to go on air.

My big takeaway: Bernie's not going to endorse Hillary Clinton. He's placed some pretty steep conditions on his endorsement.

Yeah, he really does expose it all on the Witch of the East. Do you think there is any way he could end up as her running mate, and keep his integrity intact?

I don't like everything he stands for, but certainly more than any other candidate in the mix right now, and I can even live with some things I think he is wrong on.

Reality and responsibility for HR Clinton as a candidate for the office of Potus says she will select a younger person. Given the D party is comprised of a diversity of ethnicity it would be consistent to choose from among one of the party's constituent groups. It's a matter of both realpolitik and of aspiring seriously to be Potus.

There won't be a Sarah Palin for more than the obvious reasons, nor should we expect a Waspish type such as a D Paul Ryan. The two are anyway opposites of brainpower.

Bernie btw hasn't ever been a member of the Democratic party, so on that basis alone the institutional decision will properly be to choose a Democrat. Party elders and figures of standing will have an influence on HRC, but the decision will be hers entirely. It is her presidency that is on the line, in this election and at this time. (There isn't any realistic Independent for HRC to select, or to select from among.)

Bernie remains an Independent who hasn't ever in his life been a Democrat or a Republican, which is fine. Bernie knows what that means, to be an outsider and he loves it so god bless him. (There's one other Independent US Senator of neither party, Angus King, former governor of Maine next door to Vermont, who'd been reelected as governor by the biggest electoral margin in Maine's history, for any state office.)

Bernie is a Democrat on the issues but he's an Independent in his personal political identity. The fact Bernie has seriously toned down his campaign rhetoric concerning HRC, in response to private contacts by other prestigious Institutional Democrats, indicates he has become significantly connected to the Democratic Party.

This translates to a crowning and thundering consolation speech at the convention that will knock down the house and then to campaign on DNC demand for the HRC ticket to election day November 8th. This will include campaigning for a number of selected candidates running for the Senate primarily but also the House.

Rule out a cabinet position for Bernie unless he can change the country on one of his top three major issues, which is unlikely but it can't be ruled out absolutely.

Regardless, come January when Bernie returns to the Senate he will almost assuredly be its most prominent and influential senator. When Bernie speaks, everyone will listen and some senators will change their votes to join with him. D's will make Bernie chairman of a major standing committee, to also include a Select Committee of Bernie's choosing in respect of its D party members and of the issue his Select Committee will bring forward, most likely campaign finance or possibly a Select Committee to investigate Banks and Banking...something of that nature. (Sen Warren can join with him or get her own turf, all parties involved will work it out among 'em.)

Bernie's future is so bright he's gotta wear shades. Cool.

Starting in January, and all of this is predicated on the very likely D control of the Senate, Bernie will spend the next two to three years changing America in some single significant way of his choosing.

[Jingthing]

Senate majority? That would be nice but who knows.

[hawker9000]

Excellent view from Nader LB. Can people really consider America a Democratic Country anymore? Dem/Rep corrupted by the wealthy elite and Corporate America. A dysfunctional Congress no longer representing the citizen rather just their corporate funders and Party Politics, State Legislatures used to subvert the right to vote using voter suppression legislation and 'Trap Laws' used to subvert Federal Rulings.

What a mess.

May be a case of too little too late, but I'm feeling a groundswell of support here in WA state for Sanders. We caucus tomorrow and I think he blows Clinton away. Look for big numbers IMO.

Washington (110 delegates and with 7% reporting looks to be going 3:1 for Sanders), Oregon (73 delegates; 17 May), and California (546 delegates; 7 June) could all be rough-going for Hillary. 'Course the dems have that super-delegate thing which looks like it could be a real land-mine...

Note: my delegate numbers may be off. Not sure which sources are counting the super-delegates and which ones aren't...

[sirineou]

Excellent view from Nader LB. Can people really consider America a Democratic Country anymore? Dem/Rep corrupted by the wealthy elite and Corporate America. A dysfunctional Congress no longer representing the citizen rather just their corporate funders and Party Politics, State Legislatures used to subvert the right to vote using voter suppression legislation and 'Trap Laws' used to subvert Federal Rulings.

What a mess.

May be a case of too little too late, but I'm feeling a groundswell of support here in WA state for Sanders. We caucus tomorrow and I think he blows Clinton away. Look for big numbers IMO.

Washington (110 delegates and with 7% reporting looks to be going 3:1 for Sanders), Oregon (73 delegates; 17 May), and California (546 delegates; 7 June) could all be rough-going for Hillary. 'Course the dems have that super-delegate thing which looks like it could be a real land-mine...

Note: my delegate numbers may be off. Not sure which sources are counting the super-delegates and which ones aren't...

Alaska with 15% reporting Sanders 81.6%

Washington with 13% Sanders 73.4%

[Publicus]

Senate majority? That would be nice but who knows.

Impossible to know at this point of course.

It's still too early in the process to see the highly likely wave election year for the D's. A Blue Wave would be fully expected to sweep a new D majority into the Senate. The objective preconditions of 2016 being a wave Potus election year are almost 100% in place at this point.

The major positive factor for the D's is that despite the unrelenting ferocity of Hillary Clinton's detractors, she is heavily favored to win. (Still 4-11 Potus odds in Vegas, or 73.3%)

Major negative for the R's is that no party in this state of a national chaos wins an election of Potus. The 1968 riots at the D national convention in Chicago is classic -- it doomed the D party to defeat which is exactly what occurred. Too many voters of all stripes concluded the party was in no condition to govern from the White House.

(Also, in 1968 the D veep Hubert Humphrey was nominated despite not having run in a single primary or caucus, which too many Americans across the political board reject; R's risk meeting the same political Grim Reaper this cycle.)

D's need a net gain of five, or four for the veep to break ties if HRC wins.

D's are ahead in all the polls to date in WI, IL, FL. (WI already indicates a blowout win.) NH and NV are consistently tied. In a D wave year, D's can be expected to get all five. Moreover, in a wave election this cycle Blue state PA is likely to chuck the R senator and so would Ohio. A wave election anytime inherently says a sweep, or perhaps only one Ishmael. Maybe.

Twenty-five R safe seats in the House are sweating bullets about Trump leading the Republican party into this general election. They don't feel much better about Cruz leading 'em in either. Already, eighteen R House seats had been on the block and still are. 25 + 18 even granted it is the extreme scenario equals a whopper. Recall in 1994 R's won control of the House by net gaining 42 seats ordered up by the wizardry of a Gingrich tsunami.

We'll know more going into the conventions beginning in July, likely sooner. September 1st at the latest.

Either way the squirrel's gonna get blown off into a hard downstream swirl.

[keemapoot]

Yeah, he really does expose it all on the Witch of the East. Do you think there is any way he could end up as her running mate, and keep his integrity intact?

I don't like everything he stands for, but certainly more than any other candidate in the mix right now, and I can even live with some things I think he is wrong on.

Reality and responsibility for HR Clinton as a candidate for the office of Potus says she will select a younger person. Given the D party is comprised of a diversity of ethnicity it would be consistent to choose from among one of the party's constituent groups. It's a matter of both realpolitik and of aspiring seriously to be Potus.

There won't be a Sarah Palin for more than the obvious reasons, nor should we expect a Waspish type such as a D Paul Ryan. The two are anyway opposites of brainpower.

Bernie btw hasn't ever been a member of the Democratic party, so on that basis alone the institutional decision will properly be to choose a Democrat. Party elders and figures of standing will have an influence on HRC, but the decision will be hers entirely. It is her presidency that is on the line, in this election and at this time. (There isn't any realistic Independent for HRC to select, or to select from among.)

Bernie remains an Independent who hasn't ever in his life been a Democrat or a Republican, which is fine. Bernie knows what that means, to be an outsider and he loves it so god bless him. (There's one other Independent US Senator of neither party, Angus King, former governor of Maine next door to Vermont, who'd been reelected as governor by the biggest electoral margin in Maine's history, for any state office.)

Bernie is a Democrat on the issues but he's an Independent in his personal political identity. The fact Bernie has seriously toned down his campaign rhetoric concerning HRC, in response to private contacts by other prestigious Institutional Democrats, indicates he has become significantly connected to the Democratic Party.

This translates to a crowning and thundering consolation speech at the convention that will knock down the house and then to campaign on DNC demand for the HRC ticket to election day November 8th. This will include campaigning for a number of selected candidates running for the Senate primarily but also the House.

Rule out a cabinet position for Bernie unless he can change the country on one of his top three major issues, which is unlikely but it can't be ruled out absolutely.

Regardless, come January when Bernie returns to the Senate he will almost assuredly be its most prominent and influential senator. When Bernie speaks, everyone will listen and some senators will change their votes to join with him. D's will make Bernie chairman of a major standing committee, to also include a Select Committee of Bernie's choosing in respect of its D party members and of the issue his Select Committee will bring forward, most likely campaign finance or possibly a Select Committee to investigate Banks and Banking...something of that nature. (Sen Warren can join with him or get her own turf, all parties involved will work it out among 'em.)

Bernie's future is so bright he's gotta wear shades. Cool.

Starting in January, and all of this is predicated on the very likely D control of the Senate, Bernie will spend the next two to three years changing America in some single significant way of his choosing.

Of course your logic is correct in a normal election year. But, this year is extraordinary with the calls for election reform, financial reform, and party overhaul, and for the Dems, Sander is that voice. An old man (party outsider) at VP is normally not attractive where you also have an older lady at Pres., but let's not forget Sanders is hugely popular with youth and millennials, who by and large reject the values of establishment candidates.

If the DNC and Clinton are smart, they will embrace Sanders, make concessions on introducing important legislation of his passions for reform, and citizens will overlook the fact that a geriatric is 2nd in line of succession. That might even fly with Republicans, because that makes younger Paul Ryan 3rd in line if the two oldies kick the bucket.

I think that ticket might see the biggest landslide in US history.

[up2u2]

Maybe they should raise the voting age if kids are going to vote for who they think is cool...

“Young people for Bernie are very vocal, and it’s not exactly cool to be for Hillary,” said Brendan Cohen, 21, a political science major.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

Of course that's what you do if a constituency does not vote Right Wing Republican you demonize them and attempt to remove them from the electoral process.

Of course the young can go to war, rack up huge debt to get an education, work for a pittance in dead end jobs but unless they are voting for the establishment that benefits from the exploitation of the young best we just exclude them from voting.

[up2u2]

Looks like Bernie has taken Alaska and Washington in an overwhelming victory.

[lannarebirth]

Excellent view from Nader LB. Can people really consider America a Democratic Country anymore? Dem/Rep corrupted by the wealthy elite and Corporate America. A dysfunctional Congress no longer representing the citizen rather just their corporate funders and Party Politics, State Legislatures used to subvert the right to vote using voter suppression legislation and 'Trap Laws' used to subvert Federal Rulings.

What a mess.

May be a case of too little too late, but I'm feeling a groundswell of support here in WA state for Sanders. We caucus tomorrow and I think he blows Clinton away. Look for big numbers IMO.

Washington (110 delegates and with 7% reporting looks to be going 3:1 for Sanders), Oregon (73 delegates; 17 May), and California (546 delegates; 7 June) could all be rough-going for Hillary. 'Course the dems have that super-delegate thing which looks like it could be a real land-mine...

Note: my delegate numbers may be off. Not sure which sources are counting the super-delegates and which ones aren't...

● Washington has 118 delegates at stake, with 101 to be awarded proportionally based on the results of Saturday's caucuses.

● The remaining 17 are technically unpledged party and elected leaders

● A majority of them — including Gov. Jay Inslee and the state's congressional delegation — have already said they support front-runner Hillary Clinton.

I have just sent off emails to the Governor's office and to each member of my Congressional delegation asking them to switch, or at the very least, abandon their superdelegate pledges to Hillary Clinton. They make a mockery of democracy when they throw their support so early in the primary process to a candidate whom has just lost by a 45% margin. Their intent is transparent. To confer 'presumptive nominee" status on a person that the electoral process has not vetted and to demoralize and dis-empower competing candidates and their supporters. It's shameful.

Edited March 27, 2016 by lannarebirth

[hawker9000]

May be a case of too little too late, but I'm feeling a groundswell of support here in WA state for Sanders. We caucus tomorrow and I think he blows Clinton away. Look for big numbers IMO.

Washington (110 delegates and with 7% reporting looks to be going 3:1 for Sanders), Oregon (73 delegates; 17 May), and California (546 delegates; 7 June) could all be rough-going for Hillary. 'Course the dems have that super-delegate thing which looks like it could be a real land-mine...

Note: my delegate numbers may be off. Not sure which sources are counting the super-delegates and which ones aren't...

● Washington has 118 delegates at stake, with 101 to be awarded proportionally based on the results of Saturday's caucuses.

● The remaining 17 are technically unpledged party and elected leaders

● A majority of them — including Gov. Jay Inslee and the state's congressional delegation — have already said they support front-runner Hillary Clinton.

I have just sent off emails to the Governor's office and to each member of my Congressional delegation asking them to switch, or at the very least, abandon their superdelegate pledges to Hillary Clinton. They make a mockery of democracy when they throw their support so early in the primary process to a candidate whom has just lost by a 44% margin. Their intent is transparent. To confer 'presumptive nominee" status on a person that the electoral process has not vetted and to demoralize and dis-empower competing candidates and their supporters. It's shameful.

I think your resentment will actually be very widely shared within the party come convention-time, not to mention Election Day.

[NovaBlue05]

Nice night tonight from Bernie. This means only one thing, the media will ignore him even more this week while touting their beloved Hillary's "insurmountable" lead. Obviously the goal is to keep the bovine-like block of Hillary lemmings, who flock to her like moths to a porch light, from actually realizing that there is another option and another candidate.

[sgtsabai]

If Bernie looses, and that is a very definite if at this stage, he will make a concession speech that brings the house down and the DNC will hate. Hillary will get polite applause from her mindless corporate supporters for her "I am the Queen" speech. Don't expect Bernie to campaign for her, he will for progressive Senate and House nominees. Bernie will stick to his demands for his endorsement. Bernie has filed suit against the DNC and there is no love lost there. With Bernie and the enthusiasm he brings the Dem's have a solid chance to take back the Senate and upset some House seats, not so with Hillary. I believe, along with many others, that the voters will fail to show for her. Not many will stand 5 hrs. in the Republican purposely voter suppressed polling places, especially to be handed a provisional ballot that all know will never be counted, for the Senate and House contests. I believe only the Donald has lower unfavorably ratings than Hillary. America and the world better hope it is Bernie.

[thaihome]

Nice night tonight from Bernie. This means only one thing, the media will ignore him even more this week while touting their beloved Hillary's "insurmountable" lead. Obviously the goal is to keep the bovine-like block of Hillary lemmings, who flock to her like moths to a porch light, from actually realizing that there is another option and another candidate.

You do realize there is a way to say that without using the insulting language. Just because the republicans engage in this behavior, there is no reason for Bernie supporters to do it. In fact, Bernie is dead set against such behavior and language. Step up out of the gutter.

TH

[chuckd]

Here are a few opinion pieces that paint good old Bernie as being more than just a "grumpy old grandpa".

You won't find this in the MSM but if you can disprove it, please do so.

All of these articles are from 2015 and are based on information provided by former employees and associates of Bernie's from Vermont.

Has anybody seen any of this in the MSM?

Do you liberals really want somebody with anger management problems to be the next President?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Anger Management: Sanders Fights for Employees, Except His Own

By PAUL HEINTZ

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced three months ago that he'd seek the Democratic presidential nomination, the New York Times described him as a "grumpy grandfather-type."

That caricature has persisted — most notably in a recent Washington Post listicle with the irresistible headline: "7 ways Bernie Sanders reminds us of our grumpy grandpa."

According to some who have worked closely with Sanders over the years, "grumpy grandpa" doesn't even begin to describe it. They characterize the senator as rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile. <snip>

Read more here: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/anger-management-sanders-fights-for-employees-except-his-own/Content?oid=2834657

-------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Press Ignores How Sanders Is the Really Angry Candidate — and Person

By Tom Blumer

September 20, 2015 | 9:55 AM EDT

We've been told for over 20 years — at least since pundits falsely claimed that "angry white men" drove the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 — that Republicans and conservatives have far more issues with anger than liberals and socialists. In the the 2016 presidential election cycle, current frontrunner Republican Donald Trump and especially his supporters have often been described in media reports as "angry," while the left's candidates and followers have largely avoided that tag.

So it's worth noting that Dan Hill, in a guest column at Reuters, claims that the really angry candidate in this election cycle is none other than socialist Bernie Sanders. What's more, an item published in August at SevenDaysVT.com confirms that Sanders is also a serially angry guy in his daily dealings.

Article continues here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/09/20/press-ignoring-how-sanders-really-angry-candidate-%E2%80%94-and-person

------------------------------------------------------------------

...closing with...

------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS Oct. 7 2015 11:18 AM

The trouble with Bernie

BY MICKEY HIRTEN

Here's my problem with Bernie Sanders. With few exceptions, I agree with his positions on issues. But I don't like him or his political temperament. He'd be an awful president.

I followed him carefully when I was editor of the Burlington Free Press in Vermont. <snip>

More here: http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-the-trouble-with-bernie.html

Edited March 27, 2016 by chuckd

[up2u2]

Chuckd so your big scoop is the establishment media attack Bernie. Well shock horror call the National Guard.

Bernie is taking on the Political Establishment, the Wall Street Establishment, the Media Establishment, the Justice Establishment he is gonna need a big set to trample over the top of these institutions.

Bernie couldn't care less who you are or who you think you are if you are wrong he's going to let you know loud and clear.

Why do you think people came up with the term 'Feel the Bern'?

Who gives a rats about the Establishment Media opinion piece crap.

[lannarebirth]

Here are a few opinion pieces that paint good old Bernie as being more than just a "grumpy old grandpa".

You won't find this in the MSM but if you can disprove it, please do so.

All of these articles are from 2015 and are based on information provided by former employees and associates of Bernie's from Vermont.

Has anybody seen any of this in the MSM?

Do you liberals really want somebody with anger management problems to be the next President?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Anger Management: Sanders Fights for Employees, Except His Own

By PAUL HEINTZ

When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced three months ago that he'd seek the Democratic presidential nomination, the New York Times described him as a "grumpy grandfather-type."

That caricature has persisted — most notably in a recent Washington Post listicle with the irresistible headline: "7 ways Bernie Sanders reminds us of our grumpy grandpa."

According to some who have worked closely with Sanders over the years, "grumpy grandpa" doesn't even begin to describe it. They characterize the senator as rude, short-tempered and, occasionally, downright hostile. <snip>

Read more here: http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/anger-management-sanders-fights-for-employees-except-his-own/Content?oid=2834657

-------------------------------------------------------------------

...and...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Press Ignores How Sanders Is the Really Angry Candidate — and Person

By Tom Blumer

September 20, 2015 | 9:55 AM EDT

We've been told for over 20 years — at least since pundits falsely claimed that "angry white men" drove the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994 — that Republicans and conservatives have far more issues with anger than liberals and socialists. In the the 2016 presidential election cycle, current frontrunner Republican Donald Trump and especially his supporters have often been described in media reports as "angry," while the left's candidates and followers have largely avoided that tag.

So it's worth noting that Dan Hill, in a guest column at Reuters, claims that the really angry candidate in this election cycle is none other than socialist Bernie Sanders. What's more, an item published in August at SevenDaysVT.com confirms that Sanders is also a serially angry guy in his daily dealings.

Article continues here: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2015/09/20/press-ignoring-how-sanders-really-angry-candidate-%E2%80%94-and-person

------------------------------------------------------------------

...closing with...

------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS Oct. 7 2015 11:18 AM

The trouble with Bernie

BY MICKEY HIRTEN

Here's my problem with Bernie Sanders. With few exceptions, I agree with his positions on issues. But I don't like him or his political temperament. He'd be an awful president.

I followed him carefully when I was editor of the Burlington Free Press in Vermont. <snip>

More here: http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-the-trouble-with-bernie.html

There's a lot to be angry about.

[CWMcMurray]

Chuckd so your big scoop is the establishment media attack Bernie. Well shock horror call the National Guard.

Bernie is taking on the Political Establishment, the Wall Street Establishment, the Media Establishment, the Justice Establishment he is gonna need a big set to trample over the top of these institutions.

Bernie couldn't care less who you are or who you think you are if you are wrong he's going to let you know loud and clear.

Why do you think people came up with the term 'Feel the Bern'?

Who gives a rats about the Establishment Media opinion piece crap.

Agree with this ...both when it comes to media coverage of Bernie and Trump

[mopar71]

Maybe they should raise the voting age if kids are going to vote for who they think is cool...

“Young people for Bernie are very vocal, and it’s not exactly cool to be for Hillary,” said Brendan Cohen, 21, a political science major.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

A professor is being quoted by the WP presenting his own characterisation of "young people."

Your post talks about "kids" and about disqualifying currently eligible voters, i.e., "young people" because the prof used the word "cool" in talking about our youngest voters.

What professor? You mean Brendan the 21-yr old student?

This is not the first time you have answered one of my posts with something you made up in your head. If you can't answer without doing that, it might be best just to skip replying at all.

Maybe you are not purposely misrepresenting what I wrote. Maybe you aren't a native speaker? Maybe reading comprehension wasn't one of your strong points in school? I am a native speaker and sometimes we forget that not everyone on this forum is. That is easy because so many of you non-native speakers can write fairly well. Writing well is one thing, understanding is another. So I don't want to imply that you are making things up if it is just a matter of misunderstanding.

[stevenl]

Maybe they should raise the voting age if kids are going to vote for who they think is cool...

“Young people for Bernie are very vocal, and it’s not exactly cool to be for Hillary,” said Brendan Cohen, 21, a political science major.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/03/25/daily-202-chelsea-clinton-goes-into-hostile-territory-college-towns-to-help-her-mom/56f40d59981b92a22dae36e2/

A professor is being quoted by the WP presenting his own characterisation of "young people."

Your post talks about "kids" and about disqualifying currently eligible voters, i.e., "young people" because the prof used the word "cool" in talking about our youngest voters.

What professor? You mean Brendan the 21-yr old student?

This is not the first time you have answered one of my posts with something you made up in your head. If you can't answer without doing that, it might be best just to skip replying at all.

Maybe you are not purposely misrepresenting what I wrote. Maybe you aren't a native speaker? Maybe reading comprehension wasn't one of your strong points in school? I am a native speaker and sometimes we forget that not everyone on this forum is. That is easy because so many of you non-native speakers can write fairly well. Writing well is one thing, understanding is another. So I don't want to imply that you are making things up if it is just a matter of misunderstanding.

Your point was that the voting age should be raised, and that point was clearly made. Who made the quote is really irrelevant.

The rest of your post is just deragartory towards another poster and does not deserve an answer.

[chuckd]

Chuckd so your big scoop is the establishment media attack Bernie. Well shock horror call the National Guard.

Bernie is taking on the Political Establishment, the Wall Street Establishment, the Media Establishment, the Justice Establishment he is gonna need a big set to trample over the top of these institutions.

Bernie couldn't care less who you are or who you think you are if you are wrong he's going to let you know loud and clear.

Why do you think people came up with the term 'Feel the Bern'?

Who gives a rats about the Establishment Media opinion piece crap.

I'm sorry. Did I step on your overly sensitive liberal toes?

You must have missed the following from my original post...or decided you have no answers so you chose to ignore it.

"You won't find this in the MSM but if you can disprove it, please do so."

[lannarebirth]

Chuckd so your big scoop is the establishment media attack Bernie. Well shock horror call the National Guard.

Bernie is taking on the Political Establishment, the Wall Street Establishment, the Media Establishment, the Justice Establishment he is gonna need a big set to trample over the top of these institutions.

Bernie couldn't care less who you are or who you think you are if you are wrong he's going to let you know loud and clear.

Why do you think people came up with the term 'Feel the Bern'?

Who gives a rats about the Establishment Media opinion piece crap.

I'm sorry. Did I step on your overly sensitive liberal toes?

You must have missed the following from my original post...or decided you have no answers so you chose to ignore it.

"You won't find this in the MSM but if you can disprove it, please do so."

So, he's angry. What's he angry about? According to the articles he get's angry when the media fail to focus on substantive issues and prefer to focus on trivialities like style and process. He's demanding of his staff, but no less so of himself. I can live with that.

Any other anger outliers? He's not crazy angry like Nixon was is he? Or vicious angry like LBJ was is he? He's not likely to shoot someone like Andrew Jackson did is he? None of those guys even make my list of 10 worst presidents.

Edited March 27, 2016 by lannarebirth