Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

I do not accept corrupt HRC and the Democratic Party. And merely calling her critics as "bashers" or "haters" or whatever fails to address their points.

By the way, I used to really like Hillary Clinton. I understand that in politics, as in any other business, sometimes it seems pragmatic to compromise one's principles. However, I think HRC has sold out far too much. Or, maybe she was really always like that and I was naive. Anyway, I think she really loves power and wealth far too much, and at the expense of the people. She has disappointed me. I do hope better women politicians can run for president.

Obviously thx.

I'm not yet used to reading your posts so I dunno how much you equally bash the Republican party or its leading candidates. I'd like to think you are at least an equal opportunity basher of political parties and candidates.

What I'm really looking forward to however to to hear you say you are an Independent in politics. That''s when the fun would really begin.

Most Independent voters fall outside of either party, not in between 'em. As in extreme. Most independent voters think the two major political parties are too moderate for 'em, which is why they're Independents.

Sure, some Independents fall between the two parties ideologically rather than outside of 'em at the extremes. Just not around here they don't.

Yes, I am an Indie, but not an extremist. I just get very disappointed with both the Dems and the Reps. They always say that they are fighting for us, but I follow the money.

I am not sure exactly where I fall on the political spectrum, but it is somewhere on the moderate range. I do think that some American religious "social conservatives" will think I am quite the liberal. Yet, some of those folks seem to be living way in the past, so I guess it's a matter of perspective.

And yes, I'll bash the Republicans as well.

I'll bash the Republicans as well.

Promise?

It certainly would be welcome to see the many who say they are Independent hit a Republican for a rare change of pace and focus. Especially with the same enthusiasm force and energy as youse "Independents" hit, rip and tear at HRC.

The most common attack against HRC btw is the ad hominem one. Its use (and frequency of use) self-identifies the fringe extreme Independents from those Independents that fall between the two major parties and simply disagree with her policies and programs.

The ad hominem attackers also don't like her policies either. It's just that the wingers detest the person who is almost guaranteed to beat 'em again in an election of Potus, i.e., a second one! A second Clinton!! And, in effect, a third Obama!!! That's 12 years of Bill, 12 years of Barack and 4 years of Hillary -- all wrapped up into one term in the WH, i.e., the next one beginning next year. My God they hate her

The extreme whingenuts out on the lunar right rocket right out of their orbit looking at all that stuff.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Publicus

[anotheruser]

Not going through 40 plus pages of this thread to see it has been said..., Sanders should run as an independent same as Trump will do when something happens to keep him from getting the nomination. 4 way fight would possibly be the end of the two party system.

Crazy talk. You then split the Democrat vote and hand the Presidency to Republicans. If you think America is bad now what till they take over for 4 years. Carnage.

The republican ticket is already split. Four years of carnage to get rid of the two party system seems a fair trade. In a 4 way race the winner would not be clear anyway everybody would have a chance.

[Jingthing]

So a little gossip about Sander's crumbling and lost campaign.

Info from the Daily Show, not the best news source, OK, but I'm sure they have professional fact checkers.

He paid his campaign interns 12 dollars an hour, not 15.

He just did a MASS FIRING of campaign workers.

Reason: not needed anymore.

Not sure if there is any severance.

A little ironic from Mr. 15 dollars an hour workers right guy.

Maybe an unreasonable criticism but he still has lots of money ... he probably could have kept them on through the convention to hang around coffee shops, or something. Wouldn't that be the democratic socialist thing to do?

[NovaBlue05]

Not going through 40 plus pages of this thread to see it has been said..., Sanders should run as an independent same as Trump will do when something happens to keep him from getting the nomination. 4 way fight would possibly be the end of the two party system.

Crazy talk. You then split the Democrat vote and hand the Presidency to Republicans. If you think America is bad now what till they take over for 4 years. Carnage.

The republican ticket is already split. Four years of carnage to get rid of the two party system seems a fair trade. In a 4 way race the winner would not be clear anyway everybody would have a chance.

Trump will have two hostile party's who will allow him to do nothing for 4 years so the only carnage that could take place is if Clinton wins and manages to get a Democrat majority back in Congress.

[CWMcMurray]

Yes I know .. Seems no longer any real path for Bernie to get the nod..

But still a very interesting perspective

Why can many of the rest of the worlds developed countries manage these things but US can not ?

http://observer.com/2016/04/heres-the-thing-so-many-americans-cant-grasp-about-bernie-sanders/

[boomerangutang]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

[chuckd]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

[up2u2]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

[up2u2]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

This is your problem Chuckd Democrats do actually question representatives on the issues. If you actually watched debates with Warren or left wing people you would have real valid questions to put to Democrat candidates rather than stupid Benghazi or dumb arse email conspiracies.

[anotheruser]

Not going through 40 plus pages of this thread to see it has been said..., Sanders should run as an independent same as Trump will do when something happens to keep him from getting the nomination. 4 way fight would possibly be the end of the two party system.

Crazy talk. You then split the Democrat vote and hand the Presidency to Republicans. If you think America is bad now what till they take over for 4 years. Carnage.

The republican ticket is already split. Four years of carnage to get rid of the two party system seems a fair trade. In a 4 way race the winner would not be clear anyway everybody would have a chance.

Trump will have two hostile party's who will allow him to do nothing for 4 years so the only carnage that could take place is if Clinton wins and manages to get a Democrat majority back in Congress.

I only used the word carnage because somebody else did and as a worst case scenario.

[Publicus]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate just as he'd caucused with the Democratic party in the House.

Bernie is neither a D nor an R and he's never belonged to either party, ever. So Bernie doesn't have any difficulty to harm both in numerous ways.

One great consolation about this is that if Donald Trump were running as a Democrat in the D party nomination campaign, Bernie would have been exposed to criticisms he hasn't been getting of his political philosophy and his own personal history.

Bernie has his axe to grind as it is because he wants very badly to be Potus and to be Potus for what and who he is. Bernie wants it really badly.

These guyz always take these things personally. Yet HRC drives on despite her flaws and because of her great assets. No one had been better qualified for the office since LBJ.

Perhaps we should be grateful Bernie hasn't said HRC is Richard Nixon in drag or somesuch. Trump will probably say it yet despite not having the brains to know who Nixon was or the crimes Tricky Dick committed. R's are still angling to get even for that one although it wuz Nixon himself who did himself in.

[lannarebirth]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate just as he'd caucused with the Democratic party in the House.

Bernie is neither a D nor an R and he's never belonged to either party, ever. So Bernie doesn't have any difficulty to harm both in numerous ways.

One great consolation about this is that if Donald Trump were running as a Democrat in the D party nomination campaign, Bernie would have been exposed to criticisms he hasn't been getting of his political philosophy and his own personal history.

Bernie has his axe to grind as it is because he wants very badly to be Potus and to be Potus for what and who he is. Bernie wants it really badly.

These guyz always take these things personally. Yet HRC drives on despite her flaws and because of her great assets. No one had been better qualified for the office since LBJ.

Perhaps we should be grateful Bernie hasn't said HRC is Richard Nixon in drag or somesuch. Trump will probably say it yet despite not having the brains to know who Nixon was or the crimes Tricky Dick committed. R's are still angling to get even for that one although it wuz Nixon himself who did himself in.

Hillary herself invoked Nixon when she embraced Kissinger as a role model who has shaped her foreign policy thinking. IMO, it is Nixon's domestic policies she should have been invoking. That might serve to humanize her as his domestic policies were much more visionary and progressive than her own. As things stand now, she runs to the right of Nixon in every way.

[chuckd]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

This is your problem Chuckd Democrats do actually question representatives on the issues. If you actually watched debates with Warren or left wing people you would have real valid questions to put to Democrat candidates rather than stupid Benghazi or dumb arse email conspiracies.

If you were an American you would know how to spell "ass".

[up2u2]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

This is your problem Chuckd Democrats do actually question representatives on the issues. If you actually watched debates with Warren or left wing people you would have real valid questions to put to Democrat candidates rather than stupid Benghazi or dumb arse email conspiracies.

If you were an American you would know how to spell "ass".

A better educated person would know the subtleties of both terms and be able to spell them both. I use both terms depending on the context. There are many nationalities on TV you should not expect everyone to conform to your American culture, rather be a little more open minded and accepting and willing to appreciate others rather than being so xenophobic. I enjoy the Brits cultural terms used on TV I certainly wouldn't show my ignorance by incorrectly, correcting the spelling of the terms they use.

You should listen to Warren she is often very critical of the Democrat Party and for that she is greatly respected. She is also a very good communicator. Rather than parroting GOP propaganda like Benghazi, emails and birth certificates or college education or Socialism you could actually engage in sensible constructive criticism of the Democrat Party and Left Wing ideology and you would have a far more robust argument to contribute to the debate.

[jmd8800]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate just as he'd caucused with the Democratic party in the House.

Bernie is neither a D nor an R and he's never belonged to either party, ever. So Bernie doesn't have any difficulty to harm both in numerous ways.

One great consolation about this is that if Donald Trump were running as a Democrat in the D party nomination campaign, Bernie would have been exposed to criticisms he hasn't been getting of his political philosophy and his own personal history.

Bernie has his axe to grind as it is because he wants very badly to be Potus and to be Potus for what and who he is. Bernie wants it really badly.

These guyz always take these things personally. Yet HRC drives on despite her flaws and because of her great assets. No one had been better qualified for the office since LBJ.

Perhaps we should be grateful Bernie hasn't said HRC is Richard Nixon in drag or somesuch. Trump will probably say it yet despite not having the brains to know who Nixon was or the crimes Tricky Dick committed. R's are still angling to get even for that one although it wuz Nixon himself who did himself in.

This post should get top prize in #Whorin'ForHillary

Seriously... does anyone inside the Beltway. outside the Beltway... pundit or not... even people 'on the edge of reality' think that Bernie Sanders has a 'thirst for power' greater than Hillary?

[MZurf]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

Ah, this is what I admire about the political fringe dwellers (of any persuasion), their unrelenting willingness to listen to other people's point of view.

Keep up the good work!!

[up2u2]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

I know what you mean Boomer. Hillary meets with Warren about CC debt being exempt from bankruptcy protections and gets Bill as President to Veto the Bill. Then Hillary gets elected to the Senate and Votes YES on the CC Bill. What the hell happened there? Well we know what happened now. Big end of Town donated / bribes into her election campaign and they get a favourable vote on a Bill. Who got screwed over? The people who voted for Hillary to represent them.

This is the problem mate. Corporate America and the wealthy elite purchasing Congress and Politicians like Hillary putting their vote in Congress up for sale to the highest bidder.

That is why I disagreed with Publicus on Bernie getting stuck into Hillary on her voting record and questioning her qualifications on being a President.

Keep in mind Republicans are far worse they even sell out their own grandmother. They have been selling out America since Reagan. If it isn't nailed to the floor, actually even then they will crow bar it off and sell it to Corporate America and the wealthy elite. When the Democrats get into power they simply look the other way and pretend it isn't happening.

Bernie caucuses with the Democratic party in the Senate just as he'd caucused with the Democratic party in the House.

Bernie is neither a D nor an R and he's never belonged to either party, ever. So Bernie doesn't have any difficulty to harm both in numerous ways.

One great consolation about this is that if Donald Trump were running as a Democrat in the D party nomination campaign, Bernie would have been exposed to criticisms he hasn't been getting of his political philosophy and his own personal history.

Bernie has his axe to grind as it is because he wants very badly to be Potus and to be Potus for what and who he is. Bernie wants it really badly.

These guyz always take these things personally. Yet HRC drives on despite her flaws and because of her great assets. No one had been better qualified for the office since LBJ.

Perhaps we should be grateful Bernie hasn't said HRC is Richard Nixon in drag or somesuch. Trump will probably say it yet despite not having the brains to know who Nixon was or the crimes Tricky Dick committed. R's are still angling to get even for that one although it wuz Nixon himself who did himself in.

I do not accept these views and they totally misrepresent Bernie's agenda. The only time Bernie holds either Party accountable is on Bills put before Congress and he points out precisely why these bills impact negatively on American Citizens. If it harms either Political Party the harm is entirely self inflicted.

If Bernie has an axe to grind and wants to gain POTUS status he would be taking money from Corporate America and the wealthy elite and have a nice fat Superpac stuffed full of bribe money AND he would be on the lucrative Wall Street lecture circuit scooping up the bundles of bribe money on offer.

He has clearly defined points of difference compared to Hillary and Hillary supporters cannot moan and bitch when Bernie puts the facts on the table. If you don't want to be aligned with Wall Street, Corporate America or the wealthy elite, it is VERY simple DON'T TAKE THEIR MONEY!!!!!

You haven't really pointed out comments by Bernie directed towards Hillary that are nasty or have no merit.

[helpisgood]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

Chuckd,

I don’t know much about Susan Sarandon’s politics. However, Sen. Warren is not a just another knee-jerk liberal Democrat. She has been fighting against the shenanigans on Wall Street that we all know about.

I think that maybe you don’t know her well enough, so here’s a short video of her at a Senate hearing:

I think this should concern both liberal and conservatives. It’s not about ideology, it’s simply about getting away with stealing. It’s okay with me if the Wall Street people make tons of money, per se. However, it’s another thing when they make a killing at the expense of the financial system and the country, and they not only not get prosecuted but they get bonuses instead.

By the way, whose campaign has received funding from these same crooks?

[up2u2]

I watched two independent interviews recently. One with Eliz Warren and the other with Susan Sarandon. Both are very bright and left-leaning politically. Both have had one-on-one meetings with HRC. But here's where it gets prescient: Both are bothered by HRC. I've been defending HRC on these T.Visa threads, but am now having 2nd thoughts. I admire both Warren's and Sarandon's opinions, so that has colored my view of HRC. Ironically, the drawbacks that they mention with HRC are completely different than the drawbacks yelled about by Hillary haters.

All in all, at this point, HRC is still head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, in my view. Kasich is the best of the trio, and he's stuck in the Pleistocene age.

Don't leave us in suspense.

Since I will never waste one minute of my time to watch an interview with either of these liberal goons, what have they said that is causing doubt in your mind?

Chuckd,

I don’t know much about Susan Sarandon’s politics. However, Sen. Warren is not a just another knee-jerk liberal Democrat. She has been fighting against the shenanigans on Wall Street that we all know about.

I think that maybe you don’t know her well enough, so here’s a short video of her at a Senate hearing:

I think this should concern both liberal and conservatives. It’s not about ideology, it’s simply about getting away with stealing. It’s okay with me if the Wall Street people make tons of money, per se. However, it’s another thing when they make a killing at the expense of the financial system and the country, and they not only not get prosecuted but they get bonuses instead.

By the way, whose campaign has received funding from these same crooks?

Exactly Sen. Warren is a good egg. She goes to bat for the average American citizen. She sees something is not right and seeks to correct it. Same as Bernie.

Who takes money from these thieving crooks. Pretty much every Republican Politician and Hillary and the DNC does too. Hillary's job on accepting these bribes is to ensure that Wall Street gets favourable Bills passed that protect their profits at the expense of the American citizen and ensure when they are caught thieving money they do not go to Jail and make sure their big fat bonuses are paid out.

That's the deal.

President Bernie Vice President Warren. Jamie Diamond would have his private jet engine running ready for take off to fly him beyond American jurisdiction.

[SpokaneAl]

A long read, but I think worth the time and effort . . .

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

[lannarebirth]

A long read, but I think worth the time and effort . . .

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html

A pretty good read Al. I liked the scholarly parallels to other civilizations but it doesn't answer the main question of this election. There are millions and millions of people, a substantial percent of the electorate that are disaffected and therefore drawn to Trump. They have many, many legitimate concerns that no credible candidate even cares to address. Their concerns are trivialized and they feel marginalized by a system that many of them have and would otherwise fight to protect.

They are labeled xenophobes if they point out our immigration policy enforcement is a failure. Regardless of some of the self serving rhetoric you may read here and other places, our trade policies have only served to enrich a small percentage of Americans and have been devastating for many many more millions of Americans. Criminals with connections and money suffer no consequences for their criminality and may in fact become the next president. They've got a lot to be pissed off about.

That doesn't make Trump the answer, but who else even pretends to care about these people? Their your neighbors and friends and co-workers and maybe family. They're all Americans and they have the same rights to feel valued as anyone else, but instead they're mocked. They WILL find a way to be heard. Hopefully it will be from a mainstream candidate that wakes up to their responsibility to serve ALL citizens.

[cumgranosalum]

Sanders - right man, wrong electorate

[Scott]

Off-topic, inflammatory and baiting posts and replies removed.

[ttthailand]

Now it is looking like Trump or Clinton, pick your poison, or .... Just wondering your thoughts, If Sanders ran as an independent I think no one would get the required delegates 50% plus 1 to become president. Thus, the House would pick the president and the Senate would pick the VP. Republicans control both house and senate but hate Trump. Now, if the house and the senate can not get a majority then it continues, which is very possible. I believe there is a chance that Sanders could be picked for one of those positions. That would put him in a good position to influence his platform.

Or, do you think Hillary will offer Sanders the VP position to attract his following ?

[jmd8800]

Now it is looking like Trump or Clinton, pick your poison, or .... Just wondering your thoughts, If Sanders ran as an independent I think no one would get the required delegates 50% plus 1 to become president. Thus, the House would pick the president and the Senate would pick the VP. Republicans control both house and senate but hate Trump. Now, if the house and the senate can not get a majority then it continues, which is very possible. I believe there is a chance that Sanders could be picked for one of those positions. That would put him in a good position to influence his platform.

Or, do you think Hillary will offer Sanders the VP position to attract his following ?

What you are proposing seems like how things were done in the past. I think this election cycle is clearly a deviation from the norm.

First if Hillary thought of offering a cabinet position (she won't) to Sanders he no doubt would tell here something I cannot write here but it starts with F. They represent two very different ideologies. They cannot mix.

Secondly, and most important, is both Bernie and The Donald have made a huge success of this because the general population is very pissed at the status quo. They are rejecting business as usual. If Sanders were to be offered a position and then accepted I think a huge part of the population that supported him would be even angrier than before. If The Donald gets taken out by illicit means then the population will be just as pissed.

We have turned a corner in American politics. Like it or not. There is no turning back. It is as if your wife / husband came home one day and said 'Honey I'm having an affair." You know and I know the world suddenly changed.

You can speculate all you want, but anyone who thinks they have the finger on the pulse of American voters is crazy. America is a tinder box ready to explode. The people have had enough. It will be a long hot summer.

[ttthailand]

As I stated earlier, if there was a three party race I don't think anyone would get the required 50% + 1 thus going to the congress to select the president and VP. This is a good possibility if the Republican nomination is stolen from Trump or if Sanders looses and decides to continue the fight, both of which I believe is possible. I think Trump or Sanders has enough of a following to throw it to the congress. How would that end up ? I truly think this might happen this election. Would be fun to watch

[hawker9000]

As I stated earlier, if there was a three party race I don't think anyone would get the required 50% + 1 thus going to the congress to select the president and VP. This is a good possibility if the Republican nomination is stolen from Trump or if Sanders looses and decides to continue the fight, both of which I believe is possible. I think Trump or Sanders has enough of a following to throw it to the congress. How would that end up ? I truly think this might happen this election. Would be fun to watch

'A might/could/maybe/we'll see proposition with Trump, but Sanders is done; stick a fork in him. And I tend to think we're coming to that moment with Cruz as well. One can never really tell because the MSM is so good at keeping the drama balloon inflated & aloft. The dead-end for Sanders is that his money-raising days are over, and by convention time nobody except his exceptionally disappointed and possibly grudge-holding/never-could-stomach-HRC supporters will remember his name. Those supporters, as well as all those misery-wanted-company foreigners, will continue for the next 20 years to parrot the notion that this was just the beginning (for Socialism - or some weird "neo" version of it - in the U.S.), but most other wingnuts will tick it off as a painful lesson learned. It hasn't been learned quite yet though; probably plenty of pain left ahead for Hillary; May 17 in Oregon, and especially June 7 in California.

Edited May 3, 2016 by hawker9000

[up2u2]

Bernie wins Indiana. Go Bernie

'Vive La Revolution'

Feel the Bern comrades.

[Jingthing]

Something to consider:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html

I know Bernies have tried to sell the idea that Sanders would be stronger against Trump than Hillary. I never believed that. I was thinking about the socialist label being red bait which would work with most Americans.

But I didn't even know about the stuff in the article.

Now Hillary does have strong negatives and scandals including association with Bill Clinton scandals. But all of that is well baked in and not likely to do any further damage.

Bernie, on the other hand, is a fresh target and that stuff would definitely hurt him a lot.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Jingthing

[up2u2]

Wasn't much substance in that article JT. Doubt much of those points will resonate with the electorate. 50 year old musings of a teenager and the 'Socialist' label will resonate with old timer white Republican folks but they are only a fraction of the electorate. They are never going to vote progressive. Stuck in the past and there they will stay till they die. The majority of the electorate is a little more sophisticated than that. On reading that an American would reflect 'Michelle how stupid do you think I am'?