Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[sirineou]

She is a phony as a 3 dollar bill, 3 dollar. I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on an indictment, but I certainly wish it would come and very, very soon. There is a way (check the statues) it could happen even if no malfeasance is found but the fumbling bureau of idiots will never have the courage to use it. No doubt then, Bernie will be the next President. Trump and his Trumpthuglicans (see definition I posted earlier) can retreat to the far holes of the earth from which they came from. Well, he does have that platinum spoon that he was born with to suck on.

She build a server in her own house, she meant to evade something,

The problem is that if the indictment comes after she wins the nomination, we are looking at president Trump.

Sanders knows that but can not say it, that is part of the reason why he is taking it all the way to the convention.

Below is a very reasonable analysis of the issur by the Young Turks , watch after minute 4.

[media]

[media]

[boomerangutang]

Warren will definitely slap Trump around. It would be like a cat playing with a mouse in terms of intellectual comparison.

I agree. Though trying to talk to Trump is difficult if anything is said which is unflattering to The Divider.

The moment he senses your statement or question is unflattering, he immediately does one or both of the following:

>>>. Keeps saying loudly, "excuse me!, excuse me! excuse me!, excuse me!, excuse me!"

>>> Shouts down the other person.

Very difficult to hold any sort of substantive conversation with him.

Imagine if you had a teenage son in your house, and every time you tried to mention one of his bad habits or questioned him, he immediately shouted you down -before you got 5 words into your question. Look at any of the debates. There is always one person who takes the volume up twice as loud as everyone else. Now that he's the Rep nominee, there's a similar dynamic: Trump wants to wallow in mudslinging (questioning HRC's role in her husband's 5 minute's dilly dally in a coat closet from 18 yrs ago). Because of Trump's bottom feeding, he effectively forces HRC to respond, so she is therefore sucked down to his bottom feeding level - though thankfully she's got a lot more class than Trump, so she won't entertain all his childish mud throwing.

[jmd8800]

In case the right-wingers didn't notice, banks were front and center when the US economy tanked in 07 and 08. They were trying nearly as hard as Wall Street hot shots to make money via parlor tricks like mortgage swaps. "Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free!" (sorry, Mark Knofler).

Then, when their pyramid and shyster schemes started crumbling, what did bankers do? They went running to the Feds, "HELP. WE'RE TOO BIG TO FAIL. YOU REMEMBER US? WE PAID BILLIONS IN CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. BAIL US OUT, QUICK! AND BAIL OUT ALL OUR MONEY MANAGERS, AND TOP EXECS WITH M.A.'S from top business schools like Harvard and Wharton." "Bail is out, quick, along with the big corporations we loan money to. Give us hundreds of billions of federal dollars or watch the next depression will make 1929 look like a monopoly game. AIS, Goldman Sachs, Fannie May, and all the other too-big-to-fail .....we need hundreds of billions right now. RIGHT NOW!!!"

The above is how Republicans and Democrats do business. Republicans, in particular talk the talk about 'free marketplace' but Reps are to free markets what a murder of crows is to deep sea diving.

"the next depression will make 1929 look like a monopoly game."

Interesting graph of the history if the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

This chart does not show the actual crash of the djia. But you get the idea. The Great Depression was a blip on the radar. But as Bill Black (one of the lead people prosecuting the people in the Savings and Loan crisis of late 80s and early 90s said, there are measures in place to deal with defaulting banks like the big ones in the recent crisis of 2007/08. Congress initially refused to bail them out. A week later Congress agreed to th laws. The legislation also stated that once passed it could not be repealed or amended. Nor could it be challenged in court.

But this would prove to be just the beginning of the transfer or wealth. I would guess quantitative easing was an even bigger transfer of wealth then the original bailouts. Blame for all of this lies in both Republican and Democrat parties.

P.S Who were the 'smartest men in the room who thought growth could continue like this shows from the mid 80s onward?? This chart also shows that the damage to the working and middle classes would begin show a few years after Reagan was elected in 1980.

[Jingthing]

Warren has been pretty critical of Hillary so I can't see her accepting the VP

You are so wrong.

[jmd8800]

Nooooo JT Warren would be neutered as a progressive if she had to play second fiddle to Hillary. Warren is a better advocate for the People as a Senator.That would be a waste. I wish bloody Boon Mee would reduce his graphics

Agree to disagree.

Hillary Clinton needs the passion Warren would bring.

HRC not well liked and people will never see her as authentic. She needs help!

Warren excites crowds like trump does on the other side.

By picking Warren, she would be signaling a more left leaning candidacy.

I don't think you get it. trump is playing a crafty game ... with his fascist populism some of his "policies" are to the left of Clinton, but it's all a ruse because the man is not fit to be president and you have no idea what you get with him.

It makes sense because of that game of trump, that Hillary Clinton runs, and optimistically hopefully governs, more left than we expected.

I have to believe that there are a few people left in Washington that have a conscience. Hillary is morally bankrupt. She is a player in the New World Order that needs to be destroyed. If Bernie or E Warren were to accept being her VP or in her cabinet I would lose all faith in turning this corrupt government around.

What you don't get JT is that while you want Hillary to win as the lesser of two evils ...some here believe that she embodies evil. She is evil to me. Trump has a history as a con man. Hillary has a history of just about everything that is wrong with the US government today. War, banking, taxation, dirty tricks campaigns (Correct the Record ..#whoringforhillary).. you name it .... she is a war monger neoliberal.

Trump is just a loose cannon. They will show him the Zapruder film if he gets elected. Then say "any questions Donald?"

If Hillary gets elected it will be business as usual. Kiss you savings and pensions goodbye. More war. More tax breaks for the rich..the list goes on.

Edited May 15, 2016 by jmd8800

[boomerangutang]

Warren has been pretty critical of Hillary so I can't see her accepting the VP

You are so wrong.

I don't thing up2u2 is wrong. I've seen interviews where Warren is annoyed with HRC.

One of the issues was something to do with credit card debt. Credit card companies want to be first in line to get paid (by deadbeat dads, for example), whereas Warren wanted ex-wives owed child support to be in line before CC companies. HRC heard Warren's take on that, and the two Clintons agreed (Bill was prez at the time) . However later; HRC sided with the CC, so it annoyed Warren.

[Jingthing]

I meant about accepting VP. Not only will Warren accept VP to Clinton, if asked, she is obviously actively CAMPAIGNING for that role.

[NovaBlue05]

Nooooo JT Warren would be neutered as a progressive if she had to play second fiddle to Hillary. Warren is a better advocate for the People as a Senator.That would be a waste. I wish bloody Boon Mee would reduce his graphics

Yes- Clinton would use Warren to try to attract Sanders supporters. If successful, Warren would be kept in a box until 2020.

Unless Warren is a complete hypocrite, I have no idea why she would attach herself to Hillary Clinton who would appear to be the antithesis of everything she believes.

[jmd8800]

I meant about accepting VP. Not only will Warren accept VP to Clinton, if asked, she is obviously actively CAMPAIGNING for that role.

Please cite some reputable sources where EW is actively campaigning for the office of VP.

I'll be honest I just skim the headlines of Mainstream Media. But I've not seen anything to suggest EW is seeking VP slot.

[Jingthing]

She hasn't ruled it out, which in politics obviously means she would consider it. I think BIG TIME.

She'd be crazy not to take this offer, if given, and she doesn't strike me as crazy.

Seriously, Hillary Clinton will probably win anyway. Being VP is a path to the presidency and who knows if Hillary will be up to a second term?

I know some the Bernie heads are purists, very naive I think, but in the real world there is politics, and nobody in politics is pure.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/clinton-campaign-insiders-want-liz-warren-as-vp.html#

Donald Trump isn't the only one taking notice of Elizabeth Warren's Twitter tirades. Over the past few weeks the Massachusetts senator hasamped up her social-media attacks against the GOP front-runner, and key players within the Clinton campaign are paying attention. Speaking to the Huffington Post on Thursday, several Clinton aides said they'd love to see a Clinton-Warren ticket, and several said they're actively pushing for Warren to get the nod — and they see her tweets as a sign she'd be open to it.

"She’s been a totally good soldier," one adviser said. "You could say she’s already been auditioning for it a little bit." Another said she was "thrilled to see Warren get under [Trump's] skin," and a third said Warren has "very influential people in the campaign pushing for her."

"You want a running mate who can take the fight to the other side with relish," said a Clinton veteran. "Geography doesn't matter, but attitude and talent and energy and bringing excitement to the campaign, Senator Warren does all that."

Edited May 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[willyumiii]

Here's just one graphic that explains how ignorant Sanders is re Economics and Banking:

You forgot the last and most important step.

11. Government bails out the banks with the tax money of the poor and middle class, then the banks give themselves huge bonuses for doing such a great job !

[willyumiii]

Warren has been pretty critical of Hillary so I can't see her accepting the VP

You are so wrong.

I don't thing up2u2 is wrong. I've seen interviews where Warren is annoyed with HRC.

One of the issues was something to do with credit card debt. Credit card companies want to be first in line to get paid (by deadbeat dads, for example), whereas Warren wanted ex-wives owed child support to be in line before CC companies. HRC heard Warren's take on that, and the two Clintons agreed (Bill was prez at the time) . However later; HRC sided with the CC, so it annoyed Warren.

Warren, like Bernie has integrity and cares about working Americans.

Hillary represents everything Warren is against....a corporate owned government.

I don't think Warren would sell out her values to get a do nothing job like VP for Hillary.

However, she would make a well matched running mate for Bernie and VP would not be a do nothing job for her under Bernie.

And if anything ever did happen to Bernie, she would fill the office with the same values and integrity that Bernie has ,and the country needs.

[thaihome]

Here's just one graphic that explains how ignorant Sanders is re Economics and Banking:

You forgot the last and most important step.

11. Government bails out the banks with the tax money of the poor and middle class, then the banks give themselves huge bonuses for doing such a great job !

Though I agree that some bonuses paid may have e been inappropriate, was wondering if you realize that the US taxpayers have realized a 69 billion profit on the bailout?

69B

Outflows

Disbursed

Banks and other Financial Institutions $245B

Fannie and Freddie $187B

Auto Companies $79.7B

AIG $67.8B

Toxic Asset Purchases $18.6B

Mortgage Mod Program $13.7B

State Housing Programs $5.85B

Small Business Loan Aid $368M

FHA Refinance Program $60M

Total $618.9B

Inflows

Refunds $390B

Money returned to Treasury by bailed-out companies.

Dividends $267B

Revenue Treasury has earned on its investments through dividend payments.

Interest $1.83B

Revenue Treasury has earned through its loans through interest payments.

Warrants $9.63B

Revenue Treasury has earned from selling stock warrants it held on companies that have paid back its investment.

Other Proceeds $19.7B

Total 687.9B

Profit: $69B

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

TH

[Jingthing]

You guys that think ANY politician is pure including Bernie crack me up.

Anyway ... get with the reality, Bernie won't be nominated and nothing will be stolen. Hillary will have more than enough to clinch without one super delegate.

Not sure Clinton will want Warren as VP as word is they really don't like each other personally (beyond politics) but the theoretical interest in wanting to be Bernie VP is MEANINGLESS.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Jingthing

[sgtsabai]

You are right about one thing, Clinton (oh I have so much better name but I'll get a spank on the wrist again if I use) would never ask and Bernie would never in a 1,000 years accept a position from someone so evil as Clinton. Clinton wouldn't ever ask Warren nor Warren would ever accept. I too believe there is not just ethical/moral differences, there is personal animosity, there should be with any decent person dealing with Clinton. The only reason Clinton will be anointed Empress to be by the DNC is because they did so long before. The media refused to cover Bernie and still he is right there in the race. The really sad part is the states Clinton "won" will not matter come general election, they will go red even if god is running on the Democrat ticket, well if you believe in the guy. Bernie beat her in the rest, you know the ones that count. New York, now tell me that wasn't pre-ordained. There will be a contested convention and it could get ugly. I hope this is the beginning of the end for the present day Democrat blue dawg corporate Party. I wouldn't have said this just a few weeks ago, but I now think there is a good chance Clinton will loose the presidency, the Senate and more House seats. Bernie wouldn't. And, no I won't vote for Clinton, write in Bernie or vote Jill Stein.

[NovaBlue05]

You guys that think ANY politician is pure including Bernie crack me up.

Anyway ... get with the reality, Bernie won't be nominated and nothing will be stolen. Hillary will have more than enough to clinch without one super delegate.

Not sure Clinton will want Warren as VP as word is they really don't like each other personally (beyond politics) but the theoretical interest in wanting to be Bernie VP is MEANINGLESS.

Yes, some are still naive enough to believe ethics & principles should have a prominent place in US politics

Edited May 15, 2016 by NovaBlue05

[jmd8800]

She hasn't ruled it out, which in politics obviously means she would consider it. I think BIG TIME.

She'd be crazy not to take this offer, if given, and she doesn't strike me as crazy.

Seriously, Hillary Clinton will probably win anyway. Being VP is a path to the presidency and who knows if Hillary will be up to a second term?

I know some the Bernie heads are purists, very naive I think, but in the real world there is politics, and nobody in politics is pure.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/clinton-campaign-insiders-want-liz-warren-as-vp.html#

Donald Trump isn't the only one taking notice of Elizabeth Warren's Twitter tirades. Over the past few weeks the Massachusetts senator hasamped up her social-media attacks against the GOP front-runner, and key players within the Clinton campaign are paying attention. Speaking to the Huffington Post on Thursday, several Clinton aides said they'd love to see a Clinton-Warren ticket, and several said they're actively pushing for Warren to get the nod — and they see her tweets as a sign she'd be open to it.

"She’s been a totally good soldier," one adviser said. "You could say she’s already been auditioning for it a little bit." Another said she was "thrilled to see Warren get under [Trump's] skin," and a third said Warren has "very influential people in the campaign pushing for her."

"You want a running mate who can take the fight to the other side with relish," said a Clinton veteran. "Geography doesn't matter, but attitude and talent and energy and bringing excitement to the campaign, Senator Warren does all that."

Of course. HRC wants EW so yes she will make it appear as if EW is thinking about it.

Try again

Edited May 15, 2016 by jmd8800

[thaihome]

Good article by the center left Huffington Post, except for throughly discredited Michael B. Mukasey. Personally I hope she is indicted and it happens soon. arjunadawn, well written and I agree, except Bernie is NOT a socialist any more than FDR was. He wants to return to the New Deal. If that's your idea of Socialism, well all I can say is you should know better. I'll take the New Deal which brought prosperity to the American people over "Reaganomics", AKA voodoo economics, that has brought America to it's knees and destroyed the working/middle class. OK, with the Clinton's help in repealing Glass-Steagall.

FDR's New Deal did not end the 1929 depression. World War II ended it.

Following is a great read on the New Deal that will bring you up to date.

http://www.history.com/topics/new-deal

From the article...

"On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States entered World War II. The war effort stimulated American industry and, as a result, effectively ended the Great Depression."

So you are saying that massive deficit spending on an unprecedented level funded by issuing treasury bonds ended the depression? And it worked?

TH

[sgtsabai]

I do believe that is what he is saying, although he doesn't realize it...lol. Ahem, we don't need no education....

[NeverSure]

In case the right-wingers didn't notice, banks were front and center when the US economy tanked in 07 and 08. They were trying nearly as hard as Wall Street hot shots to make money via parlor tricks like mortgage swaps. "Get your money for nothing and your chicks for free!" (sorry, Mark Knofler).

Then, when their pyramid and shyster schemes started crumbling, what did bankers do? They went running to the Feds, "HELP. WE'RE TOO BIG TO FAIL. YOU REMEMBER US? WE PAID BILLIONS IN CAMPAIGN EXPENSES. BAIL US OUT, QUICK! AND BAIL OUT ALL OUR MONEY MANAGERS, AND TOP EXECS WITH M.A.'S from top business schools like Harvard and Wharton." "Bail is out, quick, along with the big corporations we loan money to. Give us hundreds of billions of federal dollars or watch the next depression will make 1929 look like a monopoly game. AIS, Goldman Sachs, Fannie May, and all the other too-big-to-fail .....we need hundreds of billions right now. RIGHT NOW!!!"

The above is how Republicans and Democrats do business. Republicans, in particular talk the talk about 'free marketplace' but Reps are to free markets what a murder of crows is to deep sea diving.

AIS, Goldman Sachs, Fannie May, and all the other too-big-to-fail

You do know, of course that Fannie Mae (sp) is a GSE sponsored by the US government entity, along with Freddie Mac. They are the groups that bundled the sub prime loans together to sell to investor banks. Of course the banks went along since they met their quotas for minority housing loans and the loans were no risk, guaranteed by the federal government.

The Republicans began warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac around the 2001 time frame but were shouted down by Barney Frank and a host of House Democrats.

Following is a tutorial of Nancy Pelosi in 2008 trying to cover up the actions of her party while she was in charge. If it wasn't so serious, her actions would be laughable.

In short you really don't know what you are talking about, but don't let that get in the way of adding to your post count.

A couple of tutorials for your education:

During Bill Clinton's tenure the Democrats decided that it was only fair that everyone should be able to own a home. They began to enforce in new ways The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. That FORCED real estate lenders to make loans they didn't want to and historically wouldn't have.

Warnings were everywhere for any who would listen, but this easy money caused the runup to the bubble and then the crash of 2007. In many places in the US the housing market still hasn't recovered from that crash. That's especially true in lower income areas where people shouldn't have been able to get loans in the first place and today they can't so the homes still sit.

Here's a really good write up about it.

[Jingthing]

She hasn't ruled it out, which in politics obviously means she would consider it. I think BIG TIME.

She'd be crazy not to take this offer, if given, and she doesn't strike me as crazy.

Seriously, Hillary Clinton will probably win anyway. Being VP is a path to the presidency and who knows if Hillary will be up to a second term?

I know some the Bernie heads are purists, very naive I think, but in the real world there is politics, and nobody in politics is pure.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/clinton-campaign-insiders-want-liz-warren-as-vp.html#

Donald Trump isn't the only one taking notice of Elizabeth Warren's Twitter tirades. Over the past few weeks the Massachusetts senator hasamped up her social-media attacks against the GOP front-runner, and key players within the Clinton campaign are paying attention. Speaking to the Huffington Post on Thursday, several Clinton aides said they'd love to see a Clinton-Warren ticket, and several said they're actively pushing for Warren to get the nod — and they see her tweets as a sign she'd be open to it.

"She’s been a totally good soldier," one adviser said. "You could say she’s already been auditioning for it a little bit." Another said she was "thrilled to see Warren get under [Trump's] skin," and a third said Warren has "very influential people in the campaign pushing for her."

"You want a running mate who can take the fight to the other side with relish," said a Clinton veteran. "Geography doesn't matter, but attitude and talent and energy and bringing excitement to the campaign, Senator Warren does all that."

Of course. HRC wants EW so yes she will make it appear as if EW is thinking about it.

Try again

Not of course at all.

Hillary would rather not pick Warren but will if she thinks she will help much more than any other pick.

I also think it's obvious Warren WILL take it if picked.

[chuckd]

Good article by the center left Huffington Post, except for throughly discredited Michael B. Mukasey. Personally I hope she is indicted and it happens soon. arjunadawn, well written and I agree, except Bernie is NOT a socialist any more than FDR was. He wants to return to the New Deal. If that's your idea of Socialism, well all I can say is you should know better. I'll take the New Deal which brought prosperity to the American people over "Reaganomics", AKA voodoo economics, that has brought America to it's knees and destroyed the working/middle class. OK, with the Clinton's help in repealing Glass-Steagall.

FDR's New Deal did not end the 1929 depression. World War II ended it.

Following is a great read on the New Deal that will bring you up to date.

http://www.history.com/topics/new-deal

From the article...

"On December 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the United States entered World War II. The war effort stimulated American industry and, as a result, effectively ended the Great Depression."

So you are saying that massive deficit spending on an unprecedented level funded by issuing treasury bonds ended the depression? And it worked?

TH

Not really. Deficit spending began in 1932, long before WW2 began. The industrialization of the US economy to support the war effort in Europe and the Pacific was the massive jolt that got things going.

Here's one outlook on it:

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

"The US funded its World War II effort largely by raising taxes and tapping into Americans' personal savings.

That leaves savings, which was the War's primary source of funding. During the War, Americans purchased approximately $186 billion worth of war bonds, accounting for nearly three quarters of total federal spending from 1941-1945.

An early use of the term "war bond" was for the $11 million raised by the US ... from its principal banking institutions to meet the growing costs of the war."

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-US-fund-the-WWII-war-effort-How-much-did-the-war-cost

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

Don't like that one, how about Wikipedia? They are OK on things like this discussion.

Examples:

"Personal savings

Personal income was at an all-time high, and more dollars were chasing fewer goods to purchase. This was a recipe for economic disaster that was largely avoided because Americans—cajoled daily by their government to do so—were also saving money at an all-time high rate, mostly in War Bonds but also in private savings accounts and insurance policies. Consumer saving was strongly encouraged through investment in war bonds that would mature after the war. Most workers had an automatic payroll deduction; children collected savings stamps until they had enough to buy a bond. Bond rallies were held throughout the U.S. with famous celebrities, usually Hollywood film stars, to enhance the bond advertising effectiveness. Several stars were responsible for personal appearance tours that netted multiple millions of dollars in bond pledges—an astonishing amount in 1943. The public paid ¾ of the face value of a war bond, and received the full face value back after a set number of years. This shifted their consumption from the war to postwar, and allowed over 40% of GDP to go to military spending, with moderate inflation.[9] Americans were challenged to put "at least 10% of every paycheck into Bonds". Compliance was very high, with entire factories of workers earning a special "Minuteman" flag to fly over their plant if all workers belonged to the "Ten Percent Club". There were seven major War Loan drives, all of which exceeded their goals.[10]

Labor

Greater wartime production created millions of new jobs, while the draft reduced the number of young men available for civilian jobs. So great was the demand for labor that millions of retired people, housewives, and students entered the labor force, lured by patriotism and wages.[12] The shortage of grocery clerks caused retailers to convert from service at the counter to self-service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_home_front_during_World_War_II

There is lots more out there but you can do your own research from now on...don't know about sarge, though...he says "we don't need no education."

[lannarebirth]

I think there is a greater chance now that Hillary will pick Warren for VP.

It makes sense ... she's can get down into the dirt to take on trump directly with his twitter games, represent the Sanders faction in some ways better than Sanders (not stigmatized by the formal socialist label, etc.), and leave Hillary to be the ADULT in the room to talk about ISSUES. Not saying Warren isn't an adult ... but it's a tactic to do a double edged campaign. We all know how LOW trump goes, and it's going to get worse. Warren has proven she's really good at confronting trump down in the mud.

Yeah, I read an analysis recently about how all the rules are off now in this election, as Trump and to a lesser extent, Sanders, have really shaken things up. And, that picking another woman as running mate sounds unconventional, but for sure Warren brings back some sense of values to the campaign, and perhaps a sense of oversight on Clinton. Warren is smart as a whip, and has been a crossover too, as a Republican much of her life.

Warren will definitely slap Trump around. It would be like a cat playing with a mouse in terms of intellectual comparison.

Clinton would be smart to choose someone with zero presidential ambition. I don't think that includes Warren. She doesn't want to have to be looking over her shoulder for 4 years, as it would be much easier to dethrone her from inside.

[keemapoot]

I think there is a greater chance now that Hillary will pick Warren for VP.

It makes sense ... she's can get down into the dirt to take on trump directly with his twitter games, represent the Sanders faction in some ways better than Sanders (not stigmatized by the formal socialist label, etc.), and leave Hillary to be the ADULT in the room to talk about ISSUES. Not saying Warren isn't an adult ... but it's a tactic to do a double edged campaign. We all know how LOW trump goes, and it's going to get worse. Warren has proven she's really good at confronting trump down in the mud.

Yeah, I read an analysis recently about how all the rules are off now in this election, as Trump and to a lesser extent, Sanders, have really shaken things up. And, that picking another woman as running mate sounds unconventional, but for sure Warren brings back some sense of values to the campaign, and perhaps a sense of oversight on Clinton. Warren is smart as a whip, and has been a crossover too, as a Republican much of her life.

Warren will definitely slap Trump around. It would be like a cat playing with a mouse in terms of intellectual comparison.

Clinton would be smart to choose someone with zero presidential ambition. I don't think that includes Warren. She doesn't want to have to be looking over her shoulder for 4 years, as it would be much easier to dethrone her from inside.

Yeah, that's truly a threat for Clinton, but on the other hand, with Warren, at least the campaign would get a moral compass and maybe start getting some traction. Without someone like Warren, Clinton could actually lose to Trump the way her campaign is stuck in neutral. And, as I said, I think she would have to give Warren a bigger role than a normal VP to attract her, and there is always the (small) chance of Clinton dethroning herself (Indictment), and Warren would be a good VP to take over as President.

[Pimay1]

I think there is a greater chance now that Hillary will pick Warren for VP.

It makes sense ... she's can get down into the dirt to take on trump directly with his twitter games, represent the Sanders faction in some ways better than Sanders (not stigmatized by the formal socialist label, etc.), and leave Hillary to be the ADULT in the room to talk about ISSUES. Not saying Warren isn't an adult ... but it's a tactic to do a double edged campaign. We all know how LOW trump goes, and it's going to get worse. Warren has proven she's really good at confronting trump down in the mud.

Yeah, I read an analysis recently about how all the rules are off now in this election, as Trump and to a lesser extent, Sanders, have really shaken things up. And, that picking another woman as running mate sounds unconventional, but for sure Warren brings back some sense of values to the campaign, and perhaps a sense of oversight on Clinton. Warren is smart as a whip, and has been a crossover too, as a Republican much of her life.

Warren will definitely slap Trump around. It would be like a cat playing with a mouse in terms of intellectual comparison.

Clinton would be smart to choose someone with zero presidential ambition. I don't think that includes Warren. She doesn't want to have to be looking over her shoulder for 4 years, as it would be much easier to dethrone her from inside.

Yeah, that's truly a threat for Clinton, but on the other hand, with Warren, at least the campaign would get a moral compass and maybe start getting some traction. Without someone like Warren, Clinton could actually lose to Trump the way her campaign is stuck in neutral. And, as I said, I think she would have to give Warren a bigger role than a normal VP to attract her, and there is always the (small) chance of Clinton dethroning herself (Indictment), and Warren would be a good VP to take over as President.

Warren would make a good running mate for Crooked Hillary. They are both proven liars, two peas in a pod.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Pimay1

[keemapoot]

Yeah, I read an analysis recently about how all the rules are off now in this election, as Trump and to a lesser extent, Sanders, have really shaken things up. And, that picking another woman as running mate sounds unconventional, but for sure Warren brings back some sense of values to the campaign, and perhaps a sense of oversight on Clinton. Warren is smart as a whip, and has been a crossover too, as a Republican much of her life.

Warren will definitely slap Trump around. It would be like a cat playing with a mouse in terms of intellectual comparison.

Clinton would be smart to choose someone with zero presidential ambition. I don't think that includes Warren. She doesn't want to have to be looking over her shoulder for 4 years, as it would be much easier to dethrone her from inside.

Yeah, that's truly a threat for Clinton, but on the other hand, with Warren, at least the campaign would get a moral compass and maybe start getting some traction. Without someone like Warren, Clinton could actually lose to Trump the way her campaign is stuck in neutral. And, as I said, I think she would have to give Warren a bigger role than a normal VP to attract her, and there is always the (small) chance of Clinton dethroning herself (Indictment), and Warren would be a good VP to take over as President.

Warren would make a good running mate for Crooked Hillary. They are both proven liars, two peas in a pod.

I don't defend Clinton as I don't like her, and I won't defend Warren either, but what I will say is that between the two of them they will have more intellectual horsepower than any dynamic duo in Presidential history. That doesn't mean they will win, because as proven on this forum, voters are afraid and distrustful of intelligent people generally.

Trump is in a minor league of his own on intellect. Highly clever, but intellectually dull and lazy.

[boomerangutang]

Here's just one graphic that explains how ignorant Sanders is re Economics and Banking:

You forgot the last and most important step.

11. Government bails out the banks with the tax money of the poor and middle class, then the banks give themselves huge bonuses for doing such a great job !

Though I agree that some bonuses paid may have e been inappropriate, was wondering if you realize that the US taxpayers have realized a 69 billion profit on the bailout?

69B

Outflows

Disbursed

Banks and other Financial Institutions $245B

Fannie and Freddie $187B

Auto Companies $79.7B

AIG $67.8B

Toxic Asset Purchases $18.6B

Mortgage Mod Program $13.7B

State Housing Programs $5.85B

Small Business Loan Aid $368M

FHA Refinance Program $60M

Total $618.9B

Inflows

Refunds $390B

Money returned to Treasury by bailed-out companies.

Dividends $267B

Revenue Treasury has earned on its investments through dividend payments.

Interest $1.83B

Revenue Treasury has earned through its loans through interest payments.

Warrants $9.63B

Revenue Treasury has earned from selling stock warrants it held on companies that have paid back its investment.

Other Proceeds $19.7B

Total 687.9B

Profit: $69B

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/

TH

Perhaps that true, but the underlying deal is Americans (other than heads of corps) don't want Federal money propping up too-big-to-fail corps, or any for-profit entities. The Feds should not be in the business of investing in businesses.

What if the US gov't propped up the Cali and Medellin Cartels, and then a few years later announced: "You see, the cartels and the US gov't made a profit, aren't we smart?!?!"

In a sense, the US gov't is backing drugs with cash. Scratch the surface of pharma drug corps,. and you'll see Feds helping them: Free FDA testing and oversight (sounds socialist, doesn't it?). The feds also contribute to the US having the highest pharma drug costs in the world. Worse than that, is the many people dying from pharma drugs. More die from Pharma than all illegal drugs combined. White American men and women (mostly low-educated) are the only demographics whose life expectancy are going down, and the primary reason is pharma drugs. That might hurt Trump's fan base because, as he said, "I love the uneducated" ...and the majority of his fans are white.

[jmd8800]

One of the reasons people across the globe and on forums like TV have trouble posting anything resembling the truth:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/13/boris-johnson-donald-trump-post-truth-politician?

The people entrusted with informing the public of the goings on in the world have utterly failed. We are now in a post truth world.

[NeverSure]

Bernie (and most Dems) the socialist. No wonder he has a following. Free Stuff!!

[Boon Mee]

Bernie (and most Dems) the socialist. No wonder he has a following. Free Stuff!!

CigrvPqVAAErZI9.jpg

How's that Free Stuff working out for Venezuela these days?