Bernie Sanders for President

mrussel1

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

Free said:

The bastard! And the violence caused by his supporters (all of which NEVER happened!) Let's keep hating regardless of the facts!

How much do you get paid as a Hillary bot Russell?

I really wish those 9 things didn't happen, but alas they did.

How much do you get paid?
Where are ALL of your sources??

I get paid a lot, I'm quite comfortable, thanks for asking. But I work in private sector finance and have earned my way up. These boards are nice for when I'm sitting in my office, bored and listening to people drone on about 5 year NPVs, discount rates, six sigma life cycles, blah blah. Thanks for asking.

You believe not one of those things took place? Are you that blissfully unaware?

Waiting on those sources, The point of intelligent debate is backing up what you say with credible sources. Since you're bored at work you should have plenty of time to look them up.

Wow.. this is hard. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-y-song-md/i-am-sorry_b_9697168.html

Now granted, this is probably the corporate Huffiington Post fabricating an apology letter...

The sad thing is that when a person only gets their news from sources that agree with their bias, they have no idea of the full picture.

Go Beavers

cincybearcat said:

Kat said:

The topic is:
Bernie Sanders for President

Fine then.

Bernie sanders would be a disaster as president of just about anything, let alone the US.

And talking about his idiot supporters is right on topic.

What leads you to believe he'd be a disaster?

mrussel1

^^now you back up that statement you made yesterday please about democracy.

Go Beavers

Jason P said:

One of my favorite moments in sports history!

Jason P

That's how you throw a goddamn chair!

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

How many examples of poor leadership do we need in one campaign season? Let's all remember the immature things that have happened:

1. His supporters booing Hillary's name at every rally, with him failing to stop it. Remember even McCain criticized his supporters when they disparaged Obama's character.
2. Throwing dollars at her motorcade
3. Marginalized/insulted the southern states as 'just as important as Guam'... remember that Tim Robbins?
4. Bernie saying Hillary wasn't qualified then walking it back, but with the excuse "she did it first" (which she didn't)
5. Criticizing the super delegates but then embracing them when realizing that was his only path
6. Just about every contest they lose is 'rigged'. Everyone that doesn't support is a corporate whore
7. His surrogate that kicked off his NYC rally called Hillary a Corporate Democratic Whore
8. Publishing of personal information of super delegates, calling the website a "hit list"
9. Now the Nevada threats

This is lack of leadership pure and simple. The supporters take their lead from Bernie on what he says and what he doesn't condemn. It may have been in Kos's editorial or I may have read it somewhere else. Bernie's ideas may have strong merit, but he is NOT the person to lead them.

On some of the above: Again, choosing to zero in on the few loud mouths among the many millions of Bernie supporters. Sound real CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/FOX to me.

But at least you got 6 an 7 correct.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

How many examples of poor leadership do we need in one campaign season? Let's all remember the immature things that have happened:

1. His supporters booing Hillary's name at every rally, with him failing to stop it. Remember even McCain criticized his supporters when they disparaged Obama's character.
2. Throwing dollars at her motorcade
3. Marginalized/insulted the southern states as 'just as important as Guam'... remember that Tim Robbins?
4. Bernie saying Hillary wasn't qualified then walking it back, but with the excuse "she did it first" (which she didn't)
5. Criticizing the super delegates but then embracing them when realizing that was his only path
6. Just about every contest they lose is 'rigged'. Everyone that doesn't support is a corporate whore
7. His surrogate that kicked off his NYC rally called Hillary a Corporate Democratic Whore
8. Publishing of personal information of super delegates, calling the website a "hit list"
9. Now the Nevada threats

This is lack of leadership pure and simple. The supporters take their lead from Bernie on what he says and what he doesn't condemn. It may have been in Kos's editorial or I may have read it somewhere else. Bernie's ideas may have strong merit, but he is NOT the person to lead them.

On some of the above: Again, choosing to zero in on the few loud mouths among the many millions of Bernie supporters. Sound real CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/FOX to me.

But at least you got 6 an 7 correct.

Leadership is unequivocally condemning those loud few. It's what we demanded of Trump. Sadly Bernie hasn't done it.

Free

And on to fundraising news...

Sanders outraised Clinton in April

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/280745-sanders-outraised-clinton-in-april

...Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders outraised front-runner Hillary Clinton by nearly $2 million in the month of April.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

How many examples of poor leadership do we need in one campaign season? Let's all remember the immature things that have happened:

1. His supporters booing Hillary's name at every rally, with him failing to stop it. Remember even McCain criticized his supporters when they disparaged Obama's character.
2. Throwing dollars at her motorcade
3. Marginalized/insulted the southern states as 'just as important as Guam'... remember that Tim Robbins?
4. Bernie saying Hillary wasn't qualified then walking it back, but with the excuse "she did it first" (which she didn't)
5. Criticizing the super delegates but then embracing them when realizing that was his only path
6. Just about every contest they lose is 'rigged'. Everyone that doesn't support is a corporate whore
7. His surrogate that kicked off his NYC rally called Hillary a Corporate Democratic Whore
8. Publishing of personal information of super delegates, calling the website a "hit list"
9. Now the Nevada threats

This is lack of leadership pure and simple. The supporters take their lead from Bernie on what he says and what he doesn't condemn. It may have been in Kos's editorial or I may have read it somewhere else. Bernie's ideas may have strong merit, but he is NOT the person to lead them.

On some of the above: Again, choosing to zero in on the few loud mouths among the many millions of Bernie supporters. Sound real CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/FOX to me.

But at least you got 6 an 7 correct.

Leadership is unequivocally condemning those loud few. It's what we demanded of Trump. Sadly Bernie hasn't done it.

Sanders recently said,

"I don't think our supporters are inciting. What our supporters are doing is responding to a candidate who has, in fact, in many ways, encouraged violence. When he talks about ... 'I wish we were in the old days when you could punch somebody in the head.' What do you think that says to his supporters?"

Free

oops

PJ_Soul

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

The problem seems to be that some people were outraged at the NV convention (and rightfully so I'd say) and all of the sudden that makes us a violent bunch of hooligans. But compared to many Trump supporters? Sheesh. It's a classic smear campaign against Bernie and his supporters.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.

And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.

PJ_Soul

Okay, sure. As I said, I don't think there was any intention behind what Bernie said. I didn't see it as a BUT. I just saw it as a vocalization of facts.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.

And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.

Yeah, sorry. I meant "us" as in Sanders supporters in general. Fringe are exactly that, fringe (and I'm OK that we have them or it would all be vanilla.) But me? Jeez, I don't even have a fringe coat any more, haha!

How do you see Sanders as having a "lack of coherent leadership"?

Free

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

There are 2 movements in the US right now. One, is Bernie Sanders with his millions of supporters. The other is the establishment aka status quo. Status quo is Wall Street, Citizens United, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-corporatism of the U.S., the top 1% owning the majority of wealth, etc. etc. Hillary is the establishment candidate accepting as much money as possible from the big banks and corps. She doesn't have much of a following at her rallies.

6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.

If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused Bernie supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. Take note that this is during a voice vote!! There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No incriminating videos to be had with loads of people present and phones in hands. And tight security standing there. That's what happened.

If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.

Free

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.

And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.

You have been crystal clear on being a Bernie attacker since Day 1 of this thread. Nothing new there.

Free

This entire video spells out exactly what happened from The Young Turks.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153646033364205&id=210277954204&_rdr

Senator Barbara Boxer is claiming that "violent" Bernie Sanders supporters made her fear for her safety at the Nevada Democratic Conventions. Cell phone footage reveals something different. (She blows kisses to the crowd as you can hear people boo her and say "Shame on you!")

brianlux

Free said:

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

There are 2 movements in the US right now. One, is Bernie Sanders with his millions of supporters. The other is the establishment aka status quo. Status quo is Wall Street, Citizens United, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-corporatism of the U.S., the top 1% owning the majority of wealth, etc. etc. Hillary is the establishment candidate accepting as much money as possible from the big banks and corps. She doesn't have much of a following at her rallies.

6 Corporations own the mainstream media and because Sanders stands against big corporations (because he doesn't believe they should have as much power as they do - and currently the media is using their power to not report facts but to lie and slander), they have been refusing to cover any news about him, like he was invisible. :cuckoo: Only when he became a big threat have they started covering him but not positively. The lies are getting worse and worse -some believe what the media tells them..(mrussell) And then there's those of us who are seeing what a crock of shit the media is and is doing to attempt to get Sanders to drop out... When the race is still tight.

If you watched that video I posted, you can see for yourself what happened at the NV convention (not caucus like I mistakenly called it). The media accused supporters of violence, chair throwing and the like and blame Sanders. This is an entire crock of shit. The election officials openly cheated, delegates in the house erupted in direct opposition with their voices. There was no violence, and no chairs thrown. No videos with loads of people present w/ phones in hands. That's what happened.

If people want to debate Sanders response, whatever. But there was no violence to debate. None of what the media is reporting as to violence by Sanders supporters is true. Watch the video.

This is an excellent summation of the democratic race, Free. And I don't mean to personally bash anyone here by saying this but so far I have not seen one solid argument against anything you have said here. It's pretty easy to see all of the above is true and valid.

I spoke with a woman today who considers herself a conservative and she basically said this:

"The choices are Trump, a man with no political experience who really is not at all fit to be a president, Clinton who I don't trust as far as I can throw her, and Sanders who, though I don't agree with many of the things he proposes, is at least someone who appears quite intelligent, is someone who seems very trustworthy and who would at least be someone I (if I were in position to do so) with whom I would be able to sit down and have a reasonable discussion."

Although I personally do like much of what Sanders proposes, I otherwise couldn't agree more with what she said. I don't see why, if narrowed to the three choices before us, anyone would consider anyone other than Bernie . Logically, any other choice makes no sense to me.

hedonist

Free said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

""Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a 'penchant for violence.' That is nonsense," the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a statement Tuesday. "Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals."" (http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478417091/sanders-doubles-down-on-nevada-convention-controversy)



What's the problem, exactly?

My problem is the statement on his website as I've said 9x. It was conditional. There are no conditions. No BUT that is appropriate.

And Brian, I've said nothing about you, one of his supporters, rather his fringe maniacs and Bernie's lack of coherent leadership. I thought I've been crystal clear on this.

You have been crystal clear on being a Bernie attacker since Day 1 of this thread. Nothing new there.

I've seen him more as a critic - and a civil, reasonable one at that. Attacker? Nah, simply another perspective, just like anyone else's.