Bernie Sanders for President
Comments
-
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!Post edited by Free on0 -
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.0 -
Oh goodness0
-
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.0 -
dude has an open invite to run on the green party ticket ...0
-
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/0 -
Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
Delusional!...ckravitz said:
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.0 -
Quite honestly, this fuckin' guy cracks me up.0
-
Great (and typical) response.Free said:Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
Delusional!...ckravitz said:
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.
Wait let me try one from the old Free playbook.... "oooooooh personal insults". Did I get it right?
If you are truly interested in having a conversation (versus just being here to play the martyr role and snipe at everyone), please answer the question:
What is delusional? Did he or did he not run Dem at least in part for media exposure? If not, then why would he run with a party that you have so eloquently pointed out earlier today that is apparently so different from him? What could his motives to run Dem have been if not for expanded attention?0 -
There is no legitimate source for the information. It came from a facebook post.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/
So not from the State of California election commission, not from the DNC, not from bernie sanders.0 -
You are merely trying to bring up points redundant now. We all know what kind of attention he got from the media. Your questions are used to bait and I won't bite. Want answers? Research.ckravitz said:
Great (and typical) response.Free said:Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
Delusional!...ckravitz said:
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.
Wait let me try one from the old Free playbook.... "oooooooh personal insults". Did I get it right?
If you are truly interested in having a conversation (versus just being here to play the martyr role and snipe at everyone), please answer the question:
What is delusional? Did he or did he not run Dem at least in part for media exposure? If not, then why would he run with a party that you have so eloquently pointed out earlier today that is apparently so different from him? What could his motives to run Dem have been if not for expanded attention?0 -
A month of so ago, I was going to lunch and chatting with someone on my team while riding the elevator down. Another 20 something female who I work with was also on the elevator and I could tell there was something she really really wanted to say. She eventually decided to just rudely interrupt our conversation in an panicked voice say "DID YOU KNOW BERNIE SANDERS IS IN CENTER CITY?!??! HE WAS JUST AT 16TH AND JFK!!!"
Was that you Free?0 -
Interesting read. He makes a lot of great points and arrives at his conclusions based on rationality and history.Cliffy6745 said:"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Hysterical. You made this statement, TODAY, not me:Free said:
You are merely trying to bring up points redundant now. We all know what kind of attention he got from the media. Your questions are used to bait and I won't bite. Want answers? Research.ckravitz said:
Great (and typical) response.Free said:Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
Delusional!...ckravitz said:
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.
Wait let me try one from the old Free playbook.... "oooooooh personal insults". Did I get it right?
If you are truly interested in having a conversation (versus just being here to play the martyr role and snipe at everyone), please answer the question:
What is delusional? Did he or did he not run Dem at least in part for media exposure? If not, then why would he run with a party that you have so eloquently pointed out earlier today that is apparently so different from him? What could his motives to run Dem have been if not for expanded attention?
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure.
If you don't see how choices he has made were directly tied to greater exposure, no amount of research will convince you.
But nifty dodging anyway. Have a nice day.0 -
Yeah, I thought it was interesting and well thought out.jeffbr said:
Interesting read. He makes a lot of great points and arrives at his conclusions based on rationality and history.Cliffy6745 said:0 -
Of course he ran as a Dem for wider exposure and it worked. He'd have received absolutely no coverage if he didn't have a 'D' by his name, and his campaign would have resembled the Occupy Movement. The D gained him coverage and relevancy. As far as coverage of his rallies, I saw plenty. Certainly every time he held a rally in Seattle it was all over the news. These weren't some stealth events, they were broadcast, talked about, and even disrupted (thanks to the #blacklivesmatter fools). So to say he had no exposure means one is either deliberately deceiving, or wasn't paying attention.ckravitz said:
Hysterical. You made this statement, TODAY, not me:Free said:
You are merely trying to bring up points redundant now. We all know what kind of attention he got from the media. Your questions are used to bait and I won't bite. Want answers? Research.ckravitz said:
Great (and typical) response.Free said:Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
Delusional!...ckravitz said:
It's hard to find any other answer that's not "YES". The questions was posed because of this statement:Free said:
Seems like an obvious, did he? Did he get half the coverage the others got? Hell, no.ckravitz said:
Uh, didn't he basically run as a Dem (vs Indy) to ensure he got broader media coverage than an indy usually gets?Free said:
That was not media exposure, it was personal video, posted to a Sanders group. Hardly media.hedonist said:
That's...admirable? He's seemed to embrace and use media exposure in other instances. More to come, I believe.Free said:https://www.facebook.com/claudia.stauber/videos/10208406839661545/
"This video is a live feed from Bernie arriving in Vermont. He had the opportunity for a press conference, they were all set up for him but instead he decided to go down to the corner of the intersection and be with his people, without the press!!!!
Jane Sanders"
This proves that Bernie Sanders is not your typical politician, and prove that he really is for the people.
I think it's important to balance fervor with objectivity.
(in fact, scratch the former!)
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure, when his rallies were nothing but ignored.
He not only would embrace some media exposure, it's owed to him as a presidential candidate!
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure
Let's not pretend that he's some kind of better person because he didn't at least attempt to use media to his advantage, because he most certainly has. Not that there is anything wrong with using media when your aim is to reach people, it's just that saying he hasn't and painting him in some weird better-than-the-others light because of it is just odd.
Wait let me try one from the old Free playbook.... "oooooooh personal insults". Did I get it right?
If you are truly interested in having a conversation (versus just being here to play the martyr role and snipe at everyone), please answer the question:
What is delusional? Did he or did he not run Dem at least in part for media exposure? If not, then why would he run with a party that you have so eloquently pointed out earlier today that is apparently so different from him? What could his motives to run Dem have been if not for expanded attention?
And please, point out where he's gotten and used media exposure.
If you don't see how choices he has made were directly tied to greater exposure, no amount of research will convince you.
But nifty dodging anyway. Have a nice day."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/
0 -
Why? As MRussell said (and backed up in the article he quoted), Sanders and Clinton were pretty even at the polls on Tuesday. That means Clinton's lead came from mail-in ballots. Why would Hillary supporters be pissed off at having more mail-in ballots still to be counted if that was where they were receiving favorable results? Sounds like they'd welcome those ballots.Free said:
The mere fact that there's a few million mailed in votes yet to be counted will piss every Hillarysupporter off.mrussel1 said:
Can you provide the source that says mail in ballots favor Bernie? That's an interesting take considering the exit polls of the mail in ballots heavily favored Hillary. Second, the same day/live voting was basically tied, which means the 400k margin was built on mail in. Seems like more fanciful Bernie supporter math that has never panned out to this day. Second, it doesn't mean one goddamm thing at the end of the day. What if Bernie wins CA 51-49 (he won't)? It doesn't change the fact that she won majority of pledged, raw votes and SD's. No matter how many times his supporters move the goal posts, the end is the same.Free said:
So far, Hillary has won about 440,000 more recorded votes than Bernie in California. But several independent organizations estimate that up to 3 million ballots still need to be counted, primarily mail-in and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly skew in favor of Bernie by an estimated 40% margin).
No, Hillary has not won California. We won't know the ultimate victor until as late as July 15th. In fact, given the above numbers, it is almost certain that Bernie actually won. Don't blindly buy into the misleading media narrative.
His California victory will mean nothing if Bernie is forced to suspend his campaign before the final results are released. So while the media spreads lies and the establishment pressures Bernie to exit the race, we must keep the revolution alive.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-7-new-jersey-california-primary-presidential-election-2016/"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
So the system is rigged and as soon as the mail in ballots are counted Sanders will win? And those mail in ballots irritate Clinton supporters.....huh??
Is that what I'm reading here?Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help