Lies, except that he is a Jew.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12806844

A Jew who is a Socialist with an immigrant father who made Burlington a haven for immigrants, who is anti-immigrant.

Another lie. From a member of his caucus, who pretended he could not remember the name of the man who created the Caucus and chaired it for Gutierrez's first six years in Congress and is still a member of that caucus. Cause, ya know, no one knows who Sanders is, even the member of his own caucus.

Looks as though we're in for another Democratic dog whistle Presidential primary.

Hear the whistles.

Makes people crazy.

"I agree with everything Bernie says, but..." = cognitive dissonance.

The suggestion that a politician who is thumping his or her opponent by sixty points needs to resort to underhanded tactics is simply implausible. Cui bono?

Unfortunately, the quitessence eludes me. Would you clarify your position please?

Why would a candidate who is winning his or her race by sixty points or more look for an unfair or untoward advantage? It doesn't pass the rational actor test.

The cost of being caught and exposed is infinitely greater than the advantage that would accrue to him or her.

is trying to gain advantage for their champion by victimising him, in an effort to make the well-ahead candidate look desperate?
Or the supposedly well-ahead canidate has some internal polling that sounds the alarm bells and calls for underhanded tactics?

If the latter was true it wouldn't be contraindicated by ninety nine point ninety nine percent of the public polling available.

Internal polls are a chimera...They are no more valid than public ones...All one has to do to test that proposition is to look back on the 06 mid terms when public polling showed the Republicans were going to get shellacked and Karl Rove said they weren't because he had the "numbers". i.e. internal polling.

The person we are talking around is book smart and street smart...She doesn't take unnecessary risks or make unforced errors.

not about to take that chance again. And it may not all be her - followers may be doing much of the posting even without her knowledge.

And we must not forget the MSM who are known for creating their own lines to get a story.

i am 6'2'' , weigh 215 pounds and work out five times a week...It would be as if i was to have a boxing match with Pee Wee Herman and had to load my gloves with Plaster of Paris to dispatch of him ...

Oh, and bearing false witness is a real fucking biggie...God put it in his Top Ten...

possible that she could lose in Iowa and New Hampshire. That is her own statement. She remembers 20008.

Her lead in IA is >40 points. Her nat'l lead is in the 50s and 60s. i am not going to set my hair on fire over the fact that a couple of NH polls show her with a small double digit lead. I ignore campaign spin.

Believe what you want... Senator Sanders has as much chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination as Pee Wee Herman ne Paul Reubens has of defeating me in the mythical boxing match I discussed

Passion is laudable.

We need that passion now and not just surrender to what people feels is "inevitable because of money", that will have a corporate fascist state in effect be confirmed!

And you are cherry picking the primary where she has this sort of lead. Polls aren't really that accurate at this point other than noting trends. And the candidate that is trending UP is Bernie Sanders now, much like Obama trended up against a big lead about the same time when he was facing Hillary in 2008 with LESS MONEY about this time than Bernie Sanders has now!

conversely, one might ask why the supporters of a candidate who is winning his or her race by sixty points feel the need to post OPs that so obviously misrepresent the comments or voting record of their opponent.

“Objects in your rearview mirror are closer than they appear,” Mr. Meyer said he had told Mr. Price about Mr. Sanders. “Mrs. Clinton had better get out here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/politics/challenging-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gains-momentum-in-iowa.html?_r=0

I thought I heard that over the course of the weekend... and not for the usual crew. I did.

And this must be quite unnerving to a campaign that went though this exact issue in 2007-8

That said, a lot of those talking points are getting tested here. I wonder if DU will fold if she loses again. To be honest, it would not surprise me in the least.

I am an empiricist and rely on the data and not this pol or that pol with his or her on fire.

My buddy always talks about skin in the game. If anybody wants to make a wager about the outcome of the primary i am more than game. i don't have money but i have accessto those who do and will lend it to me with points.

not the DU bubble. Usually the best people to know when a candidate is catching on fire are local party chairmans, at least in my experience.

I wonder how many of those ahem missives the campaign is getting, Quite brutally honest, I am surprised that one was released.

No candidate in the history of the Democratic party has lost the nomination with the lead Hillary clinton has and I am willing to wager my life, the money I can get access to, or anything that she will not be the first, this pol or that pol's concerns notwithstanding.

we are seeing the exact same pattern (and talking points)

Mind you, my candidate is big money, not Hillary, not sanders, not any in the other side. Whoever wins (well except Sanders) will be the candidate for big money, so I am set. Really.

I am actually quite neutral on this... and it is highly entertaining, I must admit.

Writing a piece on the urbanization plan for san diego up to 2050, infrastructure is one thing I wish more candidates talked about, Bernie sort of does, but not enough if you ask me... but it is not like I could say that it is of interest here either. So once I post it, won't bother posting it here, because like this statement from this party chairman that would be interjecting real life into a partisan discussion.

The statement the NYT ran, assuming it was exactly as went to the campaign, was not a DU bubble statement. That came from one of her troops on the ground.

Yes, on the national level she leads, name recognition and all, but in early primary states, that lead is fading. That is reality.

I already provided the citations.

At the end of the 08 primaries HRC and BHO were roughly equal in votes and delegates so he closed a fourteen point gap. If he would have started sixty or so points behind he would still have had ended some forty five points behind.

And all you have to support your assertion that he is gaining in the early primaries are two polls, one from a pollster heretofore unheard of and another from a pollster discredited from the 2012 elections. *


Here are the polls for the early primaries and caucuses:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-3351.html



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nv/nevada_democratic_presidential_caucus-5337.html

My time has some value... Let's at least make it a little interesting. I can wager an amount I won't have to borrow.


Sanders wins I donate $250.00 to DU or the charity of your choice

Sanders loses you donate $250.00 to DU.

just finding this very entertaining.

That is all.

The debates take place in parallel realities...

I literally can't afford to live my life based on "well, anything can happen" scenarios.

you should read into partisanship. It is indeed fascinating.



I quoted from the real world, a local party chairman... and the response was quite bizarre, but expected.

After the article I am editing is up, back to reading into it, planning a major article into why the House, the Senate and the White House cannot govern anymore. While one party gets the lion share of the blame, the other is not quite precisely blameless.

That would be antithetical to a person's agency and that is the one of the only things we truly own.

who will never accept one or the other of our candidates no matter what. It was what happened the last time too. President Obama shows the battle scars from that one too. He made the mistake of winning the primary and the general, funny that. lets make no bones about it though it is not only the 'CONs who have thrown wrenches in the works. Many of our fellow Dems have been engaging it that behavior

I'm a democrat and I WILL vote for our candidate in the general election no matter who it is. Simple as that to me. I have a preference in the lead up to that that I support and thats the way it should be. I'm more comfortable with the person who I agree with 100%. Plus his voice doesn't send me up a wall where one of our candidates makes me hope and pray, (I'm non religious so imagine the conflict there,) that I won't have to listen to it for 4 possibly 8 years.

Bernie is a "Democratic Socialist"." No one not steeped in political speak will hear anything but "Socialist" and the Republican talking heads will quip, "aren't all Democrats socialists?"

Be wrong. I believe they feign ignorance in hope of scaring others.

and now when they say it I just say "I thought all democrats were socialists." Of course that was when Rs called us that. Now Democrats are using it against us.

with endorsing the attacks.

I'd personally favor a Swedish-style social democracy. But I don't think it's a winning position in American politics today. I DO think Bernie's self-identification as a Democratic Socialist is a liability in the general election.

I believe that if he is nominated, he will lose. And it won't be that close. And that's despite the fact that I think most of the American public would actually support his economic positions if they are presented in a unbiased fashion.

the nomination he will continue to do that. It is his positions that we support him for and the crowds are proof that people are beginning to hear them.

I think we have a good chance. People are sick to death of the business as usual politics. They want a change and he is the only change offered.

Yes, they are going to use Koch money to try to bury him but that is also true of Hillary. But the big money dirty politics is a part of the politics as usual that people are tire of. And if they are not tired of it then big money dirty politics will be just as effective against Hillary as it will be against Bernie.

No more and no less than someone failed to make the distinction between formal and informal definitions, and the conversations associated with them to allow themselves the pretense of cleverness...

Or merely failed English 1302 and thus knows little to nothing of affect indices.

He has always said he's a Democratic Socialist.

"Democratic": an adjective.
"Socialist": a noun
"Democratic Socialist: an adjective modifying a noun.

Thus, he is a Socialist.

And he's a specific type of Socialist: A Democratic Socialist.

Both statements are true.

He's a democratic socialist. That means he wants to implement socialism by electoral and administrative means, instead of by revolt. This puts him at odds with the Socialist Workers Party, who consider themselves sort of gatekeepers to determine who is a "real" socialist. They are critical of Sanders, perhaps because they routinely run their own candidate for president, although I'm not sure if they have one this time.

I'm a democratic socialist, and have been for 35 years. I guess I've been wrong the majority of my life. Perhaps you could tell me who and what I am, because I'm having a big identity crisis right now. Thanks.

..running against each other on the dem ticket.
Correct?
Sanders isn't a Dem.
Hillary has always been a Dem.
Maybe clarify that statement.

A socialist and (small d) democratic socialist.

You may make whatever origami shape you like to suit your needs, but the truth is just what I said.

Why would he deny the "Independent" in front of his Name?
He should be owning that I.

Are affiliations, not philosophies.

Sanders is still seen by may loyalists to the Dem Party, as an Independent.
He affiliates with neither party, or he affiliates with both parties.
That's an "uncertain" problem with many Dem loyalists.

DNC. Everyone else's vote is up for grabs.

You cannot honestly say you know all those Dem loyalists well enough to make such a general claim.
That's laughable. I know quite a few die-hard Dem Loyalists who have never & will never veer from marking that election form anything BUT a D.
And I know damned well none of them are getting a check from the Dem Party, they do it out of loyalty & for many it is generational.

That is the Bernie problem as it pertains to his "uncertain I" behind his name.
Yelling "Bernie rocks" to these Party loyalists is not going to make a smidge of difference. They know who he is. And who he is not.

Occasionally veered or strayed and voted for an out of party candidate.

It is quite rare.
I absolutely disagree with you.
And your insult to Party Loyalists still remains.
End of this conversation.

Unless you're not voting for school board members etc, then you can't vote straight dem.

And honestly, I don't care if I insult party loyalists. They're holding the party back from any real change.

Learn something new every fucking day.

who was still a registered Republican in 1996, which means she probably voted for Nixon, two terms of Reagan, and the first Bush. Guess who? Go on guess.

... became a Republican from earlier being a Democrat too.

And no one is every claiming that Elizabeth Warren was "always a Democrat" like the previous poster was saying. You were a person even if you were in high school, and she WAS a Republican then! And by the way, Wellesley College is NOT a high school, last time I checked where Clinton was elected PRESIDENT of the Young REPUBLICANS Club there!

Perhaps your high school didn't teach you that!

Reagan born in 1911 - became a Republican in 1962 (was 51 then)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Warren born in 1949 - became a Democrat in 1996 (was 47 then)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Warren
51 > 47

ANY MORE QUESTIONS?

Use google if you can't figure life out at times!

anyone would remain a Republican through the AIDS crisis, which devastated two communities, is beyond me. EW was a middle aged woman before she saw the light? WTF was so attractive about Nixon/Reagan/Bush?

And your analogies could use some work.

... there! Do you deny that? Just because she was a Goldwater Girl at 16 doesn't mean that she didn't continue to be a Republican in later years too, like historical FACTS show to be the case.

Elizabeth Warren wasn't as active in politics as Reagan was in his earlier years as a DEMOCRAT then, where he was a DEMOCRAT until he switched to being a Republican at a LATER TIME than Warren switched. So if you are trying to dismiss Warren as a "Republican", why do you think Republicans haven't done the same with Reagan, when he was a Democrat longer than Warren was a Republican, and active politically as a Democrat at that too?

And Clintons helped build the DLC with KOCH MONEY and PEOPLE to take over the Democratic Party when they became the first family then. She was on the board of Walmart right up until Clinton became president.

Warren voted as a Republican for many years, saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets".[18] She states that in 1995 she began to vote Democratic because she no longer believed that to be true, but she says that she has voted for both parties because she believed that neither party should dominate.[29]

... that serves to build a market system that works for most Americans and not just the powerful few at the top. Why isn't it likely that Warren doesn't feel the same way over her history? When Reagan actually put in prison those that were responsible for fraud in his presidency during the Savings and Loan crisis, there was some degree of regulatory oversight of Wall Street then that seems to be missing by both Citizen United enabled corporate controlled parties of today that has virtually NO Wall Street criminals in prison and them continuing their NON-capitalistic control of government. They don't want a real free market in place. They want a market where they and their small oligopoly of companies CONTROL the market. That is what Warren sees and so many of the rest of us sees happening now which is why we are against this kind of government we have in place where pols in both parties are controlled by big money.

He has his own radio show that has NOTHING to do with RT that is aired by FSTV that is one of the few television channels not owned by corporate interests that do far more to spew propaganda that is harmful to most Americans than RT does.

RT knows that Hartmann questions this corporate controlled media oligopoly we have now from his shows and that he is proper with TRUE progressive Democrats and other Americans out there, which is why they give him air time on RT. They may have other objectives of their own, but the one they are facilitating (that is rightly placed) is that Americans, when they discover they are being spoonfed a lot of CRAP from what is supposed to be a "free press" that is supposed to provide oversight of our political system but is corporate propaganda instead. They don't even need to try to get Hartmann to spew any propaganda supporting Russia to achieve this objective, but just have someone questioning America's corporate propaganda, which by itself is a good one from most Americans' perspective.

Who do you feel is truly objective in giving you news? Why don't you come out and provide us some info on this front that traditional DEMOCRATS might find useful. Corporate controlled media has their own objectives.

I used to work at them and even in the early 80's when I did so, I personally witnessed how the advertising department would provide "guidance" as to what late night local news content would be aired that would be more in line with the programming aired right before it. I also witnessed how having only two companies controlling newspaper, television, and radio local outlets in a community lead to a "gentleman's agreement" between the two of them not to air news of their own internal labor unrest, attempts to build a union, etc. This sort of thing is so much more global in scope in this country now, which is why America is not informed of what is really going on here.

It's weird how you guys think everyone posting in favor of Hillary is a paid shill, but that couldn't possibly be true of a BS supporter. Just FYI: Polling shows that people aren't that comfortable with voting for a socialist, and arguments to the contrary are just preaching to a very small, and essentially irrelevant choir.

Last edited Tue Jun 23, 2015, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

People should visit http://www.dsausa.org/ , the Democratic Socialists of America.

Bernie has been affiliated with the group (as have some Democrats) for quite a while.

I have contributed to DSA and I believe I learned about them after Bernie was elected to the House back in the '90s.

It is indeed not the same as the Dem Party he is currently latched onto.

He'd probably do quite well.

"We are a political and activist organization, not a party; through campus and community-based chapters DSA members use a variety of tactics, from legislative to direct action, to fight for reforms that empower working people."

Maybe its time to form a third Party. One its members fight for throughout their lives.
Raise funds to support their message & organize to be a serious voting block in their own party.

Rather than dismantle & insult the Party they latch onto, in order to change that party to their own message.

Only way I can state it to make you aware that the "Independent" next to Sanders' name is indeed a question of Party Loyalty to many Dems.

You need to understand that issue and respect it as an issue when advancing your message.
It is extremely insulting to many Dems.
"Independant" to many means "uncertain".

Ignore this fact or work to fix it.
Not my concern since I know exactly what Party I support.

If you don't want to hear the truth, then take your Sanders posts to the Sanders room where you can screen the posters to your liking.
Thats what its for.

We have a TWO PARTY system until one of these parties allows instant runoff voting or some similar reform put in place to allow for third parties a better chance to win within our system and not be just "spoilers". Bernie understands this much like Tea Partiers understood this and is running as a Democrat because of this. If you'd rather Democrats lose because he runs against Clinton in the general election and we have a Republican, then just come out and say that you want him to run as an independent so that a Republican you love can become president and solidify the corporatist takeover of our country!

That is also why Ron and Rand Paul run as Republicans too and not Libertarians, who they are more in line with philosophically than the Republican Party.

intentionally trying to deceive