LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Bernie!

Busybody said:
BERNIE SANDERS IS SURGING, AND SENATE DEMS AREN’T SO HAPPY: “The Senate backbencher is drawing huge crowds on the trail, but his Democratic colleagues warn voters not to buy the hype.” Because, you know, it might hurt Hillary.

“Bernie is a socialist and claims that title,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), an early Clinton supporter. “I just don’t believe that someone who is a self-described socialist is going to be elected to be president of the United States.”:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here is one time I fully agree with a Dem. He might win the nomination, although I even doubt that, but in the general election he will lose in the biggest landslide in history.
 
Boxlicker101 said:
And no REPOH could get away with palling around with unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. :eek:
Click to expand...

LOL. Except for the fact that they do all the fucking time. First, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist, he's a trashy vandal. I'm sorry when the only person you've ever hurt with your 'attacks' is one of your idiot friends you don't get to be classified with Osama Bin Laden, you simply don't.

To BB's point, while I would never think of La Razza as a hate group Ron Paul got away with talking to some racist fucks and plenty of people on both sides of the aisle mostly shrugged about it.

Republicans sure are whiny little cunts.
 
Sean Renaud said:
LOL. Except for the fact that they do all the fucking time. First, Bill Ayers is not a terrorist, he's a trashy vandal. I'm sorry when the only person you've ever hurt with your 'attacks' is one of your idiot friends you don't get to be classified with Osama Bin Laden, you simply don't.

To BB's point, while I would never think of La Razza as a hate group Ron Paul got away with talking to some racist fucks and plenty of people on both sides of the aisle mostly shrugged about it.

Republicans sure are whiny little cunts.
Click to expand...

this post marks you a person unworthy of discussion
 
Jani715 said:
Is there a site with a summary of the pro's and con's for everybody. I know a few of the people from their names like Clinton and Bush but all the other ones I have no idea about really. How many are there now anyways?
Click to expand...

One that any large group of people would find reliable? Not really. People don't even trust Wikipedia and that shit is almost always sourced and when it isn't it literally puts a note on itself saying "we need a cite for this". I would argue your best bet that I've found are the party websites that show all the candidates (including the ones nobody gives a shit about. There are several declared candidates on both sides of the aisle who literally nobody gives a half shit about. They usually have both their stated positions and how well they'ved lived up to them, though they almost never have commentary which I think would be hugely useful. I doubt that information exists in any large way though.
 
Bernie goes biblical on the BILLIONAIRES

BS: Between 2013 and 2015, the wealthiest 14 people saw their wealth increase by $157 billion. This is their wealth increase, got it? Not what they are worth. Increase. That $157 billion is more wealth than is owned by the bottom 40 percent of the American people.

One family, the Walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent.

MJ: To be the devil's advocate, why should we care about that?

BS: I think this goes back to the Bible. There is something immoral when so few have so much and so many have so little. I don't come to San Francisco very often, but we've driven around the city and seen people sleeping out on the streets. In my state, you've got people working 40, 50 hours a week and going to emergency food shelves because they don't earn enough money to feed their families adequately. You have millions of young people graduating college deeply in debt. They can't get their lives started, can't get married. So I think the issue of income and wealth inequality is in fact a moral issue.

"In the last 35 or 40 years, there has been an increasingly aggressive effort on the part of the top 1 percent to take it all."

Second of all, it becomes a political issue. The Koch brothers will end up spending far, far, far more than all of the Democratic billionaires. But even if it were equal, which it is certainly not, you're a billionaire and I'm a billionaire—you want to control the political process from your point of view and I from my point of view. That is not what American democracy is about. Which is why I believe we've got to overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections.
 
CuntClinton is gonna kill SocialistBernie

The Bernie Sanders Archive Is Bustling With Mysterious Young Men
Campaign interns have been tasked with digitizing every document—and keeping quiet about it
By Michael Tracey @mtracey

July is a sleepy time on the University of Vermont campus in Burlington, and ordinarily the basement of the Bailey/Howe Library would be sleepier still. However, in recent weeks it has been bustling—not with students conducting academic research, but outsiders conducting political research. They have all come with one purpose: to dig through the Bernie Sanders archive.

Some are national journalists, but others are more mysterious figures. A reporter for local alt-weekly Seven Days recently speculated that "two casually dressed twentysomethings" at the archive were opposition researchers for Hillary Clinton—which her camp later denied, though not before Drudge Report picked up the story. Ever since then, a retinue of young men has streamed through the library basement. They refuse to identify themselves, and the librarians on duty do likewise, citing Vermont privacy statutes and their own code of ethics.

These men work for Sanders's presidential campaign, the headquarters of which is a stone's throw away, and they have been tasked with digitizing the entire archive—a gargantuan effort that left the librarians flummoxed when staffers announced their plans last week. It's a vast trove of some 30 boxes of documents chronicling Sanders's eight-year mayoralty of Burlington and other early political activities. As material is not allowed to leave the special collections room, Bernie's workers sit for hours on end, scanning every last leaf of paper onto thumb drives.

They say little, but in a rare moment of candor, one did ask me whether I was “with Hillary." Otherwise they refuse to engage, operating under strict orders not to speak with media under any circumstances. Asked if these men are paid Sanders staffers, campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said, "Interns are staff, and staff are paid." Otherwise he declined to comment on their task, what prompted their arrival, or how many there are. Campaign manager Jeff Weaver said of them, “Just collecting information for ads and to document his record of effective leadership as Mayor of Burlington."


Sanders’s ad hoc 2016 operation in some sense is a reflection of the Vermont senator himself, who famously eschewed neckties until first entering elective office and reliably projects an image of rumpled earnestness. The campaign is powered thus far more by passion than structure, lacking the hyper-organized, corporatized polish of the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. Whatever the upsides of such an approach, the goings-on in Bailey/Howe Library suggest that the campaign might have been unprepared for the sudden surge of interest in Sanders’ past.

The digitization of the Sanders archive began about a week ago, and that his campaign apparently only thought to do so now could indicate a refreshing lack of paranoia. But it's potentially a tactical misstep, too. As much as Sanders might have evolved since his leadership role in the Vermont’s renegade Liberty Union Party during the 1970s, his records from that period are housed in the UVM archive for all to see—and might require a bit of contextualization from his campaign, lest an opportunistic opponent portray them unflatteringly.



Notwithstanding Politico Magazine's claim that "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret," no bona fide bombshells have emerged yet from the archive or elsewhere. Much of the material is fairly unremarkable to those schooled in Cold War-era socialist discourse, especially given that Sanders today is a self-identified democratic socialist. Nonetheless, his past statements could feasibly cause some disquiet among the culturally conservative working men and women whom Sanders hopes to court.

To wit: Sanders described himself as “clearly anti-capitalistic” in a 1976 interview with the Cynic, UVM's weekly student newspaper.

“Contrast what the young people in China and Cuba are doing for themselves and for their country as compared to the young people in America,” he said. “It’s quite obvious why kids are going to turn to drugs to get the hell out of a disgusting system or sit in front of a TV set for 60 hours a week.”

Television's enervating influence was a recurrent theme for Sanders in those days; in 1972, he wrote a letter to FCC chairman Dean Burch denouncing as “banal” such classic Americana as “I Love Lucy” and “Gunsmoke.”

“How many programs do we see which reflect what is really going on in this nation?” Sanders asked. “Where is the weekly T.V. network series which deals with the worker who is unable to find a job and who is drinking himself to death as a result?”

In the Cynic interview, Sanders was asked to expound on the nature of socialism, a question that continues to arise 40 years later. But in something of a departure from his typical response today, Sanders confessed ambivalence about the term’s connotations. "I myself don’t use the word socialism because people have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship, and lack of freedom of speech,” he said. “The [Liberty Union Party] more strongly than any other party in the State of Vermont defends civil liberties.”


UVM Special Collections
That defense of civil liberties included a commitment to unfettered gun ownership: The party, while Sanders served on its executive committee, adopted a platform in 1972 that called for the “abolition of all laws which interfere with the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms.” This may suggest that Sanders’s relatively permissive views on gun ownership, already the subject of much consternation among liberals, could be rooted in sincere principle—not simply in the practical realities of winning election in rural Vermont. While this position might irk the average Democrat, it could ultimately serve to broaden his appeal: Sanders has said he wants to forge a coalition that can “cross traditional liberal-conservative lines.”

Other documents in the archive may help in that effort, such as those documenting his consolidation of municipal services as Burlington mayor, as well as his disdain for property taxes. During his Liberty Union years, Sanders endorsed the total elimination of “the very regressive property tax system,” to be replaced by a much more steeply progressive income tax. By his 1986 bid for governor, he had adopted “Vote tax relief” as a campaign slogan. You might even say he ran the municipal government as a fiscal conservative.

All of which is to say, there's a lot to mine in the archive, for both the good and ill of the campaign. Sanders, who did not respond to an interview request, probably has as little patience for discussing the contents of those 30 boxes as his campaign leaders do. But his small army of digital archivists have no choice but to be patient as they toil their summer away in a library basement—scanning, scanning, forever scanning. As I overheard one of them lament, “My grandchildren will be working on this.
 
No wonder DUMZ love this guy

FLASHBACK: Bernie Sanders “Physically Nauseated” By JFK’s Opposition To Communism…

sanders

Oddly enough, I feel the same way when I hear Bernie Sanders talk about Capitalism.

Via BuzzFeed:

Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders once said that he was “physically nauseated” by a speech made by President John F. Kennedy when Sanders was a young man, because Kennedy’s “hatred for the Cuban Revolution […] was so strong.”

“Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal,” Sanders reminisced in a 1987 interview with The Gadfly, a student newspaper at the University of Vermont. “But I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”
 
Bernie takes on Texas!

Sanders’ daylong trip to Texas easily represented the most well-attended visit to the state by any presidential candidate so far this election cycle. His campaign said 8,000 people turned out in Dallas, while 5,200 showed up in Houston.

At each stop, Sanders railed against a “billionaire class” and called for a “political revolution” while pitching a host of proposals on liberals’ wish lists. He touted his support, often in conjunction with shots at his Republican rivals, for a $15 minimum wage, a massive federal jobs program, free tuition for public colleges and universities, a single-payer health care system, a pathway to citizenship for people in the country illegally and campaign finance reform including a rollback of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Acknowledging some of his plans would be pricey, Sanders assured supporters that the wealthiest members of society would foot the bill with high taxes.
Click to expand...

Oh Bernie, shove it down their Kock sucking throats! :D
 
Last edited:
You know while I know it won't happen Bernie vs Trump Presidential elections would be fucking epic.
 
Lots of people would pay to see those debates. CNN wouldn't even get to host them because WWE would give up a PPV slot and have Rock moderate.
 
the CuntClinton deat machine in action

Game On! Politico Says Bernie Sanders Could Be A “Socialist In Name Only”…

Dem establishment rag Politico goes after Sanders for being a SINO:
 
Hillary Clinton's Bernie Sanders Problem Is Bigger Than Anyone Realizes
Jul 27, 2015 12:36 PM EDT
Seven ways in which the septuagenarian socialist from Vermont actually presents a mortal threat to the Democratic front-runner.

Mark Halperin


Let’s all please stop asserting that Bernie Sanders can’t beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic nomination race. Pundits and journalists galore have been declaring (alleged margin of error: zero) that the Vermont senator will lose to his party’s front-runner. Sure, his odds are long, but so far he’s shown substance, grit, and surprising appeal. Why not let the voters decide who will accept the torch in Philadelphia next summer?

Clinton is, without doubt, still the odds-on favorite to win, with plenty of support, cash, and ballast for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is more germane to ask: What impact might Sanders have on the former secretary of state in the nomination fight? And, if Sanders doesn’t win his party’s nomination, what impact might he have overall on Clinton’s chances of becoming the next president of the United States?

Sanders’ surprising success has already influenced Clinton’s conduct and fortunes, and there is every reason to believe that he will continue to challenge her, influence her, and create significant problems for her as the race continues.


There are plenty of recent examples of underdog candidates in both parties who “couldn’t” win the nomination in the estimation of the chattering class but who nonetheless had an outsized influence on the contours and, indeed, outcome of the race. These include Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich in 2012 against Mitt Romney; Pat Buchanan in 1992 against George H.W. Bush; and Jesse Jackson in 1988 against Michael Dukakis. Based on how things are shaping up so far, Sanders has the potential to adversely affect Clinton in numerous ways, echoing the underdogs who ran before. Romney, Bush, and Dukakis, not coincidentally, all lost the White House.

Here, then, are seven ways Sanders can weaken Clinton in the general election, perhaps fatally, even if he doesn’t manage to beat her for the nomination.

1. Pulling her to the left

Clinton has already taken various positions on economic and social issues that are clearly a reaction to the Sanders’ threat from the far left (and, to a lesser extent, to that of former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who also has been trying to outflank Clinton on the liberal side). In recent months, Clinton’s political and rhetorical message has boiled down to an Old-Democrat, big-government, Pelosi-Reid-AFL-CIO-pleasing stew that a skillful Republican nominee could exploit, shoving Clinton out of the vital political middle in the general election.

2. Exposing her biggest weaknesses

Even some of Clinton’s staunchest backers will tell you that she comes off to many voters as personally inauthentic and politically calculating, lacking a genuine, heartfelt message. Even some of Sanders’ biggest detractors will tell you that he is exactly the opposite. Sanders has become such a prodigious performer on the stump and in TV interviews in part because he gives Democrats an unvarnished and passionate view of his ideas, his soul, and himself. Recently, at a major gathering of Iowa Democratic activists, almost every Clinton supporter I talked to expressed admiration for Sanders’ authenticity and policy agenda, and many said that if they followed their heart, they would vote for the underdog. If Clinton's main four-point agenda sounds like it is the product of extensive research by her polling and focus-group teams, well, that is because it is. A lot of voters grasp that calculation intuitively, and find it a turnoff. Clinton’s perceived lack of personal and political sincerity may not cost her the nomination, but it won’t help her image with general-election voters already skeptical about her character and relatability.

3. Forcing her to go negative

When front-runners are threatened, their usual move is to kneecap the opponent, and before too long, Clinton may feel she has no choice but go on the attack against Sanders. Such a move might be effective, but it would hold peril. First, as Sanders himself has eschewed negative politics throughout his career, potent political martyrdom could ensue. Second, Clinton could look like a hypocrite, since she has been regularly railing against negative attacks from the GOP. Third, it could unleash even more vigorous Republican assaults, with far less concern about public or media backlash.

4. Playing a losing expectations game

Clinton faces a daunting expectations game. Even if she heads into Iowa and New Hampshire with solid polling leads, simply winning will not be enough. She has to finish far enough ahead of Sanders to prevent the press from treating a win like a loss. Between now and early February, polls will rise and fall, and what will constitute a win for Clinton will change. But rest assured the media will give her zero benefit of the doubt in this regard. Even if Clinton wins Iowa, say, 66 percent to 33 percent in an historic landslide, some news organizations would likely headline their stories “One Third of Iowa Democrats Reject Clinton.” Clinton will thus have to spend a great deal of time and money in the two early states (which demographically and ideologically are among Sanders’ strongest), leaving her vulnerable in some of the later-voting states and hindering the timely formulation of a general-election strategy or message.

5. Beating her in early states

If Sanders continues to build his momentum and cut into Clinton’s lead, and she gets sidetracked by controversy (typically a given when a Clinton is on the ballot), it is not inconceivable that Sanders could win one or both of the two first states. That would instantly throw the party into a second-guessing panic, especially since it would be too late for another establishment candidate to get on the ballot in many of the delegate-rich states. Panic, needless to say, would not help Clinton look like a general-election juggernaut.

6. Forcing her to invest in caucus states

As a hedge against early losses, and with the memory of being outfoxed by Team Obama in 2008, Clinton’s campaign is going to pour resources into the post-Iowa caucus states, where Sanders’ grassroots enthusiasm allows him to compete fiercely. Once again, this dynamic means Clinton has to continue to take left-wing positions and to devote precious resources to targeting small numbers of activists, rather than building a general-election machine.

7. Forcing her into an extended nomination fight

If Sanders has early success, the press and the left (not to mention the GOP) will be eager to see how far he can go. That will mean the Clinton campaign will have to continue to allocate resources away from a general-election fight. The longer Sanders stays alive, the greater the aforementioned party panic would be. Bill Clinton dealt with this dynamic in 1992, when, amid scandal, he struggled to put away Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. As the conventional wisdom refrain declares, Hillary Clinton does not have her husband’s political skills—it would be more difficult for her to quash a widespread party freakout. And it wasn’t easy for Bill. Recall how party leaders beseeched Lloyd Bentsen or Dick Gephardt to get in the race, despite expired filing deadlines and the hazards of a potential brokered convention. The rogue e-mail server, the Clinton Foundation questions, and assorted other family controversies could dovetail with Sanders’ success and create a toxic and perhaps untenable situation for Hillary.

Now, of course, these are mostly speculative scenarios. But none is impossible or even improbable. All derive directly from Sanders’ manifest strengths, Clinton’s manifest weaknesses, and the dynamics and realities of the Democratic Party’s nomination process. Not long ago, few would have imagined that Sanders could have posed any sort of threat to Clinton’s political fortunes. Sanders might lose in the end, but his successes thus far and going forward make it more likely that Clinton will lose in the end too.
 
Bernie Sanders
The Vox conversation

It's too long a discussion to quote. Read what Bernie has to say about the Progressive agenda and make up your own mind if he's too far left.
 
Jani715 said:
Is there a site with a summary of the pro's and con's for everybody. I know a few of the people from their names like Clinton and Bush but all the other ones I have no idea about really. How many are there now anyways?
Click to expand...

I hope the second degree you mentioned in your bio is for a black belt.
 
Bernie Sanders says the 1 percent have screwed-up brains
— and science proves he’s right

The problem isn’t just limited to the bubble of wealth. It’s effects are far reaching and we may feel them even if we don’t realize the source. Matrix concludes:

These psychological factors may have the dangerous effect of compounding the growth of economic inequality. The rate at which economic inequality accelerates over time depends deeply on the very institutions and policies over which the upper class has a disproportionate level of control. Thus, if increasing economic inequality gives rise to an upper class with an even greater sense of entitlement, leading them, as Piff’s research would suggest, to support policies that favor the growth of economic inequality, this may exacerbate a vicious cycle of stratification.
Click to expand...

D. Trump is an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
AOC’s district sees 70% crime surge — more than double NYC average: ‘She doesn’t care’
Replies
8
Views
400
YDB95
YDB95
DeluxAuto
Romney charges ‘a very large portion of’ the GOP ‘doesn’t believe in the Constitution’
Replies
19
Views
881
LLCox
LLCox
SugarDaddy1
Bernie says the GOP has a good shot at winning the House, and potentially the Senate
Replies
3
Views
253
ll74
ll74
Wrong Element
Rating the Presidents 1-42
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
pecksniff
P
TalkRadio_
Sanders says he'd consider releasing Supreme Court shortlist
Replies
5
Views
374
bestone4ever
bestone4ever
Back
Top