Bernie!

[Sean Renaud]

Very little legislation is actually bad. And lets be honest. We're at a point where standard business isn't getting done. Us actually having a conversation about raising the Debt Ceiling actually had real life implication.s

 

[BotanyBoy]

Very little legislation is actually bad.

LOL I outright reject that, and will just write it off as you being dreamy dreamy in love with the corporate oligarchy we currently live under.

And lets be honest. We're at a point where standard business isn't getting done. Us actually having a conversation about raising the Debt Ceiling actually had real life implication.s

Oh kay...sure...lol

None of it really effects me so fuck it.

 

[JackLuis]

You guys will have to handle the Rethugs for a few days alone. I'm headed out tonight and will be off the grid for a few days. Much brew will be consumed and war stories swapped.

We shall see what happens in NY tomorrow. In shalla, Berniie will slay the Bitch of Wall street!

 

[BotanyBoy]

You guys will have to handle the Rethugs for a few days alone. I'm headed out tonight and will be off the grid for a few days. Much brew will be consumed and war stories swapped.

We shall see what happens in NY tomorrow. In shalla, Berniie will slay the Bitch of Wall street!

Have fun!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ditto!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Whelp today is the big day.....very exciting.

Hopefully NY solidly sets the tone for the (D)'s so we can get on with pushing progress or start lying to ourselves early that we are running a DNC approved centrist who's about as progressive as Romney just to block the lunatic the republicans are going to be running.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I hope your right. I heart is with you.

My brain however is fairly certain we can summon Rosie O'donnel and tell her to start humming a few bars. She'll be needed soon.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

BB is right about Hillary just being another toadie

Here’s the truth: since the start of this campaign, a majority of the money raised by the Clinton campaign has come from people giving the maximum amount allowable.

On our side, something happened that no one ever expected. Millions of people came together giving an average of $27 at a time to our campaign, and we actually started raising more money than the most inevitable candidate ever. Not even Wall Street could keep up!

So, as we got closer to the primaries and caucuses, the Clinton campaign had a problem – how were they going to deal with this? They responded as you’d think: they asked the richest of the rich (think Walmart’s Alice Walton) to contribute $353,400 to something called the "Hillary Victory Fund," and the majority of the money the "Fund" has spent has gone to support the Clinton campaign in the form of cash transfers, advertising, and efforts to attract new donors. Tens of millions of dollars put to use to try to defeat us in a primary.

It’s an arrangement that stretches campaign finance rules to the breaking point or beyond. But it’s what we are facing in New York tonight and in five states next week. And that’s why we have to ask:

What makes this worse, honestly, is the way the Clinton campaign has touted the "Hillary Victory Fund" as a tool to benefit the DNC and state parties.

We’ve heard it on television, in debates, and they’ve used it as a line of attack against Bernie repeatedly. But now, that turns out not to be true.

Because of reporting timelines, it wasn’t even clear until this week just how much of the money they’ve been claiming is going to elect Democrats has actually been spent trying to defeat us. And we won’t know again for another three months how much more of that money they're going to try and use to beat us in New York, five states next week, and the huge delegate haul on June 7.

This campaign has accomplished more than anyone could have ever imagined when it comes to taking on the corrupting influence of money in politics. Now it seems we have to do even more.

In solidarity,

Jeff Weaver
Campaign Manager
Bernie 2016

 

[sr71plt]

Well, since Bernie isn't really a Democrat, I can see why the Democrats would be spending money to defeat his attempt to take over the party he's given nothing to with an Easy Button.

It's fun listening to the independents cry over not being able to vote in the closed Democratic party primary in New York. It isn't a Democrats and Independents primary, it's a Democratic Party primary. They should have at least gone through the fake motion of registering as Democrats if they wanted to vote in that party's primary. The fact that they didn't shows they aren't supporting the Democratic Party at all--they are trying to steal its apparatus rather than creating one of their own.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, since Bernie isn't really a Democrat, I can see why the Democrats would be spending money to defeat his attempt to take over the party he's given nothing to with an Easy Button.

It's fun listening to the independents cry over not being able to vote in the closed Democratic party primary in New York. It isn't a Democrats and Independents primary, it's a Democratic Party primary. They should have at least gone through the fake motion of registering as Democrats if they wanted to vote in that party's primary. The fact that they didn't shows they aren't supporting the Democratic Party at all--they are trying to steal its apparatus rather than creating one of their own.

Hey as long as they admit it's about partisanship and not the Presidency or the American people....rock on partisan folks!

Go ahead, wholesale disenfranchise HUGE chunks of your voting base like the GOP did, see what happens. I hope that if Sanders wins the popular vote they deny him the candidacy via super delegates.

I hope the DNC looks at the majority of their voters and tells them to go fuck themselves.

It would make my fuckin' year not to mention 10x better than Sanders actually winning.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Looks like Clinton has it so far......who would have guessed Democrats hated poor people so much with all their bitching about the 1% and shit.

Bunch of fuckin' posers.

Oh well at least I don't have to worry about voting.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Last I checked it was still to close to call. But Bernie needed to CRUSH for it to matter and he clearly isn't gonna do that.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Last I checked it was still to close to call. But Bernie needed to CRUSH for it to matter and he clearly isn't gonna do that.

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Says Democrats are favoring Wall Street by nearly 20%.

And yea....he's not going to crush it like he needed to.

Oh well so much for progress!! LOL

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'd be disappointed but we knew this was going to happen when he announced. It's not like anybody is surprised by this.

The kicker is that the Republicans are bound and determined to give us Trump. GOD WANTS A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. HE'S RIGGING THE GAME AND WE'RE PLAYING IT SAFE LIKE WE COULD LOSE INSTEAD OF GOING BALLS OUT LIKE THE OPPOSING GOALIE HAD A HEART ATTACK!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'd be disappointed but we knew this was going to happen when he announced. It's not like anybody is surprised by this.

With all the democrats working against him saying that over and over again I'm surprised he did as well as he has.

The kicker is that the Republicans are bound and determined to give us Trump. GOD WANTS A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE. HE'S RIGGING THE GAME AND WE'RE PLAYING IT SAFE LIKE WE COULD LOSE INSTEAD OF GOING BALLS OUT LIKE THE OPPOSING GOALIE HAD A HEART ATTACK!

Nah they are going to block Trump.

We aren't playing it safe, (D)'s just aren't really left or progressives as much as they are republicans minus the bible thumping/sexism/racism.

Hillary will take office and just like Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush she's going to let corporate America fuck us as hard as they want.

There will be no change...and the only progress we will get will be gestures of giving a fuck with a 500 bazzillion dollar price tag that no one but a few too big to fail elites benefit from and we will be forced to pay.....just more of the same old shit.

 

[sr71plt]

Guess I won't be needing to check this thread anymore to see the latest of BB's pathetic rationalizations on the Democratic campaign. The aheader Sanders goes the behind he gets no matter what gauge you want to use--primary delegates, primary delegates plus super delegates (note: Obama required dipping into the super delegates to win the nomination in 2008), or just straight votes (Hillary distanced Sanders by an additional 250,000 individual votes in NY--and took over twice Trump's raw vote).

 

[Sean Renaud]

Guess I won't be needing to check this thread anymore to see the latest of BB's pathetic rationalizations on the Democratic campaign. The aheader Sanders goes the behind he gets no matter what gauge you want to use--primary delegates, primary delegates plus super delegates (note: Obama required dipping into the super delegates to win the nomination in 2008), or just straight votes (Hillary distanced Sanders by an additional 250,000 individual votes in NY--and took over twice Trump's raw vote).

In fairness that last thing you measure has more to do with Democrats vs Republicans in raw numbers than Hillary Support. I'll check again (in the morning if I remember) but last time I checked Bernie Sanders had more votes than the Republicans. Not more than Trump. Sanders>Trump+Kasich+Cruz. You're not wrong but still.

 

[SexyAlison]

Bernie Gutman is done

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The scary parallels to 1980 continue....unpopular Democratic front-runner losing ground even she (he in Carter's case) wins primaries, moves closer to nomination, but with a popular, insurgent Senator (Kennedy, Sanders) challenging every step of the way. Except that Clinton isn't an incumbent President and the country is doing well enough that the GOP has to rile up anger over social issues, because people are better off than they were when Obama took office, by and large, unlike with Carter (not really Carter's fault, but people blamed him back then).

Meanwhile, controversial, insurgent Republican front-runner (Reagan/Trump) surges ahead, despite strong, more orthodox choices such as Cruz/Bush, using insurgent tactics. People were sure that Reagan was hopeless in November, that he would wreck the country, endanger treaties, alliances, etc.

Differences?

The economy is doing better than it was back then, though many Americans aren't feeling it yet.

Cruz is as wild and crazy as Trump in his own way. He just uses more orthodox tactics for his insurgent message. Bush 41 was actually the last half-way moderate/centrist Republican President in living memory. He signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, compromised with a Democratic Congress on taxes and budgets, pushed the "Thousand Points of Light", and appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court.

Clinton is the first female major presidential candidate (Bachmann was a joke), and if she gets the nod, as seems likely, she'll kick Trump's ass in November. We all know that. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

My free advice to the GOP....confirm Garland now. Your alternative is a far more liberal Justice come January, nominated by either President Clinton or President Sanders.

By the way, I'm not happy about Garland's anti-gun record, either, but odds are that there is largely a consensus about Heller and the more recent decisions that upheld an assault weapons ban. Most likely, the Court will continue to view restrictions on "assault weapons," a false category that doesn't exist and accounts for a distinct minority of all gun crimes, as constitutional, while considering handgun bans as unconstitutional. It's just how it is.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Guess I won't be needing to check this thread anymore to see the latest of BB's pathetic rationalizations on the Democratic campaign. The aheader Sanders goes the behind he gets no matter what gauge you want to use--primary delegates, primary delegates plus super delegates (note: Obama required dipping into the super delegates to win the nomination in 2008), or just straight votes (Hillary distanced Sanders by an additional 250,000 individual votes in NY--and took over twice Trump's raw vote).

That's right SR, you and the rest of the 1%'ers are going to get to fuck America up the ass for another 4 years....congratulations! You're practically republicans!

I hope you're proud.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

The economy is doing better than it was back then, though many Americans aren't feeling it yet.

Nor are they likely to feel it. The economic statistics released by the government have been a joke for years. A hefty percentage of unemployed people are ignored by the statisticians, and most of what is considered "economic growth" is simply parasitic blood-sucking by speculators, subsidized by the taxpayer and the Fed.

Clinton may become president, in which case the the country will probably be worse off than under a Republican, since the Dems will meekly support her neo-con wars and lap-dancing for the speculators.

Does anyone have any good suggestions for a third party to vote for? Preferably one that doesn't have terrible Green or Libertarian tendencies? I'm looking for the lost Democratic Party that I worked for back in the 60s.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, both Hillary and the GOP are gonna fuck us Americans in the ass for the next four years.

The only difference is that Hillary offers us lube first. I'll vote for the lube, but that's just me.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The economy is doing better than it was back then, though many Americans aren't feeling it yet.

Like Always said they likely never will .

The only part of the economy doing better is the upper crust.

Good news is MORE OF THE SAME!! Hillary crushed NY and it's over.

Nor are they likely to feel it.

I'm looking for the lost Democratic Party that I worked for back in the 60s.

It's gone, democrats proved today that they are the party of the elite and fucking loathe the working class in this country.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The scary parallels to 1980 continue....unpopular Democratic front-runner losing ground even she (he in Carter's case) wins primaries, moves closer to nomination, but with a popular, insurgent Senator (Kennedy, Sanders) challenging every step of the way. Except that Clinton isn't an incumbent President and the country is doing well enough that the GOP has to rile up anger over social issues, because people are better off than they were when Obama took office, by and large, unlike with Carter (not really Carter's fault, but people blamed him back then).

Meanwhile, controversial, insurgent Republican front-runner (Reagan/Trump) surges ahead, despite strong, more orthodox choices such as Cruz/Bush, using insurgent tactics. People were sure that Reagan was hopeless in November, that he would wreck the country, endanger treaties, alliances, etc.

Differences?

The economy is doing better than it was back then, though many Americans aren't feeling it yet.

Cruz is as wild and crazy as Trump in his own way. He just uses more orthodox tactics for his insurgent message. Bush 41 was actually the last half-way moderate/centrist Republican President in living memory. He signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, compromised with a Democratic Congress on taxes and budgets, pushed the "Thousand Points of Light", and appointed David Souter to the Supreme Court.

Clinton is the first female major presidential candidate (Bachmann was a joke), and if she gets the nod, as seems likely, she'll kick Trump's ass in November. We all know that. Let's not kid ourselves.

Hillary is not the first female major presidential candidate. That was Sen. Margaret Smith (R - ME) and the second was Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm. The latter was a major candidate, who entered primary elections all over the country and the former was more of a favorite daughter.