Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders 2020 HQ!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NCCommish said:

I remain resolute . And I will endeavor to persevere.

 

1 hour ago, Gr00vus said:

If it's any consolation, I think I've moved out of the hold my nose and vote for HRC camp and into the Jill Stein camp (assuming Sanders doesn't make the ballot).

 

29 minutes ago, KiddLattimer said:

I don't have time to post much in this thread but I'm with you and I know quite a few people who are as well

:hifive:  all around GBs.....I sense the movement strengthening!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, cstu said:

How can you knock the strategy of nominating a moderate he knew would never get confirmed?  It was a bold move to make Republicans look bad. Obama can withdraw Garland's nomination just before the election to allow Hillary to nominate a liberal. 

Not speaking for NCC, but I'm pretty sick of "strategies" being played as if we are some big ####ing game to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Not speaking for NCC, but I'm pretty sick of "strategies" being played as if we are some big ####ing game to them.

Obama gave Republicans the option to confirm a moderate to the Supreme Court.  Not his fault if he knew that Republicans were going to act like children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I think fine I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary I hear her shrieking on like nails on a chalk board. Can't do it. She is just vile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Neofight said:

It's not. When you don't persuade that's on you, and Clinton wasn't persuasive.

Votes aren't obligatory, or promised to a certain candidate (unless you're talking about expectations by the establishment re. super delegates).

Stop acting like its his responsibility to vote one way or the other. It's not. 

At no point have I claimed its his responsibility to vote one way or the other.  I've said however he votes, and however that effects the election, is his responsibility.  You don't get to pawn off the responsibility of your actions (voting) on someone else.  You pull the lever/press the button.  You make a choice.  You're responsible for that choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

At no point have I claimed its his responsibility to vote one way or the other.  I've said however he votes, and however that effects the election, is his responsibility.  You don't get to pawn off the responsibility of your actions (voting) on someone else.  You pull the lever/press the button.  You make a choice.  You're responsible for that choice.

Are you even trying to make a point? It really doesn't seem like you've much to say here.

he is going to vote how he sees fit. Where's your issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neofight said:

Are you even trying to make a point? It really doesn't seem like you've much to say here.

he is going to vote how he sees fit. Where's your issue?

Claiming someone else would be responsible for how he votes.  I've been abundantly clear on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NCCommish said:

Sorry you lost this card when Mr 11 dimensional chess put up Garrick. He's no liberal. He has no track record on choice. And he has been quoted supporting opening up the coffers even more than Citizens already has. Plus he was recommended by the GOP. Try again.

LOL.  The Supreme Ct nominee currently being held up in historic fashion by the GOP is "recommended by the GOP" in your world? 

This is getting almost tea partyish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

Claiming someone else would be responsible for how he votes.  I've been abundantly clear on this.

You've really made no sense on this. But ok, I suppose there's a point here somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cstu said:

How can you knock the strategy of nominating a moderate he knew would never get confirmed?  It was a bold move to make Republicans look bad. Obama can withdraw Garland's nomination just before the election to allow Hillary to nominate a liberal. 

This is probably not what happened, given the assumptions involved. Garland was on Obama's short list for both the Sotomayor and Kagen nominations. 

So, are we to assume that Obama was again playing multiple chess moves ahead  of the Republicans, assume he knew they would withhold consent on the nominee and further assume that Obama somehow could predict a future, not yet revealed to us, that Hillary Clinton will be our next President?

Or can we admit that the current President is simply doing his job, and the Rebublicans in Congress refuse to do theirs?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

LOL.  The Supreme Ct nominee currently being held up in historic fashion by the GOP is "recommended by the GOP" in your world? 

This is getting almost tea partyish.

Merrick Garland has been recommended to the Supreme Court by name by no less than Orrin Hatch at least three times prior to his being appointed by Obama.  And Hatch isn't the only one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Neofight said:

This is probably not what happened, given the assumptions involved. Garland was on Obama's short list for both the Sotomayor and Kagen nominations. 

So, are we to assume that Obama was again playing multiple chess moves ahead  of the Republicans, assume he knew they would withhold consent on the nominee and further assume that Obama somehow could predict a future, not yet revealed to us, that Hillary Clinton will be our next President?

Or can we admit that the current President is simply doing his job, and the Rebublicans in Congress refuse to do theirs?

Garland may have been on his short list back then, but I don't believe he's his #1 choice right now.  Republicans were already stating they wouldn't confirm a Justice before the election so Obama called their bluff with someone they have already confirmed on the lower court (as well as one highly recommended by Grassley).

As far as telling the future about Hillary - her losing would be the biggest fumble in the history of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cstu said:

Garland may have been on his short list back then, but I don't believe he's his #1 choice right now.  Republicans were already stating they wouldn't confirm a Justice before the election so Obama called their bluff with someone they have already confirmed on the lower court (as well as one highly recommended by Grassley).

As far as telling the future about Hillary - her losing would be the biggest fumble in the history of politics.

I actually think Garland is a solid choice, and could well be Obama's top choice. We have no evidence that he is not.

I wouldn't want to put that much pressure on Hillary. She's got enough on her plate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try to stay clear of the political threads where I am not likely to vote for the candidate but I just want to applaud Sanders again. He has made me realize I cannot vote for Hilary. I love how he keeps winning despite Clinton being declared the winner months ago. 

I've never seen this before so rather than pick him apart on policy, would prefer to keep cheering him on. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Neofight said:

I actually think Garland is a solid choice, and could well be Obama's top choice. We have no evidence that he is not.

I wouldn't want to put that much pressure on Hillary. She's got enough on her plate. 

His top choice wouldn't be nearly that old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

I try to stay clear of the political threads where I am not likely to vote for the candidate but I just want to applaud Sanders again. He has made me realize I cannot vote for Hilary. I love how he keeps winning despite Clinton being declared the winner months ago. 

I've never seen this before so rather than pick him apart on policy, would prefer to keep cheering him on. 

Winning how?  I'd love to try to understand your mindset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dparker713 said:

Winning how?  I'd love to try to understand your mindset. 

Say what?

Didn't Sanders win a state last week and hasn't he been winning states even as Hilary was declared the nominee?

Trump hasn't lost a state of significance to my knowledge since Cruz left the race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Say what?

Didn't Sanders win a state last week and hasn't he been winning states even as Hilary was declared the nominee?

Trump hasn't lost a state of significance to my knowledge since Cruz left the race. 

You mean Trump hasn't lost a state since he's been unopposed?  Shocking.

Hillary's won a primary (that was entirely meaningless) tonight.  Her delegate lead remains consistent.  She might lose some contests here and there, but taking a random state here and there is hardly winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless dp,

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ministry of Pain said:

Regardless dp,

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!! I APPLAUD BERNIE SANDERS FOR CONTINUING TO FIGHT!!!

Sanders supporters - this is your kin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Neofight said:

You've really made no sense on this. But ok, I suppose there's a point here somewhere.

The point is, you'll make your choice.  You'll have to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

You mean Trump hasn't lost a state since he's been unopposed?  Shocking.

Hillary's won a primary (that was entirely meaningless) tonight.  Her delegate lead remains consistent.  She might lose some contests here and there, but taking a random state here and there is hardly winning.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Merrick Garland has been recommended to the Supreme Court by name by no less than Orrin Hatch at least three times prior to his being appointed by Obama.  And Hatch isn't the only one. 

Let's not quibble over the details...they just get in the way at the poor :pokey: attempts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dparker713 said:

Sanders supporters - this is your kin.

Oh, stop.  You can't use MOP as an example of a particular type of human being.  He's a precious snowflake.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
7 hours ago, dparker713 said:

Sanders supporters - this is your kin.

Oh, stop.  You can't use MOP as an example of a particular type of human being.  He's a precious snowflake.

yeah...not sure he wants to go down that path :lol: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cstu said:

How can you knock the strategy of nominating a moderate he knew would never get confirmed?  It was a bold move to make Republicans look bad. Obama can withdraw Garland's nomination just before the election to allow Hillary to nominate a liberal. 

Not to get off the subject, but I don't see any way Obama pulls back the nomination. And I also think Hillary will back up Obama and maintain Garland is the nominee congress should consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, now he noticed me. I'll say something stupid accidentally and I'll end up sleeping with the (Swedish) fishes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Merrick Garland has been recommended to the Supreme Court by name by no less than Orrin Hatch at least three times prior to his being appointed by Obama.  And Hatch isn't the only one. 

Sure.  And we can go back to Obama's first term when Republicans were saying nice things about Hillary Clinton in order to stoke fear about Obama.  Those soundbites hardly make Clinton a candidate endorsed by the GOP, just as soundbites from Hatch and a couple others about Garland from years ago make him a Supreme Ct nominee endorsed by the GOP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

Not to get off the subject, but I don't see any way Obama pulls back the nomination. And I also think Hillary will back up Obama and maintain Garland is the nominee congress should consider.

Where is she going to stand on GTMO? Obama sending all those "Bad Guys" back to the ME, she is going to have to answer for that on the campaign trail. Trump is going to beat her to death with this and the Benghazi stuff. I don't agree with it all necessarily, just projecting what i think might/will happen. Obama waited and waited before pulling rank until he was in his last year and there's a reason for that. 

I think if he closed GTMO in '09, '10, '11...he tries every year but I think that would have possibly been his death nail for a 2nd term but since he is leaving office and he wants to fulfill this promise from back in 2007, almost 10 years ago.

So now Hilary gets to feel the push back from this. Sanders had nothing to do with and would be able to avoid an Obama backlash which I think in the end is going to upend Clinton's bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Sure.  And we can go back to Obama's first term when Republicans were saying nice things about Hillary Clinton in order to stoke fear about Obama.  Those soundbites hardly make Clinton a candidate endorsed by the GOP, just as soundbites from Hatch and a couple others about Garland from years ago make him a Supreme Ct nominee endorsed by the GOP.

The most recent time was when Scalia died and the Republicans said they wouldn't confirm anyone. Hatch said Obama could take this opportunity to nominate a great jurist like Merrick Garland, but he was confident Obama wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantagrapher said:

Not to get off the subject, but I don't see any way Obama pulls back the nomination. And I also think Hillary will back up Obama and maintain Garland is the nominee congress should consider.

What happens in the case where a President leaves office with a nomination on the docket?  Does the Senate have to reject it if it's not pulled off by the nominator?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
17 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Sure.  And we can go back to Obama's first term when Republicans were saying nice things about Hillary Clinton in order to stoke fear about Obama.  Those soundbites hardly make Clinton a candidate endorsed by the GOP, just as soundbites from Hatch and a couple others about Garland from years ago make him a Supreme Ct nominee endorsed by the GOP.

The most recent time was when Scalia died and the Republicans said they wouldn't confirm anyone. Hatch said Obama could take this opportunity to nominate a great jurist like Merrick Garland, but he was confident Obama wouldn't.

:goodposting: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What happens in the case where a President leaves office with a nomination on the docket?  Does the Senate have to reject it if it's not pulled off by the nominator?  

I guess we'll find out. Obama believes—rightly—that he's made a legitimate nomination and the process must follow. I think Hillary will back him up on that. I said this a while ago—it will be interesting to see what the GOP does in that situation. After all that obstructing, they'll be forced to either start the confirmation process or continue to insist it's not a legitimate nomination. And how long can they keep that up?

Edited by pantagrapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:
30 minutes ago, The Commish said:

What happens in the case where a President leaves office with a nomination on the docket?  Does the Senate have to reject it if it's not pulled off by the nominator?  

I guess we'll find out. Obama believes—rightly—that he's made a legitimate nomination and the process must follow. I think Hillary will back him up on that. I said this a while ago—it will be interesting to see what the GOP does in that situation. After all that obstructing, they'll be forced to either start the confirmation process or continue to insist it's not a legitimate nomination. And how long can they keep that up?

GOP just looks dumb here.  They should be jumping at this nomination and if I am being honest, I see more nominations similar to this guy coming out of Hillary before I see some left wing progressives as some have suggested.  I guess we'll see.  It appears that the short staffed court is already impacting decisions.  Some cases have been thrown back to lower courts and others have been delayed because they can't come to a conclusion with the 8.  Should be interesting going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAN BERNARDINO 

Bernie Sanders, responding to Gov. Jerry Brown’s concern about a “scorched earth” primary hurting Hillary Clinton, said Tuesday he has avoided hitting the likely Democratic nominee on “major, major areas” – and then proceeded to list them.

“I’ve been asked 5 million times about the emails, and I haven’t said anything,” Sanders said in a brief interview before a rally here. “I’ve been asked about the Clinton Foundation, didn’t say anything. Bill Clinton’s personal life? Never said a word.

“So I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that I am running a scorched earth policy.”


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article79707657.html#storylink=cpy

 

:lol:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said many times, if they believe Bernie has gone scorched earth on Hillary, I'm not sure they know what the term means.  Same goes with the Benghazi thing.  That apparently was a feat so large, only one person could do it.  It's quite the narrative they have going in Hillary World.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Help me fill out my ***Official 2016 Democratic Election Survey****

 

The Republican Threat

What elements of Republican Agenda are most dangerous to America's future? Pick up to 3:

  1. Dismantling ACA
  2. Restricting women's reproductive rights
  3. Reversing marriage equality and other LGBT civil rights
  4. Gutting Medicare/SS
  5. Packing the SC with far right ideologues
  6. Obstructing comprehensive immigration reform
  7. Denying the existence of climate change
  8. Refusing to handle international affairs diplomatically

 

Which aspect of Trump's (and Cruz's) campaign do you find most disturbing (pick one):

  1. Uncivilized campaign rhetoric
  2. Reckless foreign policy
  3. Promise to block immigration reform
  4. all-out attack on women's reproductive freedom
  5. Inability to work across the aisle for commonsense solutions
  6. Belief that LGBT are 2nd class citizens
  7. Pledge to repeal ACA
  8. Vow to appoint only the most conservative justices to the SC

 

Which of the following outcomes would be most catastrophic for our nation?  (Choose 1)

  1. Republican winning the White House
  2. GOP tightening its stranglehold on Congress
  3. Increased Republican control of state and local governments

 

Which group of GOP backers do you think will have the biggest impact on election (choose 1)

  1. Right-wing Billionaires - Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson
  2. Ruthless political operatives - Karl Rove
  3. Extreme Far right organizations - Tea Party, Club for Growth
  4. Conservative media outlets - no examples given

 

Democratic Election Priorities 

Rank in order of importance:

  • Comprehensive immigration reform
  • Closing gender pay gap, providing access to healthcare for women
  • Protecting SS
  • Combat (interesting word choice) gun violence
  • Raising minimum wage
  • Leveling playing field for Middle-Class 
  • Protecting the environment
  • Reforming Criminal Justice system
  • Providing every American with access to a world-class education
  • Expanding voter rights
  • Keeping our country safe
  • Maintaining our international relationships

 

Which of the Democratic actions to level the playing field do you support?

  1. Closing tax loopholes for corporations
  2. Ensuring wealthy pay their share of taxes
  3. Ensure access to retirement security and affordable education and healthcare
  4. Breaking up the banks

 

***

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

Oh, stop.  You can't use MOP as an example of a particular type of human being.  He's a precious snowflake.

Fair, it was a cheap shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What elements of Republican Agenda are most dangerous to America's future? Pick up to 3:

  1. Dismantling ACA
  2. Restricting women's reproductive rights
  3. Reversing marriage equality and other LGBT civil rights
  4. Gutting Medicare/SS
  5. Packing the SC with far right ideologues
  6. Obstructing comprehensive immigration reform
  7. Denying the existence of climate change
  8. Refusing to handle international affairs diplomatically

Only 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this was from the DNC (DWS specifically, and presumably with the blessing of HRC)

Nothing on Citizens United, campaign finance reform

Nothing on Single-Payer healthcare reform

Vague reference to raising minimum wage, no mention of $15

Vague reference to "access to world-class education"  no mention on reduced tuition, or even income-based tuition assistance

Breaking up banks made it - but not the "shadow banks" that Hillary tells us are the real problem :oldunsure:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing really on reducing dependence on petroleum-based energy

Nothing on reining in costs associated with insurance companies and pharmaceuticals

Nothing addressing International trade agreements - pro or con

Edited by Sinn Fein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.