What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (3 Viewers)

The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
oh God.....you can't be serious can you?? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Dead serious.

Hey like every other lie that's being told about Hillary, show some proof. But you guys never need to see it.

 
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
squistion said:
Slapdash said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Breaking: Hillary Unloads On Bernie
Click to expand...
- Deleted from Daily Kos.
Click to expand...
She is such a scumbag.
Click to expand...
This was a Hillary trashing diary that was deleted from Daily Kos for good reason. Seemed like something out of FreeRepublic, with wild accusations and speculation backed without a shred of proof. Not really surprised that Saints would post it, though.
Click to expand...
I said it was deleted, and the deletion shows the political leanings of the editors/mods there, as opposed to the readers.
Click to expand...
Saying it was deleted doesn't turn irresponsible journalism that Breitbart wouldn't even touch into something valid. And, as indicated by comments like these, not exactly in tune with the political leanings of the Kos readers either:"I read the link

your title is full of ####e. I love Bernie. I don't hold anyone to thoughts decades old when they have evolved.

Where the #### is the link the HRC?

HR'd for bull####e bull####e."

X

"Are you really this ####### stupid/obtuse?

Did it never occur to you that the national press will be looking through everything Bernie has ever written now that he's running for president... just like they do with every single candidate?

I suppose you also missed this, from the linked article that you clearly never bothered to read."

"The essay originally appeared in the Vermont Freeman alternative newspaper, according to Mother Jones, which featured the piece this week in a profile of Sanders."
Click to expand...
ho has the money to find this paper?

Oppo research costs money. Who benefits?
Click to expand...
So, no oppo could have sent to Mother Jones?

Think! No Dem campaign is going throw stones out in the open right now!
Click to expand...
Etc., there was enough of a debate going, and it was going. I'm sure this would have been a more viewed diary if given time to grow.

I don't want to have a Kos-off. You're talking about a campaign that is illegally coordinating with a Super-Pac run by David Brock and which has Sidney Blumenthal in its sidecar. this is the attack business and political consulting industry tail wagging the political campaign dog.

I mentioned above the source as Mother Jones, you could look at that discuss what is MJ doing with these two reports about Sanders' early history focusing on sexual issues.
Click to expand...
More lies. Hillary's campaign is not illegally coordinating with David Brock. I don't feel like digging up the links (because you don't care about the truth anyway) but what Brock is doing is completely legal, and allowed under the current law as it doesn't cover internet advertising (which is what he is going to be doing for Hillary).
Click to expand...
That's Hilary's interpretation of the law, it is not widely shared.
 
Ok Squizz, but they are coordinating nonetheless. I fully believe Tim Murphy at MJ is very capable of finding this piece, and note it is part of a two story series on Sanders' early political career focusing on similar things (as though that was all he wrote and ran on), but it was the first piece mentioned, kicked off the reports, and I think we know Brock and Blumenthal are capable of just this sort of thing, finding and getting oppo research dirt into the press. Nope, no proof they did this, you're right.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
squistion said:
More lies. Hillary's campaign is not illegally coordinating with David Brock. I don't feel like digging up the links (because you don't care about the truth anyway) but what Brock is doing is completely legal, and allowed under the current law as it doesn't cover internet advertising (which is what he is going to be doing for Hillary).
Click to expand...
That's Hilary's interpretation of the law, it is not widely shared.
Click to expand...
OK, but if that is true, that this internet exemption doesn't cover what Brock will be doing, then someone has the grounds for a good lawsuit to get an injunction to stop Brock. No?

But no one is even talking about going there because it appears to a valid interpretation of this law that would probably withstand a legal challenge. Also I am guessing that people on the other side like the Koch brothers probably plan to use this exemption to support candidates of their choice, which is why the people who keep screaming this is illegal probably won't actually do anything about it, as it may ultimately hurt the GOP more than Hillary.

 
squistion said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
squistion said:
More lies. Hillary's campaign is not illegally coordinating with David Brock. I don't feel like digging up the links (because you don't care about the truth anyway) but what Brock is doing is completely legal, and allowed under the current law as it doesn't cover internet advertising (which is what he is going to be doing for Hillary).
Click to expand...
That's Hilary's interpretation of the law, it is not widely shared.
Click to expand...
OK, but if that is true, that this internet exemption doesn't cover what Brock will be doing, then someone has the grounds for a good lawsuit to get an injunction to stop Brock. No?But no one is even talking about going there because it appears to a valid interpretation of this law that would probably withstand a legal challenge. Also I am guessing that people on the other side like the Koch brothers probably plan to use this exemption to support candidates of their choice, which is why the people who keep screaming this is illegal probably won't actually do anything about it, as it may ultimately hurt the GOP more than Hillary.
Click to expand...
No, that's not really how it works.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or

National Review are worried about this essay, then

I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of

a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious,

rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only

to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/hillary_clintons_latest_hard_choice_how_will_she_solve_her_bernie_sanders_problem/

 
Rove! said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
Why would Nixon be afraid of McGovern?
Click to expand...
For that matter, why would Team Clinton be afraid enough of Bob freaking Dole to take money from China?

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or

National Review are worried about this essay, then

I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of

a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious,

rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only

to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/29/hillary_clintons_latest_hard_choice_how_will_she_solve_her_bernie_sanders_problem/
Click to expand...
Their big worry, apparently, is that Sanders’ stalwart liberalism will “make [Clinton] look like a centrist or corporatist.”
Click to expand...
No....Clinton's positions make her look centerist or corporatist because that's what she is. Has nothing to do with Bernie. However, Bernie does provide an example of what an actual "liberal" looks like. This has been pounded to death here, but Tim and squishy are adamant that she's more liberal than ever. Maybe they should be running her campaign instead of the chicken littles in the campaign afraid of her not looking liberal enough. These yahoos she has now obviously don't know what they're talking about.

ETA: Anyone want to wager several of her "positions" change in the next week or two?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
oh God.....you can't be serious can you?? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Dead serious.

Hey like every other lie that's being told about Hillary, show some proof. But you guys never need to see it.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Ok, so there's one person who believes this. Hell, this isn't even a big issue. It's politics and still you can't bring yourself to consider it a pretty great possibility. Who'd be first in line, in your mind, to go digging for stuff like this against Bernie? This should be good :popcorn:

 
Bernie Sanders: So hot right nowDo you feel the Bernie-mentum?

Yes, of course, I am talking about the presidential candidacy of Vermont independent/socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, which he made official this week on the shores of Lake Champlain.

And, no, I am not being entirely tongue-in-cheek. The truth of the matter is that Sanders has rather quickly emerged as the leading rival -- and liberal alternative -- to the juggernaut candidacy of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Witness new polling this week from Quinnipiac University on the Democratic field; Clinton leads the way with 57 percent followed by Sanders at 15, Joe Biden at 9 and Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee all at 1 percent. Sanders's growth from the last poll is even more eye-opening; he was at only 8 percent in an April Q poll and at just 4 percent in a March one.

Fifteen percent, of course, is still 42 points behind Clinton. Which means that Sanders remains a non-threat to seriously challenge the frontrunner for the nomination at this point. What Sanders has proven over the last month or so, however, is that O'Malley, Webb and Chafee will all have to go through him if they want to be the alternative -- liberal or otherwise -- to Clinton in the race. That status is a genuine accomplishment for Sanders and his campaign team.

Below are the latest rankings of the five people with the best chance of winning the Democratic nomination next year. The No. 1 ranked candidate -- HINT: It's Clinton -- is the favorite.

5. Vice President Biden: If Biden wanted to challenge Hillary, he'd already have done it. It's simply too late for the vice president to get in now as the vast majority of establishment support he would try to line up is already unified behind Clinton. And he didn't have much of a chance anyway. (Previous ranking: 3)

4. Jim Webb/Lincoln Chafee: Webb, the former Virginia senator, and Chafee, the former Rhode Island senator and governor, are not alike in almost any way -- including ideologically. (Chafee is more liberal than Webb.) But, they share a spot in our rankings because they are both likely to run for president and both likely to barely register in any polling while doing so. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. Martin O'Malley: The former Maryland governor is, as expected, going to run -- with an announcement set for Saturday in Baltimore. He has the right profile to be a liberal alternative to Clinton -- he spent his second term as governor building that resume -- but Sanders has aced him out, at least at the moment, for that spot. Still, O'Malley will likely have an infrastructure in early states that Sanders will struggle to match, so could well make up that lost ground. Also, he plays the guitar. (Previous ranking: 2)

2. Bernie Sanders: It's been a terrific last month for Sanders. Does he have a second act? Does he need one? (Previous ranking: 4)

1. Hillary Clinton: The focus continues to be on the Clinton Foundation, her private e-mail server and her lack of press access. But Clinton and her team seem comfortable largely ignoring all of that as so much noise and continue to execute her low-profile (or as low-profile as she can be) visits to early states. Even for all of the bad headlines, Clinton remains the biggest non-incumbent frontrunner in modern presidential history. (Previous ranking: 1)
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/29/bernie-sanders-is-so-hot-right-now/

I think the very sad news on Beau Biden puts a different light on the mystery of Joe staying out the race and really having no blips on that front for so long.

 
Speech just ended, good, big loud crowd compared to some of the relatively quiet speeches I've heard in Iowa the last couple of days. Haven't been able to confirm, but I've heard the venue (double-wide basketball gym + stage in a community center, they originally had it planned for a meeting room in an SEIU office) had capacity of 1900 + lots of overflow outside.

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
oh God.....you can't be serious can you?? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Dead serious.Hey like every other lie that's being told about Hillary, show some proof. But you guys never need to see it.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Ok, so there's one person who believes this. Hell, this isn't even a big issue. It's politics and still you can't bring yourself to consider it a pretty great possibility. Who'd be first in line, in your mind, to go digging for stuff like this against Bernie? This should be good :popcorn:
Click to expand...
First in line would be a reporter looking for notoriety. If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be suspicious of O' Malley way more than Clinton. The main competition here is between Sanders and O'Malley to be THE idealist progressive candidate in this race, not to beat Hillary (neither will come close to winning a single contest) but in order to write books, have speaking tours, give TV interviews afterwards. It's very lucrative to be THAT guy. Right now Sanders is beating O Malley hands down.

 
I love Bernie has tons of support here and Tim still pretends Hillary is unbeatable. We have seen how this story ends before. And people hate Hillary a lot more this time around.

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
mcintyre1 said:
If neither Jezebel or National Review are worried about this essay, then I'm not too concerned. Does remind of the playbook for nullifying Ron Paul, though.

I tend to agree with Jezebel's take on it: that of a terrible stream of consciousness essay on feminism and how the (necessary) shaking off of traditional gender roles by women may foster sexual resentment. It's pretty pretentious, rambling, and more than a bit confusing (something I wouldn't absolve Sanders of entirely today, even), but I'll be surprised if it sinks him unless his opponents are able to keep talk only to those first three lines of the essay and not the following lines of talk on the importance of feminism.

EDIT: I'll also add that there's no way in my mind this wasn't Hillary's people digging it up. The right has no reason to attack him yet.
Click to expand...
Genuine question....is anyone suggesting it WASN'T Hillary's people? To me, it was funny they went all the way back to the 70s. Should be clear to anyone what the motive of the "researchers" was.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I would be extremely surprised if Hillary's people had anything to do with this. Why should she be scared of Bernie Sanders?
Click to expand...
oh God.....you can't be serious can you?? :lmao:
Click to expand...
Dead serious.Hey like every other lie that's being told about Hillary, show some proof. But you guys never need to see it.
Click to expand...
:lmao: Ok, so there's one person who believes this. Hell, this isn't even a big issue. It's politics and still you can't bring yourself to consider it a pretty great possibility. Who'd be first in line, in your mind, to go digging for stuff like this against Bernie? This should be good :popcorn:
Click to expand...
First in line would be a reporter looking for notoriety.If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be suspicious of O' Malley way more than Clinton. The main competition here is between Sanders and O'Malley to be THE idealist progressive candidate in this race, not to beat Hillary (neither will come close to winning a single contest) but in order to write books, have speaking tours, give TV interviews afterwards. It's very lucrative to be THAT guy. Right now Sanders is beating O Malley hands down.
Click to expand...
So awesome :lmao:

Now, if you could take your Hillary slobbering back to one of your other 50 threads on her, we'd appreciate it.....tia

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know much about Senator Sanders but I'm not voting for someone named Bernie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NetnautX said:
MaxThreshold said:
NCCommish said:
Chadstroma said:
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.
Click to expand...
Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.
Click to expand...
To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.
Click to expand...
Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering? :lmao:

WTF? You guys invented it.

And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.
Click to expand...
The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 17441814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians usually use "Republican Party."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The republicans started in 1854 in wisconsin or michigan

 
quickhands said:
NetnautX said:
MaxThreshold said:
NCCommish said:
Chadstroma said:
NCCommish said:
timschochet said:
He won't make it tough on Hillary, he'll make it easy on her. Hillary likes Bernie, and Beenie likes Hillary. This will be s very congenial campaign. They will disagree on a few issues but you won't hear them attack each other. There won't be any "dirty tricks" against Bernie. And sorry NC, there won't be any anti-Hillary money going to Bernie because there is no anti-Hillary money.

Sanders is running to discuss ideas that are important to him and more power to him. It's good for Hillary because it allows her to delineate her own thinking to the American people, and it allows the press to have the pretense of a contest within the Democratic Party. But when it comes to the caucuses and primaries, forget it. Hillary will win every last one of them without any real contest.
Click to expand...
Yeah there is anti- Hillary money. This idea that everyone in the party can't wait to kiss her ring is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
It is the only reason Sanders goes from no chance to having the other team in victory formation with time running out and you need a fumble returned for a TD chance to win. Hillary is easy to not like and there are a lot of people who don't like her. Which is the reason why I think she will end up losing in the primary as long as the GOP survivor is not a complete dipstick. The steps in planning her move were well thought out- Sec of State to bolster her resume but not a partisan position. Exit to have some time off of the stage which always improves attitude and numbers and then make a run. Some details were maybe over thought like having her own emails to protect herself but the general strategy was brilliant. Is it enough to over take the easiness to not like her? Likely not enough for Sanders but in the general, I think she is going to have some real problems that some of the Democratic party don't think is going to be there when they look at polling data in the here and now.
Click to expand...
To win a republican primary you have to take lunatic.positions. You can't gerrymander your way to the presidency. The GOP can't get out of it's own way at the national level.
Click to expand...
Whoa..do we really have a dyed in the wool liberal lecturing us about gerrymandering? :lmao:

WTF? You guys invented it.

And any republican we choose can't be any worse than the disaster that is currently POTUS or your already crowned corrupt nominee Hillary.
Click to expand...
The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26 March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 17441814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

The term Democratic-Republican Party is the name used primarily by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as it called itself at the time), also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans. Historians usually use "Republican Party."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The republicans started in 1854 in wisconsin or michigan
Click to expand...
Aren't the republicans from way back then really democrats?
 
Bernie Sanders poll numbers will NEVER go above 25% during the Democratic primary election. NEVER!

I'm NEVER wrong about these things.

 
Bernie gaining ground in Iowa

According to the New York Times, the hard-charging populist from Vermont can already claim a noteworthy achievement. Last week, he attracted a crowd of 700 people in Davenport, Iowa, in what the New York Times notes is the "the largest rally in the state for any single candidate this campaign season, and far more than the 50 people who attended a rally there on Saturday with former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland."


Sanders also generated other lively turnouts in the state on his first visit to Iowa since declaring his candidacy. In Ames, he drew a crowd that spilled out of a brewery, and held an event in Kensett where the size of the crowd exceeded the population of the town itself, according to the New York Times.
...
Sanders still has his work cut out for him. While Clinton's campaign already has 30 paid staffers devoted to mobilizing caucus-goers in Iowa, Sanders only has two, according to the New York Times. If Sanders is to evolve into a formidable player, his organizing apparatus will have to match the size of his ambitions.
Click to expand...
 
Bernie also had an interview with Katie Couric that was pretty good. Good questions, tough questions. Wouldn't take the bait to attack Hillary.

"Are you running to, at least in some way, pull Hillary to the left?" -- "No." *long pause* "No. I'm running to win."

"Would you consider being Hillary's VP?" -- "Would she consider being mine?"

Questions about the essay/article again. Said it is something he regrets writing, but stresses that the point of the article was that traditional gender roles that require men to be dominant and women to be submissive are bad.

He also indicated he would vote against the USA FREEDOM ACT.

"You've called yourself 'the only person who didn't get high in the 60's' - why not?" -- "Because I coughed a lot."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:penalty: Hillary breaking her own party's ethical rules now of course.

(Cross-post)

‘Impartial’ DNC finance chief helps Hillary ClintonFundraising assistance in Texas flouts presidential primary neutrality rules.


In an apparent violation of party rules requiring Democratic National Committee officers to remain neutral in presidential primaries, the DNC’s finance chairman has been raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina.


“I know he’s made a few calls to raise money,” Medina said of Muñoz on Tuesday. “He’s certainly taking it upon himself to make tomorrow’s fundraiser a success.” Muñoz was also present at a Clinton campaign kickoff breakfast in San Antonio last month at which local supporters met the campaign’s national political director, Amanda Renteria, and other staff, according to Ocañas.


DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair and dogged surrogate for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, has long been viewed as on the outs with the Obama White House and closer to Clinton. A spokeswoman for the DNC declined to comment.

Muñoz’s activities could contribute to a perception that the national party is already rushing ahead to promote Clinton as the nominee and prompted swift blowback from a leading adviser to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of Clinton’s rivals for the nomination.

“All parties should follow their own rules,” said Sanders adviser Tad Devine. “It’s very important in the primary process that the DNC not take sides before the voters have made their decision.”


...
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html#ixzz3c109bshR

 
mcintyre1 said:
Bernie gaining ground in Iowa

According to the New York Times, the hard-charging populist from Vermont can already claim a noteworthy achievement. Last week, he attracted a crowd of 700 people in Davenport, Iowa, in what the New York Times notes is the "the largest rally in the state for any single candidate this campaign season, and far more than the 50 people who attended a rally there on Saturday with former Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland."


Sanders also generated other lively turnouts in the state on his first visit to Iowa since declaring his candidacy. In Ames, he drew a crowd that spilled out of a brewery, and held an event in Kensett where the size of the crowd exceeded the population of the town itself, according to the New York Times.
...
Sanders still has his work cut out for him. While Clinton's campaign already has 30 paid staffers devoted to mobilizing caucus-goers in Iowa, Sanders only has two, according to the New York Times. If Sanders is to evolve into a formidable player, his organizing apparatus will have to match the size of his ambitions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Holy cow, Sanders has two campaign staffers in all of Iowa?

I think he is doing damned well for that. He's going to cross the 20% threshhold soon and right now 38% of Iowa Democrats have Hillary as neither their 1st or 2nd choice, which leaves a lot of ground to cover.

 
AcerFC said:
I did the isidewith survey and said I was aligned with this guy 82%

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
Interesting....I came up with a similar result but at 79% and Rand Paul was second at 67%, No idea how they keep their database current for Hillary. That has to be a "by the minute" sort of job updating positions and such.

 
AcerFC said:
I did the isidewith survey and said I was aligned with this guy 82%

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
Hadn't seen that site before, interesting idea. I got 97% Bernie, 99% Green Party, 95% Dem, 94% Socialist. Hillary was my #2 candidate with 72% and Rand third with 60%.

I think Sanders has a better shot that people think he does right now, but it will be a difficult road. He's got the true grass-roots ground support to make a run.

 
mcintyre1 said:
AcerFC said:
I did the isidewith survey and said I was aligned with this guy 82%

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
Hadn't seen that site before, interesting idea. I got 97% Bernie, 99% Green Party, 95% Dem, 94% Socialist. Hillary was my #2 candidate with 72% and Rand third with 60%.

I think Sanders has a better shot that people think he does right now, but it will be a difficult road. He's got the true grass-roots ground support to make a run.
Click to expand...
Ross Perot wasn't given much of a shot but the tide turned in his favor for awhile.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
:penalty: Hillary breaking her own party's ethical rules now of course.

(Cross-post)

‘Impartial’ DNC finance chief helps Hillary ClintonFundraising assistance in Texas flouts presidential primary neutrality rules.


In an apparent violation of party rules requiring Democratic National Committee officers to remain neutral in presidential primaries, the DNC’s finance chairman has been raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina.


“I know he’s made a few calls to raise money,” Medina said of Muñoz on Tuesday. “He’s certainly taking it upon himself to make tomorrow’s fundraiser a success.” Muñoz was also present at a Clinton campaign kickoff breakfast in San Antonio last month at which local supporters met the campaign’s national political director, Amanda Renteria, and other staff, according to Ocañas.


DNC rules, designed to ensure all candidates get a fair shake in presidential primaries, state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and even-handedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a national co-chair and dogged surrogate for Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, has long been viewed as on the outs with the Obama White House and closer to Clinton. A spokeswoman for the DNC declined to comment.

Muñoz’s activities could contribute to a perception that the national party is already rushing ahead to promote Clinton as the nominee and prompted swift blowback from a leading adviser to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of Clinton’s rivals for the nomination.

“All parties should follow their own rules,” said Sanders adviser Tad Devine. “It’s very important in the primary process that the DNC not take sides before the voters have made their decision.”


...
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/impartial-dnc-finance-chief-helps-hillary-clinton-118558.html#ixzz3c109bshR
Click to expand...
Go figure. Bending the rules at every turn. I'm sure Tim will have a reason why this proves Hillary is the best candidate.

 
AcerFC said:
...

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
I will take a shot at this. Yes, he has a shot. He needs to 1. get 30%+ in IA, 2. get 40%+ in NH, 3. keep raising money like a demon (he came out the gates very well but I have no idea what the latest is), 4. take the momentum and somehow flip SC and NV (where he actually could get some serious union help). Apparently even the DNC is against him.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
AcerFC said:
...

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
I will take a shot at this. Yes, he has a shot. He needs to 1. get 30%+ in IA, 2. get 40%+ in NH, 3. keep raising money like a demon (he came out the gates very well but I have no idea what the latest is), 4. take the momentum and somehow flip SC and NV (where he actually could get some serious union help). Apparently even the DNC is against him.
Click to expand...
IMO, a better answer is "no he does not". Maybe he makes it possible for another candidate to emerge, but doubtful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mcintyre1 said:
AcerFC said:
I did the isidewith survey and said I was aligned with this guy 82%

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
Hadn't seen that site before, interesting idea. I got 97% Bernie, 99% Green Party, 95% Dem, 94% Socialist. Hillary was my #2 candidate with 72% and Rand third with 60%.

I think Sanders has a better shot that people think he does right now, but it will be a difficult road. He's got the true grass-roots ground support to make a run.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

It's hard to get %'s that skewed if you tried.

 
Fennis said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
AcerFC said:
...

Does he have any shot at winning

** I dont plan on reading the 7 pages here to find out
Click to expand...
I will take a shot at this. Yes, he has a shot. He needs to 1. get 30%+ in IA, 2. get 40%+ in NH, 3. keep raising money like a demon (he came out the gates very well but I have no idea what the latest is), 4. take the momentum and somehow flip SC and NV (where he actually could get some serious union help). Apparently even the DNC is against him.
Click to expand...
IMO, a better answer is "no he does not". Maybe he makes it possible for another candidate to emerge, but doubtful.
Click to expand...
Kicking $2,000,000,000 in the ### ain't easy.

 
Bernie's been running for office since 1970 and he has a core set of values. I think it's just a question of how direct he wants to be with Hillary.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bernie's been running for office since 1970 and he has a core set of values. I think it's just a question of how direct he wants to be with Hillary.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting question - again, dating back to my political experience with Bernie, the popular perception was that he was a very good debater, precisely because he knew exactly what he stood for on every single issue.

But the reality - at least in a small state like Vermont - was that the more people saw him debate, the more tired they got of him.

Ironically, it was precisely because of where he stood on every issue, with a strident, more moral-than-you style of answering every question, turning literally every single response into an attack on giant, multi-national corporations. People would ask him about getting federal highway funds to expand the main commuter route into downtown Burlington, and in one sentence he would have launched into a full-on diatribe about multi-national oil corporations making a fortune from poisoning the environment and not paying any taxes.

But, if you haven't heard him before, it is striking and powerful to hear such blunt, honest, and counter-cultural words coming from a U.S. Senator. Also, a presidential debate is probably a much more appropriate forum for addressing multi-national oil companies' impact on the environment than was a Vermont town forum. The difference between Hillary, who doesn't stand for anything other than her own advancement and will strive never to say a controversial word, and Bernie, who will pound on the podium to drive home his core beliefs regardless of their popularity, should make for some great theater. I think her advisors will be scared to death of putting them on stage together.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
530
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
454
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
How Hillary Clinton's Toxic "Rape Narrative" Helped To Destroy Roe Vs Wade (5/9/22 5:07 PST)
Replies
22
Views
811
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top