Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.

Recommended Posts

I've never doubted Sanders's ability to play the political game. I just doubt he'd be wise to try to punish the opposition party as one of his first acts in office.

Share this post


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

I've never doubted Sanders's ability to play the political game. I just doubt he'd be wise to try to punish the opposition party as one of his first acts in office.

He won't have to. He's asking Obama to as his last major act in office. 

 

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

 

3 hours ago, humpback said:

Lol at the author trying to say that Sweden isn't any more homogeneous than the US.  

This is what she fails to understand- people here want all kinds of "free" stuff, but they want someone else to pay for it.  The "millionaires and billionaires" and "fair share" rhetoric is pretty firmly entrenched now, but the reality is that everyone will have to pay more in taxes if we want all of these things, just like they do in the Nordic countries.  I'd imagine Bernie realizes this, but it's an impossible sell politically- look at how people freaked out over the higher taxes in his plan, even though it would have paid for their own health insurance.

I think she realizes "it" (that we want the free stuff without increased taxes), she's just trying to explain why paying for it can be satisfactory if you're getting good stuff in return. She feels like (and is apparently not the exception) she gets really good services and support in return for her higher tax payments, services and support that allow her to pursue capitalistic opportunities to the best of her skills and industry. It's a good argument but, indeed, a tough sell here. I know because I'm trying to sell it on message boards all the time.

I continue to wait for someone to explain the connection between homogeneity and successful social programs like UHC because my simple mind isn't grasping it.

I think that's a big difference though- many people here don't feel like they are getting good stuff in return.  Look at the ACA, for instance- some people are getting a great return while others are getting royally screwed.  We have a much more progressive tax system than they do, which is a big part of it IMO.

I think the argument is that it's easier to find consensus when more of your people are, well, more homogeneous.  People also tend to be more sympathetic to those who are more like themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, msommer said:

I don\t think you have actually rebutted anything I said. 

You may have rebutted something you think I said, but that's on you

You posted two links talking about immigrants and percentage of foreign born people and said "Not as homogeneous as you think".  I'm rebutting that notion- those stats don't give a good nor complete picture of homogeneity.

Edited by humpback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose this was discussed early in this thread but I was thinking today about what would have happened if Biden would have entered the race.  I'm sure Bernie is getting some anti-Hillary votes now but I think it's quite possible that Bernie would be leading (excluding super delegates) if the votes were split between the three of them.  What do you think?  At a minimum, it would have been a much more interesting race.

Share this post


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

That's a reasonable way to look at it, but I still disagree that it's appropriate.

Garland is a good nomination, and it was Obama's nomination to make. Obama would be wrong to withdraw the nomination for political gamesmanship purposes, and Bernie would be wrong to ask Obama to do so.

I think judicial nominations should be free of that sort of gamesmanship even if any particular instance of it can be framed as retaliatory or preventive or whatever. The Republicans are being lame. That doesn't mean that Democrats should sink to their level. (I realize that I'm unrealistic about this.)

Perhaps Sanders should have said "If the Senate doesn't consider Garland after eight months, Obama should consider that a rejection and withdraw the nomination." This would have the same effect and would of course still be gamesmanship, but it would at least be gamesmanship covered in a thin veneer of principle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Punishing Republicans, however much they might deserve it, is bad politics and bad for the country. 

Capitulating to obstructionist bullies over and over and over again because it feels good to take the high road is bad politics and bad for the country.  Politics is not just stating your preference on things and walking away when people don't agree with you. That's just voting.  

The Democratic Party has attempted to compromise, to barter, and to have meaningful discussions about various issues over the last several years.  If the Republicans will not accept any of those things on a major issue within a completely reasonable period of time, it's not "bad politics" or "bad for the country" to withdraw the compromise and start negotiations over from a position of strength.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ludicrous.  To allow the Republicans to place a no-cost bet isn't good for the country.  It only encourages this kind of gamesmanship.  There has to be a downside to this obstructionism.

Bernie not only gave them a downside, but he absolves Obama of responsibility for it and preserves Obama's legacy.  I think it was genius.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CBusAlex said:

Perhaps Sanders should have said "If the Senate doesn't consider Garland after eight months, Obama should consider that a rejection and withdraw the nomination." This would have the same effect and would of course still be gamesmanship, but it would at least be gamesmanship covered in a thin veneer of principle.

I think the good political move is to do nothing. Take office and tell congress Obama's nominee is still waiting. This forces the GOP to make its next move. Either they have to start the process on Obama's nominee after obstructing for a year or come up with a new reason why they can't. 

Share this post


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

This is ludicrous.  To allow the Republicans to place a no-cost bet isn't good for the country.  It only encourages this kind of gamesmanship.  There has to be a downside to this obstructionism.

Bernie not only gave them a downside, but he absolves Obama of responsibility for it and preserves Obama's legacy.  I think it was genius.

 

and provides Obama the opportunity to stick it to the group that's been obstructing him for (at that point) 8 years.  Which is just a nice thing to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the good political move is to do nothing. Take office and tell congress Obama's nominee is still waiting. This forces the GOP to make its next move. Either they have to start the process on Obama's nominee after obstructing for a year or come up with a new reason why they can't. 

Let me be the first to guarantee that if Sanders is elected president, the process on Garland will begin by the end of 2016.

 

I don't understand what you think the GOP is forced into at that point.  At that point, it will be what they want in order to avoid whatever pick Sanders would make.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Let me be the first to guarantee that if Sanders is elected president, the process on Garland will begin by the end of 2016.

Probably around November 10.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Oh, we got 'em now.  Now that Sanders has been elected, they'll have to confirm that guy Orrin Hatch spent seven years trying to get Obama to nominate or come up with another reason not to!"

Share this post


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

Let me be the first to guarantee that if Sanders is elected president, the process on Garland will begin by the end of 2016.

The odds we'll ever find out are slim, but I don't think that would happen.

Share this post


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

The odds we'll ever find out are slim, but I don't think that would happen.

Why not?  What possible reason would the Republican Senate have for not confirming him at that point?  It would probably be 99-0 with Bernie abstaining.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Let me be the first to guarantee that if Sanders is elected president, the process on Garland will begin by the end of 2016.

 

I don't understand what you think the GOP is forced into at that point.  At that point, it will be what they want in order to avoid whatever pick Sanders would make.

We obviously believe this would play out in different ways, so there's no sense talking past each other about hypotheticals.

Share this post


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

Why not?  What possible reason would the Republican Senate have for not confirming him at that point?  It would probably be 99-0 with Bernie abstaining.  

Because their public rationale for no hearings is that Obama can't make the nomination. And to go forward at that point would look so colossally bad that they'll take their chances on what I believe will actually happen: Sanders or Clinton tells them to act on the Garland nomination, which Obama will not have withdrawn. (And this is why I think the next president—assuming it's Clinton or Sanders–should make clear that Congress is being told to act on the nomination they've been blocking for a year. Underscore the fact they just wasted everyone's time just to show up Obama.)

Edited by pantagrapher

Share this post


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

Because their public rationale for no hearings is that Obama can't make the nomination. And to go forward at that point would look so colossally bad that they'll take their chances on what I believe will actually happen: Sanders or Clinton tells them to act on the Garland nomination, which Obama will not have withdrawn. (And this is why I think the next president—assuming it's Clinton or Sanders–should make clear that Congress is being told to act on the nomination they've been blocking for a year. Underscore the fact they just wasted everyone's time just to show up Obama.)

No, rationale is that the American voters should say whether they want a Democrat or a Republican to make the nomination.  "Well, it's a Democrat, so we will move ahead with this guy!" is all they'll say.

And who cares if they wasted everyone's time to show up Obama? Their Republican constituents, who they've convinced Obama is a Muslim fascist, and who they can now tell "we tricked him into nominating a centrist, hoped we could do better, but bahahaha - now we will just confirm his centrist because it's better than the alternative"?

Their Republican constituents don't care, and if it mattered to them what Dems thought they wouldn't be doing this in the first place.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


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

I think that's a big difference though- many people here don't feel like they are getting good stuff in return.  Look at the ACA, for instance- some people are getting a great return while others are getting royally screwed.  We have a much more progressive tax system than they do, which is a big part of it IMO.

I think the argument is that it's easier to find consensus when more of your people are, well, more homogeneous.  People also tend to be more sympathetic to those who are more like themselves.

That's not how opponents use the argument. Of course, consensus is more difficult to reach in some places than it is in others; opponents' argue that it wouldn't work because of our lesser homogeneity. And that argument requires some 'splainin.'

Share this post


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

No, rationale is that the American voters should say whether they want a Democrat or a Republican to make the nomination.  "Well, it's a Democrat, so we will move ahead with this guy!" is all they'll say.

And who cares if they wasted everyone's time to show up Obama? Their constituents, who they've convinced Obama is a Muslim fascist, and who they can now tell "we tricked him into nominating a centrist, hoped we could do better, but bahahaha - now we will just confirm his centrist because it's better than the alternative"?

Their constituents don't care, and if it mattered to them what Dems thought they wouldn't be doing this in the first place.

Republicans need more than their base to win elections. 

Share this post


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

Republicans need more than their base to win elections. 

So do Dems. Both parties represent minority groups. More Americans identify as an independent than either party. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, humpback said:

You posted two links talking about immigrants and percentage of foreign born people and said "Not as homogeneous as you think".  I'm rebutting that notion- those stats don't give a good nor complete picture of homogeneity.

Well, you think Finns and Swedes are homogeneous, so, I'll just leave it at that

Edited by msommer

Share this post


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

No, he isn't saying "he ought to let the next President pick provided that next President is me" he is saying "he ought not let the Congress play 'Let's Make a Deal' by waiting to see what's behind door number 2 before choosing."

If the Senate takes twice as long as it's ever taken in history to confirm a SC nominee, that's exactly what they're doing.

Yeah if I was Obama I would tell them they would have until the day before the election to confirm or else he is pulled. Then they can decide if they want a moderate or roll the dice on the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i was Obama i would go on TV everyday and demand Congress do their job now and stop playing partisan games.

Of course i would have also done that throughout his Presidency. He has not used the bully pulpit like he should have. My biggest complaint against him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Perhaps Sanders should have said "If the Senate doesn't consider Garland after eight months, Obama should consider that a rejection and withdraw the nomination." This would have the same effect and would of course still be gamesmanship, but it would at least be gamesmanship covered in a thin veneer of principle.

I think that is fair, but I think it should really come from Obama rather than Sanders.

Share this post


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

Republicans need more than their base to win elections. 

I agree.  Who do they lose by saying "the people have spoken, now we will confirm Garland"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats lose because enough people think Democrats sit in an ivory tower, get smug, and think lofty thoughts instead of getting in and getting their hands dirty like the Republicans.  That's why they lose on foreign policy even when they're right, why they lose on social issues even when they're right, and why they lose on immigration even when they're right.

The Democrats lose because the country thinks they're a bunch of pushovers.  Right now, a significant percentage of Americans think Obama is weak in foreign policy issues, despite the fact that we assassinated Osama Bin Laden in a foreign country on his watch.  They think he's weak on ISIS, despite the fact that we're currently kicking the #### out of ISIS.  They think he's weak on immigration despite the fact that we have deported more foreign nationals under Obama than any previous president and he's on pace to deport more than every president from 1892-2000 combined.  

Why does the populace think Democrats are weak? I would posit that it's because they're so ### ####ed weak against the Republicans.  I don't know what it is, but Democrats just do not take the fight to these ###holes.  I understand that Obama has been hamstrung by a society that wants to view him as an angry black man, and to that extent he has to take the Jackie Robinson route and not go crazy every time this sort of thing happens, but some Democrat has to grab these guys by the jumblies and tell them if they don't cry uncle he or she is going to start squeezin'.  When he used his political capital to get the ACA through, it was positively thrilling and he looked like the Rambo of politics. 

The only times in recent memory that people have said "wow, the Democrats sure are strong and right" are during the Tea Party's recent asinine attempts to use the debt ceiling as a nuclear option (and it was only because the Democrats recruited some Republicans to say horrible things about what the Tea Party was doing) and Sanders and Clinton taking on Trump - and Sanders started it and continues to run with it.  That's why Sanders is leading against every Republican.  It's one of the reasons 70% or whatever more people think he's "honest."  I mean, he is honest, but one of the ways he's honest is that he actually tells the American people when he's mad at the Republicans or thinks they're degrading the offices they hold or run for and then he never shuts up about it.  And he's respected for it.  

Yes, I agree, the President should be hosting nightly news conferences right now that say "this is day 5 of the Republican Senate taking the Supreme Court hostage.  It is deplorable, despicable, and it is playing games with the most important decisions in our country - as well as with the sanctity of the Constitution itself.  I will see you tomorrow for day 6, unless someone comes to his senses and remembers that crying and taking your ball home only works if you don't have to see those kids again.  But they do have to see those kids again, and they're going to see me every single day reminding the American people that they are a bunch of scared, crying, little children who should be sent to bed without dinner to think about what kind of disgusting future they're building for all of us.  Good night."  But it doesn't happen.

Many people believe that even when the Republicans are wrong, at least they'll fight to the death for America.  They believe that Democrats are ####ies.  If that flipped around, this country would get so progressive.

I know this is a pretty random rant.  Sorry, it makes me so angry.  /rant

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:
3 hours ago, humpback said:

You posted two links talking about immigrants and percentage of foreign born people and said "Not as homogeneous as you think".  I'm rebutting that notion- those stats don't give a good nor complete picture of homogeneity.

Well, you think Finns and Swedes are homogeneous, so, I'll just leave it at that

No, I don't, but keep attacking those straw men.  :thumbup:

Share this post


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

More Americans identify as an independent than either party. 

I read this all the time, but it's pure bull####.

There are maybe 5-10% of voters who are truly independent.

Share this post


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

No, I don't, but keep attacking those straw men.  :thumbup:

Quote

I'll just leave it at that

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wdcrob said:

I read this all the time, but it's pure bull####.

There are maybe 5-10% of voters who are truly independent.

The definition they seem to use is pretty narrow.  If you imagine a political spectrum from left to right 99% will fall on one side of the middle or the other - so arguing that there are not 40% sitting exactly in the middle is not very persuasive.

 

But, the band in the middle - which probably has views that coincide with both parties - is growing.  It is becoming harder and harder to neatly fit into one pre-packaged set of beliefs - particularly when we only have two options.  I think if people were given a legitimate choice of 3 or 4 different pre-packaged views  you would find even fewer that fit into the current Democrat and Republican buckets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2016 at 10:15 AM, Henry Ford said:

I think everything you're saying is a valid viewpoint, but there are additional pieces to the puzzle.  Such as the establishment Democratic Party attempt to sandbag Sanders in this election.  If all liberals just go ahead and toe the party line anyway, where is the accountability for that? What motivation does the party have for doing anything differently the next time? We have time and again seen candidates get elected this way and move right on past the true progressive agenda into centrism or Conservativism, while we stand aside and look.  "Oh, well, I guess it's impossible to get anything we want out of a candidate" is not a political position.  

A lot of people are sick of it, and refuse to vote for someone whose party and party-affiliated private groups just spent months tearing down an actual liberal candidate.  Or vote for a candidate who shouted at a rally that single payer "will never, ever come to pass."

I'm not sure I could be one of those people, but I understand them.

So..instead we fracture the Democratic party just like the republicans, and Washington becomes a free for all with no real leadership or direction, and new policies repealing/replacing older ones every election cycle?

 

Yeah...that sound better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2016 at 3:40 PM, The Commish said:

You either increase taxes or cut from somewhere else.  Where are we cutting from to get the $ ?  Speaking of his medicare plan specifically, it was a net increase of money in the pockets of most people when you look at the tax increase minus the savings on premiums, deductibles etc.  If people can't take 5 minutes and think about that, it's not about being articulate.  You can't fix stupid.  Yes....these comments are specific to this specific topic.

How about our obscenely bloated military budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, renesauz said:

How about our obscenely bloated military budget?

Politically almost impossible to cut. Eisenhower realized this a long time ago. 

First off, only one party even suggests it (the Democrats) and when they do, even mildly, the Republicans accuse them of weakness and promise to build it back up. 

Second, just like all spending cuts, no politician dares to be specific because of all the jobs lost when bases are closed, planes are no longer made, etc. 

It is so hard to cut government spending.

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, renesauz said:

So..instead we fracture the Democratic party just like the republicans, and Washington becomes a free for all with no real leadership or direction, and new policies repealing/replacing older ones every election cycle?

 

Yeah...that sound better

That's slope got real slippery real fast. Who knew that's what would happen if someone decides not to vote for Hillary?

Share this post


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

I agree with pantagrapher.

I think the whole argument that the next President rather than the current President should make the pick is distasteful. When the Republicans make that argument, it is transparently partisan. If their own party had the White House, they would never make that argument. But here is Bernie, with his own party in the White House, making the same argument. That gives cover to the Republicans for what ought to make them look bad, but Bernie is providing direct evidence that "the other side does it too" (in addition to the evidence that Obama and Biden have both done it in the past), which seems to justify the Republicans' otherwise odious position.

I can see the argument in theory. It's even discussed in the Fereralist papers.

But we're too far out...the seat shouldn't sit empty for a full year. "With the consent and advice of the Senate" shouldn't mean the Senate can just stall for a full year. If SCalia had died in July...sure...I could see it then...sort of

Share this post


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

If Obama were to withdraw the nomination on his own, that's one thing. I doubt he would. It's not his style. He fulfilled his constitutional duty and I suspect he will advocate—even after the election—that Garland get his fair hearing through the process, as he should. The problem is that if Bernie believes Obama fulfilled his duty and his nomination did not violate some mythical rule, what grounds would he have to ask him to withdraw it? He would basically be acknowledging that the GOP was correct and that the next president should make the nomination.

I realize this is a problem for liberals who wanted to see a more liberal nominee. And I know it would be gratifying to see Clinton or Sanders nominate a super libel justice to really stick it to the GOP. But I think that by doing that they would have to first find a way to rationalize taking that nomination away from Obama. Sanders can ask, but I doubt Obama would withdraw Garland. And frankly, I don't think Sanders should ask.

I suspect Clinton, as much as we imagine she'd stick it to the GOP, realizes this and would back up Obama's nomination of Garland.

I think all he's really saying is that he would have nominated somebody more liberal, and giving the Republicans a warning that they may like the next President's choice even less. Perhaps it had very little to do with his own Presidential campaign

Share this post


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

Granted, Bernie's position and the Republicans' position aren't exactly the same.

Bernie's is arguably worse. (Also arguably not as bad, but I'll leave that argument aside for now.)

The Republicans are saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but we think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead (whoever the next President is)."

Bernie is saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but I think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead provided that the next President is me."

The second one seems even more self-interested than the first.

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think it's more like letting it be known that if congress wants to play the game that way, liberals can too.

Share this post


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

I think Garland is a fine nominee, but I also don't think Obama appoints him in a scenario where the GOP isn't being a bunch of obstructionist ###holes.  He's a 63-year-old who agreed with the majority to strike down expenditure limits in federal elections for non-PACs. He's a compromise pick.  And if the GOP won't take the compromise unless they get to see if they can do better, the compromise should be off the table if they can't do better.

EXACTLY

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Politically almost impossible to cut. Eisenhower realized this a long time ago. 

First off, only one party even suggests it (the Democrats) and when they do, even mildly, the Republicans accuse them of weakness and promise to build it back up. 

Second, just like all spending cuts, no politician dares to be specific because of all the jobs lost when bases are closed, planes are no longer made, etc. 

It is so hard to cut government spending.

It's politically impossible because the overwhelming majority of our politicians are bought and paid for by big business...and the military industrial complex comprises some of the biggest and most lucrative companies in the country.

The first step towards cutting the bloated military budget would probably have to be campaign finance reform

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut this from another thread.  This is exactly why progressives will never get a seat at the table any time soon.  Hillary and her crew will set the rules in favor of the establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BassNBrew said:

Cut this from another thread.  This is exactly why progressives will never get a seat at the table any time soon.  Hillary and her crew will set the rules in favor of the establishment.

The difference now is that this sort of thing gets significant internet attention via social media sites like facebook, and is on of the first few articles seen when someone opens up their web browser with a homepage like yahoo. Just ten years ago, something like this would be on the editorial page of the newspaper, and nobody would notice. Today...perhaps half notice.

It's only a matter of time......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, renesauz said:

How about our obscenely bloated military budget?

Certainly a start.  I'm good with cutting their pensions and salaries as well.  Plenty of places to get the money...how many of them would they actually entertain?

Share this post


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

The difference now is that this sort of thing gets significant internet attention via social media sites like facebook, and is on of the first few articles seen when someone opens up their web browser with a homepage like yahoo. Just ten years ago, something like this would be on the editorial page of the newspaper, and nobody would notice. Today...perhaps half notice.

It's only a matter of time......

 

It's not a matter of time when people continue to reward the establishment.  The establishment kicks you in the nads and you say thank you sir may I have another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They never updated how much money they raised, they were going for 5 million for Tuesday + Wednesday. Guessing they recieved over 3 million. Usually they had that bar that updates the progress, I loved how that thing would update on your old email, I had no idea how they do that, seems like magic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2016 at 9:27 AM, The Commish said:
On 3/18/2016 at 6:56 PM, renesauz said:

How about our obscenely bloated military budget?

Certainly a start.  I'm good with cutting their pensions and salaries as well.  Plenty of places to get the money...how many of them would they actually entertain?

Cut whose pensions?  Salaries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odds Bernie joins Hillary on the ticket? It'd all but lock up the general but it will also entail Bernie compromising some of his principles. 

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.