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. (4 Viewers)

tommyGunZ said:
Bernie actually said those words NCC.  I'm not aware of Hillary ever using the words "liar" to describe Bernie.  Got a quote?
Click to expand...
She said his campaign lies about her. If Bernie said that the Clintonistas would.be saying Bernie called her a liar. More double standard.

 
pantagrapher said:
I think Josh Marshall nailed it. Something has happened in the last few days. The Sandersite Id has escaped and Sanders is getting careless as he tries desperately to regain control of the ship.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Winning 7 of the last 8 contests has totally put him in a desperate mood.

 
Dread Pirate said:
Bernie Sanders thinks bread lines are a good thing.  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/04/06/oh-my-bernie-sanders-thinks-bread-lines-are-a-good-representation-of-economic-stability-n2144137?utm_source=BreakingOnTownhallWidget_4&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingOnTownhall

You'll also see a video of your favorite praising communists.  But Bernie is different.  He's a Democratic Socialist.   :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I praised Donald Trump for his reality show in the past.  It doesn't make me an oompa loompa.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Holy moly you are the worst.

"You know, it's funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. In other countries, people don't line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death,"

We have people line up for food here. In the US, the richest country in the world.  He is saying there are far worse situations. Especially when the rich in some countries are letting others starve to death.

Good for Bernie. That woman writer is a moron.
Click to expand...
The takeaway is that Bernie is equivocating between lines for food in a Soviet Union or a Castro Cuba and the lines for food in the U.S.  He correctly points out that these are different than other countries where no lines for food exist so, kudos to him for noticing the obvious.  It's the more subtle equivocation between the U.S. and communist regimes that get's past him and you too, apparently.  

 
That line wasn't the only thing said it was at the end of a much longer statement. Without the rest of the statement it's fairly.meaningless because there is no.context. That's what out of context means.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Let's be honest, voting record isn't a perfect metric for measuring agreement, but it's probably the most objective measure we have.  It's not a "stupid way to measure agreement" between legislators.  It's perhaps the most important thing they do.  To ignore it would be silly.  

Again, it may not be solely determinative, but it's a far better mechanism to measure agreement than "let's pick a few issues I'm passionate about and ignore everything else".  That would be a silly way to measure agreement. 
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but if I vote one twelve issues, and ten of them get 95% of the vote in my state, while two of them get 52% of the vote in my state, and I differ with someone else on those two issues, I have a hard time saying those ten really matter in any discussion about policy.  95% of people want something, sure, we agree.  But who cares?  I mean, if 95% of everyone agrees, it's not a policy discussion, it's a circle jerk.

"This chimpanzee and I have 96% of the exact same DNA! We're basically the same amount of human!" doesn't really work for me in politics.

 
That's your :pirate:   takeaway? 

It's a pisspoor spin-laden takeaway.  That article was easy redmeat for her to write for people like you. Heck, look at her history. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I understand what you are saying, but if I vote one twelve issues, and ten of them get 95% of the vote in my state, while two of them get 52% of the vote in my state, and I differ with someone else on those two issues, I have a hard time saying those ten really matter in any discussion about policy.  95% of people want something, sure, we agree.  But who cares?  I mean, if 95% of everyone agrees, it's not a policy discussion, it's a circle jerk.

"This chimpanzee and I have 96% of the exact same DNA! We're basically the same amount of human!" doesn't really work for me in politics.
Click to expand...
But that's not the case.  Did you look at be Wa Post link?  

 
AnonymousBob said:
I agree it's smart politics and good theater. It just amused me it took her five tries to figure out how to use it after giving Bernie grief. 
Click to expand...
"Silly Bernie Sanders!  This is how a real human woman ride subway, for I am real human woman!  Not poll-driven automaton at all!  Cackle-cackle-cackle"

 
The Commish said:
Referring to access to the subway via "token" instead of "metro card" is now a "gaffe"?  Really?
Click to expand...
So overblown.  So the last time he had to pay to get on the subway was a long time ago.  Big effin deal.  

Clinton invited media to come ride the subway with her, then she didn't know how to swipe her metro card (took 5 tries).  Hoisted by her own pitard, imo.

ETA:  This non-issue is meaningless in itself, but the fact she tried to make something out of nothing is noteworthy.  Also noteworthy that she was in such a hurry to get in front of the cameras that she didn't bother to properly prepare for it (eg. learn how to swipe the damned card before doing it in front of media).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Referring to access to the subway via "token" instead of "metro card" is now a "gaffe"?  Really?
Click to expand...


The gaffe is that he said he'd ridden the subway recently (I think he said the last year or two) and knew how to do it, and then gave an answer clearly showing that not to be the case.

It's not really even a gaffe; it's really more of a white lie. It's harmless and silly of course, but it does have the appearance of pandering. I have a feeling if Clinton had said the same thing she'd get a ton of crap for it.

 
TobiasFunke said:
The Commish said:
Referring to access to the subway via "token" instead of "metro card" is now a "gaffe"?  Really?
Click to expand...


The gaffe is that he said he'd ridden the subway recently (I think he said the last year or two) and knew how to do it, and then gave an answer clearly showing that not to be the case.

It's not really even a gaffe; it's really more of a white lie. It's harmless and silly of course, but it does have the appearance of pandering. I have a feeling if Clinton had said the same thing she'd get a ton of crap for it.
Click to expand...
Really?  When I read about this "gaffe" I was immediately taken back to all the times my son has corrected me when I tell him to "get in the car".  Dad, it's a truck. :oldunsure:

 
VandyMan said:
So overblown.  So the last time he had to pay to get on the subway was a long time ago.  Big effin deal.  

Clinton invited media to come ride the subway with her, then she didn't know how to swipe her metro card (took 5 tries).  Hoisted by her own pitard, imo.
Click to expand...
For a guy who grew up in Brooklyn this is really something else. Incredible he gets challenged on the 'not a real New Yorker' card.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yes.  I'm not sure what you're getting at, given that it's only a list of what they disagreed on.
Click to expand...
No, that was the NYT article.  The Wa Post piece (linked again below) shows how often all of the Senators running for presidents votes in agreement.  While there are undoubtedly lots of votes on silly stuff, the fact that the numbers are in the 20s and 30s between some candidates suggest that the Clinton/Sanders 93% agreement numbers isn't all post office names and freedom fries.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-often-the-2016-candidates-agreed-and-disagreed-in-their-senate-votes-charted/

 
TobiasFunke said:
The gaffe is that he said he'd ridden the subway recently (I think he said the last year or two) and knew how to do it, and then gave an answer clearly showing that not to be the case.

It's not really even a gaffe; it's really more of a white lie. It's harmless and silly of course, but it does have the appearance of pandering. I have a feeling if Clinton had said the same thing she'd get a ton of crap for it.
Click to expand...
I rode the Metro with my Dad last time we went to D.C.  I'm pretty sure he'd say we gave money to somebody in a booth, when we actually used a metro card machine - his wife did the buying and swiping.  Who cares?  

 
The Commish said:
Really?  When I read about this "gaffe" I was immediately taken back to all the times my son has corrected me when I tell him to "get in the car".  Dad, it's a truck. :oldunsure:
Click to expand...


Clinton getting really desperate.  Internal polling must show the collapse even more than public polling

 
OK so I finally read the Daily News transcript. First off the subway thing was stupid. The gun thing, I actually agree with him on (I think I wrote I disagreed yesterday, that was incorrect) but it's not a major issue to me one way or another. On Israel he exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed; a little troubling but again not that big a deal; I know where he stands on that issue. But as for his main issues...

It wasn't good. He didn't seem to know how he would go about breaking up the big banks. He suggested that Dodds-Frank might give the federal government the mechanism to do so, but was unsure. He wasn't sure what the consequences would be or how to go about it. He also wasn't sure of how to go about prosecuting the bank executives for 2008, which he's been very critical of Obama for NOT doing. He was directly asked on what authority the Justice Department would take such an action, and what they would be charged with, and he couldn't answer.

I'm pretty sure there ARE answers to these questions. But Bernie didn't have them at his fingertips, and he probably should since they represent the core of his campaign. I don't know how many people are actually going to read this article and whether or not it will affect his campaign at all. But I was troubled. He sounded, I'm afraid, a little like Trump. A deer caught in the headlights. That was my impression. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
No, that was the NYT article.  The Wa Post piece (linked again below) shows how often all of the Senators running for presidents votes in agreement.  While there are undoubtedly lots of votes on silly stuff, the fact that the numbers are in the 20s and 30s between some candidates suggest that the Clinton/Sanders 93% agreement numbers isn't all post office names and freedom fries.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/how-often-the-2016-candidates-agreed-and-disagreed-in-their-senate-votes-charted/
Click to expand...
Ah, that's my confusion then.  Thanks.

Still, when Santorum, Clinton, and Sanders all agree 40% of the time, I think there's a strong likelihood that 40% should be lopped right off the top of the vote count.  Which nearly doubles their disagreement rate.  But point taken.

 
Henry Ford said:
I rode the Metro with my Dad last time we went to D.C.  I'm pretty sure he'd say we gave money to somebody in a booth, when we actually used a metro card machine - his wife did the buying and swiping.  Who cares?  
Click to expand...
Well, nobody cares, or at least nobody should care. But he would still be wrong.

To the extent that it might have been pandering, the argument would be that in NYC there's a certain divide between people who ride the subway (most people) and those who do not (the elite), and that by seemingly lying about having done so Sanders was attempting to curry favor with the former.

But just to be clear- I really truly couldn't possibly care less about this. I'm trying to explain the nature of the mistake, not arguing that it's remotely relevant or interesting.

 
timschochet said:
OK so I finally read the Daily News transcript. First off the subway thing was stupid. The gun thing, I actually agree with him on (I think I wrote I disagreed yesterday, that was incorrect) but it's not a major issue to me one way or another. On Israel he exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed; a little troubling but again not that big a deal; I know where he stands on that issue. But as for his main issues...

It wasn't good. He didn't seem to know how he would go about breaking up the big banks. He suggested that Dodds-Frank might give the federal government the mechanism to do so, but was unsure. He wasn't sure what the consequences would be or how to go about it. He also wasn't sure of how to go about prosecuting the bank executives for 2008, which he's been very critical of Obama for NOT doing. He was directly asked on what authority the Justice Department would take such an action, and what they would be charged with, and he couldn't answer.

I'm pretty sure there ARE answers to these questions. But Bernie didn't have them at his fingertips, and he probably should since they represent the core of his campaign. I don't know how many people are actually going to read this article and whether or not it will affect his campaign at all. But I was troubled. He sounded, I'm afraid, a little like Trump. A deer caught in the headlights. That was my impression. 
Click to expand...
This is complete horse####.  You have clearly stated time and time again that you have no understanding of these issues.  People that actually do have the opinion that:  Yes, Bernie Sanders Knows Something About Breaking Up Banks

 
timschochet said:
OK so I finally read the Daily News transcript. First off the subway thing was stupid. The gun thing, I actually agree with him on (I think I wrote I disagreed yesterday, that was incorrect) but it's not a major issue to me one way or another. On Israel he exaggerated the number of Palestinians killed; a little troubling but again not that big a deal; I know where he stands on that issue. But as for his main issues...

It wasn't good. He didn't seem to know how he would go about breaking up the big banks. He suggested that Dodds-Frank might give the federal government the mechanism to do so, but was unsure. He wasn't sure what the consequences would be or how to go about it. He also wasn't sure of how to go about prosecuting the bank executives for 2008, which he's been very critical of Obama for NOT doing. He was directly asked on what authority the Justice Department would take such an action, and what they would be charged with, and he couldn't answer.

I'm pretty sure there ARE answers to these questions. But Bernie didn't have them at his fingertips, and he probably should since they represent the core of his campaign. I don't know how many people are actually going to read this article and whether or not it will affect his campaign at all. But I was troubled. He sounded, I'm afraid, a little like Trump. A deer caught in the headlights. That was my impression. 
Click to expand...


He was correct

CNN goes on the attack for Clinton...gets owned by young female Bernie supporter.
Click to expand...



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l3AdBnDZjO4&feature=youtu.be

 
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
540
squistion
squistion
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
466
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
817
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top