Democrat Takedown of Bernie

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
  • Author
  • #44421

    Herb: “While I disagree with many of Bernie Sanders’ positions, it’s not hard to see a demonstrable effort to kneecap him. It seemed to begin around 2016 with a clever super delegate strategy that assured a Hillary coronation.”

    This is not true. Clinton was assured the nomination with pledged delegates alone. She would have won the nomination even if all of the “superdelegates” had voted for Sanders.


    That equation would have looked very different had there been no 20 percent lead starting out.


    “3) an emboldened Russia, now that they’ve interfered and won once already with no consequences,

    Is bullshit. The rest of your commentary makes solid sense, and is worth discussion.”

    Would you accept the argument if I generalized it to “foreign influence”?


    Absolutely not.

    The basis is ultra weak. Published, original documents do not make definitive statements. Read them. Seriously. I did.

    The one Reality Winner leaked was even color coded speculation. Contained unsuccessful, script kiddie level syslogs. Insulting! And by that I mean they have to have identified a success, for a claim of interference to have merit. They only published low grade attempts.

    Where we do have better statements, say for the half million in social media spending, we do identify works for hire, do not identify who paid, etc… without that?

    No basis.

    And none of what can be plausible competes with a multi-billion dollar campaign.

    Not to mention tons of domestic interference! David Brock had a room full of people smearing activists! Myself included. They actually tried to say I was Russian, and for doing nothing other than working with facts!

    So, no.

    Until someone will put their name on definitive statements that can be critically discussed, that is nearly all conspiracy and innuendo intended to distract from the fact that Clinton, and she is not alone here by any means, flat out did not do the work needed to garner a winning number of votes.

    Her record made that task hard. No question. Her long list of enemies making sure it got published made it harder still.

    And let us be clear, Wikileaks published raw truth. Zero lies. As an institution, they have a zero lie, zero error record.

    Nobody pitching Russiagate BS even comes close!

    Just count the lies over this last weekend! Amazing.

    No. Rejected.

    It is time we all face growing political realities, and that includes a majority of this nation having had quite enough of the corruption and its impact on ordinary people.


    One more thing:

    Wikileaks denied Russianas as the source. They also denied other State actors. They have a 100 percent accuracy, no lie record.

    Our intel people fed Colin Powell WMD BS that essentially ruined his career.

    Our domestic major media has consistently elevated published speculation to fact too.

    I will take original documents from our Intel people over media discussion right now. And will review them critically. Everyone should, or take Russiagate with a YUGE grain of salt. Like massive. 😀

    Anyway, the WL statements mean some person leaked to Wikileaks. That is extremely likely to be a domestic person, and or someone employed by the Clinton’s and or DNC, but that is not known at this time, or is not published. Maybe that is more accurate.

    Note, Assange has basically been tortured for a long time now.

    There are reasons for that.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 2 months ago by missing_kskd.

    Lol, Deane. 😀

    You do realize I source from a wide variety of media, don’t you?

    Those “liberal kooks” represent a clear majority view on politics today.

    I know it is hard, but economic forces have brought us to a changing body politic.

    Way too damn many people to ignore oppose neoliberal, corporate dominance in government and politics today.

    The reason is ultra simple:

    Every year, more people struggle, not less.

    Today, that struggle is at numbers forcing change.


    Corruption, money in politics leaving ordinary people out of the process.

    Those two things form the basis for the rise in progressive politics today.

    Small money, people power vs big money, establishment politics.

    Class war Deane. Coming to a district near you.

    No joke.

    BTW: The “RISING” show, I link from time to time is new left and new right offering a resonant take on politics today. They are attempting solid news and commentary of a style pretty much gone as of Clinton and Reagan allowing the rise of massive corporate media today. Watch for more of that. Already, their ratings are insane good.

    Hardly kooks.

    You can fairly call TYT, “liberal kooks”, if you want. They are unabashedly progressive. I won’t complain, nor will I ever source an argument with them as a sole basis. I do however, support them in much the same way others favor media advancing their interests. They are member driven. Fair enough. I am a contributing member.

    Fair? I think so.

    You should know, the party divide on the left is liberal vs progressive.

    Liberals favor economic freedom. That can clearly be seen on these pages. They do not mind money in politics and favor party establishment politics.

    Progressives oppose those things.

    Both share social political views and are in resonance on that front.

    You might want to say leftie, or Progressive kooks to be current my friend.



    You’re in a bubble big time and what you write I can’t take seriously.


    Yes you can. You just need to leave yours. Edit: I did once the dissonance between facts, events, etc.. failed to align with media narratives.

    You can too.

    All of us face a difficulty in this way. Our domestic major media is biased as fuck.

    Others have entered the scene to fill gaps.

    It may be better to realize our differences economically are real and have that chat. The policy differences are understandable.

    Continuing to call me a crazy person does neither of us any real good.

    You might also try just a week without major cable news too. Or talking to people outside your class and peer group. Take the latter, if you can get it.

    You and I are both in solid alignment socially.

    We may be in rough agreement on foreign policy. I do not know.

    We are in disagreement economically, and that is quite OK.

    Notice, I am not returning the constant claims there must be something wrong with you. I am not returning that because there is nothing wrong. And I am not angry, as I see your responses as understandable given how and why you have pursued politics for decades.

    I thought people actually read the words put here over the years. Perhaps they did not.

    My economic policy preferences are well known, from wayback as I formed them here, in significant part.

    Nothing I put here is unreasonable at all. And that it is rising in prominence is not some nefarious, freak, or cult thing. It is in direct response to this simple fact:

    Every year more Americans struggle.

    Try having the discussion instead of making it about me. I think you will find the exercise of finding answers to what I have to say far more enlightening than constant attempts to marginalize what I have to say is.

    Besides, it does not work. Zero impact. Believe it.


    You have no objectivity here. You’re like the corner carnival barker preaching what you think is the truth.

    I’m still undecided on who the best candidate to beat Trump is right now. I’m waiting until Super Tuesday to really come up with my opinion.

    I have serious reservations about the viability of Bernie being able to beat Trump, and also, how his candidacy will affect down ballot races.

    Senate candidates in Maine, Arizona, Colorado, and North Carolina all oppose Medicare for all. How’s that going to reconcile? And what exactly will a GOP Senate give Bernie to pass? Zero. No M4A, no judges, no nothing.

    I want the best overall outcome to defeat Trump and win the Senate.

    In a way, the Senate majority is almost more important than winning the presidency.


    Where did I ever say I was objective?

    I have my opinions and support them. You have done a piss poor job doing the same.

    Do you want answers to your questions, or do you want to keep calling me crazy?

    Sanders and others have put a theory of change forward. There are no sure things in politics, but those plans are well fleshed out and entirely plausible.

    Will it work?

    Nobody knows man. Nobody.

    This is about a change in basic policy priorities.

    That could mean a lot, but it is also extremely likely to mean an improvement for that growing number of struggling Americans.

    How we do things now has only increased the struggle.

    And there you have it. That, right there, is why I am in the reform camp now.

    I do not wish to support only increasing the struggle anymore. Too many are impacted.

    And we will not continue to win elections because too many are impacted.


    I agree with you on down ticket Dems.

    A whole lot can be done. Sanders comes with an awesome org. Better than anyone else has right now, and it is better because years went into it. And it reaches across many lines, as well as into checked out / youth vote. None of the others are even close.

    A whole lot of those down ticket Dems can jump on board and do fine. We may well see some pickups among the many new people too.

    The rest?

    Hell if I know, but having that discussion is better than having a “how do we beat Trump on the same ideas that lead to Trump, because Trump?” conversation.

    Deane Johnson

    Missing, I can agree there are plenty of problems to go around. We’re in a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

    I just don’t happen to agree that socialism is the solution.

    Once we take Bezo’s, Buffet’s, and Zuckerberg’s money away from them and give it to the poor, where do we go for the next load of cash that will be needed to sustain the effort.

    No question about it, college is too expensive, medical is too expensive, etc., etc. But these are issues that need to have solutions one by one, not a plan where the costs just keep on going higher and higher and the government and the rich guys pay the cost for everyone. We’ll run out of rich guys, then what?

    I’m not even getting into the issue of our middle class work environment also being a huge contributor to the problem. That’s a whole ‘nother subject.

    Your support of Bernie and the like is surprising to me for a guy as intelligent as you are.

    Andy Brown

    Much of Bernie’s support is coming from young folks who do not understand how Washington, D.C. actually functions (dysfunctions?).

    Believing that campaign promises will come true is a time weathered fantasy for young voters.

    Improving health care is possible. The ACA improved it somewhat for some folks, but when the GOP did away with the mandate, it lost a key funding source. Finding a bipartisan solution, which will be needed because even if Bernie gets the nomination he won’t have 60 Senators on board, and without that nothing will get done.

    Bernie as nominee is not yet a certainty but the same issues face whomever gets the nomination should they become president.

    After Super Tuesday there may be a lot more uncertainty about Bernie’s success, or not. Regardless, improving the existing system is far more popular than any other option according to the Bipartisan Policy Center:

    “Importantly, in a recent BPC poll, nearly 40% of voters listed improving the current health care system as their top health care reform approach. That reform approach received the most bipartisan support with a plurality of Democrats (46 percent) and Independents (38 percent), and a third of Republicans (32 percent). Among all voters, it was the most popular reform choice.”


    Money is cyclic Deane.

    We won’t be taking all their money from them at all.

    What we will do is make sure more of it is in circulation more of the time doing work for everyone, not just parked in a bank somewhere. This is a really good thing. Someone has to buy the shit, and paying people living wages and increasing their appetite for risk with universal health care mean a lot more liquid dollars being spent. Starting business, improving homes, buying goods, the usual deal.

    We want this.

    Know what one of the biggest problems major investors have is? Lack of investment opportunities. We are literally starving ourselves right now on many fronts. Why do that?

    Either we sell it all to the piles of money, which comes with one set of problems and does not actually improve things for ordinary people, meaning we remain stuck with those problems anyway, with some things made worse

    , or

    We tax it out of those banks and put it to work proper.

    Secondly, from a monetary sovereign position, we can go to work on both green infrastructure as well as increasingly overdue refurbishment and or replacement of so much rotting away right now. We can literally print this money same as we did for the wars, only we get a big return, unlike the wars, which left us with debt and dead people.

    Build out what is needed to use wind, solar, water, etc… same as we did for oil. Couple that with digital infrastructure, and we have a new Interstate highway project that will pay everyone off nicely. That project still is paying us off due to how it enabled massive economic activities.

    We need to do it again.

    When we do, those wealthy people suddenly have lots to do with their remaining fortunes, do it, the smarter ones outperform the modest taxes and end up still wealthy, still gaining and a lot more productive than they are right now, and a lot less oppressive than they are now too. (Mostly because they have growth opps that do not involve sucking every last person dry as a bone)

    Doing that makes us both worth more, which backs the money globally, and the increased economic activity resulting from more liquid dollars in the hands of more Americans more of the time means we literally labor away the massive debt, which everyone wants paid down.

    Relative to the rest of the world, our living standard comes back up (currently way down), we compete better, etc…

    We very seriously need these things.

    Progressives are not “gimme free stuff” like so many say. Most of us are well educated and absolutely sick of this shit.

    We know we can do so much better and are tired of asking.

    Now, we are just doing.

    Re: Campaign promises

    Bernie did not say HE would get M4A. He did say WE can get it when millions of people act.

    This is super important to understand. Nobody believes for a minute that a Bernie POTUS makes that stuff happen.

    Millions of people make that stuff happen, same as for every other good thing we made happen.

    Sanders, unlike Obama, won’t pick a Goldman Sachs cabinet and cast OFA to the side to rot. That matters, and is core to the theory of change being put forward, as well as expectations being set.

    It is a raw fight. No joke.

    Just to be clear on that front.

    Deane Johnson

    So, two of the entities that are sitting on huge piles of cash are Apple and Berkshire-Hathaway.

    Are you suggesting that this cash is just sitting somewhere in stacks growing mold on it, or is it possible it’s invested in various instruments that are used to loan to other business entities.

    In other words, where is this cash. I doubt it’s in Tim Cook’s office safe, or in Warren’s safe he keeps in the office. I suspect it’s somewhere working for them. Probably extremely well diversified.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 39 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.