EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

Flaming Pie said:
It would be the equivalent of hillary and obama on the same ticket in 2008. Obama is on board now tho. Ready to sell his soul to the devil for a slice of the world.
Click to expand...

Big picture here Pie.

She's pledged 80% of what he asked for.

$15/hour, single payer health, tuition free college, overturn CU etc this is about the issues for the American people.

Establishment may have it for Clinton but they're still getting Sanders.
 
schuylaar said:
Big picture here Pie.

She's pledged 80% of what he asked for.

$15/hour, single payer health, tuition free college, overturn CU etc this is about the issues for the American people.

Establishment may have it for Clinton but they're still getting Sanders.
Click to expand...

Thank god hillary is a pillar of the community and has never *cough* lied *cough* to the American people nor changed her views and policies to suit her needs.

You watch, she is gonna dump bernie like a cheap suit as soon as she is done with him.

Bernie sold out to the establishment just like he always does...
 
NLXSK1 said:
Thank god hillary is a pillar of the community and has never *cough* lied *cough* to the American people nor changed her views and policies to suit her needs.

You watch, she is gonna dump bernie like a cheap suit as soon as she is done with him.

Bernie sold out to the establishment just like he always does...
Click to expand...
Sold out? More like he disappointed you by doing what he said he'd do all along, which was to work to defeat the fascist right's grab for power. You weren't calling his actions a sell out a couple of months ago when another fog horn predicted almost to the letter what just happened:

londonfog said:
Bernie will not run independent. He said as much. He will stay in for awhile spreading his message. Hillary will embrace some of his ideas. Bernie will then endorse Hillary.
Click to expand...
NLXSK1 said:
Because it all is simply a show for the American people....
Click to expand...

When convenient, you reverse yourself. Hypocritical, I think is what that's called.

I'll add your prediction of Hillary dumping Sanders "like a cheap suit" to your very long list of bad calls soon enough. Face it dude, a betting person would do very well betting against your predictions.
 
ttystikk said:
You got me mixed up with someone else; I most certainly did vote for Mr Sanders that Super Tuesday when Colorado was one of the first states to turn for him. I witnessed an historic turnout of the people, and then watched as we and millions of our peers across the country were systematically disenfranchised.

So, I was there. And so was CNN- strangely, although the reporter was there and seeing the unprecedented turnout for a primary, she didn't get much airtime. THAT'S a news story, Mr FogDog- and the only bigger story that night was how and why our story didn't get told in the media where it belongs.

Shillary is and always was the anointed candidate and the machine duly swung into action to elect the chosen one, whether they're the people's choice or not.

Hell, In spite of the people's choice, if necessary. Both parties treat the ever shrinking middle class like a necessary tagalong; useful for rabble rousing and elections and otherwise safe to ignore in favor of other, more monied interests.
Click to expand...
Something you said earlier about CO's 6 month registration requirement -- I misinterpreted as you saying you weren't registered Democrat and so couldn't vote. I stand corrected.

You are correct if you are saying the media favored Hillary and the election was manipulated by the Hillary election machine to favor her over Sanders. More than 3 million voter difference isn't explained by her using the rules of the election process to shave points where possible. There was voter fraud in New York. But not enough to swing the overall 3 million vote-differential her way.

Remind you that Obama faced the same obstacles and won. Sanders did not draw a wide enough spectrum of voters to do the same. Everything you complain about is essentially points shaving and taken together don't add up to the margin of victory by Hillary.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
How do you define 'good' and 'great' in this context just so I know exactly how much shit to give you when the time comes?

What would a good Hillary Clinton term look like? A great one?
Click to expand...
What would good and great look like? 4 years or 8 years out? With a Democratic Congress or another foot-dragging GOP Congress?

I'll assume she has a more or less cooperative congress and that she gets less done if the legislative branch is populated with do nothings like we now have facing Obama.

Also I'm assuming 8 years in office. She can't be called a good president if she can't win the second term.

Unacceptable performance: Basically status quo with some movement in a good direction. These areas would look like the following:
  • Supreme Court is no longer controlled by conservative justices.
  • Lobbying and election funding is unchanged.
  • ACA is better funded and has better support from people in the US but still sputtering and the number of uninsured remains unchanged.
  • Education system K-12 is unchanged. At college level, states are able to receive funds to pay for first two years of college for about 30% of recent HS graduates.
  • International scene is status quo; no major troop deployments but those fucking drones still killing people anywhere the war machine wants.
  • Defense spending on par with what it is now.
  • Some of Sander's planks in the platform are implemented.
  • Wages are relatively unchanged and income/wealth distribution doesn't get worse but isn't meaningfully improved.
  • No movement in environmental issues
  • No movement in social justice issues

That's the baseline for unacceptable performance. If this is where we are in four years, I demand a different candidate for Prez.

Good would be meaningfully better movement in the above list in four or five areas. Also all of the issues Sanders managed to get addressed in the party platform are implemented.

Great would have improvement in all of the above categories and three or four greatly improved. Also, half of the below have occurred:
  • Defense spending is down, deployments are down, terrorist threats are down and
  • Use of drones is banned internationally with US participation.
  • Campaign finance reform implemented to prevent unfair advantage like what Hillary had this election cycle.
  • Any recent graduates from HS with good grades (C+ or better) receive federal tuition grants if they want it without having to perform public service. They also automatically receive tuition money each year if they maintain good grades.
  • Everybody has healthcare coverage. People pay their share according to means.
  • A path to single payer healthcare is defined.
  • Middle class is expanding and wages in all working classes up by more than inflation.
  • Full participation with international community to address global warming. US takes leadership in some areas.
  • Respect and equal opportunity for everybody is better than before her term with a path forward for improvement.
This is my wish list tempered by that hated word, pragmatism. Because you asked, not that I think anybody gives a shit.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog said:
Sold out? More like he disappointed you by doing what he said he'd do all along, which was to work to defeat the fascist right's grab for power. You weren't calling his actions a sell out a couple of months ago when another fog horn predicted almost to the letter what just happened:




When convenient, you reverse yourself. Hypocritical, I think is what that's called.

I'll add your prediction of Hillary dumping Sanders "like a cheap suit" to your very long list of bad calls soon enough. Face it dude, a betting person would do very well betting against your predictions.
Click to expand...

He said hillary was not qualified to run the country, now he is backing her.

It is Sanders that is the sellout and my opinion be it right or wrong has nothing to do with this besides the fact that a personal attack is all you got.
 
NLXSK1 said:
He said hillary was not qualified to run the country, now he is backing her.

It is Sanders that is the sellout and my opinion be it right or wrong has nothing to do with this besides the fact that a personal attack is all you got.
Click to expand...
He said that when he was running, right? Hillary said the same of Sanders. Do you want to hold Trump to everything he said or do you just do this for Democrats?

I'm not attacking you when I just remind you of what happened in the past. You never get it right. Never ever.
 
Fogdog said:
He said that when he was running, right? Hillary said the same of Sanders. Do you want to hold Trump to everything he said or do you just do this for Democrats?

I'm not attacking you when I just remind you of what happened in the past. You never get it right. Never ever.
Click to expand...

So is it your position that Sanders is not a sellout because somehow he was allowed to 'Lie' during the campaign? He either thought she was competent or not. He didnt have to state it but he did as part of his campaign. He is a sellout because now he is backing someone he said was not competent.

Sanders impuned his own character by lying either before or now. That wasnt trump, that wasnt Clinton, that one is squarely on him. No worries, he has sold out his whole life in the Senate. That is why he has been kept around so long. He whines about the inequality and then dines at the rich trough and votes accordingly.

He is just another part of the establishment, cause he sold out....
 
schuylaar said:
Big picture here Pie.

She's pledged 80% of what he asked for.

$15/hour, single payer health, tuition free college, overturn CU etc this is about the issues for the American people.

Establishment may have it for Clinton but they're still getting Sanders.
Click to expand...
She can promise anything. Promises don't mean shit to her.
 
Flaming Pie said:
She can promise anything. Promises don't mean shit to her.
Click to expand...
sounds a lot more like the other candidate
NLXSK1 said:
So is it your position that Sanders is not a sellout because somehow he was allowed to 'Lie' during the campaign? He either thought she was competent or not. He didnt have to state it but he did as part of his campaign. He is a sellout because now he is backing someone he said was not competent.

Sanders impuned his own character by lying either before or now. That wasnt trump, that wasnt Clinton, that one is squarely on him. No worries, he has sold out his whole life in the Senate. That is why he has been kept around so long. He whines about the inequality and then dines at the rich trough and votes accordingly.

He is just another part of the establishment, cause he sold out....
Click to expand...
Sanders didn't sell out monkey brain. He lost his bid then negotiated terms that included incorporating his positions into the Democratic Party platform. Its the art of negotiation and compromise that you are totally missing. No surprise there because the reactionary right doesn't know how to work with each other. You guys have gone with an authoritarian model for government. Explains why your party is now saddled with Trump.
 
Flaming Pie said:
She can promise anything. Promises don't mean shit to her.
Click to expand...
Pie and NLX, comparisons of truthfulness of the two candidates for your edification:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mp-versus-clinton-the-pinocchio-count-so-far/
Both major-party candidates have unusually high disapproval ratings. But how do they compare on The Pinocchio Test?

With the Republican and Democratic national conventions unfolding over the next two weeks, it seems an appropriate time to take stock of more than a year of fact checks of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. All told, The Washington Post Fact Checker has scrutinized their statements more than 100 times, not counting claims they made in primary debates.

Here’s the tally so far. Three Pinocchios could be viewed as mostly false, Two Pinocchios as half-true, One Pinocchio as mostly true and the rarely given Geppetto as completely true.

Trump (52 rated claims)
Four Pinocchios: 33 (63 percent)
Three Pinocchios: 11 (21 percent)
Two Pinocchios: 5 (10 percent)
One Pinocchio: 1 (2 percent)
Geppetto Checkmark: 2 (4 percent).


Clinton (35 rated claims)
Four Pinocchios: 5 (14 percent)
Three Pinocchios: 13 (36 percent)
Two Pinocchios: 11 (30.5 percent)
One Pinocchio: 2 (5.5 percent)
Geppetto Checkmark: 5 (14 percent)

As you see, the ratio of Trump’s Four-Pinocchios ratings is sky-high. In fact, nearly 85 percent of Trump’s claims that we vetted were false or mostly false. A line graph of Trump’s numbers would show a very steep sky jump. By contrast, Clinton has a bell curve of a typical politician. The number of false claims equals the number of true claims, while her other claims fall mostly somewhere in the middle.

Trump completely dominates the contest for number of false statements or outright lies by a wide margin.
 
Flaming Pie said:
She can promise anything. Promises don't mean shit to her.
Click to expand...

kinda like when pence promised to make it legal to deny service to gay people, only to break that promise once his state stood to lose a shitton of money?

that's principled bigotry right there. you should be proud.
 
Fogdog said:
Pie and NLX, comparisons of truthfulness of the two candidates for your edification:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mp-versus-clinton-the-pinocchio-count-so-far/
Both major-party candidates have unusually high disapproval ratings. But how do they compare on The Pinocchio Test?

With the Republican and Democratic national conventions unfolding over the next two weeks, it seems an appropriate time to take stock of more than a year of fact checks of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. All told, The Washington Post Fact Checker has scrutinized their statements more than 100 times, not counting claims they made in primary debates.

Here’s the tally so far. Three Pinocchios could be viewed as mostly false, Two Pinocchios as half-true, One Pinocchio as mostly true and the rarely given Geppetto as completely true.

Trump (52 rated claims)
Four Pinocchios: 33 (63 percent)
Three Pinocchios: 11 (21 percent)
Two Pinocchios: 5 (10 percent)
One Pinocchio: 1 (2 percent)
Geppetto Checkmark: 2 (4 percent).


Clinton (35 rated claims)
Four Pinocchios: 5 (14 percent)
Three Pinocchios: 13 (36 percent)
Two Pinocchios: 11 (30.5 percent)
One Pinocchio: 2 (5.5 percent)
Geppetto Checkmark: 5 (14 percent)

As you see, the ratio of Trump’s Four-Pinocchios ratings is sky-high. In fact, nearly 85 percent of Trump’s claims that we vetted were false or mostly false. A line graph of Trump’s numbers would show a very steep sky jump. By contrast, Clinton has a bell curve of a typical politician. The number of false claims equals the number of true claims, while her other claims fall mostly somewhere in the middle.

Trump completely dominates the contest for number of false statements or outright lies by a wide margin.
Click to expand...
Please investigate yourself instead of counting on the media only.

Go listen to hillary over the years. Look into how wealthy she and her husband are due to the interactions they have with corrupt global powers. Listen to all the lies she has told. Look at all the decisions she has made. Look at the way she supported corruption every step of the way.
 
Flaming Pie said:
Please investigate yourself instead of counting on the media only.

Go listen to hillary over the years. Look into how wealthy she and her husband are due to the interactions they have with corrupt global powers. Listen to all the lies she has told. Look at all the decisions she has made. Look at the way she supported corruption every step of the way.
Click to expand...
It sounds like your truthiness conflicts with my facts. Too funny this.

You don't think I'd post something like that if I didn't agree with it do you? Facts consistently elude Trump. He even contradicts his lies with other lies and you guys don't care. All those made up scandals that have never gotten close to sticking to Hillary? Just made up shit. But oh my, Benghazi and so forth. So this is what I think of your reply regarding your assertion that you test facts for their truthiness:

Truthiness_comic.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sanders is going to be Clintons VP pick because:

  1. 80% of Sanders platform is now Clintons..you don't adopt one persons ideas without giving something for it: The Veep.
  2. Sanders himself SAID that he WILL be traveling to every corner of the U.S.; to every state in order to defeat a Trump which means he's NOT going back to the senate.
  3. He's NOT on the list to speak at DNC convention = he's giving Veep acceptance speech.
  4. Clinton has one shot and she needs a swish:image.jpg
  5. Clinton needs every last Bernie Bro or Bernie/Bust and she will have them because this is NOT about the person it's about the issues..Bernie will make that very clear he will be at the helm with her..hence..'Better/Staying Together' slogan.
At the very end of endorsement rally, before walking off the stage..she turned to Bernie and said <Schuylaar lip read>.. 'They're here for you'..Bernie replied 'Don't worry, that will change'.

You heard it here first, men.

There's still time for my prediction of 'new comer landslide'..to come true.
 
Last edited:
Bernie isnt in Clintons top 5 picks for VP. There is no way he is getting the position.

You were wrong about Bernie winning the primary and you are wrong about VP. VP is mostly a place holder anyway and has no power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top