RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Boardman writes: "By now, anyone paying the least attention knows that the dishonest Democratic establishment and dishonest mainstream media have created a false narrative of bad behavior by Bernie Sanders supporters at the Nevada State Democratic State Convention on May 14."

Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 19, 2016. (photo: Reuters/David Becker)
Hillary Clinton speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 19, 2016. (photo: Reuters/David Becker)


Clinton to California: “Drop Dead”

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

22 May 16

 

y now, anyone paying the least attention knows that the dishonest Democratic establishment and dishonest mainstream media have created a false narrative of bad behavior by Bernie Sanders supporters at the Nevada State Democratic State Convention on May 14. The evidence-free claims about “thrown chairs” (none) and “death threats” (tasteless insults) have been widely rebutted, but they have served their purpose all the same: taking attention away from the arrogant, autocratic management of the Nevada convention by establishment Democrats working on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

It’s a measure of Democratic Party panic that party leaders feel the need to run a despotic convention, autocratically ramming their preferred results through when there were only two national delegates at stake. Their fear of Bernie Sanders must run deep for them to follow this authoritarian performance with a smear campaign based on lies about the Sanders campaign. Establishment Democrats should be afraid, since almost half the voters allowed to vote in Democratic primaries reject establishment Democratic “values.” But their shamelessness, pusillanimity, and obtuse arrogance march on toward a possibly disastrous November that is wholly self-engineered.

Here’s what arrogant denial of reality sounded like on CNN May 19, inside the establishment Democrat echo-chamber: reporter Chris Cuomo tries a reality based question and Hillary Clinton meets it with almost absolute denial:

Cuomo (CNN): So you get into the general election, if you’re the nominee for your party,
and —

Clinton: I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.

Cuomo: There’s a Senator from Vermont who has a different take on that —

Clinton: Well —

Cuomo: He says he’s going to fight to the end —

Clinton: Yeah, it’s strange.

Sanders still could pull a rabbit out of the hat for a “miracle ending”

First, let’s stipulate that the possibility of Bernie Sanders becoming the Democratic nominee for President is small. But it’s also real. Should he be able to get 85% of the California vote, he’d get ALL the California delegates. No wonder establishment Democrats want to pretend the game is already over. It’s close to over, to be sure. By analogy, it’s the fourth quarter and the Patriots are down by two touchdowns, but Tom Brady and his team have the ball at midfield with all their timeouts remaining. Let’s wait and see what the score really is when the game is really over. (In 2008, Clinton played out the game, losing 15 of the last 23 contests; this year, Sanders is winning down the stretch.)

Cuomo’s first question is precisely right, despite the “conventional wisdom,” which is a somewhat desperate attempt at self-fulfilling prophecy. That’s what Clinton counters with, the self-fulfilling prophecy gambit, and yet even she can’t escape that shred of uncertainty when she says, “in effect.” “In effect” is not a done deal, and wishing won’t make it so.

On CNN, Clinton deflects whatever Cuomo was originally intending to ask. He takes the Sanders bait and, in mealy-mouthed fashion, says Sanders is going to fight to the end. Clinton cuts him off and calls that “strange.” The candidate’s talking point has silenced the reporter, but it hasn’t changed reality: Clinton’s nomination, however likely it may seem, also hangs by a thread. That’s a much more interesting story than most of the mainstream garble. Why would Clinton think her arrogance will help her? Why do Democrats think running a Potemkin convention in Nevada is necessary to secure two delegates? Why are Democrats resorting to blatant smears of the Sanders campaign if the nomination is already secure? If establishment Democrats actually believe that party unity is important, why have they ramped up their divisiveness?

On CNN, his reality-based question, Cuomo switches to the false narrative of Nevada that goes unexamined: “his supporters have become more aggressive…. We saw what happened in Nevada…. Did you feel that Sanders responded in the right way?” That is profoundly dishonest and unprofessional: Cuomo assumes a false reality, while ignoring the reality of the rigged convention, and then tosses Clinton a softball question. She affirms the false narrative (“what we saw there was disturbing”) and slides past the question (“I have every confidence we’re going to be unified”) and speaks falsely about 2008 (“I won 9 out of the last 12 contests”). Clinton goes on and on with a false analogy about 2008, talking about how she and Obama worked for unity AFTER all the primaries were over. Cuomo just smiles and nods, as if he believes Clinton’s nonsense is relevant, when it’s obviously not.

Revolution is hard, non-violent revolution is much harder

Bernie Sanders is fighting for a political revolution. He is doing it with nonviolence, working within the two-party system. The Democratic Party is not a revolutionary party, and hasn’t even been close since the Johnson years in the sixties. Establishment Democrats like the Clintons are fundamentally counter-revolutionary, which is a problem for a party with ten million voters favoring the political revolution candidate. The Republican party is so intellectually corrupt that it fell apart facing the Trump challenge, and is now falling in line with it. Democrats still have enough party discipline (or top-down undemocratic hierarchy) that they can muster the ugly pushback that featured a convention with no meaningful participation followed by a vicious attack on the victims who have had the temerity to challenge authority.

Two days after having had their way with their rigged convention, Nevada State Democrats formally complained to the National Democratic Committee that Sanders supporters had tried to disrupt and change the pre-ordained decisions the state committee had made in closed session and imposed on the convention. Writing for the state party, general counsel Bradley S. Schrager dropped the poison pill that has distorted the Nevada narrative ever since. Schrager’s May 16 letter reeks of fearmongering and falsehood. Shrager’s central charge is an Orwellian fabrication that would seem hilarious if it hadn’t been taken seriously by so many credulous, agenda-driven people in the party and the media. Schrager was widely misquoted as saying the Sanders campaign has “a penchant for violence.” What Schrager actually wrote to the Rules Committee was much nastier and more hysterical, apparently designed to inflame enough fear in the party hierarchy to panic it into adopting draconian rules to stifle dissent at the convention (thereby mimicking the Nevada convention):

“We believe, unfortunately, that the tactics and behavior on display here in Nevada are harbingers of things to come as Democrats gather in Philadelphia in July for our National Convention. We write to alert you to what we perceive as the Sander Campaign’s penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior – indeed, actual violence – in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting, and furthermore what we can only describe as their encouragement of, and complicity in, a very dangerous atmosphere that ended in chaos and physical threats to fellow Democrats.”

Polarizing Democrat lawyer blames the silenced as divisive – seriously

Lawyer Schrager complains of “extra-parliamentary behavior” at a convention that allowed no meaningful parliamentary behavior. The slippery lawyer speaks of “actual violence,” attributed to no one and for which there is not one specific example in his three-page single-spaced letter full of ranting accusations (“threats to her life,” “obviously criminal in nature,” “sparking a street-fight,” “an atmosphere of impending eruption,” “screams from bullhorns,” “profiting from the chaos,” “shock troops,” “inciting disruption,” “incendiary, inaccurate, and wholly unauthorized,” “inflammatory charge,” “irrational minority,” “lack of conscience,” or “the glee with which they engaged in such destructive behavior.”) This is not a carefully argued legal brief, with specificity and context – it is essentially a hate letter, apparently intended to provoke further hatred and repression of free speech within the Democratic Party. Most media ran with Schrager’s version of events, unquestioned (as in The New York Times May 17, with this provocatively false lede: “Thrown chairs. Leaked cellphone numbers. Death threats spewed across the Internet.”). Schrager’s demonization is not an argument, but it is an ad hominem emotional appeal that other Democrats (and pundits) have already reacted to without reasoning. Schrager’s letter is also in apparent clear violation of the state party’s Anti-Bullying Policy.

All this has about it some of the stench of 1968, although the parallel is inexact. But then, as now, a large part of the electorate was incensed at the party hierarchy – then over the party’s obdurate support of the Viet-Nam war, now over the party’s adamant resistance to social change desired by most of the country. Then as now, the Democratic Party was unresponsive to its anti-establishment dissenters, then preferring a police riot to silence dissent over any rational effort at accommodation, now choosing a rigged convention (with the hint of worse to come). Then as now, the party hierarchy was rigid and intellectually corrupt. Then the Democratic hierarchy managed to get Richard Nixon elected. Now … well, we’ll see.

Besides the generalized victimization of a raucous convention, the only actual victim was also one of the victimizers. Convention chair Roberta Lange, the enforcer for the state committee’s secret decisions, held the first vote on the rules before all the delegates had arrived. The state committee had secretly given her absolute control over the convention and sole authority to rule on challenges to her own rulings. Given the brewing controversy over Nevada delegates since February, Lange’s dictatorial running of the convention was clearly disruptive of the democratic process, as well as a catalyst for further disruption in response. Lange is not known to have addressed her exercise of authoritarian style, but she has widely complained of being a victim of electronic hate mail and hostile phone calls. She has claimed death threats, but one alleged threat that was published had a callback number and an offer to discuss what went down at the convention. She plays the pity card: “I feel threatened everywhere I go.” Of course Lange should not be harassed, but many of the communications to her are actually political criticism of her actions as a public official. She may be a victim, but she is in no way an innocent victim.

Bernie Sanders made a cogent response, largely ignored

In a May 18 statement, Sanders first reminded the ostrich-like Democratic hierarchy of a real world condition they continue to try to deny:

“… that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics. The people of this country want a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent, super PACs and wealthy campaign contributors.”

He suggested that the Democratic Party faces an existential choice between opening its door to people fighting for “real economic and social change,” or it can choose to maintain its closed-door, corporate, big-money, service-the-rich current posture. (That’s what the state party in Nevada chose.) Next, Sanders addressed the traducing letter from lawyer Schrager:

“Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.” [emphasis added]

Sanders then mentioned actual violence against his campaign in Nevada – a victimless shooting and a break-in/ransacking of staff quarters – that have not made news. For the remainder of the brief statement, Sanders addressed behavior of the Democratic Party, especially at the state level, with a detailed, brief critique of the Nevada convention.

Pundit nonsense is exemplified by the usually cogent Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, whose May 19 column began: “Bernie Sanders is playing a dangerous game. If he and his campaign continue their scorched-earth attacks against the Democratic Party, they will succeed in only one thing: electing Donald Trump as president.” Wait, who’s scorching whose earth? Which Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the Democratic National Committee has scorched as much of Sanders’ earth as she could, while also spending her time supporting the payday lenders who shamelessly exploit the poor and contribute to her campaign? (Bill Moyers sees Wasserman Schultz as a primary source of Democratic divisiveness.) What planet has Eugene Robinson moved to? He concludes that Sanders “and his campaign must stop attacking the Democratic Party in a way that might discourage voters in the fall.” He would be more persuasive and in touch with reality if he warned the Democratic Party to stop attacking Sanders in a way that will alienate his ten million primary voters. But the party may achieve that alienation anyway, just by sticking too closely to the status quo. And surely Robinson knows that.

Another pundit atrocity comes, apparently unintentionally, from Joan Walsh who describes a number of media Sanders-backers who have backed off after uncritically accepting the false narrative of Nevada. Then Walsh goes into conspiracy mode, hinting that the false narrative was not only a true narrative, but that the Sanders people staged the events (that didn’t happen) with a nefarious purpose: “that the point wasn’t the actual delegates—he trails her by about 280 at this point—but creating the appearance of a rigged system.” Besides rejecting the reality of numerous elections irregularities (to put it nicely) in this primary season, Walsh goes on to explain her bias against “male entitlement”: “ I don’t accept the presumption of moral and ideological superiority from a coalition that is dominated by white men, trying to overturn the will of black, brown, and female voters or somehow deem it fraudulent.”

Top Democrats reacted without bothering to fact check

Nevada senator Harry Reid, the Democratic minority leader, had already taken Sanders to task on May 17, based on the false reports of the Nevada convention – “The violence and all the other bad things that has happened there,” Reid falsely told reporters. The New York Times reported that Reid said that Sanders faced “a test of leadership” over the behavior of his supporters, and that Reid said he urged Sanders to “do the right thing.” Neither the Times nor Reid, apparently, explained what “the right thing” was, nor did they mention the draconian nature of the convention itself. (The “test of leadership” meme was picked up with equal parrot-like vacuity by Politico, the Washington Post, The Hill, the LA Times, Daily Kos, the Chicago Tribune, and the Drudge Report. The media nadir was reached by the Times with such baldly biased front page headlines as “Sanders Is Urged to Quell Threats by His Backers – Chairs Fly in Nevada” (May 18) and “Bernie Sanders, Eyeing Convention, Willing to Harm Hillary Clinton in Homestretch” (May 19) – since it was actually Clinton’s Nevada supporters who were harming Clinton with their thuggish takeover of the convention.)

What does Harry Reid know about tests of leadership? He can’t even lead his 43 fellow Democrats in an effective effort to make the full Senate vote on the current Supreme Court nominee. Harry Reid has called the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff “incompetent,” but during the Viet-Nam war, which he did not oppose, Harry Reid led from behind as a capitol cop guarding the House and Senate. Under Harry Reid’s leadership, the Democrats’ Senate majority became a minority. Harry Reid called the Iraq War “the worst foreign policy mistake in the history of this country,” but he voted for it. Bernie Sanders has characterized Iraq the same way, but he voted against it. The only significant test of leadership that comes to mind with Harry Reid is that he managed to keep nuclear waste from being buried in his Nevada backyard at Yucca Mountain. But he’s done nothing to keep anyone else safe and nothing to stem the production of nuclear waste. Harry Reid is the Democratic establishment personified, and you can count on him for pretty much nothing.

Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin of Illinois chimed in based on the false narrative, as did Senator Chris Coons of Delaware. Coons shot his foot into his mouth, lecturing Sanders on “the importance of respecting the process,” numb to the notion that in Nevada the process was the problem. Senator Barbara Boxer of California was at the convention to give a keynote speech for Hillary Clinton, but when she lit into the Sanders disrupters she was booed and attacked the crowd, making the booing worse. Boxer claimed she feared for her safety. By contrast, Democrat Nina Turner, an Ohio State Senator who was supposed to speak before Boxer but was bumped to later, used her speaking time to calm the audience: “we got to be calm but committed.” Turner, who was at the convention for almost eight hours, attests that there was no violence (“nobody tried to do anything violent whatsoever”) and that reports that she was booed were false, even when she said Bernie Sanders was going all the way to the convention “to make the impossible possible.” Rather tepidly, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California semi-praised Sanders as “a positive force in the Democratic Party.” She said she was glad to see the energy of Sanders supporters, but warned that “there are rules that exist.” She didn’t mention the way Nevada treated rules as a variable, but she did reject comparisons between 2016 and 1968 as “ridiculous.”

Another, excellent witness report of the convention, at variance from the false narrative of the party and the media, came from Dan Rolle, Democratic candidate for Congress in Nevada. Acknowledging that there was a lot of chaos, Rolle talks for ten minutes about why it happened: the state committee’s decision to take autocratic control of the convention and Chair Lange’s autocratic exercise of her authority.

By Friday, May 21, there were reports that Sanders was calling his fellow senators and assuring them of what he’d said all along: that he would support the nominee of the party, once there was a nominee as determined by the convention. There’s no report that anyone in the Democratic establishment is assuring him of similar support in the event, however remote, that he is the nominee. That would be a real test of leadership for Harry Reid and his ilk in the face of a popular political revolution to change this country in ways establishment Democrats fear because it threatens their cozy nests of inert but lucrative legalized corruption. Embracing real change for the rest of the country is a test of leadership Clinton Democrats act like they’re determined to fail by any means necessary, the consequences be damned.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+158 # RMDC 2016-05-22 08:56
Thanks. This is a good analysis and commentary. Hillary may have a small lead, but she is quite unpopular and may actually lose to Trump. The WaPo is reporting that both Hillary and Trump have majority negative ratings. That means, most people in the US don't like either one. I'm in that camp.

So the Democratic party and its super delegates have an amazing chance to nominate a very popular and well respected candidate to go up against the odious Trump. This would pretty much assure a democratic party win. With Hillary, the risk is very high.

But as Boardman points out, the DNC and the party rulers are just too corrupt to do the sane thing, the decision in the best interest of the nation and people. They are all about power. The Clintons are about power. They will retain control at all costs, even if that cost is losing the election to Trump. I for one would never vote for a Clinton. It is not Hillary personally, though I do think she is personally too corrupt to hold any elected office. Rather, the Clinton machine is what I oppose. Trump is less bad.

As Boardman shows, the mass media is well behind Hillary and strongly against Trump. So she may win because of that. But the media is pretty easy to manipulate and Trump is a master manipulator.

It is not too late for the DNC and super delegates to do the right thing.
 
 
-103 # ericlipps 2016-05-22 09:19
Quoting RMDC:
Thanks. This is a good analysis and commentary. Hillary may have a small lead, but she is quite unpopular and may actually lose to Trump.

Not if major GOP donors keep zipping their wallets closed rather than contribute to the Rump, and not if we can get past the open primaries where Trumpsters with no intention of voting for any Democrat in the fall can pour into the polling booths to vote for Bernie in order to undermine Hillary.
Quote:
It is not too late for the DNC and super delegates to do the right thing.
That is, give the finger to the voters who have cast more ballots for Hillary than for Bernie.

And isn't it odd how, having spent months whining about how unfair the very existence of superdelegates is, Bernouts are now pinning their hopes on those very same people deciding to overrule the voters in Sanders' favor.
 
 
+81 # cymricmorty 2016-05-22 09:30
Quoting ericlipps:
Not if major GOP donors keep zipping their wallets closed rather than contribute to the Rump, and not if we can get past the open primaries where Trumpsters with no intention of voting for any Democrat in the fall can pour into the polling booths to vote for Bernie in order to undermine Hillary.


HRC has turned to the repub cinched moneybags as the candidate who represents their values better than Trump. So much for her imaginary Democratic values.

www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/09/clinton-campaign-republican-donors-hillary-shares-your-values
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-22 09:34
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+14 # lorenbliss 2016-05-22 12:10
Apropos Hillary's Big Lie of "Democratic" values, here is a story The Boston Globe broke this morning that proves her "feminism" is itself questionable:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/05/21/hillary-clinton-stands-for-man-child-custody-case/lQ6jLc8v9t7CIr3SyuenKN/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-05-22 16:01
Perhaps more telling is Hillary Clinton's defense of a 42 year old man she knew was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl.

In the interview in this article, you can hear her laughing at getting the rapist off with just "time served" for two months while awaiting trial.

And she knew her friend the prosecutor had destroyed the evidence (blood and semen stained underwear), but instead of complaining, she called charging the guilty man a "miscarriage of justice:" again, while laughing.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/
 
 
+25 # lorenbliss 2016-05-22 18:27
@Radscal: Thank you. I didn't know about this one either.

But I can just imagine what der Trumpster will do with this...not to mention the Vince Foster case or anything else even remotely questionable in Hillary's background.

What is truly astonishing is that someone this morally and ethically questionable can rise to such heights in comparison, for example, to Gary Hart, for whom Google.

Hart dared challenge the Democratic Party hierarchy with what at the time were described as economic and foreign policy proposals reminiscent of JFK.

The one Democratic candidate who might have beaten George I, he was nevertheless destroyed by an especially vicious campaign of never-proven sexual innuendos.

Contrast that with the moral imbecility demonstrated by Hillary's response to the torture-death of Qaddafi and the many questions about her proximity to crimes that include murder.

True, Hillary herself has never been charged with a crime -- but the same can be said of innumerable Mafiosi.
 
 
-13 # rocback 2016-05-23 17:13
Fact check this video:

http://www.ktnv.com/news/nevada-politician-receiving-hundreds-of-death-threats-insults
 
 
+11 # Nominae 2016-05-23 16:37
Quoting Radscal:

In the interview in this article, you can hear her laughing at getting the rapist off with just "time served" for two months while awaiting trial.

And she knew her friend the prosecutor had destroyed the evidence (blood and semen stained underwear), but instead of complaining, she called charging the guilty man a "miscarriage of justice:" again, while laughing.

Obviously the woman has a *KILLER sense of humor !

*LITERALLY !
__
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2016-05-23 18:54
I just listened to it.

Did you catch the phony "southern" accent?

Her phony behavior hasn't changed a bit.
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-05-23 20:44
Yeah, even in 2016, she affects a bit of that fake Southern accent when campaigning in the South.
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-05-23 21:35
Speaking of laughter, here is a video of CBS anchors laughing when Clinton says she cannot be bought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSF4OSR22D0


Why does her laughing most often mean that something horrible has happened?
 
 
+88 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 09:48
Isn't it also odd, how Clinton's best hope at this point, is to tell the Democratic base to fuck off, and just focus her attention on Republican voters and donors?

I guess that's not really "odd" at all. Clinton's voters are Republicans. Some of them just like maintaining the lie that they aren't.
 
 
+82 # cymricmorty 2016-05-22 09:54
HRC's supreme arrogance inspires pushback, doesn't change minds, and will prove to be her Achilles heel.
 
 
+78 # futhark 2016-05-22 10:48
I pushed back 3 days ago with my California primary absentee ballot put in the mail with a mark adjacent to the name Bernie Sanders.
 
 
+67 # cymricmorty 2016-05-22 10:51
Nice! I'm pushing back by phone banking for Sanders again today.
 
 
+77 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 11:04
Yes Hillary, you are right, you are already the nominee!
Now tell all of your supporters in California that you have already secured your crown and they do not have to bother voting on June 6.

We'll take it from here!
 
 
+35 # Majikman 2016-05-22 12:27
Fun fact: In 1938 the big triple crown winner, War Admiral, with all the big money & stables on his side raced against a tough little upstart that was the peoples' favorite--Sea Biscuit. Sea biscuit won by 4 lengths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVT2MPNCqgM
 
 
+9 # Nominae 2016-05-23 16:42
Quoting Majikman:
Fun fact: In 1938 the big triple crown winner, War Admiral, with all the big money & stables on his side raced against a tough little upstart that was the peoples' favorite--Sea Biscuit. Sea biscuit won by 4 lengths
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVT2MPNCqgM

Dang ! Who KNEW that biscuits *could run that fast ! ;-D

Seriously, very apt and very *useful analogy !

KUDOS !
_
 
 
+9 # Ken Halt 2016-05-23 20:09
Another fun fact, in 1948 some newspapers printed headlines that Dewey had won the presidential election when in fact Truman had won. Ain't over 'til it' over!
 
 
-42 # lights 2016-05-22 14:31
Oh, I so do hope when Clinton wins the Presidency that she does a spoof living up to your phony "coronation" theory.

I say - place the jeweled crown on your head Hillary. Immerse yourself in a cornucopia of pomp and circumstance. Romp the floors in the grandest of fashions.

After all, Trump would be doing it.
 
 
+8 # dsepeczi 2016-05-24 12:52
Quoting lights:
Oh, I so do hope when Clinton wins the Presidency that she does a spoof living up to your phony "coronation" theory.

I say - place the jeweled crown on your head Hillary. Immerse yourself in a cornucopia of pomp and circumstance. Romp the floors in the grandest of fashions.

After all, Trump would be doing it.


Oh, I do so hope that, if she becomes president, you learn to understand the big mistake you made once Hillary runs this country into the ground by doing what she's always done ... promoting wars .... promoting Wall Street .... promoting trade agreements that kill American jobs ... and promoting fracking ... all to the detriment of our society.
 
 
-40 # rocback 2016-05-22 19:02
Looks like the cyber circle jerk is in full force here. Same ones, same old crap. Same articles that inflame and exaggerate. Bernie has turned into a bitter grouchy old man yelling at people to get off his lawn.
 
 
+8 # Nominae 2016-05-23 16:49
Quoting crocback:
... Same ones, same old crap. Same articles that inflame and exaggerate. Bernie has turned into a bitter grouchy old man yelling at people to get off his lawn.

I KNOW, *Right ? A "high quality" TROLL such as *yourself, after sluffing off for the *Entire weekend to go to a Hillary SuperPAC "Correct The Record" *CIRCLE JERK, really *should be able to find a *MUCH better Q with which to grace your inimitable and august presence.

Seriously, crocback, you sound like a man standing on a Railroad Track sniveling over the fact that that *SAME TRAIN is coming *AGAIN ! Yeah .... that's *why it's called a *daily Express ! ;-D

Any *moron would be sufficiently quick witted to simply freakin' STEP OFF OF THE DAMNED RAILROAD TRACKS ! ;-D

There is an entire Planet *ELSEWHERE to be infiltrated and infested. You GO, Guy ! No - *literally ! ;-D

Elsewise, mon frer, if you *INSIST upon being *here, stop the pissing and moaning about YOUR *OWN FREE CHOICE *TO BE HERE. ;-D

My gawd, *WHAT a recalcitrant child ! ;-D
_
 
 
-24 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 14:53
BB: She never said any such thing, and you know it.

..
 
 
+26 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 19:25
Her actions and the words of her minions have made her voice very clear, Barbara. You just don't want to listen.
 
 
+45 # librarian1984 2016-05-22 16:14
HRC criticized Sanders, asking if he was really a Democrat, when the irony is that he, an Independent, is more a Democrat than she has ever been.
 
 
-44 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 18:43
Don't you wish that were true? But, it is just another stupid lie. Sanders has been a Dem for about 3 weeks, Hillary has been a Dem all her adult life. No matter what you make up, you won't change the truth.

..
 
 
+27 # librarian1984 2016-05-22 22:24
I would say you are quite gullible if a label is all it takes to convince you.

Oh look! I'm a squirrel!
 
 
+34 # Ken Halt 2016-05-22 22:26
Barbara: Please don't be so obtuse! What librarian is saying is that Bernie is the true Dem candidate that champions the New Deal, FDR programs that created the now-threatened middle class. If HRC becomes pres she will continue the 1% ripoff, support fracking, support trade deals disastrous to US workers, et al. The Dem party once fought for progressive values such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, workplace safety, etc., but since the first Clinton DLC admin has been taken over by neo-libs who work only for the 1%. And speaking of truth, Bernie has caucused with Dems while in Congress and has been a Dem super delegate for many election cycles. He entered the race as a Dem candidate more than a year ago, not "...3 weeks...". You seem to have a quite subjective claim on the quality of "truth".
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2016-05-23 13:35
Quoting Barbara K:
Don't you wish that were true? But, it is just another stupid lie. Sanders has been a Dem for about 3 weeks, Hillary has been a Dem all her adult life. No matter what you make up, you won't change the truth...

As I said before, in party politics, loyalty trumps virtue every time.
 
 
+55 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 09:52
By the way, didn't you get the memo from Central Command Headquarters yet?

The other major Hitlery trolls "lights" and "botcrack" have already taken a few days off. They've noticed that the more they piss us off, the more they strengthen our resolve to never cooperate with Hitlery.

Apparently, Hitlery doesn't even need the Democratic Party anymore. She's decided to just run as a Republican now, with a little "D" next to her name.

I guess you're still hanging out here to drum up more support for Sanders, huh? Keep up the good work. It's very effective.

LOL!
 
 
+36 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 11:09
I still think that those trolls work for Trump.
Trump knows he cannot beat Bernie and he is waiting to unleash his torrent of attack ads, all based on Hillary's lies, "mistakes" and terrible record, that will drive up her unfavoribles from the current 61% to 90%.
Once the Hillbots actually learn about her record they will start dropping out of her camp.
The Wall Street Journal poll released this morning shows Clinton beating Trump by 3% (well within the margin of error) yet Bernie beats Trump by 15%!
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-05-22 14:41
We'll see what it looks like as Sanders continues to get REAL vetting. Don't worry about Clinton over Trump. Even if you - the 1% keep it up.
 
 
+26 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 17:56
"REAL vetting" lights?
Please point to ANYTHING in Bernie's past that can be used against him.
He is a progressive hero who has fought for his noble positions for 35 years since he was elected as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
 
 
+9 # CL38 2016-05-23 00:44
Vet Clinton's past.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-05-23 19:50
How about the fact that he didn't hold a steady job until he was 40 when he became a full-time politician living off the govt tit.
 
 
+8 # Radscal 2016-05-23 20:50
As opposed to HRC, whose ONLY real job outside of "the govt tit" (I think you meant "teat" but either way, that's a Republican tell).

And that of course was when she was both the corporate defense lawyer for Walmart, while sitting on Walmart's board (a conflict of interest that the ABA specifies as unethical).
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 19:25
I guess your breaks over, lights?

Did you enjoy your sandwich?
 
 
+7 # Nominae 2016-05-23 17:26
Quoting Billy Bob:
I guess your breaks over, lights? Did you enjoy your sandwich?

They spent the weekend at a Hillary Troll Hootenanny ! ;-D
_
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-05-23 18:53
Followed by a Bill Clinton semen-ar.
 
 
-14 # rocback 2016-05-23 19:52
At least Bill supported his own children unlike Bernie.
 
 
+9 # WBoardman 2016-05-23 20:32
Wait!

Bill had CHILDREN!?!?

By how many mothers?
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-05-24 06:40
At least Bill had "spunk"!
 
 
-34 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 14:57
G....Yes, on the story about this very thing, it said to look at how they spell her name, and we can tell who the trolls are. There are plenty of them all over, including on here. It is pretty bad when a person has to lie about Clinton in hopes some dopes will believe the lies and vote for him. We who have known her for a long time, know better.

..
 
 
+17 # Ken Halt 2016-05-22 22:29
Barbara: HRC has a long public record, please consult it and then tell us with a straight face that the facts presented on the RSN threads about HRC are lies and falsehoods. We await your response...
 
 
+5 # librarian1984 2016-05-23 21:39
Quoting Ken Halt:
Barbara: We await your response...
I don't.
 
 
+7 # dsepeczi 2016-05-24 13:04
Quoting Barbara K:
G....Yes, on the story about this very thing, it said to look at how they spell her name, and we can tell who the trolls are. There are plenty of them all over, including on here. It is pretty bad when a person has to lie about Clinton in hopes some dopes will believe the lies and vote for him. We who have known her for a long time, know better.

..


I've challenged you on this before so I probably won't get a response this time, either. But what "lies" about her are you referring to ? Her record is public and there have been many posted links concerning them. Was her vote for Iraq a lie ? Was her support for the Libya ans Syria misadventures a lie ? Was her unbridled support for NAFTA and the TPP ... until she changed her mind while running for POTUS ... a lie ? Are the large contributions she receives from wealthy political donors a lie ? Was her antagonistic language towards Putin and Russia a lie ? Was her support for the coup in Honduras a lie ? Is there something I missed that you consider to be a lie ? If you consider all that I referred to as truthful and you have to look somewhere else to find a "lie", would that lie even matter ? Enlighten me, Barbara ... which "lie" are you referring to ?
 
 
+34 # Vardoz 2016-05-22 12:03
seems like parties have become window dressing for us little people. It's all about the establishment status quo. But a lot of money is being spent by HRC and the GOP to sabotage people's votes to make sure Democracy is dead in the water for the American people.
 
 
-41 # Kiwikid 2016-05-22 12:44
The reason, Billy Bob, that we've 'taken a few days off' is that there is now a fundamentalist religious fervor driving this site - anyone who doesn't bow to the idol of Bernie is vilified, no matter how kosher the rest of their progressive credentials. I have no doubt that this is the main reason that RSN is in financial trouble and has been for some months - why would we 'trolls' continue paying to be abused? It looks like you're on your own from here. Good luck.
 
 
+24 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 14:02
Really? Did you just find out that RSN's readers tend to be liberal/progres sive? Does that scare you? Well, apparently not, because, here you are.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-05-23 19:53
54% income tax rate and another 20% in other taxes is a hell of a lot more than just "progressive".
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-24 06:40
Spoken like a true Trump Trojan Horse!
 
 
+29 # DaveEwoldt 2016-05-22 17:12
Oh, there's the part you're missing, Kiwikid. You don't have to idolize Bernie to prove you're a progressive. But supporting a pro-corporate war-monger proves that you aren't.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-05-22 18:54
That "necessary" vs "sufficient" thing that draws so many a blank stare.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 17:42
Quoting Kiwikid:
I have no doubt that this is the main reason that RSN is in financial trouble and has been for some months - why would we 'trolls' continue paying to be abused?

Oh, my *goodness ! Poor, poor, pitiful *you! Picked on, used and abused ! Tsk-tsk ! There oughta be a *LAW ! ;-D

Given your analysis re: RSN Financials, I can only hope that *you don't have to feed a *family on the basis of your "abilities" in the realm of *financial genius ! ;-D

Quoting Kiwikid:
It looks like you're on your own from here. Good luck.


AW, Kid - Please don't *say it if you don't really *mean it ! It is just rude to raise our hopes by teasing us with a *false promise ! ;-D
_
 
 
+3 # dsepeczi 2016-05-24 13:06
Quoting Kiwikid:
The reason, Billy Bob, that we've 'taken a few days off' is that there is now a fundamentalist religious fervor driving this site - anyone who doesn't bow to the idol of Bernie is vilified, no matter how kosher the rest of their progressive credentials. I have no doubt that this is the main reason that RSN is in financial trouble and has been for some months - why would we 'trolls' continue paying to be abused? It looks like you're on your own from here. Good luck.


I think your new here. No ?
 
 
-29 # lights 2016-05-22 14:39
Oh, Billy Bob. Congratulations . I guess there is more than one way to be a part of - being in the one (1%) percent.
 
 
-24 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 18:47
BB: You appear to be one of the Trump trolls. Can't even spell her name. Big giveaway.
You think anyone who disagrees with you is a troll. Shame on you, we have a right to our opinions too, and if you don't like it, you can lump it. We don't like the comments we see on here either, Just a bunch of nasty mouths.

..
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 19:27
I've been on RSN longer than you have Barbara, and many times I've defended you.

I guess loyalty flies out the window, when it comes to the anointed one.
 
 
+9 # wrknight 2016-05-23 13:39
She always was a "Republican" from the Goldwater days to the present. It's just that the two parties changed their names. The old Republican party is now the Democratic Party and the present Republican party was previously the Fascist party.
 
 
+35 # DaveEwoldt 2016-05-22 11:49
Eric, I know you know this, because unlike some of the Clinton trolls you can string two intelligent sentences together, so why are you so intent on furthering the false narrative?

Trumpsters aren't smart enough to vote strategically. It's the independents who are voting for Bernie in the open primaries, and these are the voters the Democratic Party is going to need in November.
 
 
-12 # lights 2016-05-22 14:43
At least some of us Independents had the knowledge to change our voting status so we could vote...
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-23 18:28
Quoting lights:
At least some of us Independents had the knowledge to change our voting status so we could vote...

Gawd, Sparky !

If you expect some kind of a Cub Scout Merit Badge for *that you are even more insecure than we *thought ! ;-D
_
 
 
+26 # markovchhaney 2016-05-22 13:13
Why would the GOP establishment be trying to get Sanders, not Clinton, as their fall opponent when every poll shows that he crushes Trump? Your trolling for Hills is showing.
 
 
-17 # lights 2016-05-22 14:27
Thanks ericlipps. Clarity is power.
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-23 18:30
Quoting lights:
Thanks ericlipps. Clarity is power.

Actually, Sparky, the *quote is "KNOWLEDGE is power." See where you guys keep coming up short ? ;-D
_
 
 
-34 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 14:50
Ericlipps: You are so correct. And by suing them, do they think the Dems are going to rush in to vote for Sanders? He has no right to take over a Dem party just so he can change it to rig the election there for himself. He was an Independent for 44 years and only a few weeks ago changed to be a Dem. He wanted nothing to do with the party until he wanted to use it for his own gain to the White House. He already has a 2 party lead, I think only one party should be allowed to vote for him. Why should he get that advantage? He is so worried about someone else maybe getting an advantage, when he is the one getting the advantage. I hope the lawsuit fails. That is going a little far to try to intimidate the party to do HIS bidding.

..
 
 
+23 # Radscal 2016-05-22 15:26
eri writes: "And isn't it odd how, having spent months whining about how unfair the very existence of superdelegates is, Bernouts are now pinning their hopes on those very same people deciding to overrule the voters in Sanders' favor."

Here's Hillary's letter from May, 2008 urging the Super Delegates to ignore the popular vote and nominate her even though she was behind.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/05/clintons-closing-argument-to-superdelegates/53314/
 
 
-18 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 16:06
Some important info here:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/sanders-increasingly-appears-petulant-shortsighted/?utm_source=National+Memo+Mailing+List&utm_campaign=598ba83938-Morning_Memo_5_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f8e3f883b-598ba83938-153483781

..
 
 
+15 # RMDC 2016-05-22 18:45
eric -- "That is, give the finger to the voters who have cast more ballots for Hillary than for Bernie."

No not at all. Check out the Bernstein and Palast article now on RSM. And this article. Clinton, Wasserman-schul tz and their friends in the mass media are stealing the election from voters. No one can prove that for sure, though there are some great articles of voting machine rigging. Many people like me believe that if the voting were open and if the media gave equal time to all candidates, Sanders would be 3 millions votes up on Hillary. But we can't prove that. It just feels this way.

The main point is that Hillary is a very weak candidate with high negatives. She would not be winning without the Clinton/ DNC machine behind her and against Sanders. Machine politics are always anti-democratic . The democratic party needs to open up, free itself from machines, and let the voters speak and have the final power. If this were to happen, I believe Clinton would fade away, just as she did when Obama began to speak (falsely) to the people.
 
 
+16 # Pikewich 2016-05-22 21:25
Here are the reasons we don't like the corrupt party politics taken from an interview of Dennis Bernstein by Greg Palast, and it is the tip of the iceberg:

Greg Palast: In Nevada, 64 Bernie Sanders delegates – some committee chairmen and life­long county Democratic Party members – were disqualified on the grounds that they were Republicans. They are lifelong Democrats, and that’s why they were at the convention, as chosen delegates. Bernie Sanders had more delegates than Hillary Clinton. It was a very close race in Nevada. When they knocked out the 64 Bernie delegates as Republicans, suddenly Hillary won the caucus by 35 delegate votes. Some of the Sanders people didn’t like that. So what was the report? Not how Sanders delegates were somehow excluded from exercising their rightful vote for the party’s nominee. Instead, The New York Times headline was: “From Bernie Sanders Supporters, Death Threats Over Delegates. ”

How blatantly corrupt is that? Almost sounds like a conspiracy.

There are many reason we won't vote for Hilary, but it boils down to this. Voting against the worst of the candidates IS NOT WORKING.
 
 
-12 # rocback 2016-05-23 10:33
Another total BS article by this author who wasn't even there. If you want the real truth, read the report from the Politico reporter that was there:

"Allegations of Fraud and Misconduct at Nevada Convention Unfounded"

http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/
 
 
+5 # Nominae 2016-05-23 18:40
Quoting rocback:
Another total BS article by this author who wasn't even there.....

crockback, crockback, indefatigable crocback - We *DO have an RSN Contributor who *WAS *THERE. Her RSN "handle" is Doc Mary. Doc Mary reports that there WAS *NO violence of ANY kind, and certainly no chair throwing.

The claims of threats against the Chair of the meeting were SELF REPORTED BY the Chair herself without ANY proof, and what COULD be discovered by investigators revealed only messages with CALL BACK NUMBERS !

What kind of a numb nutz *sends a DEATH THREAT with a freakin' CALL BACK NUMBER ON IT ?? ;-D

Poor Baby Baghdad Bob, you seem to be *still hung over from your long weekend at the "Correct The Record" Hootenanny ! ;-D
_
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-05-23 19:47
I think she was only talking to you Boardman. :-)
 
 
+55 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 09:47
You're right, RMDC.

But the Democratic Party isn't selecting Hillary because they think she has a better chance than Sanders. She's getting force-fed to us, because the DNC is fundamentally conservative, and it's not about to allow a liberal candidate to represent us.

The Democratic Party as we've always known it is long gone. Obama pulled a fast one, by slipping through the cracks while being slightly to the left of Hitlery. They vowed to never let that happen again.

We only have a few options:

-Keep trying to take back the Democratic Party.

-Vote 3rd party and be laughed at, and easily brushed aside.

-Choose to not even bother to participate.

The 1st option is all we have if we want to affect real change. We can't do it by asking DWS for her permission. We can only manage this by, PERMANENTLY becoming a real pain in the ass for them, and refusing to cooperate with any of their demands, unless they begin to make some concessions to a few of ours.
 
 
+33 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-22 10:31
Billy Bob, I agree with "Keep trying to take back the Democratic Party" but I disagree with your "not even bother to participate" and I disagree even more strongly with your "be laughed at, and easily brushed aside" if voting 3rd party.

If Sanders is not on the ballot in November I will vote Jill Stein, Green Party. If enough Sanders supporters will do that (and I believe a high percentage of them will), that would turn the Green Party into a viable party they won't be able to keep out of the political process any longer. Then, at least 4 years from now, we really will have a choice between a recognized third party, the pro-people, pro-peace Progressive Party, vs. the two almost identical establishment neocon/neoliber al corporatist war parties, D and R. We will have real choice, for the first time. We don't have that choice right now.
 
 
+23 # jimmyjames 2016-05-22 10:46
I totally agree with you, Helga! I voted for Jill in 2012 because I was already tired of Barack Obama's actions during his first term. If Bernie is not the Democratic nominee, Jill will have my vote again. If enough Bernie supporters would vote for her, she will definitely become a viable candidate for President. She is by far the best protest vote against HRC and Trump you could find. In all honesty, I would love to see Bernie run as her VP and pull millions of Bernie supporters with him. Jill and Bernie may not win, but they sure as hell would give a YOUUUUGE wake up call to establishment politics!

For those of you who do not know Jill Stein, please watch this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MMahrBteE8
 
 
+34 # futhark 2016-05-22 10:52
I wish I could give you multiple pluses on this one. Bernie Sanders is the reason I registered from Green to Democrat for the first time in 6 years and won't shed a tear voting for Jill Stein if the Democratic Party leadership is obtuse enough to nominate arch-corporate tool and warmonger H. R. Clinton.
 
 
+6 # economagic 2016-05-22 18:57
Where can you register as Green? I want to move there!
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 12:26
I won't judge you harshly for that, Helga. We're put in a tough spot here. If I can't write in "Sanders", I may be forced to make the same decision.

What happens in 4 years, if the Green Party AND the Democratic Party BOTH put up an equally good candidate? This is why I think the Greens, and all liberals, should OVERCOME the Democratic Party, from within.

There have been 3rd party candidates in every election I can remember, and they will ALWAYS be brushed aside.

If we had a national primary where all candidates, from every party, competed against one another, and then, the top 2 vote getters had an automatic runoff, we'd have a system that made many parties viable. Until then, we will never have that.
 
 
+16 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 14:06
By the way, THIS is why I - WILL - NEVER vote for Hillary.

What I said above is basically true. However, if the Democratic Party insists on forcing right-wing candidates down our throats with little regard, and assumes we'll be there for them anyway "because we have nowhere else to go", they can count on me and many others ACTIVELY engaging in anything we can to throw a wrench in the works.

IF I thought voting 3rd party would do that, I'd be all for it. I'm just not convinced that it does.

This is about strategy and getting what we want, at this point - nothing else.

That's why I no longer judge 3rd party voters. I disagree with their strategy, but I don't disagree with the motivation behind it.
 
 
+8 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:02
Small quibble:

"3rd party candidates . . . will ALWAYS be brushed aside."

I understand your frustration, but the future has not yet been written. It's been a while since one of those "brushed aside" parties became one of the Big Two, but we are in the best of times, worst of times, seriously uncharted waters at least as regards the USian Empire.

Technically it's called a "chaotic regime," in which small differences can become big differences very quickly, making reliable prediction effectively impossible.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 19:31
Perhaps you're right. I don't mind if the Greens replace the Democrats, but the transition needs to be fast. All I know is that, under our current system, there can be only one team representing the left, if we want any chance to win.

The right can get away with infiltrating the Democratic Party all it wants. Too many "Democrats" are too stupid or deluded to pay attention. That's a different story.

The left, on the other hand, can never get away with that.

The only way the Greens can win a presidential election, is by totally annihilating the Democratic Party.

I'm ok with that, because they've shown us no loyalty whatsoever. However, we can't have both sides sharing power and defeating each other.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2016-05-23 21:02
Typically, 60% to 75% of ELIGIBLE voters don't bother to vote. Having worked on voter registration drives many times, I found that most of those self-disenfranc hised voters make the decision not to vote because they know the duopoly does not represent them.

This election is getting so much coverage for being so "out there," that I can see a real aperture opening to get that large majority to register and vote.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2016-05-24 06:48
Then we need to get crackin'.

If the revolution you want really is possible, it would take more force than that of the DWS / Clinton stranglehold.

Not that we necessarily have enough time at this point. I don't know.

The fact is pretty simple though. If we can't force the hand of the Democratic Party now, we'll never be taken seriously again.

Clinton has already let it be known that she can do whatever she wants WITHOUT EVEN NEEDING the left - which is why I find it laughable to hear all the doomsdayers lecturing us about "our fault" if she loses.
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-05-24 12:38
Yep. I've had a hard time convincing non-voters to register and vote for Dems because these people knew the DNC does not represent them.

I've also had trouble registering people to vote 3rd Party, because almost all USians have bought into the self-fulfilling prophecy that a vote for 3rd parties is "a wasted vote."

If we can get Sanders nominated, I'm pretty certain we can get a LOT of those people to vote. And of course, they'd vote for the most progressive candidates down ticket, too.

But, if Sanders is denied the nomination, I think the coverage he has gotten could help us motivate a goodly number of them to vote for him as an independent or Green Party candidate.
 
 
+2 # A_Har 2016-05-24 15:22
My SO is *so disgusted* with the whole system that he DE-registered from voting.

And I get one negative vote for simply saying so--for simply reporting it. Hell, I do not control him nor do I want to.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-05-24 15:41
Sad. Understandable, but sad.
 
 
-14 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-22 14:14
Quoting Helga Fellay:
Billy Bob, I agree with "Keep trying to take back the Democratic Party" but I disagree with your "not even bother to participate" and I disagree even more strongly with your "be laughed at, and easily brushed aside" if voting 3rd party.

If Sanders is not on the ballot in November I will vote Jill Stein, Green Party. If enough Sanders supporters will do that (and I believe a high percentage of them will), that would turn the Green Party into a viable party they won't be able to keep out of the political process any longer. Then, at least 4 years from now, we really will have a choice between a recognized third party, the pro-people, pro-peace Progressive Party, vs. the two almost identical establishment neocon/neoliberal corporatist war parties, D and R. We will have real choice, for the first time. We don't have that choice right now.


Uh Nope, it will be close between whoever ends up being the non-fascist nominee, and Der Drumpf. Third parties NEVER gain traction in the US, and we do NOT want a Nader-like counter-action allowing a Trump win. Jill et al need to run from within the Democratic (i.e. Repugnican-lite ) party, which undoubtedly has both FDR and JFK turning over in their graves....
 
 
+10 # Radscal 2016-05-22 16:17
If you don't want a President Drumpf, please do everything you can to get the Democratic Party to nominate Bernie Sanders, the candidate with the highest approval ratings who will beat ANY Republican candidate they toss at us.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-22 19:32
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 19:34
Cassandra, We need leverage, and we need to be heard. If they refuse to listen, we're stuck with very limited options. Once they took any loyalty to their base "off the table", our loyalty to them needs to follow suit.
 
 
+11 # Vardoz 2016-05-22 12:06
It's too late this round to create a 3rd party but next round and hopefully it will only be one term for HRC or Trump, Jill Stein has a good chance and of course Warren but both would be up against the same sabotage!
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-05-22 16:14
Has Jill Stein ever been elected to anything anywhere? I don't believe anyone who have never been elected to anything can win the presidency.
 
 
+14 # tigerlillie 2016-05-22 13:46
"The Democratic party as we have long known it is long gone."

Never forget that Bill Clinton and the Clinton machine that he built effectively destroyed the party.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-23 18:52
Quoting tigerlillie:
Never forget that Bill Clinton and the Clinton machine that he built effectively destroyed the party.

HEAR! HEAR !
_
 
 
+29 # Vardoz 2016-05-22 11:59
When I posed the question on facebook to the Bernie or Bust crowd. Would they stick with Bernie or Bust even if it resulted in a Trump win? They all said yes.

We could never vote for HRC or any establishment Democrat again and will only vote for Progressives or Social Democrats on the ballot and we have told our reps this. So they too are at risk as Bernie voters are determined to take back the house and senate with a new brand of politician. I think you are right - this is about power and HRC and her corporate mob who are going to fight to the end too even if it means they lose to Trump but it is kind of schizophrenic to do everything she can to enrage Bernie supporters and at the same time says she wants to unify her party. Bernie supporters are livid towards HRC and I have been on face book for weeks and there is a never ending river of hatred for HRC among Bernie supporters. It's amazing how disliked she is. People are asking how she could have so many supports when Bernie is drawing tens of thousands to his rallies? It was suggested that this is some kind of computerized fiction that HRC has manufactured since so few turn up at her rallies.
 
 
+9 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:20
"some kind of computerized fiction"

There is a reason conspiracy theories abound: Some of them turn out to be true.

There is also a reason that at least some of us, after careful consideration, are willing to take a chance on a dishonest, thoughtless megalomaniacal egomaniac (sic) ostensibly with serious xenophobia and fascist tendencies:

We are not convinced that HRC is the lesser of two evils, regardless of her "electability."

That is NOT to say that we are convinced that she is the GREATER evil, only that we are not convinced that she is not, and that there is no way to know for sure how evil either of the "presumptive candidates" would be in office until one of them is in office.

All we know about Trump is that he is a disingenuous asshole (see above) who has never held elective office. What we know about HRC is that she has for at least 25 years been allied with some of the most destructive people and groups in modern American politics. There are questions about some of her proclaimed good deeds and constructive positions, but grant her those. They do nothing to ameliorate the evil she has already done.
 
 
+14 # banichi 2016-05-22 13:42
RDMC, thanks for the excellent summation. Very accurate. The only point of disagreement I would have is that I have a strong suspicion that it is, indeed, too late for the DNC and super delegates to do the right thing.

First, I don't think they are capable of it at this point; they are too committed to the established power structure to go against it since they benefit from it so much.

Second, with the unquestioning lack of fact-checking on the events at the Nevada convention, indeed, the promotion of what has been shown to be a pack of lies by numerous sources, they have backed themselves into a corner that it will be very hard to get out of. The vast majority of the MSM support for the lies has hammered this nail flat.

Third, the way this has been handled by both NV Chair Lange, DWS, and the Democratic party (i.e. Reid et al) only makes it more likely, even without full proof yet, that in other states where the primaries were subject to various rigging strategies by the Democratic Party/Clintons, election fraud occurred.

Last, I suspect strongly that the scenario in Nevada was designed to provoke in reality what the Democratic leadership is trying to lie into belief: violence that would brand Bernie's followers so that the Convention rigging could be justified and Bernie Sanders supporters excluded. Pattern analysis of recent events supports that, I think. If anyone thinks I am mistaken, please tell me how and why. I wish I did not think so.
 
 
+9 # BIg Lar 2016-05-22 09:26
"Dishonest mainstream media"? Welcome to the radical right.
 
 
+47 # seakat 2016-05-22 09:28
I can't help but think that since $hillary things she's got the nomination sewn up that she knows the system is rigged in her favor.
 
 
-3 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-22 14:19
Quoting seakat:
I can't help but think that since $hillary things she's got the nomination sewn up that she knows the system is rigged in her favor.


Please---do stop using these silly epithets like Shillary and Killary, bc even those of us who are strongly pro-Bernie get turned off by the blatant immaturity and suspiciously malignant misogyny inherent in such use.
 
 
+17 # lfeuille 2016-05-22 16:23
Oh for god sake! Immature maybe, but misogyny? No more than tRump or Shrub are anti-male. It is a comment on a particular woman, not womanhood.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 19:20
Quoting lfeuille:
Oh for god sake! Immature maybe, but misogyny? No more than tRump or Shrub are anti-male. It is a comment on a particular woman, not womanhood.

Thanks lfeuille !

ONLY a another woman herself can get away with that GLARINGLY OBVIOUS statement of *observable FACT these days, and, of course *many women *hide behind that VERY calculation !

First Cassie scolds others and demands SELF CENSORSHIP based upon HER choices of language, and THEN she tosses out crap like "malignant misogyny" as a bludgeon, hoping to *ENFORCE her call
for Censorship by issuing *stupidly open and empty threats.

Cassie hides behind what appears to be a call for civility in discourse, and then drops a NUKE on her freakin' way out the door.

Good thing she is not a Military Strategist ! *That plan just calls
*ALL HELL to rain down upon the "genius" who proposes it.

As librarian often notes, it is *PRECISELY this kind of underhanded sh!t that tends to set women's rights *BACK at least 7 Blocks with
*each and *every use.

Male or female - you give *some humans so much as a *thimble-full
of POWER and it runs *Immediately to their vicious and vacuous HEADS ! ;-D
_
 
 
+12 # librarian1984 2016-05-22 17:12
Suspiciously malignant misogyny, or silly epithet and blatant immaturity? Those are two very different things,

Misogyny is not a word to be tossed around lightly, and it seems totally inappropriate here.
 
 
+7 # Majikman 2016-05-22 19:55
@Cassandra
Hell, you'd scream misogyny if someone preferred Uncle Ben's to Sara Lee.

Names like Hitlery, $hillary etc are too benign for that lying, warmongering grifter
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-05-23 19:04
Quoting Cassandra2012:
Quoting seakat:
I can't help but think that since $hillary things she's got the nomination sewn up that she knows the system is rigged in her favor.


Please---do stop using these silly epithets like Shillary and Killary, bc even those of us who are strongly pro-Bernie get turned off by the blatant immaturity and suspiciously malignant misogyny inherent in such use.

Well then, at least *consider "taking one" for FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

NO ONE who is *not in a position to take my very *life is EVER going to tell *me what I can, or cannot say in "The Land of The Free".

57,000 Americans died in Viet Nam *thinking, in part, that they were defending seakat's right to say *ANY damned thing s/he *WANTS !

So you're "turned off" ?

Rough freakin' *BOUNCE. It isn't seakat's job to turn you *ON !

If seakat's speech offends your delicate ears, rather than muzzling, stifling and *censoring seakat, how about just moving on to the NEXT comment in the Q that *DOES meet with your sniffing and scolding approval ?

Abrogating seakat's Freedom of Speech just bcuz the choice of words "turns you off" is one *HILARIOUSLY petty proposition.
_
 
 
-77 # hobe 2016-05-22 09:29
it is time for Bernie and his supporters to stop pretending he has a chance to win. HE would not have a chance after he finally released his past tax returns and answered questions on his wife,s fraud dealings with the banks and Burlington college. All he is doing is helping trump.
 
 
+12 # rxfxworld 2016-05-22 10:57
Just as soon as she releases those transcripts. You do know she had Vince Foster killed, right? HRC and her"husband" are the Tom and Daisy Buchanans of modern US politics. They make messes, move on, leaving it for others to clean up. Libya,Iraq,Ukra ine, Honduras. Why doesn't she stop pretending she has a chance to be president and leave so Bernie can be.
 
 
+20 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 11:46
Quoting rxfxworld:
You do know she had Vince Foster killed, right?


Other than CT artists, please cite reputable sources for this claim. If you can't, then please say that this is your OPINION, to which you are entitled. Do not say it is a fact.

Thank you.
 
 
+2 # AshamedAmerican 2016-05-22 12:27
If it had not been an appointee of a Clinton appointee investigating Clinton, we may be able to speak about the scores of mysterious deaths surrounding the Clintons in terms of "facts", instead of having spent millions to learn about one twisted affair he had. We learned when we saw the tanks in Waco, that he didn't have a problem with slaughtering Americans on the most minimal of pretexts. We learned how vastly and systemically corrupt the upper echelons of govt. is when they gave us the Warren Report, though we all have access to proof that Oswald could not have killed JFK. And we relearn how corrupt the media is during each presidential election cycle every four years, and during the lead up to each war we start. It seems most probable that those many mysterious deaths surrounding the Clintons were ordered by the Clintons.
 
 
+50 # Peace Anonymous 2016-05-22 11:00
Six months ago I would have said that Hilary would be a far superior choice when compared to Trump. After watching the DNC demolish democracy I'd hold out for Homer Simpson. Bernie, as long as he has a shred of hope, is the only viable option left. What a sad state of affairs this is!
 
 
+13 # librarian1984 2016-05-22 17:16
I agree. I didn't think it was possible for me to think any less of Hillary Clinton but I'll be darned if, in the past year, she hasn't accomplished it!
 
 
+33 # rxfxworld 2016-05-22 11:01
Just because Republicans hate her doesn't make her qualified to be president. HRC is an empty suit with a fancy CV. I've fired half a dozen of those in my lifetime. I know the difference between chicken salad and chicken shit so don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
 
 
+52 # jimmyjames 2016-05-22 09:35
The Democratic establishment and the Mainstream Media have worked against the Bernie Sanders campaign from the very beginning. And for good reason. Bernie, and his millions of supporters are loudly and effectively challenging the establishment, their power, and their wealth. At first it was somewhat subtle, but now it is glaringly obvious.

The Bernie Sanders campaign has been trying relentlessly to bring the Democratic Party back to it's roots - a Party which represented the working class and the poor. It has been an uphill battle which is finally taking root. But the elite are fighting back and MSM is doing everything they can to help them. Our two party system is corrupt to the core, and Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wassermann Schultz effectively represents that corruption.

I fear our only choice left is to form another political party and challenge the "status quo". If we cannot get it done in 2016, the citizens of the United States will clearly be ready for it in 2020. Let's just hope that Clinton or Trump does not ruin our country in the meantime...
 
 
+10 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 12:54
Should the Democratic party manipulations deny Bernie the nomination I still believe that he should work out a deal with the Green Party to run with Jill Stein as the VP candidate.
It would be the perfect opportunity to put environmental issues at the forefront and the Green Party would gain a relevance that it never has seen up to this point.
Bernie's supporters would step up and campaign contributions would pour in.
We have come too far this year to accept defeat at the hands of the corrupt and Republican-ligh t Democratic insider club.
This movement is real and CAN succeed!
 
 
+41 # jdd 2016-05-22 09:44
Hillary would like to pretend its over so she can make a sharp right turn and woo the Republican suburban voters, her natural base of support. Bernie should continue to fight through to the convention, where many "Super delegates" will be having second thoughts about the electability of an increasingly unpopular HRC.
 
 
+21 # joejamchicago 2016-05-22 10:03
Trump will crush Hillary, assuming she continues to evade responsibility for having destroyed 30,000 emails. Most likely they exposed the repulsive and criminal dealings of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea "Foundation," incorporated in a foreign country to hide the payoffs and cronyism of Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. In all likelihood, as President Trump will sell out to his big money friends and the establishment, of which he has been a card carrying, card paying, and beneficial member for his entire career. The class action suit against Trump "University" will no doubt be settled out of court with a nondisclosure agreement; a half a billion dollars, the outer range of a likely settlement, is not that much money in the scheme of things. Money will continue to pile up at the top of the economic pyramid, starving the economy and sooner more likely than later bring about a major economic upheaval. Rather than starve, most people will do a Jean Valjean. Cry, our beloved country.
 
 
-14 # Cassandra2012 2016-05-22 14:23
If , as it appears, you seem to despise Hillary more than you despise the orange version of Mussolini you seem more likely to be a Repugnican Tealiban troll, than a 'Progressive'.
 
 
-58 # ansleypk 2016-05-22 10:10
People will believe what they want to believe, see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Bernie Sanders hasn't had 25 years of right wing hatred spewed toward him like Hillary. If he were to be nominated, they will destroy him. The irony is that the right wing has gotten to you Hillary haters. You are the victims of their propaganda. I liked Bernie but I saw the video numerous times and was appalled by the actions of the few Bernie supporters who were guilty of despicable behavior, the same kind of terrible behavior that some Trump supporters are guilty of. This is the result of both Bernie and Trump making certain groups "the enemy," like Wall Street, banks, establishment politicians, etc. Give the underserved someone or something to hate and you can garner crowds of thousands. I was terribly disappointed at Bernie's response to the Nevada meeting. It was his chance at being a statesman and he failed. It is the moment I lost my enthusiasm and respect for Bernie.
 
 
+44 # cymricmorty 2016-05-22 10:35
Nope. The right wing hasn't gotten to me, my own experience combined with research on HRC's 1001 horrible misdeeds did, from worldwide regime changes, the refugee crisis, the bellicosity, the corruption, the sell-out to the health insurance industry, the privatized prison lobby and etc., all the way to disposable photo ops Socks the White House cat and Buddy the dog.

Analogizing the obviously rigged Nevada convention with a Trump rally, except with supposed Bernie Bros, means the controlled, one-sided media narrative has gotten to you. I doubt you had much, if any, enthusiasm and respect for Sanders to begin with.
 
 
+40 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-22 10:40
ansleypk - you have at least one thing in common with the Hillary trolls hired after this $1 Million plus fund set aside to train trolls to engage Sanders supporters online: all of them claim, in one form or another, that they are, or used to be, enthusiastic Bernie followers, started out loving Bernie, etc., but then, for one reason or another (none of which based on fact or making any sense) they lost respect for him, and are now enthusiastic Clinton supporters. That seems to be the playbook.
 
 
+22 # allfive 2016-05-22 11:24
ansleypk, this worn out trolling line doesn't work anymore. I've seen it so many times on places like Daily Kos and Medium. Think up something else. HRC will have no job for you after you've done your duty. Your behavior just persuades me to vote Green.
 
 
+34 # DaveEwoldt 2016-05-22 12:00
Umm, no. The reason I don't support Hillary has nothing to do with the made up reasons the right uses. I don't support her due to her policies and overriding allegiance to a paradigm that is destroying our life support system as well as leading to increasing inequity. The right can't attack her on those issues as they believe in the same things.
 
 
+26 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:02
Quoting ansleypk:
I saw the video numerous times and was appalled by the actions of the few Bernie supporters who were guilty of despicable behavior


This is hyperbole. Frankly, I *LOVE* hyperbole because it can skewer an opponent while simultaneously looking for all the world like "the truth." The counter? Demand the hyperbole be backed up with facts.

In your post, there are no facts, only claims. Take the quotation above. You offer not ONE fact to back it up.

What exactly did the Sanders supporters do that was "despicable behavior?" Yell obscenities? "Despicable?" Man, that is a stretch! Hopefully you now know the "thrown chairs" was a lie but if not, do, OH PLEASE DO, find and show us the video where even one chair (much less chairs, plural) was thrown. Were there screamed obscenities? Yes. Do screamed obscenities qualify as "despicable behavior" today? Nope.

So ansleypk, where are your facts to back up your hyperbole?
 
 
+3 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:23
"People will believe what they want to believe, see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear."

Present company excepted, of course.
 
 
+53 # REDPILLED 2016-05-22 10:20
I think Hillary & her team are really in panic mode now that Trump is so close in national polls, such as Rasmussen, while Bernie leads Trump by 15 points.

If the Dems lose it all in November, it's on Hillary, Wasserman-Schul tz, and the corrupt, foolish, greedy corporate Democrats who put ego and party ahead of what is best for the nation.
 
 
+21 # Helga Fellay 2016-05-22 10:42
Amen, REDPILLED. Couldn't have said it better myself.
 
 
-27 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 15:06
No, if the Dems lose it all, it is on Bernie Sanders. He couldn't stand to play by the rules and wanted to stack the deck for himself. Talk about playing dirty, there you are. I hope the Dems will never let anyone but a Dem run on their ticket again. I think they have already figured that out. Sanders wants all the advantages for himself. He is just a cranky old man.


..
 
 
+21 # WBoardman 2016-05-22 16:29
Any specific examples of Sanders chicanery?

A claim and ad hominem venom is not an argument.

Do you REALLY support authoritarian party loyalty?
 
 
-8 # rocback 2016-05-23 17:03
How about this:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/20/obscene-calls-bernie-sanders-fec-troubles.html
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-23 19:51
Quoting crocback:
How about this:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/20/obscene-calls-bernie-sanders-fec-troubles.html

crockback, my precious, you are merely a Chihuahua attacking a Doberman when you attempt to "take on" an intellectual like Boardman.

The problem isn't even in the supposed "content" of your rejoinder, but in that absolute vacuity and *total absence of common sense or reasonable sense of *STRATEGY ! ;-D
_
 
 
+4 # WBoardman 2016-05-23 20:47
rocback's link goes to an anti-Sanders fulmination
that purports to make a big deal of three Fed Election Comm
notices of Sanders fundraising issues, but does not say
what those issue are (they appear to be common).

Still it's a fair issue to explore factually. We're waiting.

The gist of the piece goes like this:

"Bernie Sanders is not a bad man, or corrupt, or obscene, or a special interest shill; he is a typical lifelong establishment politician and there is nothing wrong with that fact. However, he has done a major disservice to the Democratic Party in using
decades’ old Republican character smears against his primary opponent Hillary Clinton. Coupled with the FEC investigations into his own campaign’s fundraising “abnormalities, ” Senator Sanders’ record could have provided the Clinton campaign with a world of character attacks; attacks that have not materialized to maintain a semblance of party unity."

That's the penultimate graf.
The last graf is mostly mind-reading speculation.

The piece has nothing to do with "obscene calls" ;-)))
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2016-05-23 21:54
That's some pretty weak tea you've got there, roc.

So, with a record-smashing 3 MILLION separate donors to the Sanders campaign, a couple hundred may have ended up donating more than the $2,700 max. And the ones listed exceeded the max by $100 or $200 bucks. Shocking.

Even that article notes that it's most likely that they donated small amounts several times, and accidentally exceeded the maximum.

If ONLY he had a half dozen SuperPacs where unlimited amounts of cash from secret donors could bribe (er, I mean "donate") like a certain other Democratic Party candidate.

And a handful of small donors may have been foreigners. And Sanders has only refunded SOME of them.

Meanwhile, Hillary's Family Foundation took $ hundreds of millions from SEVERAL foreign countries for whom she used her position as Secretary of State to provide favorable agreements. And that money isn't going to campaigning. They're keeping it while meting out a fraction towards charitable causes.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2016-05-26 09:56
Quoting Barbara K:
No, if the Dems lose it all, it is on Bernie Sanders. He couldn't stand to play by the rules and wanted to stack the deck for himself. Talk about playing dirty, there you are. I hope the Dems will never let anyone but a Dem run on their ticket again. I think they have already figured that out. Sanders wants all the advantages for himself. He is just a cranky old man.


..


And who makes the "rules"?
Nuthin' much more corrupt and self-serving than D.W. Shultz's DNC, innit?!
 
 
+8 # librarian1984 2016-05-22 17:29
While it's probably true that they are panicking within the campaign, publicly they are saying that it's Sanders' fault. That the GOP is consolidating behind Trump while Clinton is being attacked from both sides.
 
 
+7 # Salus Populi 2016-05-23 14:04
Indeed, the Party is already preparing the ground: In 2,000, they blamed their own loss, even in states where he wasn't on the ballot; and despite the terrorism used to stop the Florida vote; and the surfeit of evidence that the fascists' plan called for Bush's taking office by any means necessary; and the vote by the five treasonous Supremes to overturn the election results in favor of the party that had appointed them (including two that they had *unanimously* supported in the Senate); despite all this, they whipped up a slimy smear campaign against the only candidate and indeed public figure who was a model of integrity, namely Nader, whom they blame to this day for running third party instead of endorsing Al "Occidental Petroleum" Gore.

Now Bernie expressly states that the reason he is running as a Democrat -- a party with which he caucuses and votes more than 90 per cent of the time in Congress, and for which he frequently raised funds -- is in order to not be responsible for the Republicans' winning. By the same token, he has treated Clinton with kid gloves throughout the campaign, considering her enormous negatives and polices that square with the desires of Wall Street and the MIC -- the reason he ran in the first place.

And sure enough, her and DWS's minions are already blaming the loss she will likely suffer on Bernie -- for doing what she did in 2008, and DWS justified then -- and for not running as a third party candidate. The cynicism is breathtaking.
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-23 19:54
Quoting librarian1984:
they are saying that it's Sanders' fault. That the GOP is consolidating behind Trump while Clinton is being attacked from both sides.

Isn't that *formally known as the "Poor Baby" campaign strategy ? ;-D
_
 
 
+4 # librarian1984 2016-05-23 21:43
@ Redpilled

"If the Dems lose it all in November, it's on Hillary, Wasserman-Schul tz, and the corrupt, foolish, greedy corporate Democrats"


Though they will never admit as much.

One hallmark of the neocons is their total inability to learn from past mistakes. You'd think the previous disasters would humble them, but they do not seem capable of humility.
 
 
+28 # tedrey 2016-05-22 10:43
If Clinton really believed the convention is in the bag, she could just say "though I don't think it can happen, if Sanders were to win the convention, I'd ask my supporters to back him in the general." But she (or more likely her controllers) simply can't allow that . . . which means she's losing millions of Bernie supporters for good.
 
 
+29 # Saberoff 2016-05-22 10:44
I just made another (albeit small) contribution to the Sanders campaign.
Could it be that there is a large segment of the population in positions of power, such as the MSM, that has truly become incapable of rational thought? Or are they just sold-out assholes too lazy to do their jobs, to whom I say, Alright everybody, let's just relax those sphincters a bit!
 
 
+5 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:04
Quoting Saberoff:
Alright [sic] everybody, let's just relax those sphincters a bit!


Are you suggesting that we shit all over them? - {eg}
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 19:59
Quoting tref:
Quoting Saberoff:
Alright [sic] everybody, let's just relax those sphincters a bit!


Are you suggesting that we shit all over them? - {eg}

Certainly Saberoff is welcome to correct me if I am wrong, but I read that to mean that the Power People need to *collectively become just a little bit *LESS such an obvious bunch of tight asses ! ;-D
_
 
 
+10 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:24
"Could it be that there is a large segment of the population in positions of power, such as the MSM, that has truly become incapable of rational thought? Or are they just sold-out assholes too lazy to do their jobs,"

Unfortunately those are not mutually exclusive.
 
 
+24 # sjporter 2016-05-22 10:51
This brief conversation could have happened at any time in the primaries, including Day One. It has indeed been a march to a coronation in the eyes of the Establishment, and they're annoyed that Bernie Sanders and his supporters haven't read the script. So, imagine this conversation last fall, winter or this spring - hasn't changed one iota.

"Cuomo (CNN): So you get into the general election, if you’re the nominee for your party, and ...

Clinton: I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.

Cuomo: There’s a Senator from Vermont who has a different take on that —

Clinton: Well —

Cuomo: He says he’s going to fight to the end —
Clinton: Yeah, it’s strange."
 
 
+35 # rxfxworld 2016-05-22 10:51
Why is it I can never get a Hillary supporter to answer two simple questions? 1) Name ONE, just one significant piece of legislation in 8 years of Senate and 2) name one positive diplomatic achievement in 4 years Sec.of State. Do that and I MIGHT vote for her over Trump, maybe.
 
 
+24 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:13
Quoting rxfxworld:
Name ONE, just one significant piece of legislation in 8 years of Senate


They can’t name one because there AREN’T any. According to govtrack.us, HRC sponsored 417 bills. 3 passed (00.72%). She:
1) Renamed part of US Rte 20A,
2) Named a US Post Office, and
3) Established a private residence as a “National Historic Site.”

Damn she’s good. Helluva activist, pro-people, get things done person.
 
 
+18 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 13:01
Yes Tref, but as SOS she DID manage to destroy numerous foreign nations which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and ongoing suffering and chaos!

How many of us can claim such a record of changing the world?
 
 
+22 # Mainiac 2016-05-22 10:52
JDD: I agree. Hillary does not yet have enough pledged delegates to win in Philadelphia. She will need some of the suppers. So Bernie should definitely fight through the primaries in order to get to the convention with enough pledged delegates that he can convincingly challenge the supers to give her up as too weak and flawed to beat Trump and give him the nomination.

However, I have to disagree with those who want a third party. As we have seen in the closed primaries, lots of Democrats have voted for Bernie. The best route is to take over the Party, dislodge those at the top, and restore the Party to what it should be. Otherwise, with a third party an unnecessary division is created. Do some research and look at how a take-over could easily be done from the grassroots.
 
 
+11 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:21
@Mainiac - I agree we should FIGHT to take back the Dem Party but we should also be careful not to conflate the idea of a Third Party with voting for the only third party available to Progressives THIS November. If Bernie is not the Democratic candidate, he will "endorse" Clinton. WE, on the other hand, are free to vote Green and probably should. However, going forward, the Revolution is most likely to succeed if we assert our claim to and retake the Democratic Party for the People and "dislodge" the elite corporatists.
 
 
+40 # sjporter 2016-05-22 10:54
Also, doesn't anyone in the DNC realize that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a living conflict of interest, having been Co-Coordinator of Hillary's 2008 run?
 
 
+16 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 13:04
Schutz STILL holds that position and probably STILL gets a paycheck for her work as the stealth chair of the 2016 Clinton coronation crusade!
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:05
Quoting sjporter:
Also, doesn't anyone in the DNC realize that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a living conflict of interest, having been Co-Coordinator of Hillary's 2008 run?

*WHAT "conflict" ? (wink, wink, nod, nod) ;-D
_
 
 
+34 # Peace Anonymous 2016-05-22 10:55
When you add Nevada to the previous manipulated outcomes of other primaries any candidate with any integrity would step down or at least acknowledge that democracy is NOT being served. The circumstances which have brought us to this point in time will be the reason why Trump - the fool nobody really wants - will win.

Hilary, and the DNC, have handed the smoking gun to the American people. She is proving to the world what many have been saying - she can't be trusted. It is time for her to step down.
 
 
+29 # Vardoz 2016-05-22 11:17
Note" TYT on utube has a complete video record of what actually transpired in NV. There was not violence. It was a set up to provoke Sanders supporters I believe in the hope of violence by acting so egregious and abusive towards Bernie delegates that they we able to extract some angry vocal expression and then they morphed it into a lie, that there was violence. Bernie supporters are so intensely enraged one can actually spend an entire day on face book reading Bernie or bust statements and many other enraged comments. What HRC has done has completely alienated all Bernie's Independents and Democrats not to back her and not to back any establishment reps every again!
 
 
+33 # djnova50 2016-05-22 11:20
There may be plenty about Hillary to not like; but, it is her arrogance which I find most repulsive.
 
 
-26 # lights 2016-05-22 11:41
djnova50...the painting on your profile, blurrs, too.
 
 
+11 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:32
@djova50 - Arrogance is galling, repulsive, but not, per se, dangerous. Refusing to give working stiffs a fair day's pay for a hard day's work is dangerous. Rattling US nuclear sabres at Russia is dangerous. Lying about funding down ballot candidates while scooping up over 80% of those funds for her own campaign is dangerous (legally AND ethically). Dismissing the concerns of 43% of Americans is REALLY dangerous. As our own American Revolution proved and as was echoed so clearly and succinctly by JFK, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
 
 
+3 # lfeuille 2016-05-22 16:46
I think a lot of these dangerous actions stem from her arrogance.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:10
Quoting tref:
Arrogance is galling, repulsive, but not, per se, dangerous....

Arrogance has a *bone crushingly deleterious effect on *Judgement.

And NO ONE has ever *accurately accused Hillary Clinton of SOLID JUDGEMENT ! ;-D
_
 
 
-41 # lights 2016-05-22 11:20
ONE MUST WONDER, Mr. Boardman's motives for being EVER SO generous to TRUMP. Your continued attempts to undermine TRUMP'S democratic competition, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes, it IS down to that in reality.

It is your theatrics again with this laughable sensationalized and deceptive Hillary headline. She did not disregard Californians. It was not her meaning.

I feel confident in the Peoples of California who are widely and WAY too sophisticated and bright to be influenced by anything you might say, Mr. Boardman.

Your theatrics not at all unlike TRUMP!

How about this headline?

"TRUMP" exploiting American peoples emotions for his pocketbook! Laughing as trillions flow into TRUMP "personal" BANK. Will he be sharing it with "the people?"

Trump will laugh and say, 'They knew I was lying. They didn't care about that. They liked my erectile power. They watched as I built an even bigger erectile BRAND.'


SANDERS is getting exactly what he has been putting out; negativity. And precisely the reason more "negative" articles are surfacing. It would serve Sanders to step back for the big picture. I get that he is loosing sight. Has he simply succumbed to the magnetism of "power?"

Sanders needs to sit back and seriously consider his legacy. He could go down as a highly aggravated, agitated tyrant who self-destructed . Is he humble enough? His ideals? Does he truly want them to live on? Keep at it but take a turn...on to another street, Mr. Sanders.
 
 
+18 # djnova50 2016-05-22 11:43
Lights, when Bernie Sanders states, how can that be construed as negativity? The fact is that the DNC and the MSM went negative on Bernie before he started gaining momentum. Look it up.
 
 
-32 # lights 2016-05-22 11:55
I guess you didn't read my entire post. I'm serious. My comments are to his benefit. Do you care about that? I believe that Sanders needs to consider exactly what kind of reputation he is going to choose to leave in history.
 
 
+21 # desertprogressive 2016-05-22 12:20
Bernie has always had, and will always have, a reputation for integrity, principles, and representing the PEOPLE, not the corporations! Who cares what corporate fascists think?!
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 12:30
We read your asinine comments.

Where have you been? Didn't your latest check clear until today?
 
 
-14 # lights 2016-05-22 13:59
You mean the social security check?
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 14:09
I hope you're not relying on that. If you are, in the words of Clinton's followers, "you're a socialist".
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2016-05-22 16:52
Well, we just don't believe you would do or say anything to his benefit. Just more of the false narrative Boardman is talking about.
 
 
+23 # Jim Rocket 2016-05-22 11:52
I was wondering when you were going to show up. I don't know why you people think the condescending put-downs will move people here to change their minds on Hillary. We're seeing from the nasty Nevada BS that team Hillary is not interested in a fair fight. The other reality is she may not be able to beat Trump. She's a crappy campaigner, who makes many mistakes and, as you correctly point out, Trump supporters don't care one whit about facts. The whole Republican establishment couldn't shut Trump down and it would be foolish to assume that the almost as corrupt Democratic establishment can beat him. Bernie may actually be the answer and, even if he doesn't get the nomination, team Hillary will need every one of the votes of Bernie's people. You and your buddies are not helping out at all.
 
 
-19 # lights 2016-05-22 14:03
Does this mean you do not have a mind of your own to look at the circumstances and decide your own vote, Mr. Rocket?

....that perhaps you think I could possibly influence you, Mr. Rocket? Not hardly. My mind is on a much bigger ball and do pardon the pun.
 
 
+15 # Diane_Wilkinson_Trefethen_aka_tref 2016-05-22 12:37
Quoting lights:
Sanders needs to sit back and seriously consider his legacy. He could go down as a highly aggravated, agitated tyrant who self-destructed. Is he humble enough? His ideals? Does he truly want them to live on? Keep at it but take a turn...on to another street, Mr. Sanders.


Boy does lights hit the nail on the head - except she kept saying "he" instead of "she" and referenced "Sanders" instead of "Clinton."
 
 
-14 # lights 2016-05-22 14:05
Well that is so funny, tref. I did so enjoy the hardy laugh.
 
 
0 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:16
Quoting lights:
Well that is so funny, tref. I did so enjoy the hardy laugh.

Uh, that would be "hearty" laugh, there, Sparky - don't *further embarrass yourself in public. :-D
_
 
 
+24 # grandlakeguy 2016-05-22 13:08
As I drive around my community in Northern California I see Bernie yard signs and bumper stickers EVERYWHERE!
To date I have seen a total of ONE Hillary bumper sticker.

Yes, the people of California are way too sophisticated to fall for Hillary's lies!
 
 
-15 # Barbara K 2016-05-22 15:10
Lights: You are so correct and thanks for adding brains to this story.

..
 
 
+4 # Majikman 2016-05-22 20:13
Now there's your problem in a nutshell
 
 
+1 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:18
Quoting Majikman:
Now there's your problem in a nutshell

WELL SAID, Majikman ! You beat me to the "draw" ! ;-D
_
 
 
+21 # WBoardman 2016-05-22 16:39
lights writes:

"SANDERS is getting exactly what he has been putting out; negativity. And precisely the reason more "negative" articles are surfacing."

Example of Sanders' negativity, please?

Other than criticizing millionaires and billionaires.



Also: who does Sanders tyrranize? Seriously. ;-)))
 
 
-7 # rocback 2016-05-23 17:07
He called the most qualified person to ever run for president "unqualified" and then he lied to excuse it by falsely claiming she did it first.

He implied she was corrupt for accepting money for speeches. He implies she is corrupt for the Clinton foundation for accepting donations that help millions.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:12
Quoting lights:
ONE MUST WONDER, Mr. Boardman's motives for being EVER SO generous to TRUMP.....

Sparky, your *pathetic desperation is *really becoming apparent ! ;-D
_
 
 
+10 # BluePill 2016-05-22 11:25
Too bad the RNC is before the DNC. Then the Republicans could enlist Bernie to run for them. That would be fun! I know it's not possible, but sure would make a fitting end to this whole charade.
 
 
+12 # vicnada 2016-05-22 11:55
Thank you for this cogent, thorough and necessary response to the smear of Bernie and his backers at the Nevada convention. "In traduction of Sanders" would have been a more truthful headline for most of the press coverage.
 
 
# Guest 2016-05-22 14:15
This comment has been deleted by Administrator
 
 
+15 # WBoardman 2016-05-22 16:49
lights makes claims about emails to Robert Lange
that don't seem supported by evidence
(Lights provides no sources).

An email that has been cited as a death threat
(it said Lange should be hung, not she will be hanged)
also included a callback number
and a challenge to discuss Lange's convention behavior.

Absolutely phone and email harassment is unacceptable,
but accountability by public officials for official acts
is vital.

Lange the victimizer is free to play the victim card,
but the evidence needs to be assessed by someone
more neutral than she.
 
 
+12 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:37
Mr. Boardman, I have always respected your writing even when I might have some questions regarding certain points. But I salute you for your demonstrated willingness to wade back into the swamps that develop from some of your articles, attempting to set the record straight by force of facts alone!
 
 
-5 # rocback 2016-05-23 17:12
Do you ever watch the news Mr Boardman:


http://www.ktnv.com/news/nevada-politician-receiving-hundreds-of-death-threats-insults
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2016-05-23 20:56
rocback offers a single-source, local TV story
that lets the victim claim her victimhood with
no context or independent reporting.

KTNV apparently too lazy even to call the police for comment.
 
 
-16 # RMF 2016-05-22 11:59
Bernie supporter here -- with cash as well as advocacy. Regrettably, however, I see that Bernie is unlikely to win the Dem nomination, so I most definitely will be voting for Hillary in Nov. But I see a disaster looming with this developing schism in the Dem party, and that disaster is called a Trump WH. It seems we didn't learn from the Nader experience in 2000 -- while my support for the Clintons has reached the lukewarm level, I have not lost my senses, and am fully aware that a GOP presidential win would be vastly worse than any Dem in WH, including Hillary. Yes, agree that Hillary's neocon impulses are troubling, but I'm not going to commit political hari kiri in any way to aid Trump/GOP, which is what refusing to support Hillary in the national race would produce. I agree with Bernie on this issue as well as his other positions -- a Hillary presidency is vastly preferable to a Trump WH.
 
 
-18 # mmc 2016-05-22 12:24
Well said, but get ready for a rash of personal attacks--you're much too rational for many of the posters on this site.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-05-22 13:25
Quoting mmc:
Well said, but get ready for a rash of personal attacks--you're much too rational for many of the posters on this site.


Only in your world are disagreements backed by factual information considered "personal attacks". Aren't you the one who deplores "whining"?
 
 
+4 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:23
Quoting dbrize:
Quoting mmc:
... get ready for a rash of personal attacks


Only in your world are disagreements backed by factual information considered "personal attacks". Aren't you the one who deplores "whining"?


Yeah - s/he deplores whining in *precisely the same way that Larry Craig (R) Idaho "deplored" homosexuality.
_
 
 
-26 # mmc 2016-05-22 12:22
What a ridiculous article. Any divisiveness in the Democratic party is due to the vicious hatred of Hillary Clinton by the Sanders supporters who adamantly, for months, have been saying they will not support Clinton if she wins the nomination. Sanders chose to run in the Democratic primary, but refuses to abide by the votes of the majority of Democratic party members and state publicly that he will support the Democratic nominee. For a man who calls himself a candidate of the people, saying he's making phone calls to some other politicians is a pretty big show of hypocrisy. I want him to tell me, a member of the Democratic party, that he is going to support the nominee of my party and prevent Trump from destroying our democracy and our country. Quit the whining.
 
 
+19 # desertprogressive 2016-05-22 12:41
You're buddies with 'lights' and that other disinfo agent? Why would anyone who cares about the 99%, is against wars, want to vote for someone (Hillary, in this case), who is only about representing the 1%, starting wars and overthrowing governments around the world? It's not a slight difference between Sanders and Clinton - the difference is HUGE!
I would really like to know your reasons for SUPPORTING Hillary.
 
 
0 # RMF 2016-05-22 12:54
That's an easy one to answer -- very simply, because (as Bernie has said) a Hillary presidency would politically be vastly preferable to a Trump WH.
 
 
+18 # desertprogressive 2016-05-22 13:01
So your only reason to vote for Hillary is to prevent Trump from being president. That's understandable to some degree, but it's a very sad commentary on the Democratic party. If there wasn't so much election corruption and manipulation, Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee. Sanders is someone we can vote FOR!
 
 
+1 # RMF 2016-05-22 13:14
If you read some of my other comments you will see that I have been a strong supporter of Bernie from the get-go, and not just lip service either, but with regular cash contributions (same as with RSN which I support with a monthly cash installment).
But to answer your question -- yes, it is a sad commentary, but we progressives will never take back the Dem party of FDR by doing anything that helps elect the GOP. We must be in it for the long haul, and recognize we can't get it all back in one bite. I too am pretty sick of the Clintons, and their triangulation strategy, but as stated, Hillary in the WH is so much preferable to Trump, the comparison becomes absurd.
If Bernie cannot be the Dem nominee, I am hopeful he will rise to chair the Senate Budget Comm, and in that capacity, along with other Dem progressives, work to move the Dem party in a more progressive direction. This is a hope, no guarantee, but it is certainly a truism that a Trump presidency is much more risky, on many political and governing levels, than is a Hillary presidency.
 
 
+6 # Majikman 2016-05-22 20:22
RMF I understand your reasoning, but think of this: as for a belligerent foreign policy, Trump is not a warmonger, whereas HRC is drooling to go after Iran, Russia and any other country Israel wants to sic the US military on. Do you support more war?
 
 
-3 # RMF 2016-05-24 16:27
It is Congress that declares war, not the WH. And I will cast my vote in a way that works to ensure that the next Congress will say no to any new wars or expansion of existing wars during a Hillary administration. How can we best accomplish that objective -- by electing Democrats, even though not all Dems are as progressive as some of us here on RSN. But we must, as voters, think with our brains, not our hearts. A GOP-dominated Congress is certainly not going to say no to any war proposal, and thus it is imperative that we Dems get the Senate back. That is why I support the Dem party, and it's nominee for WH, to best ensure that anti-war objective -- we won't get the Senate back by encouraging a third party vote.
 
 
+3 # WBoardman 2016-05-24 20:06
RMF is correct, constitutionall y, but...

Existentially the US has been at war since 2003
in one country or another or another all based
on the authority of the 2001 AUMF that EVERYONE
in the House and Senate voted for except Barbara Lee.

If memory serves, when Obama said he wanted to bomb
Syria over the nerve gas thing, he had second thoughts
and decided to ask Congress, which seemed to panic at
the very idea of making a decision, so the US ended up
NOT bombing Syria, not then at least.

Congress continues to neither approve nor prevent
whatever war making the President chooses to get into.

This condition is likely to be in place whoever the next
President turns out to be.

So it's no check on Hillary's hawkishness,
or anyone else's. ;-)))
 
 
+14 # dbrize 2016-05-22 13:14
Quoting RMF:
That's an easy one to answer -- very simply, because (as Bernie has said) a Hillary presidency would politically be vastly preferable to a Trump WH.


Easy for you, you mean.

Those who are opposed to extraconstituti onal abominations like secret FISA courts, NSA spying, restriction of habeas corpus, "regime change" PNAC oriented foreign policies, the ongoing, endless "wars" against adjectives, TPP "free trade" agreements that eviscerate the middle class, Wall Street over Main Street, crony capitalism and more "winks and nods" to the status quo, choose to disagree with any "vastly preferable" designation no matter who it comes from.

It's surely frustrating for Dem party apparatchiks, but here's what you might as well get used to sooner rather than later, the LOTE dog won't hunt this time around.
 
 
0 # RMF 2016-05-22 13:20
Well, you are telling us what you are "against," but what is it you are "for?"
I am for Bernie -- but if he is not my party's nominee, I will then support Hillary, as the next best choice.
I will not take any action that advances the GOP/Trump agenda.
 
 
+14 # dbrize 2016-05-22 13:39
Quoting RMF:
Well, you are telling us what you are "against," but what is it you are "for?"
I am for Bernie -- but if he is not my party's nominee, I will then support Hillary, as the next best choice.
I will not take any action that advances the GOP/Trump agenda.


Please. You are either being coy or obtuse.

Take what I am against and I am "for" a candidate that will support policies, legislation and actions that deter, reverse or eliminate these activities.

If you believe anything on my list is acceptable, support Clinton and that's what you will get. Matter is, she has made little pretense of even worse, by desiring confrontation with Russia and China. Isn't that a wonderful thought.

If you like her current advisers and potential cabinet members like Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Madeleine Albright, Robert Rubin, Colin Powell, Wesley Clark, Gene Sperling and Roger Altman, in short all retreads who have participated in and helped create our current conditions, go for it.

Many of us have "been there, done that", not going there again.
 
 
-10 # RMF 2016-05-22 14:30
So you won't tell us what you are "for." And given the dimension of your reply one can only conclude that what you are "for" is Trump.
My position is that it is beyond folly to think that Trump could in any respect be preferable to Clinton -- that is my position as a strong Bernie supporter, and I have yet to see any rebuttal that, on the facts, credibly disposes of that conclusion.
To do so a Hillary naysayer would have to explain how a Trump presidency would be better in terms of policy issues, including the items you have listed as objectionable.
Bottom line from the standpoint of reality is that the "lesser evil" test remains applicable, as it always has and always will, including for those of us in the Bernie camp who also recognize that putting the GOP in the WH ultimately frustrates our progressive goals.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-05-22 14:58
I understand your position, but thanks for repeating it.

As for your "conclusion" that I must be "for" Trump. A logical fallacy is clever but seldom fools intelligent readers, many who abound on this site.

If my reply causes you to fail to understand what I am "for" I submit again you are either being coy or obtuse.

Now, as to LOTE, again your position is clear, you believe in it. So what?

As for a "naysayer" having to explain "how a Trump presidency would be better..." you forget to add the qualifier, "if one believes in LOTE". I'm sure you recognize another logical fallacy when you see one.

No one is limited to only a vote for Clinton or Trump no matter how much YOU may wish it so.

It is quite possible to be against BOTH Clinton and Trump and though this causes you discomfort, what is, is.
 
 
-9 # RMF 2016-05-22 15:18
I would say the fallacy being invoked is one of composition, and where it applies is equally clear.
Just as a vote for Nader helped to elect W, so does a vote for the Green or other third party candidate advance the campaign of Trump. This is simple political reality.
I personally have very good tree hugger credentials, including issue activism, but will not risk handing the govt to Trump/GOP with a vote for the Green party. To do so would risk disaster in the area where I live -- 90 min from Yellowstone Park -- an area in the sights of mining, timbering, and grazing interests.
 
 
+9 # dbrize 2016-05-22 15:58
Quoting RMF:
I would say the fallacy being invoked is one of composition, and where it applies is equally clear.
Just as a vote for Nader helped to elect W, so does a vote for the Green or other third party candidate advance the campaign of Trump. This is simple political reality.
I personally have very good tree hugger credentials, including issue activism, but will not risk handing the govt to Trump/GOP with a vote for the Green party. To do so would risk disaster in the area where I live -- 90 min from Yellowstone Park -- an area in the sights of mining, timbering, and grazing interests.


Your concern over the risk of what "might happen" is duly noted.

If only you were as concerned about what HAS and IS currently happening under the auspices of a Democratic administration in the areas of GWOT, extra-constitut ional activities withholding our basic rights, trade agreements decimating our middle class, protection of corporate global bankers and Wall Street. All aided and abetted by the current front runner.

There's more but it is a waste of time to point them out, it just doesn't matter enough to you. Which I hasten to add, is your perfect right. However, LOTE lectures pale by comparison IMHO.
 
 
-5 # RMF 2016-05-22 17:05
OK -- I understand -- you would rather risk a Trump presidency than vote Hillary.
As my comments indicate I think that is a risk best avoided.
 
 
+9 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 23:58
Don't worry about it.

Hitlery has made it clear she DOESN'T - NEED - OUR - VOTES.

The lectures about "unity" are a bit too late. Trying to get us on board now is laughable. Not to worry. We've been pushed aside and told we don't matter for long enough. That's why Clinton is trying so desperately to disavow her temporary left-wing pretenses and go back to what she does best - courting Republican voters.
 
 
-1 # RMF 2016-05-24 16:53
When push comes to shove, it's not really about Hillary -- it's about making a voting choice that works in the best interest of the progressive philosophy going forward from here.
And, given the reality of our electoral college system, the progressive view can never be advanced by voting third party, and thus diluting the total vote otherwise available for the Dem party and presidential nominee.
To do so, as in the election of 2000, can really backfire, leaving us much worse off.
So we should vote to gives the progressives in Congress as strong a voice as possible -- and the progressives in Congress won't have any voice at all in a Trump/GOP administration.
 
 
+9 # lfeuille 2016-05-22 17:02
Bernie did say that, but running as a Democrat he sort of had to say that. I, and many others just are not convinced that it is true. Trump is such a showman that it is impossible to know what he would actually do in office and his worst impulses would likely be checked by gridlock anyway. With Hillary, the picture is much clearer. More war an regime change for a start and a likely reversal on TPP and other noxious trade deals. We know the outcome with Hillary will be very bad. We know having Trump as president will be embarrassing, but maybe in reality, not so bad. You assume clarity where there is none.
 
 
-4 # RMF 2016-05-22 17:21
The idea that Trump policies, by some stroke of unforeseeable fortune, might be preferable to those of Hillary and the Dems is indefensible.
The GOP will retain the House, the Senate is up for grabs and I am hopeful the Dems will get it back, but unwise to risk handing the GOP the WH too.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:29
Quoting RMF:
That's an easy one to answer -- very simply, because (as Bernie has said) a Hillary presidency would politically be vastly preferable to a Trump WH.

Bumper Sticker :

"Vote CLINTON - Better Than A Poke In The Eye With A *Sharp STICK !"

Where ELSE are ya *gunna get THAT kind of *overwhelming INSPIRATION ?? ;-D
_
 
 
-9 # lights 2016-05-22 13:31
A DIFFERENT HEADLINE: Or story.

"TRUMP" exploiting American peoples emotions for his ever growing opportunities and rapidly growing, big, bad pocketbook!

Trump will be laughing as trillions of collars and dollars flow into his TRUMP "personal" BANK account. Will he be sharing it with "the people?"

Trump will laugh and say, 'They knew I was lying. They didn't care about that. They liked my erectile power. They watched as I built myself into an even bigger erectile BRAND.' I care about erectile, trump bragged.
 
 
+5 # tigerlillie 2016-05-22 14:12
RMF, how viable do you think the possibility of Bernie chairing the Senate Budget Comm. is? Does a clear path exist that will result in that appointment? Or are you seeing this as a pay off for running neck and neck with her, as in Obama appointing HRC Sec. o f State?
 
 
+5 # RMF 2016-05-22 14:47
Based on seniority Bernie is in line for the appointment. It's not set in stone but that is how most Comm Chair appointments are made.
 
 
-9 # Robbee 2016-05-22 14:30
lie! - # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 09:48
"... Clinton's voters are Republicans ..."

signed in blood! - says - # Billy Bob 2016-05-09 12:00
"... The actual left, on the other hand, has had enough and won't vote for another Clinton - PERIOD ... IF Hitlery manages to get the nomination anyway, vote for Sanders in the general election."

lie! - the actual left would vote for hill over rump every day!

the fake-left, as in GOP trolls! would visit rsn every day! - fighting to sew dissent! - fighting to stop progressives from voting hill! - at any cost! - even a rump presidency!

billy bob is a GOP troll! - who urges us to throw-away our progressive vote in the general election!

listen to bernie! reich! and warren! - down with GOP/rump/billy bob! - go bernie! - and in the general, go dem!

p.s. billy bob! you can take your PERIOD! and stick it up your SENTENCE!
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2016-05-22 23:55
"p.s. billy bob! you can take your PERIOD! and stick it up your SENTENCE!"

==========

Better yet, let me loan you some Capitals:

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

========

Does that help? Maybe you can copy and paste them.

p.s.

tell e.e. cummings i said 'hi'.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2016-05-23 20:39
Quoting Billy Bob:
Does that help? Maybe you can copy and paste them.

p.s.

tell e.e. cummings i said 'hi'.

PRIMO post, Billy Bob, thoroughly *PRIMO.

However, if you insist upon replying to Robbee with *that kind of wit,
I may just be forced to READ Robbee *before "red thumbing" him ! ;-D

Does *anyone READ Robbee ? The poor guy is absolutely incoherent *most of the time ! ;-D

I can see how robbee's use of your online handle could catch one's eye -
but *Dang ! ;-D
_
 
 
+1 # Majikman 2016-05-25 06:05
Nominae, who can read robbee's senseless drivel? I can't decide if he writes while being blind drunk, stoned out of his gourd or off his meds. I see his name and it's inextricably linked to dbrizes' "Spam, spam, spam..." Like you, I red thumb and go on
 
 
-8 # Robbee 2016-05-22 14:33
still in denial! after all these years! proudly! - says - # Billy Bob 2016-05-16 18:15
"... I - DID - NOT - VOTE - FOR - CHENEY..."

- silly bob? - and yet! somehow you got him anyway! - didn't you?

HAVE YOU WORKED IT OUT YET? HOW?

here's how it works! -

1st, leader of the rat pack says - # pat riot 2016-05-15 20:58
"... I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton ... The calamity that follows will not be my fault, nor the fault of my vote ..."

- so says king herod! - who washes his hands! of a rump presidency!

what will we do if bernie does not win the dem's nod? quit voting? riot? throw away our vote by voting 3rd party? or by writing in bernie?

jerk-offs admire you udealists - that you never compromise anything? - except that, by not voting dem, you never accomplish anything useful either? do you? forgotten cheney already? in what? 10 seconds?

bernie says hill would make an "infinitely better" prez than any gop slime?

bernie thinks he's starting a "political revolution"? - hah! lots of us cannot summon the revolutionary discipline, or solidarity, to compromise "our values" enough to follow his advice!

billy, you are not part of bernie's movement! - you are barely smart enough to break away and start your own movement! - however smart that is? - that's all!

a proud supporter of bernie, i even listen to, and follow, his advice! - go bernie! - and in any case, go dem!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-05-22 14:48
only the biggest fool! -
# Billy Bob 2016-05-13 12:44
I'm more worried about another 1932, without having FDR as a candidate. This is like 1932 and our choices are Hoover (aka Clinton ...

- would conflate hoover a/k/a the greatest businessman of his time! - and hill! a serious progressive!

billy, here's a list of likely rump trojans you made before you confirmed it with your lies! - giving rump their free pass!

on may 6th, some 22 readers spoke out - clamoring for more sympathetic coverage of rump! - who had been unfairly criticized by bernie, reich and warren! -

here's my may 6th running tab on who's smarter than reich, bernie and warren put together - so far! -

1) # jimallyn 2016-05-06 15:14
"... Hillary Clinton will lose to Donald Trump ..."

2) # dbrize 2016-05-06 15:29
"... (hill) won't be an authoritarian dictator? ..."

3) # grandlakeguy 2016-05-06 14:59
"... Trump will dump so much dirt (of her own making) on (hill) that even (her) own supporters will not vote for (her) ..."

4) # Crebbafrabitz 2016-05-06 11:30
"... vote for the Criminal Clinton!!! NEVER!!!"

5) # wirelesswatch@yahoo.com 2016-05-06 14:02
"... I am much more afraid of her than Trump ..."

6) # Johnny 2016-05-06 14:16
"Better Trump, the clown, than Hillary Clinton, the sadistic murderer."

7) # Anonymot 2016-05-06 14:31
"I, for one, doubt that the Clintons will be better than the Trump ..."
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-05-22 14:55
tally, pt. 2

8) # djnova50 2016-05-06 14:36
"... Come November, if my only options are to vote for Hillary, Donald, or an Independent, I will vote Independent."

9) # Buddha 2016-05-06 14:38
"... I refuse to accept their narrative that if I don't hold my nose and vote for HRC that it would somehow be MY fault if a President Trump gets elected. Nope."

10) # librarian1984 2016-05-06 15:01
"... I will NEVER vote for Hillary."

11) # tapelt 2016-05-06 15:02
"Donald Trump is the lessor of two evils. HRC is much worse.”

12) # davehaze 2016-05-06 15:50
"Would Trump be any worse a president than ... Hillary Clinton? ... Personally I don't want to be responsible for either of them."

- we seem to be getting far too much input, here on rsn, from just reich, bernie and e. warren! - it seems rsn should start running rump campaign press releases! - start fielding opinion pieces by chris christie! ben carson! reince priebus! - apologies to all the fine pols i inadvertently omitted! - if only to get an unbiased picture! of the presumptive GOP nominee!

13) # Billy Bob 2016-05-06 11:35
"... Trump is no threat at all ..."

14) # RMDC 2016-05-05 15:11
Well said, Crebbie. # Crebbafrabitz 2016-05-05 14:37
"She can "talk" going left until she falls in the Pacific and I wouldn't vote for the piece of lying, corrupt garbage!!!"

15) # lorenbliss 2016-05-06 00:52
"RMDC: Your analysis is surely correct, but I think Hillary will actually do much worse."
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-05-22 14:59
tally, pt. 3

16) # FIRSTNORN1 2016-05-06 08:01
"... If NO Bernie, then we will support Trump ..."

17) # economagic 2016-05-06 09:51
"You go, Loren! I will NOT support Trump -- or anyone else I do not support."

18) # Radscal 2016-05-06 14:38
Exactly, Billy Bob ... IF we end up with a Drumpf Presidency, it will NOT be the fault of we who remain true to our moral values.

19) # Linda 2016-05-06 10:09
"... if Hillary is the nominee ! I don't vote for liars and cheats!”

20) # laurele 2016-05-06 10:58
"I will never vote for (hill) either ..."

21) # Adoregon 2016-05-06 12:54
"... if it comes to Hillary vs. Trump ... NONE OF THE ABOVE"

- well that's it! - scorecard is almost full! - anyone else who is neutral on rump! - at least to the point of not voting hill! - this means you!

- we're still missing who? insipid citizen? marge? merlin? demo? who else?

anyone else? this list will be our tool spotting rump trolls! - go bernie! - in any case, dem!

22) # cymricmorty 2016-05-06 23:16
"... Mr Tally Man, I will never vote for HRC."

- okay! - one day! 22 readers! - signed in blood! - all pissed about coverage supporting hill! at rump's expense! -

while rsn covers lame bernie, reich and warren! rsn misses the facts!

the above list originally posted under the headline -

We Must Do Everything Legally Possible to Prevent Trump From Becoming President, By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page, 06 May 16
 
 
+3 # RMF 2016-05-22 14:59
If there is a Hoover in the coming election it is Trump -- his chief economic advisors, for now anyway, are Lawrence Kudlow and
Stepehen Moore -- both of the reactionary supply side school of economics that continue to advocate, after decades of failure, tax cuts for the wealthy, social budget austerity, and trickle down policies.
 
 
-10 # Robbee 2016-05-22 15:04
tally, pt. 4

- apologies to rump trolls who neglected to post on may 6th! - if only because the topic was sooo well smothered by so many other rump trolls! - so wetly our tolerant rump trolls kiss rump's rump!

so i say -

1) bernie, warren and reich have made it perfectly clear that they will do everything in their power to keep rump from office!

2) almost everyone here on rsn claims they support bernie!

3) on may 6th, 22 commenters here on rsn drew a bright line and said that, in an effort to keep rump from office that includes voting for hill as prez, they could not cross that line!

4) ergo, in a matter of critical importance to them, bernie, warren and reich cannot count on the support of our gang of 22! - when it comes to rump, our gang of 22 treats them like progressive shit! - their arguments against rump? - like nonsense!

hence, our serene 22 lack solidarity with anyone! - certainly not with each other! - they are islands of virtue! - beholden only to each self!

like any good conservative, they know that everyone looks out for themselves! - never gives a sucker an even break! - the end justifies the means! - that’s the only way to run a society! - that society governs best, that governs least!

me, i wish more of bernie's self-described "supporters" had the nerve to support bernie on something so important to bernie, warren and reich! - to us all!

he is no great leader! who has no great supporters!
 
 
-6 # Robbee 2016-05-22 15:22
tally, pt. 5

says # davehaze 2016-05-06 15:50
"... Personally I don't want to be responsible for either of them."

there is one - AND ONLY ONE! - way NOT to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR RUMP PREZ! - to vote dem!

- the only wasted vote is the one not cast for the candidate, the dem, with the only chance to beat the candidate who promises - and is capable, as prez, of delivering on his reactionary promises, to -

1) torture prisoners;
2) kill spouses and children of enemies whom our law says he names;
3) regulate the press;
4) on his first day in office, tear up the iran treaty (that prevents iran from building nukes!);
5) deport 11 million illegals;
6) build a wall clear across mexico;
7) make mexico pay for it (which takes invading and occupying mexico!)
8) nominate to scotus, a "justice", or 3, just like scalia!
9) abolish the inheritance tax - our nation's ONLY TAX ON WEALTH! THAT REDISTRIBUTES WEALTH - AS IN SOCIALISM! - PART OF OUR LAW SINCE THE 1890'S - THE AGE OF THE ROBBER BARONS!
10) cut income taxes almost in half, for the rich only; and
11) register and ground muslims.

- go bernie, and, in any case, go dem!
 
 
+13 # dbrize 2016-05-22 16:05
Ha! Another appearance of the resident purge master.

Says Robbo, the dual ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy/Richar d M Nixon, our keeper of phony "enemies and purge lists".

It's still true: a vote for Hillary is a vote for: Victoria Nuland, Robert Kagan, Susan Rice, Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell among others. All retreads who are a proven part of the problem. A BIG part.

Good luck selling this rogues gallery to progressives, independents and undecided voters. No wonder you would rather spend your time on truncated bits of sentences and imaginary lists of subversives.
 
 
-4 # CAnative 2016-05-22 16:05
First off, bad analogy. Tom Brady, really? If Joe Montana too long ago for youse, at least Steve Young.
 
 
+5 # WBoardman 2016-05-22 19:04
Whatever.

You got the IDEA ;-)))
 
 
+4 # elkingo 2016-05-22 16:39
"Fraud" cried the maddened multitude and the echo answered 'fraud'" Casey at the Bat


This is a closed society, becoming more Orwellian by the day.

Prosecute the fraudulent fascists!
 
 
+2 # economagic 2016-05-22 19:34
(quoting mmc FAR above):

"What a ridiculous article."

What is ridiculous is a good part of the comments thread, with otherwise intelligent people trying to win over well-known trolls by force of ironclad rational argument!

As for Harry Reid (yes, he figures prominently in the article), he "led" the Senate to confirm two of W's SCOTUS nominees whose agendas were pretty clear, at least to me. In at least one of those cases their agendas were not clear to Ted Kenne3dy, but he was dying from a brain tumor at the time.
 
 
-12 # ojg 2016-05-22 22:18
William Boardman is a loose cannon Republican supporter of Ron Paul. RSN is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for contributors. Read his own words below. Bernie isn't going to be the nominee, which is only right. He is an Independent, not a Democrat.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/10/how-i-became-an-accidental-ron-paul-delegate-in-vermont/
 
 
+4 # dbrize 2016-05-23 08:54
Quoting ojg:
William Boardman is a loose cannon Republican supporter of Ron Paul. RSN is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for contributors. Read his own words below. Bernie isn't going to be the nominee, which is only right. He is an Independent, not a Democrat.

http://ivn.us/2012/07/10/how-i-became-an-accidental-ron-paul-delegate-in-vermont/


Get outta here with this weak stuff.

He is not a Republican and if you had read his article with any comprehension you would know it.

His explanation is not only clear and entertaining, but entirely consistent with his current positions and those of many who oppose Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment.

Is it your suggestion that ONLY members of the Democratic Party who support your candidate should be allowed to contribute work to RSN?

As for Ron Paul, no one is more liberal than Dennis Kucinich and he stated that he not only would support Ron Paul, he would have been willing to run with him or serve in his administration.

The only thing you have right is your last sentence. Boardman is not alone.
 
 
+8 # WBoardman 2016-05-23 13:08
Thank you dbrize for an accurate reading
of my "Ron Paul delegate" piece,
offered primarily for its absurdity and entertainment value.

ojg was, perhaps, kidding....
why else would he imply that
Democrats are not independent? ;-)))
 
 
-9 # NevadaDemGal 2016-05-23 03:44
This article is filled with hysteria and half truths. Fact. On Feb 20, 2016 85,000 caucus goers in Nevada VOTED and Hillary Clinton won by nearly 6 points, with an estimated delegate distribution of 20 delegates Hillary, 15 delegates Bernie. Nevada has a convoluted 3 step process whereby there were 12 of the 35 delegates at stake at the two conventions. Got that? 23 were locked in. At the county conventions, Bernie out-organized Hillary, then at the county convention, Hillary campaign out-organized Bernie's campaign and the final delegate distribution was (HORRORS) Hillary 20 delegates, 15 delegates -- meeting the will of the voters. Tad Devine from Bernie's campaign went on TV time and again and LIED that Bernie could and would flip the state of Nevada -- which was NEVER an option. The VERY BEST Bernie could do was get 17 delegates to Hillary's 18 -- a switch of exactly two delegates. Got that? TWO DELEGATES. Although Tad Devine was repeatedly corrected he continued to deliberately lie to Bernie supporters that they could flip the state. The Bernie Bros in Nevada are a particularly vile bunch -- and they were out to disrupt and state convention -- everyone in Nevada knew that. And they did. They went way too far and it blew up in Bernie's face. All of this debate over what was thrown, what threats were made is a distraction from the truth. Bernie LOST NEVADA. And I'm still waiting to hear that he called Roberta Lange and apologized for harassment at home & at work. Crickets.
 
 
+6 # WBoardman 2016-05-23 13:17
Ignoring the ad hominem vitriol,
NevadaDemGal pretty much repeats
the facts of the article, especially the 2 delegate shift.

NevadaDemGal's apparently first person experience
of Nevada Bernie Bros is, if correct, improper –
but she needs to flesh that out with evidence
before the case is made (insults are not arguments).

If the Bernie Bros are indeed guilty as she charges.
then it's even less reasonable to ask Bernie to
apologize for actions that – to date – there's no evidence
indicating he knew, much less approved of, much less
authorized – more appropriate to ask NevadaDemGal
to apologize to Sanders,
not that I'd ever suggestshe do that.... ;-)))

Ignoring the ad hominem vitriol,
NevadaDemGal pretty much repeats
the facts of the article, especially the 2 delegate shift.

NevadaDemGal's apparently first person experience
of Nevada Bernie Bros is, if correct, improper –
but she needs to flesh that out with evidence
before the case is made (insults are not arguments).

If the Bernie Bros are indeed guilty as she charges.
then it's even less reasonable to ask Bernie to
apologize for actions that – to date – there's no evidence
indicating he knew, much less approved of, much less
authorized – more appropriate to ask NevadaDemGal
to apologize to Sanders,
not that I'd ever suggest she do that.... ;-)))
 
 
+4 # LionMousePudding 2016-05-23 23:55
I have never seen the paid trolls out in such full force before!

Hm. Scary, scary article. The worse the lies, the more terrified the liars are that someone will speak the truth.

Lucky thing about the new overtime rules -- the trolls will be handsomely compensated for their extreme efforts tonight. No need to worry about hungry baby trolls!!!
 
 
+4 # LionMousePudding 2016-05-24 00:08
See? ;) From Truthout today:

Rather than engage younger voters, Hillary Clinton's campaign often appears to do the opposite. One of her Super PACs, David Brock's Correct the Record, is spending $1 million on social media to coordinate attacks on Bernie Sanders' groups on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other sites.
 
 
+3 # hoodwinkednomore 2016-05-24 07:34
RMDC, glad you are back! And Librarian, you get the best laugh!!
 
 
+1 # SusanT136 2016-05-25 05:28
Good article but PLEASE don't use the NE Patriots as a metaphor for Bernie. They are KNOWN cheaters i.e. SpyGate and Deflate gate
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart

Bernie is the exact opposite of a cheater.
 
 
+2 # WBoardman 2016-05-25 11:10
Dear SusanT136, I'm so sorry I picked
an obviously loaded example (revealing my
limited football awareness).

How about I retract Brady – gladly – and
as CAnative suggested,
go with Joe Montana in the example?

Much better, right? Can everyone live with that?
 
 
-6 # coulterbooks 2016-05-25 10:51
Bernie Sanders IS A WASHED OUT OLD MAN(74), a POOR LOSER, a TOTAL PHONEY AND JUST A big HYPOCRITE! And Boardman... you are definitely NOT the intellectual that you and some others think you are!!!
 
 
0 # Henry 2016-06-02 09:56
Ha ha ha ha ha!!! That was a fun read.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN