Support NeoGAF

[Machina]

A bitter, desperate old career politician. Who's finally got the spot light he believes he deserves. And will do anything to stay on the national stage even if it means sabotaging every bit of progress Obama managed to squeeze out of the last 8 Years. And set this country tumbling backwards for the next 20 years.

Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit.

Woho, now this is some bitterness

 

[Unknown Soldier]

lol

She is under no obligation to debate now that her path to the nomination is secure. Obama did the same thing in late May 2008.

Sanders sounds desperate. It doesn't take a mastermind to figure out Trump was playing games and had no intention of debating. He controlled the media narrative for a few hours at Sanders' expense. Pretty surprising timing too given that the email issue gained some traction before this interrupted it.

That's how promises work. No one is under any obligation to fulfill a promise. But she made a promise and broke it. And yeah, now that you mention it, Obama did do the same thing in late May 2008, and Hillary responded by saying "You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." back in 2008. Apparently what she said in 2008 no longer applies in 2016 now that she's beating her opponent.

Now it does look like Trump was trolling the whole time though, which is actually sad. I would have enjoyed watching a Trump vs. Bernie debate. Maybe I still can if someone coughs up $10 million for charity lol.

 

[Risette]

The biggest disservice Bernie has done, had been to convince an entire segment of voters that you don't need facts based on objective reality. You can need to ignore math, and history and just rely on passion and shouting over people that disagree with you.

If you lose? Its because the game is rigged.
If someone doesn't endorse you? Its because their part of the establishment.
They don't vote for Bernie? Well, That's the south(read: black voters) and they don't matter anyway.
Breaking the rules and stealing data is fine because it was your opponents fault anyway.
You were mathematically eliminated a month ago? No! Super delegates are now cool and its not over until the last vote and the last $27 dollars is collected.

What a terrible campaign and even worse candidate.

I think this really started to set in after Michigan. One huge polling upset made them think the entire system was proven wrong forever. Which unfortunately isn't reality — polls after Michigan have pretty much been spot on with a few points of margin.

Hell, as a former Bernie supporter even I admit that Michigan extended the hope for a bit for me too. But then the other states happened, and he lost, and I moved on.

 

[Link]

The biggest disservice Bernie has done, had been to convince an entire segment of voters that you don't need facts based on objective reality. You can need to ignore math, and history and just rely on passion and shouting over people that disagree with you.

If you lose? Its because the game is rigged.
If someone doesn't endorse you? Its because their part of the establishment.
They don't vote for Bernie? Well, That's the south(read: black voters) and they don't matter anyway.
Breaking the rules and stealing data is fine because it was your opponents fault anyway.
You were mathematically eliminated a month ago? No! Super delegates are now cool and its not over until the last vote and the last $27 dollars is collected.

What a terrible campaign and even worse candidate.

Preach! Frustrating as all hell.

 

[Davide]

A bitter, desperate old career politician. Who's finally got the spot light he believes he deserves. And will do anything to stay on the national stage even if it means sabotaging every bit of progress Obama managed to squeeze out of the last 8 Years. And set this country tumbling backwards for the next 20 years.

Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit.

Unbelievable, first person I've ever put on an ignore list. Worst poster of the thread.

 

[border]

That's how promises work. No one is under any obligation to fulfill a promise. But she made a promise and broke it. And yeah, now that you mention it, Obama did do the same thing in late May 2008, and Hillary responded by saying "You should be willing to debate anytime, anywhere." back in 2008. Apparently what she said in 2008 no longer applies in 2016 now that she's beating her opponent.

Obama also said he would only use public funding for his 2008 presidential campaign, but once he realized he could easily beat McCain's fundraising apparatus he changed his tune. It's politics though -- expecting people to pull their punches when they don't have to is naive. Part of the reason I like Hilary is because I know she isn't going to try to fight with one hand tied behind her back.

 

[benjipwns]

Why has Hillary not offered to moderate this yet? What is she afraid of?

 

[HylianTom]

Because we don't have to be polite and magnanimous and camera friendly in the face of overwhelming facts.


Also there really aren't any hilldawgs, just passionless pragmatists holding their noses.

This idea that many of us aren't keenly aware of her baggage is disingenuous. I see it all the time, and it's laughable.

We're just not willing to justify allowing progressivism to be judicially sabotaged for a generation on purity bullshit, a bad move on email, whining over debates, etc. Neither are the vast majority of Bernie voters; when the time comes, they'll vote for her, if only to keep his movement alive beyond this one cycle. They'll also come aboard so that we can finally see some of the horrible conservative SCOTUS decisions that have piled-up over the past generation overturned.. Citizens United included.

 

[Link]

Sanders and his supporters have been making perfect the enemy of good since the start.

Which is ironic, because he's proven to be far from perfect.

 

[Jack Remington]

As an Independent voter I think both parties are the most insufferable groups that I've been around. Their blind party loyalty has them supporting terrible people who don't give a damn about them. It's about time politicians start get called out for their decades of incompetence instead of being defended like they are some victim.

Huh, which Democrat doesn't give a damn about me? I'm pretty sure both Bernie and Clinton do.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Trump genuinely cares a lot about the white working class.

 

[googleplex]

Unbelievable, first person I've ever put on an ignore list. Worst poster of the thread.

Thank god! It just means i don't have to deal with your completely detached from reality arguments.

Cult of personality is a hellav'a drug.

 

[Davide]

Huh, which Democrat doesn't give a damn about me? I'm pretty sure both Bernie and Clinton do.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Trump genuinely cares a lot about the white working class.

+1, they all care about America.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This idea that many of us aren't keenly aware of her baggage is disingenuous. I see it all the time, and it's laughable.

We're just not willing to justify allowing progressivism to be judicially sabotaged for a generation on purity bullshit, a bad move on email, whining over debates, etc. Neither are the vast majority of Bernie voters, either; when the time comes, they'll vote for her, if only to keep his movement alive beyond this one cycle. They'll also come aboard so that we can finally see some of the horrible conservative SCOTUS decisions that have piled-up over the past generation overturned.. Citizens United included.

This is an interesting post but I have a question.

Let's say that in 2012 a young, upstart progressive challenger appears to challenge President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party nomination despite Hillary's incumbency. This challenger is more like current President Obama and gains immediate popularity and attention. Hillary's Presidency has been undistinguished for 4 years, and no Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by her other than Scalia's replacement due to all currently sitting Justices not having retired or passed away.

Which candidate will you support in 2012? The challenger or the incumbent? As you say, this is one cycle, not two. Therefore I am to understand you won't be committing to 8 years of Hillary, but only 4 by voting for her in November?

 

[Drek]

Who gives a shit? Let the clown cars that are Bernie and Trump have their little demolition derby. Those two shit bags deserve one another and I'm sure there's a ton of entitled white men just eager as fuck to watch two old white dudes bitch about a woman far their intellectual superior.

The irony of Trump wanting this to be a women's rights charity is great, since this debate would basically amount to two spoiled little brats picking on the smartest girl in school for making them look bad on homework assignments.

Huh, which Democrat doesn't give a damn about me? I'm pretty sure both Bernie and Clinton do.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Trump genuinely cares a lot about the white working class.

Donald Trump is a con man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and a get out of jail free card in his pocket. Co man only ever care about themselves, they're just really good at making gullible people think they care about them long enough to extract their true goal from the mark.

In this case white working class people are the mark, but are also the biggest bunch of mooks in the world today because they mistake a decline in the privilege gap as their being deprived of something they're owed.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Thank god! It just means i don't have to deal with your completely detached from reality arguments.

Cult of personality is a hellav'a drug.

Irony.

 

[Link]

This is an interesting post but I have a question.

Let's say that in 2012 a young, upstart progressive challenger appears to challenge President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party nomination despite Hillary's incumbency. This challenger is more like current President Obama and gains immediate popularity and attention. Hillary's Presidency has been undistinguished for 4 years, and no Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by her other than Scalia's replacement due to all currently sitting Justices not having retired or passed away.

Which candidate will you support in 2012? The challenger or the incumbent? As you say, this is one cycle, not two. Therefore I am to understand you won't be committing to 8 years of Hillary, but only 4 by voting for her in November?

Maybe you should ask your boy since he tried to have Obama primaried in 2012.

 

[BUNTING1243]

A bitter, desperate old career politician. Who's finally got the spot light he believes he deserves. And will do anything to stay on the national stage even if it means sabotaging every bit of progress Obama managed to squeeze out of the last 8 Years. And set this country tumbling backwards for the next 20 years.

Bernie Sanders is a piece of shit.

I don't completely agree with this but I appreciate its existence.

 

[benjipwns]

This is an interesting post but I have a question.

Let's say that in 2012 a young, upstart progressive challenger appears to challenge President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party nomination despite Hillary's incumbency. This challenger is more like current President Obama and gains immediate popularity and attention. Hillary's Presidency has been undistinguished for 4 years, and no Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by her other than Scalia's replacement due to all currently sitting Justices not having retired or passed away.

Which candidate will you support in 2012? The challenger or the incumbent? As you say, this is one cycle, not two. Therefore I am to understand you won't be committing to 8 years of Hillary, but only 4 by voting for her in November?

In 2012, I wrote in Gary Johnson just out of spite towards the MIGOP.

Then my ballot jammed the machine because the idiots were ignoring its constant printing of "EMPTY BIN" messages.

Take that democracy!

Spoiler

I will not vote for Gary Johnson in 2020. I intend on running as Jim Gilmore's running mate, whether he wants me to or not.

 

[Elaugaufein]

This is an interesting post but I have a question.

Let's say that in 2012 a young, upstart progressive challenger appears to challenge President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party nomination despite Hillary's incumbency. This challenger is more like current President Obama and gains immediate popularity and attention. Hillary's Presidency has been undistinguished for 4 years, and no Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by her other than Scalia's replacement due to all currently sitting Justices not having retired or passed away.

Which candidate will you support in 2012? The challenger or the incumbent? As you say, this is one cycle, not two. Therefore I am to understand you won't be committing to 8 years of Hillary, but only 4 by voting for her in November?

Short of President Hillary being a dumpster fire no Democratic challenger is going to get even seriously considered in 2020 , merely being undistinguished isn't going to change that, the electoral advantages of incumbency are too great.

Besides that you'll hear the same song about the Supreme Court as this go around because your setup means that America will still be in a situation where at least 2 justices are likely to die or retire in that term (not that this is particularly relevant in terms of the argument itself, supporter of the "pragmatic" choice telling you that you must compromise or else Armageddon will occur, will always have some argument for why that's the case), .

 

[TI82]

This idea that many of us aren't keenly aware of her baggage is disingenuous. I see it all the time, and it's laughable.

We're just not willing to justify allowing progressivism to be judicially sabotaged for a generation on purity bullshit, a bad move on email, whining over debates, etc. Neither are the vast majority of Bernie voters; when the time comes, they'll vote for her, if only to keep his movement alive beyond this one cycle. They'll also come aboard so that we can finally see some of the horrible conservative SCOTUS decisions that have piled-up over the past generation overturned.. Citizens United included.

Putting our nations secrecy in jeopardy is "a bad move on email"? Are you kidding me?

 

[Link]

Putting our nations secrecy in jeopardy is "a bad move on email"? Are you kidding me?

Our nation's secrecy? Do you even know what was in those emails?

 

[Risette]

Our nation's secrecy? Do you even know what was in those emails?

"Please print" — the toppest of secrets.

 

[TI82]

Our nation's secrecy? Do you even know what was in those emails?

classified information, I'm assuming you have never handled classified information so you should know that it is all potentially life threatening and why it is treated as such.

 

[Link]

classified information, I'm assuming you have never handled classified information so you should know that it is all potentially life threatening and why it is treated as such.

Such as? Give me an example. You must have some if you're this upset.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

classified information, I'm assuming you have never handled classified information so you should know that it is all potentially life threatening and why it is treated as such.

We already know one of those SUPER CLASSIFIED files was a newspaper blurb about a drone program. I can't imagine how much worse it gets.

 

[TI82]

Such as? Give me an example. You must have some if you're this upset.

It's classified information, that is the end of it. There's nothing else to say she has poor enough judgment to do something like this and should never be trusted with it again. Putting her in the top position of the country would be a grave mistake.

 

[aspiegamer]

So it's been 24 hours since this first came up. Do we have any facts to work with? Or has all this done is spark a massive internet flame war? Well, more massive than usual.

All I can see in news is "exploring" still with a blatant lack of official anything coming from anywhere. Maybe both campaigns realized how insane the idea was after they both accidentally agreed to it? Woke up Thursday and had no idea what to do? To go an entire news cycle without any actual info is extremely unusual. Even /s4p/ is loaded with articles 12+ hours old and random hearsay. Everyone knows this would have to happen in <1 week, right?

 

[Elaugaufein]

classified information, I'm assuming you have never handled classified information so you should know that it is all potentially life threatening and why it is treated as such.

Yeah, I'm not Yaas Queener but its nowhere near unknown or even mildly controversial to say that vast amounts of information are hilariously overclassified and threaten little beyond mild embarrassment to some diplomatic apparatchik, to suggest that all classified information is potentially life threatening is ridiculous.

 

[benjipwns]

Short of President Hillary being a dumpster fire no Democratic challenger is going to get even seriously considered in 2020 , merely being undistinguished isn't going to change that

She could die. Like Vince Foster. Or Ambassador Stevens.

Just to pick two completely random examples.

 

[HylianTom]

This is an interesting post but I have a question.

Let's say that in 2012 a young, upstart progressive challenger appears to challenge President Hillary Clinton to the Democratic Party nomination despite Hillary's incumbency. This challenger is more like current President Obama and gains immediate popularity and attention. Hillary's Presidency has been undistinguished for 4 years, and no Supreme Court Justices have been appointed by her other than Scalia's replacement due to all currently sitting Justices not having retired or passed away.

Which candidate will you support in 2012? The challenger or the incumbent? As you say, this is one cycle, not two. Therefore I am to understand you won't be committing to 8 years of Hillary, but only 4 by voting for her in November?

I'm only committing to 4 years, but it'd take extraordinary circumstances to get voters (myself included) to uproot a sitting incumbent.

If she's embroiled in some Nixonian scandal and it looks like her chances are irredeemably scuttled, I can't rule-out considering a challenger, especially with redistricting for the 2020s on the line. But a lackluster administration (in terms of legislative achievements) is pretty much assured for anyone with a 'D' behind his/her name for this next term; the House GOP will see to that.

It'd have to be a very compelling challenger..

Putting our nations secrecy in jeopardy is "a bad move on email"? Are you kidding me?

TI, nothing I say is going to assuage you on this matter. I don't like how she handled this, but I don't have a Delorean to go back and change things. You're willing to scuttle Bernie's agenda for a few decades over this, I'm not. That's fine.

 

[Stinkles]

classified information, I'm assuming you have never handled classified information so you should know that it is all potentially life threatening and why it is treated as such.

Point of detail - much of it is tedious garbage. Not necessarily hers but most classified information is still garbage and an amazing amount of classified information is publicly known but still officially classified.

 

[Link]

It's classified information, that is the end of it. There's nothing else to say she has poor enough judgment to do something like this and should never be trusted with it again. Putting her in the top position of the country would be a grave mistake.

Really, just one example.

 

[TI82]

Point of detail - much of it is tedious garbage. Not necessarily hers but most classified information is still garbage and an amazing amount of classified information is publicly known but still officially classified.

There is a reason it's classified, it's not her place to decide what to unclassify or deem as "storable" at her own private home. That people can't seem to grasp this says a lot about their understanding of the entire act of classifying information.

 

[Elaugaufein]

She could die. Like Vince Foster. Or Ambassador Stevens.

Just to pick two completely random examples.

Okay, I'll concede that in the event of President Clinton being a dumpster fire or deceased that a Democratic challenger in 2020 will get seriously considered.

There is a reason it's classified, it's not her place to decide what to unclassify or deem as "storable" at her own private home. That people can't seem to grasp this says a lot about their understanding of the entire act of classifying information.

I can understand (and even agree with) the purpose of classifying information without thinking the current effective implementation of the classification system achieves that goal correctly. Actually that's not a bad summary of my attitude to pretty much everything about how ridiculously out of hand national security stuff has gotten.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I'm only committing to 4 years, but it'd take extraordinary circumstances to get voters (myself included) to uproot a sitting incumbent.

If she's embroiled in some Nixonian scandal and it looks like her chances are irredeemably scuttled, I can't rule-out considering a challenger, especially with redistricting for the 2020s on the line. But a lackluster administration (in terms of legislative achievements) is pretty much assured for anyone with a 'D' behind his/her name for this next term; the House GOP will see to that.

It'd have to be a very compelling challenger..

Fair enough. Thank you for your answer, and for not being snarky.

edit: I just now realized that I wrote '2012' in that post instead of '2020' lmao

 

[Galactic Barret]

The biggest disservice Bernie has done, had been to convince an entire segment of voters that you don't need facts based on objective reality. You can need to ignore math, and history and just rely on passion and shouting over people that disagree with you.

If you lose? Its because the game is rigged.
If someone doesn't endorse you? Its because their part of the establishment.
They don't vote for Bernie? Well, That's the south(read: black voters) and they don't matter anyway.
Breaking the rules and stealing data is fine because it was your opponents fault anyway.
You were mathematically eliminated a month ago? No! Super delegates are now cool and its not over until the last vote and the last $27 dollars is collected.

What a terrible campaign and even worse candidate.

I feel like I'm pretty informed on politics and I can't believe what I'm reading.

Bernie Sanders campaign saying Black voters don't matter? What? That is lunacy.

I would love to embed videos, but that way too much right now. Rapper and political activist Killer Mike (A Black Southerner) speaks highly of Bernie Sanders, stating that he is the only candidate speaking out for black voters, because he adheres to the same principles as MLK Jr.

Taking $27 from 1 person only vs. celebrity fund-raising parties for Clinton's election campaign.

Independent voters being denied from voting because they didn't register as democrats intime or polling stations out-right being closed due to "budget concerns" in places where Hilary is ahead.

Are you really, truly saying the political system isn't rigged? Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC rumoredto be removed as chairperson for reportedly being biased toward Hilary Clinton?

This isn't conspiracy, its facts (MAYBE with the exception of the rumor); the system is rigged, some people just choose to believe otherwise.

Bernie's whole campaign is about empowering the lower and middle-class, which goes a long way toward empowering Black americans. That is in contrast to the (blatant) racism from Donald Trump, and the Clintons, who allowed the privatization of jails, which led to hundreds of thousand of black males to be imprisoned during the War on Drugs because they were "super predators", even though the drug selling and usage rate among Whites and Blacks are similar or less.

The thing is, Bernie Sanders supporters are well-versed in history. That is why they are so passionate about changing the future.

 

[HylianTom]

Fair enough. Thank you for your answer, and for not being snarky.

No prob.

To be honest, I've long said that this election's theme should be "Making the Best of a Sucky Situation." We needed more primary choices.

2010 really burned us, taking the House out of reach. If there were a realistic chance that the Dems could take back the House, the arguments and fighting we've had over policy specifics would've held more significance in my mind, but it's hard to get excited or agitated over healthcare specifics or the burden of college costs when the GOP is going to smother anything we attempt.

Just a sad situation all around.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There is a reason it's classified, it's not her place to decide what to unclassify or deem as "storable" at her own private home. That people can't seem to grasp this says a lot about their understanding of the entire act of classifying information.

Actually, departmental disagreements over what is classified and what is not happens often. If all classification was so clear and life threatening, why would two departments disagree over whether it is classified or not? We already know the mere mention of a drone program that is public knowledge is apparently enough to warrant classification in some departments due to excessive bureaucracy. Furthermore, she never "unclassified" anything as far as I know, anything she sent or received was retroactively deemed classified due to the wonderful bureaucracy of government. The State Department did not even accept the status of these retroactive classifications until recently.

 

[kmag]

Simply untrue.

It's not 0% but it's probably not 1% either, this entire cycle has been pre-baked in terms of each Democratic candidates demographic base. There's a reason that Benchmark Politics per district demographic model has been the most accurate model out there.

That model btw

Benchmark Politics &#8207;@benchmarkpol May 24 Nags Head, NC
Clintons popular vote margin over Sanders is anticipated to grow from 3 million to nearly 6 million after CA/NJ/NM/MT/ND/SD/PR/VI

This isn't a close race, it's been effectively over since March when it became clear the demographic support for each candidate were baked in. The illusion of closeness was more a quirk of the drawn out schedule and a run of states favorable to Sanders late March/early April.

The late run of states are demographically extremely favorable to Clinton. They are demographically far more like the states she's won than the states Sanders won. The consistent thing about this primary season is the demographics especially in actual primaries* being the most reliable indicator of a candidates performance.

As I say, it's not a close race, Clinton is comfortably ahead in every margin. She'll end up winning by 5 million plus votes and 300+ pledged delegates.

Of course there's a slight chance of the old dead girl/live boy scenario but that's true of Trump or any other candidate.

*by their very nature and with their low predominately white attendance (even in more demographically diverse states) caucuses buck the trend a little but essentially mostly by magnifying the extent of Sanders wins

 

[Rentahamster]

Bernie on the Kimmel show tonight, with a bit of debate talk in the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK6nMKKMtQ8&feature=youtu.be

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

The thing is, Bernie Sanders supporters are well-versed in history. That is why they are so passionate about changing the future.

I don't see how anyone can make such a broad claim. If anything, many Sanders supporters are extremely new and unfamiliar with the political process and political history in general.

 

[BanGy.nz]

She could die. Like Vince Foster. Or Ambassador Stevens.

Just to pick two completely random examples.

This is a criminally underrated post, well done.

 

[dimb]

So it's been 24 hours since this first came up. Do we have any facts to work with? Or has all this done is spark a massive internet flame war? Well, more massive than usual.

All I can see in news is "exploring" still with a blatant lack of official anything coming from anywhere. Maybe both campaigns realized how insane the idea was after they both accidentally agreed to it? Woke up Thursday and had no idea what to do? To go an entire news cycle without any actual info is extremely unusual. Even /s4p/ is loaded with articles 12+ hours old and random hearsay. Everyone knows this would have to happen in <1 week, right?

I'm not sure what else can realistically have happened. Sanders initially issued the proposal through a late night talk show host. Trump responded with as much tentative interest as one would expect. It's unlikely that Sanders's campaign has the means to facilitate an impromptu event like this, or find interested parties willing to fund it.

The logistical feasibility for such a debate is highly suspect. Somehow that aspect of all this is even less absurd than the proposal itself. It is impossible to decipher any value or purpose behind such an event outside of it undermining and attacking the Democratic party. It's really just another ugly wrinkle in the indecipherable course Sanders's campaign has taken. For all these cries of corruption from Sanders, somehow the end game of his campaign involves wasting massive amounts of time, energy, and the financial contributions offered to him in good faith. Instead of these resources being put to use to better America, we find ourselves entertaining the idea of meaningless debates that focus on flash and spectacle beyond all else.

 

[AniHawk]

I don't see how anyone can make such a broad claim. If anything, many Sanders supporters are extremely new and unfamiliar with the political process and political history in general.

i was a little amazed i had to, in more exact detail, explain how things went down in 2008 and 2012 to someone who just got involved in the last year. they could have voted in 2008 too, so it makes it especially curious.

my first election was 2004. i had a hard time believing the country would actually reelect george w bush. teenage me was pretty confident that the dude couldn't get reelected. it was a better preparation for 2008 i think, where i didn't get my hopes up so much.

 

[excelsiorlef]

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-sanders-debate-talk-awkward-for-clinton-693901891555

Maddow is having none of this.

Start around halfway of video

 

[daedalius]

I feel like I'm pretty informed on politics and I can't believe what I'm reading.

Bernie Sanders campaign saying Black voters don't matter? What? That is lunacy.

I would love to embed videos, but that way too much right now. Rapper and political activist Killer Mike (A Black Southerner) speaks highly of Bernie Sanders, stating that he is the only candidate speaking out for black voters, because he adheres to the same principles as MLK Jr.

Taking $27 from 1 person only vs. celebrity fund-raising parties for Clinton's election campaign.

Independent voters being denied from voting because they didn't register as democrats intime or polling stations out-right being closed due to "budget concerns" in places where Hilary is ahead.

Are you really, truly saying the political system isn't rigged? Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC rumoredto be removed as chairperson for reportedly being biased toward Hilary Clinton?

This isn't conspiracy, its facts (MAYBE with the exception of the rumor); the system is rigged, some people just choose to believe otherwise.

Bernie's whole campaign is about empowering the lower and middle-class, which goes a long way toward empowering Black americans. That is in contrast to the (blatant) racism from Donald Trump, and the Clintons, who allowed the privatization of jails, which led to hundreds of thousand of black males to be imprisoned during the War on Drugs because they were "super predators", even though the drug selling and usage rate among Whites and Blacks are similar or less.

The thing is, Bernie Sanders supporters are well-versed in history. That is why they are so passionate about changing the future.

Rigged! Rigged I tell ya!

the only reason he didn't win states like NY and MA is because they're in the Deep South!

 

[Link]

i was a little amazed i had to, in more exact detail, explain how things went down in 2008 and 2012 to someone who just got involved in the last year. they could have voted in 2008 too, so it makes it especially curious.

my first election was 2004. i had a hard time believing the country would actually reelect george w bush. teenage me was pretty confident that the dude couldn't get reelected. it was a better preparation for 2008 i think, where i didn't get my hopes up so much.

Now try having your first election in 2000. I got to experience the whole "We elected Bush?!" hangover twice.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

I feel like I'm pretty informed on politics and I can't believe what I'm reading.

Bernie Sanders campaign saying Black voters don't matter? What? That is lunacy.

I would love to embed videos, but that way too much right now. Rapper and political activist Killer Mike (A Black Southerner) speaks highly of Bernie Sanders, stating that he is the only candidate speaking out for black voters, because he adheres to the same principles as MLK Jr.

Taking $27 from 1 person only vs. celebrity fund-raising parties for Clinton's election campaign.

Independent voters being denied from voting because they didn't register as democrats intime or polling stations out-right being closed due to "budget concerns" in places where Hilary is ahead.

Are you really, truly saying the political system isn't rigged? Why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the DNC rumoredto be removed as chairperson for reportedly being biased toward Hilary Clinton?

This isn't conspiracy, its facts (MAYBE with the exception of the rumor); the system is rigged, some people just choose to believe otherwise.

Bernie's whole campaign is about empowering the lower and middle-class, which goes a long way toward empowering Black americans. That is in contrast to the (blatant) racism from Donald Trump, and the Clintons, who allowed the privatization of jails, which led to hundreds of thousand of black males to be imprisoned during the War on Drugs because they were "super predators", even though the drug selling and usage rate among Whites and Blacks are similar or less.

The thing is, Bernie Sanders supporters are well-versed in history. That is why they are so passionate about changing the future.

If this was true, the last thing they'd be clamouring for would be a revolution

They'd also be a lot more sceptical of a guy offering simplistic solutions to a host of complex problems

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Killer Mike is back! Where was he?

 

[Meowster]

Killer Mike is back! Where was he?

Seemed like he disappeared after his terrible comments on Hillary and Bernie conceding the entire southern half of the USA.