goob - please comment on Dictator Trump and the below list. Oh I forgot, you don't comment when challenged.

Real wages

Counterproductive and inflationary tariffs

Children in cages

Firing a DNI because he testified before Congress (i.e. - doing his job) even if the facts indicate that Russia AGIAN is working on behalf of Trump.

Increase in hate crimes

Racism

No wall funding via Mexico as stated but successfully robbed Pentagon / military funds to pay for a portion of the wall.

Dismantling health care with no replacement

Going after judges & jurors

Unlimited emoluments violations

Firing of career nonpartisan individuals who spoke truth to power

The numbers of inner circle personal associates who have been convicted of crimes. This is Trump's idea of draining the swamp?

Putin's boy

Horrible foreign policy actions

Etc.

Bernie followers have their life experiences but they are being told a LIE and a FANTASY about how BIG GOVERNMENT will take real good care of them.

He sure seems to be garnering the millennial vote where life experience consists of how tough the real world is when you are faced with the reality of paying your own bills. The Gubmint coming to the rescue sounds like a Godsend to a voting block who can't see the forest for the trees.

The DNC better wake up damned quick

I just watched the speech from El Paso I think is where he was on the heels of the Nevada victory.

It is a movement, something no other candidate has. The change is very radical, and for some people that is what they want. As he continues to win and lead, more people will jump onboard who maybe aren't crazy about the whole agenda, but people like winners and Democrats want to beat Trump.

Many people in the Republican party did not think Trump could beat Hillary. Many people of different persuasions are thinking the same thing about Bernie now vs Trump. But who knows? The pendulum swings further and further from one administration to the next, be it in policy or a polarized electorate. The hatred for each President only gets deeper and deeper. If we go from Trump to Bernie...what comes after Bernie? Too far down the road, but you know what I am saying? If we whiplash from one extreme to the other each cycle where do we end up here?

Anyway.....let's see Bernie....? One thing I wonder, if you hate fossil fuels, then you have to walk the walk right? Isn't he flying around campaigning on private planes burning jet fuel...or is he driving an EV everywhere? I mean, I'm not typically the guy who posts about Al Gore's electric consumption or Bernie's vacation home, but I do think it is important to not engage in activity in which you despise and rail against. I hate things not made in the USA and while I do occasionally have to buy things that are made in China and other countries when there is no alternative, I go to great lengths to buy USA and I promote that with everyone who knows me (and many people do don't directly know me). So imagine if I tell everyone how important buying American is to me, but then I buy imported clothes and household items and vehicles. You hate fossil fuels and oil company profits and carbon emissions then stop contributing to the problem, right Bernie?

Anyway.....let's see Bernie....? One thing I wonder, if you hate fossil fuels, then you have to walk the walk right? Isn't he flying around campaigning on private planes burning jet fuel...

He despises the rich and wealthy yet owns three homes and is worth a couple of million dollars himself....

Anyway.....let's see Bernie....? One thing I wonder, if you hate fossil fuels, then you have to walk the walk right? Isn't he flying around campaigning on private planes burning jet fuel...

He despises the rich and wealthy yet owns three homes and is worth a couple of million dollars himself....

I liked that moment between Bloomberg and Sanders in the debate when he calls out Bernie's 3 homes. Now, I'll give him the two, he does work in Washington and lives in Vermont so naturally he is going to have two homes. I suppose he could rent one, but I don't care about that. A vacation home? Hey, I think it is great that he has a vacation home for him and his family...and all this talk of hypocrisy, Bernie is no enemy of mine and I'm not trying to score points by knocking him, but that is a bad look. Bernie could spin that and say he want policies that allow more Americans to have vacation homes. There is a way he could defend it, but it is clearly and uncomfortable point for him. I especially liked when he tried to zing Bloomberg back and asked him what tax haven his home was in? Mike's response "New York City and I pay all my taxes". I look forward to more Bloomberg and Sanders direct exchanges on the debate stage.

He despises the rich and wealthy yet owns three homes and is worth a couple of million dollars himself....

and?

naw on it,chew on it,swallow them damn egg's whole,but just remember
TRUMP BE THE MAN.

naw on it,chew on it,swallow them damn egg's whole,but just remember
TRUMP BE THE MAN.

if i knew what any of this meant, i'd respond.

No need.Just remember to drink your Tang in the morning and don't forget your lunch box again.
And oh yeah! If a demon rat speaks to ya,by all mean's don't respond.Sleep tight & don't let them TRUMP bug's bite^*^

There it is - Weekend with Bernie - he wins Nevada - so far his message not the others are registering w/voters - it’s still very early - more candidates will drop out next month, as they usually do after “Super Tuesday”

Some people favor moderation, maybe that’s helping Bernie
The editorial in this morning’s paper, I am convinced, speaks for many
It’s in the Boston Herald, a paper which takes a moderate, balanced view

Headline, “Media muddies the waters by masking its biases”
Last graf
“From wild disconnected theorizing to downright naked bias, we are not being served well by the media. It would not be so detrimental to society if supposed journalists would declare their activism and shout their hysteria publicly, but while they hide behind once-iconic and objective news brands, they are toxifying our culture”

There it is - Weekend with Bernie - he wins Nevada - so far his message not the others are registering w/voters

Is his win valid? Sanders & Congress have both announced that US intel shows that Russia prefers Sanders to be the dem nominee in their strategy to ensure Trump's re-election. It's logical - the polar opposite of Trump isn't going to siphon any 2016 remorseful voters or undecideds. Why should we think it's Sanders himself or his message that's resonating w/voters rather than he's merely the beneficiary of Russian disinformation meddling?
Congress was informed that the Russian tactics for 2020 are different than those used in 2016. A NYT columnist spells out why Russia prefers Sanders & some of the new tactics in Same Goal, Different Playbook:

"Russians are putting more of their attack operations on computer servers in the United States, where the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies — but not the F.B.I. and homeland security — are prohibited from operating.

And, in one of the most effective twists, they are feeding disinformation to unsuspecting Americans on Facebook and other social media. By seeding conspiracy theories and baseless claims on the platforms, Russians hope everyday Americans will retransmit those falsehoods from their own accounts. That is an attempt to elude Facebook’s efforts to remove disinformation, which it can do more easily when it flags “inauthentic activity,” like Russians posing as Americans. It is much harder to ban the words of real Americans, who may be parroting a Russian story line, even unintentionally."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/22/us/politics/russia-election-meddling-trump-sanders.html

Why should we think it's Sanders himself or his message that's resonating w/voters rather than he's merely the beneficiary of Russian disinformation meddling?

Ok, so if people are voting for Sanders because of Russian disinfo - what is the Russian disinfo on Sanders? If the Russian disinfo is repeating Sanders' message then what is the difference? And you say Sanders himself says the Russians are helping him - I had to quicksearch on that one, didn't find anything - would like a link because that makes no sense at all.

I never needed "Russian meddling" to see that Trump is in bed with Putin. The whole Facebook Russian deal is ludicrous - Facebook is like Alice in Infoland. There is no rhyme or reason to any of it, so anyone who is swayed by Facebook is already toast, Russian meddlers or not. This is some pretty good psychoparanoid sci-fi by now, like something Philip K. Dick would have written.

There's a quote in the linked article from Sanders, but he said Fri (?) that he'd gotten the same intel briefing as Congress re Russia. CNN, MSNBC, & WP all reported his briefing.

I've never understood the exact nature of the Russian interference beyond hacking - just know that the US intel agencies believe its happening, reported it, Trump fired the DNI for telling Congress (he doesn't want anyone to think he needs "help" to win), & now we have some PR guy running 17 intel agencies. My guess would be that the disinfo is not on Sanders alone but also on others that would make him seem more palatable than his rivals.

Agreed re FB, but we know there are plenty of voters who believe whatever happens to be circulating on the internet. I think it's plausible that it's more efficient & likely to circumvent FB security measures to seed crazy theories w/Americans who then share than to set up millions of dummy accounts.

I deliberately don't follow the primaries, but it's hard to avoid blaring headlines of Bernie's Great Win the same week Trump freaks that intel agencies are doing their job by reporting to Congress. To me, it prompts the question if Russia is helping Bernie, is his win credible? Rhetorical question.

I don't think you are someone Russia is counting on to spread debunked misinformation. I have no SM accounts so I'm not helping, either.

The rumor of Russian meddling, whatever it's origin, is such a powerful weaponized doubt and destabilization psy-op that it obviates the need for actual meddling, if indeed any such exists.

Remember this classic hit from the last election, "Russia if you're listening..."

Then was the Helsinki follow-up hit when Trump said Putin indicated that he didn't interfere. Then Trump's chart topper, "I don't see any reason why it would be".

Then there was "Trump throws our intel agencies under the bus".

In Trump's greatness, he comes up with countless hits unparalleled by any other president before him.

The rumor of Russian meddling, whatever it's origin, is such a powerful weaponized doubt and destabilization psy-op that it obviates the need for actual meddling, if indeed any such exists.

We've gone down the rabbit hole, certainly, but I'm not prepared to call activities that US intel agencies deem sufficiently credible to report to Congress & the target candidate himself a rumor - especially when Trump's reaction is not to deny the content of the info gathered but the fact that it was reported to the appropriate oversight Congressional committees.

You are correct. Federal reports of Russian support for Sanders are sufficient to cast doubt on his "wins" whether they're accurate or not.

Anyway.....let's see Bernie....? One thing I wonder, if you hate fossil fuels, then you have to walk the walk right? Isn't he flying around campaigning on private planes burning jet fuel...

He despises the rich and wealthy yet owns three homes and is worth a couple of million dollars himself....

Hardly, he despises unfettered capitalism that whenever it runs off the rails, requires the very same gov't it otherwise despises, to come to its rescue. Something that's happened more than once in his lifetime and will happen again in the not too distant future if things continue as they are.

Bernie is merely advocating that maybe we consider some guard rails on the system as it stands and maybe establishing programs that support those otherwise left behind that is paid for primarily by the rich but also to a lesser degree by everyone. Basically bringing the whole system back into a more balanced equilibrium and away from the system now in place that benefits tremendously about 1% of the population.

Sanders has always been adamant that WE ALL have to pay for such a system....A fact you and others always deny and ignore.

One thing that concerned me on the debate stage the other night was Bernie's disparaging remarks about Bloomberg's accumulation of wealth. In a capitalistic society I say kudos to anyone who has earned massive amounts of money and who also is very philanthropic. We can debate how Bloomberg earned his money all day long and advantages afforded someone in his position, but I thought that was a hollow argument leveled against Bloomberg. I'd like to see a percentage comparison of Bloomberg's gifting vs that of Bernie.

I'll paste the exact language by Bernie below:

With that said, Bernie is far from my number 1 pick, but I'd vote for any Democrat or Independent over what the "F" is posing as a president now. Trump is truly a dangerous individual using and abusing the government like no other president in our history.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/20/sanders-hits-bloomberg-grotesque-statistic-billionaire-owns-more-wealth-bottom-125

Bernie doesn't think Billionaires should exist. That was the exchange. He didn't come out in those words at the debate and say that explicitly, but that is his belief.

TODD: Senator Klobuchar, I actually want to get you to something about -- Senator Sanders tweeted last year, "Billionaires should not exist."

KLOBUCHAR: OK.

TODD: What say you?

KLOBUCHAR: I believe in capitalism, but I think our -- the goal of someone in government and a president of the United States should be a check on that. I'm not going to limit what people make, but I think right now our tax code is so tilted against regular people and that is what's wrong.

I was thinking of your question about small businesses. The small businesses I talked to, they have trouble getting employees because their employees don't have childcare. We should have universal childcare.

(APPLAUSE)

And we have not been talking enough about Donald Trump and -- let's just talk about Donald Trump, because he signed that tax bill that helped the wealthy, and he went down to Mar-a-Lago and he said to all his friends, "You just got a lot richer." That is Exhibit A.

And I can tell you, the hard-working people in Nevada were not in that room. So the key to me is to not limit what people can make, but make sure that we have a government that is fair for everyone.

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: So, Senator Sanders, what did you mean that you don't think they should exist?

SANDERS: I'll tell you what I mean.

TODD: What did that mean?

SANDERS: We have a grotesque and immoral distribution of wealth and income. Mike Bloomberg owns more wealth than the bottom 125 million Americans. That's wrong. That's immoral. That should not be the case when we got a half a million people sleeping out on the street, where we have kids who cannot afford to go to college, when we have 45 million people dealing with student debt.

We have enormous problems facing this country, and we cannot continue seeing a situation where, in the last three years, billionaires in this country saw an $850 billion increase in their wealth -- congratulations, Mr. Bloomberg -- but the average American last year saw less than a 1 percent increase in his or her income. That's wrong.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Mayor Bloomberg, should you exist?

BLOOMBERG: I can't speak for all billionaires. All I know is I've been very lucky, made a lot of money, and I'm giving it all away to make this country better. And a good chunk of it goes to the Democratic Party, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

TODD: Is it too much? Have you earned too much -- has it been an obscene amount of -- should you have earned that much money?

BLOOMBERG: Yes. I worked very hard for it. And I'm giving it away.

And it isn't really the tax code is it...it is more of an issue of what people's income is. After all the bottom vast majority of personal income tax filers pay a small % of the overall revenue vs a very small minority at the top who pay the majority of the tax revenue. The tax code could be used to punish the richest earners more if that is really what they want, but rather than punishing them, the more appropriate focus really should be on rising wages for those other workers. And I know most of these candidates have ideas on doing just that, in their case through government mandate. Both sides engage in demonizing tactics. Here the left wants to punish the "rich" -they are the bad guys, they are the 'them' against 'us', it is they whom need to pay "their fair share" and it gets the supporters all worked up and cheering at the rallies, but by the numbers...aren't the rich paying plenty of their share already? Who and how is it determined what fair share is...and where does it end? I have always believed in expanding the base of good paying jobs for middle income people, be it with education where they can apply their mental capabilities with innovation and productivity or be it with blue collar labor that adds value and produces goods. If we can get more of these jobs HERE, rather than THERE - lift more of our workers up instead of lifting the world's labor force up...that should be the primary focus point. I do believe Bernie believes this as well, it's there. I feel there is too much of the other, punishing the rich argument. And his definition of rich could be very different than one's own definition of rich. Somebody who files small business income on their personal tax return or a two earner home earning a nice 200,000 income doesn't need unnecessarily punished, depending on the market they live in, and hey, they want the American dream of buying a vacation home too Bernie!

Speaking of business, that reminds me of Bernie's views on business ownership:

JACKSON: Mayor Buttigieg, Senator Sanders has a proposal that will require all large companies to turn over up to 20 percent of their ownership to employees over time. Is that a good idea?

BUTTIGIEG: I think that employee ownership of companies is a great idea. I'm not sure it makes sense to command those companies to do it. If we really want to deliver less inequality in this country, then we've got to start with the tax code and we've got to start with investments in how people are able to live the American dream, which is in serious, serious decline.

As a matter of fact, last time I checked, the list of countries to live out the American dream, in other words, to be born at the bottom and come out at the top, we're not even in the top ten. Number one place to live out the American dream right now is Denmark.

And as the, I think, lone person on this stage who's not a millionaire, let alone a billionaire, I believe that part of what needs to change is for the voices of the communities that haven't felt heard on Wall Street or in Washington to actually be brought to Capitol Hill.

It's why I am building a politics designed around inclusion, designed around belonging, because the one thing that will definitely perpetuate the income inequality we're living with right now is for Donald Trump to be re-elected, because we polarized this country with the wrong nominee.

JACKSON: Senator Sanders, it's your policy.

(CROSSTALK)

SANDERS: Can I -- to me, right?

JACKSON: It is your policy.

SANDERS: Thank you, it is my policy, and I'm very proud of that policy. All right? What we need to do to deal with this grotesque level of income and wealth inequality is make sure that those people who are working -- you know what, Mr. Bloomberg, it wasn't you who made all that money. Maybe your workers played some role in that, as well.

(APPLAUSE)

And it is important that those workers are able to share the benefits, also. When we have so many people who go to work every day and they feel not good about their jobs, they feel like cogs in a machine. I want workers to be able to sit on corporate boards, as well, so they can have some say over what happens to their lives.

JACKSON: Mayor Bloomberg, you own a large company. Would you support what Senator Sanders is proposing?

BLOOMBERG: Absolutely not. I can't think of a ways that would make it easier for Donald Trump to get re-elected than listening to this conversation.

(APPLAUSE)

It's ridiculous. We're not going to throw out capitalism. We tried. Other countries tried that. It was called communism, and it just didn't work.

It was a low-blow to call that communism, which is state ownership and control of business. Bernie believes the workers deserve a share of their employers companies...which is good old honest socialism. It's fine if Bernie is proud of that plan, but I believe like Michael Bloomberg, it is rather ridiculous. It is radical...and not practical really, I don't think. But it's what he would ideally want to do. That is going to make people quite uncomfortable.

This kind of stuff about Bernie isn't commonly known, this isn't kitchen table talk about who Bernie is. But it is truly who he is. The more people start to find out, the less they will like I think. They hear things like "what Bernie Sanders want to take trucks off the road" (which was blown out of context somewhat), people are like...is this guy crazy? Yes, he is. But some people like it.

Bernie Sanders ...is this guy crazy? Yes, he is. But some people like it.

"Some people like it"

Lord help us

"Some people like it"

Lord help us

Maybe that’s what registers w/some voters - a little harmless off the wall craziness that reminds them a little of themselves, or a ‘crazy uncle’ type of person - Bernie’s criticism of Bloomberg I thought rang hollow tho

The Dems will have to prop up somebody to rally behind pretty soon - people have had enough of the hate Trump at all costs approach, it’s only hurting their efforts now

 

Nothing is more like communism than
1) Denying individuals due process
2) using your office to maintain an obscenely personally enriching
status quo

I could not care less if there are or are not billionaires,
I'd just like our administration(s) to stop throwing the middle class
under the bus while giving $$$ away to people who don't need it
(corporate welfare) vs free everything

Only the middle class is expected to pay for f all.
Neither the GOP not the DEM give a S about us.

Neither the GOP not the DEM give a S about us.

The Sanders support is real.

It’s the same vein Trump tapped into. For all the talk of ugly people and groups who were attracted to Trump, nothing was more important than his appeal to those who the establishment has forgotten or stepped on.

Both were/are anti-establishment candidates. Call BS on the Trump part if you want, but there are similarities between their campaign messages even when the policy couldn’t be more different. Lots of people are not happy with status quo and business as usual....left, right and middle.

I’m very curious how he does in South Carolina. Just as real as his support is, so is the hesitation in the Democrat establishment, such as James Clyburn as just one example. It is a pretty interesting dynamic, one part optimism and one part apprehension for Bernie.

Bernie doesn't think Billionaires should exist. That was the exchange. He didn't come out in those words at the debate and say that explicitly, but that is his belief.

He's said it in the past. The link that MartinD28 provided presents a good summary of Bernie's comments that make him seem arrogant, uncompromising, and disrespectful. Why publicly tell a fellow dem he shouldn't exist? Especially when that man created his wealth through ingenuity & is a generous philanthropist intent on giving away most of his fortune who hadn't faulted Bernie for being a multi-millionaire. Bernie seems to think his own wealth is somehow more pure because it's from royalties from books & folk songs (& his wife's income). I've not read that he offered his publisher's employees a percentage of his royalties even though that industry is notorious for its low pay or invited them to sit on his editorial board yet he demands that Bloomberg pay his employees more & give them seats on the board. Who is he to tell anyone how to run their company?

This morning, a pulitzer-prizine winning NYT financial columnist points out precisely that Bernie demonstrates a lack of respect for virtually anyone who disagrees w/him - not a way to win voters who don't march to his rigid agenda. So far, he's done nothing to suggest that he's willing to compromise & be inclusive to those who aren't purists. He equates compromise w/moral failure - a stance that "comforts the persuaded & alienates the persuadable" or in other words, preaches to the choir w/o reaching out to the larger audience. This isn't a winning strategy (we've already got an arrogant man in the WH) & isn't what Bernie used to say (before he moved into multi-millionaire status). In the past, he's been moderate on guns, concerned that immigrants willing to work for low wages hurt the already-shrinking middle class, a labor organizer, veterans' benefit champion, & anti-segregationist housing leader. Where did that guy go?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/23/opinion/bernie-sanders-trump-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

From that NYT linked story:

The newly energetic American left has largely rejected this approach, choosing instead to believe a comforting myth about swing voters being extinct and turnout being a cure-all. It’s a big mistake.

Pretty much sums up the mentality.

Another thing is not only do Democrats I hear in media questioning Bernie's viability and appeal in a general election, they also are fearful that Bernie's supporters will once again not back an eventual nominee if that nominee is not named Bernie Sanders. Bernie's no compromise, no outreach, no respect to different views seems to be found in a good number of Sanders supporters. Take the sole purpose of beating Trump out of the equation, for what Bernie is pitching, if that is what the supporters are really into, when/if another candidate secures the nomination who doesn't have those views...do they show up to vote? I mean, some are suspected of vandalizing Bloomberg's campaign offices, those people are going to vote for a moderate Democrat?

people have had enough of the hate Trump at all costs approach

you speak for who?

I'm at the front of the anyone-but-Trump line. For the NY primary, I plan to choose electability.

As for fatigue, it's the election in general. The primary period is far too long. The 1st debate was in June, 2019 w/20 candidates over 2 nights. Here we are 9 months later & the remaining candidates are no surprise. We've got 5 more months until the convention and 9 until the election. For a population w/an increasingly short attention span & 24/7 news, that's like dog years. How many ways can candidates spin their sound bites over 18 months?

"Some people like it"

Lord help us

is this how you were raised to speak to people when you disagree or don't understand?

Yes, I speak up when I am on a message board and a point is raised that I disagree with. And too funny that only a Liberal would propose the view point that to dispute somehow translates to a lack of understanding.

[Edited on 2/24/2020 by Skydog32103]

only a Liberal would propose

bigot.

You responded so very deftly (although a single word used in this sense warrants a capitol letter) and deserve a participation medal for the intellectual agility needed to have acknowledged so swiftly. You my friend are showing marked improvement!

From that NYT linked story:

The newly energetic American left has largely rejected this approach, choosing instead to believe a comforting myth about swing voters being extinct and turnout being a cure-all. It’s a big mistake.

Pretty much sums up the mentality.

Another thing is not only do Democrats I hear in media questioning Bernie's viability and appeal in a general election, they also are fearful that Bernie's supporters will once again not back an eventual nominee if that nominee is not named Bernie Sanders.

Not a big believer in polls, but the Siena College poll of registered NY dems released today have Bernie w/a lead over Bloomberg for the primary. That same poll puts 41-48% of NY dems predicting a Trump re-election. That all-or-nothing approach accounts for the pessimism according to the director of Siena's Research Institute.

You responded so very deftly (although a single word used in this sense warrants a capitol letter) and deserve a participation medal for the intellectual agility needed to have acknowledged

I respect that you acknowledge it, but you were raised very poorly if this is how you express your opinions.

I would love to be able to have some semblance of appreciation for your judgement of how I was reared, but alas, I simply have none. For this, I offer no apologies.

Good day Sir.

McGovern '72

The Sanders support is real.

It’s the same vein Trump tapped into. For all the talk of ugly people and groups who were attracted to Trump, nothing was more important than his appeal to those who the establishment has forgotten or stepped on.

Both were/are anti-establishment candidates. Call BS on the Trump part if you want, but there are similarities between their campaign messages even when the policy couldn’t be more different. Lots of people are not happy with status quo and business as usual....left, right and middle.

speaking to the forgotten middle class is nothing new for a President. Trump is alone in his approach to it.

Trump may speak to the forgotten middle class, but he has done zero for them.

Bernie thinks the Washington Post (or Bezos) is out to get him regarding the timing of the story on Russia is trying to help his campaign:

"How do you think it came out now if you had the briefing a month ago?" a reporter asked Sanders as he was walking up to a jet in Bakersfield, Calif.

"I'll let you guess about one day before the Nevada caucus," Sanders said. "Why do you think it came out? It was the Washington Post? Good friends."