Go Bernie!

[Defiant]

I, for one, will do whatever Sarah Silverman tells me to do.

Lets hope for your sake she never yells "Fuck Trump!"

[Defiant]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

[Holman]

I, for one, will do whatever Sarah Silverman tells me to do.

Just think twice about doing anything Susan Sarandon tells you to do.

[LordMortis]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

... Sort of... I don't blame him for dodging, as he is running as a democrat. It make no sense for him to insult the party. But I will be disappointed if he starts shilling for the same DNC that quite frankly mostly just wish he would go away so they can crown Hillary.

[Defiant]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

... Sort of... I don't blame him for dodging, as he is running as a democrat. It make no sense for him to insult the party. But I will be disappointed if he starts shilling for the same DNC that quite frankly mostly just wish he would go away so they can crown Hillary.

He's a short-sighted self-deluded head-in-the-clouds idealist that is using the Democratic party without giving anything back to it, even though he's going to need those down-ballot seats filled by Democrats if he has any hope of passing any of his agenda.

[Jeff V]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

... Sort of... I don't blame him for dodging, as he is running as a democrat. It make no sense for him to insult the party. But I will be disappointed if he starts shilling for the same DNC that quite frankly mostly just wish he would go away so they can crown Hillary.

Well, I don't want him to take his toys and go home if he fails to secure the nomination. He still has a chance to influence the platform. Sure, the radical shift that he advocates won't happen, but the majority is not well prepared for that either. He ought to think about how he can help the Democrats win congress back, especially in states that might be up for grabs that also supported him in the primaries (not sure how many, if any, there are). Somewhere he can sew the seeds of Bernie 2.0, since the current model is approaching EOL.

[Defiant]

He ought to think about how he can help the Democrats win congress back, especially in states that might be up for grabs that also supported him in the primaries (not sure how many, if any, there are).

New Hampshire is one. Though there are a few others where it was close (IL, NV) or he is expected to perform well in (WI)

[El Guapo]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

... Sort of... I don't blame him for dodging, as he is running as a democrat. It make no sense for him to insult the party. But I will be disappointed if he starts shilling for the same DNC that quite frankly mostly just wish he would go away so they can crown Hillary.

He's a short-sighted self-deluded head-in-the-clouds idealist that is using the Democratic party without giving anything back to it, even though he's going to need those down-ballot seats filled by Democrats if he has any hope of passing any of his agenda.

"I'm going to fight for a political revolution to take this country back...unless I run into setbacks along the way."

[LordMortis]

You two see things differently than I do. I don't know how many Bernie supporters and donators are like me but I am hoping Bernie changes the parties not be absorbed by them. Raising money to keep their machine chugging is exactly what I don't want from him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-han ... 79342.html

I get where this angry young man is coming from but I disagree with his conclusion. The democratic party is not there to represent us. They're there to get democrats elected who serve the democrats agenda. Bernie, while running as democrat and who generally caucuses as a democrat is still running outside of the agenda outside of democrat support. First party changes, then they get the funding. The idea of funding them first and suddenly things get better is fantasy. Absorb him as someone who toes the line for what is best for the party and my support for him is done.

[hepcat]

If representation in a democracy was solely based off the needs of the individual, we'd be living in the world of Mad Max within a year.

[Holman]

I do like Sanders, and I'm still partly considering voting for him in late April. I'm open to that because his message is important and because this is a good time to send it. I'm honestly undecided.

In my heart, though, I don't believe Sanders is presidential material. He seems too inexperienced despite his years, too prickly to make anything happen in a mixed Washington, and too narrowly focused to handle the whole work of the Executive. I'm very concerned about the hazy idealism he seems to substitute for plans and expertise, and I'm especially worried about his foreign policy weakness. There's too much wishful thinking about Sanders, both among his supporters and from the candidate himself. He's running a campaign that promises everything, which to me is far more dishonest than anything Clinton has been accused of doing. He mirrors Trump that way.

Most of all, presidents need not only popularity but willingness and skill at the give-and-take of politics, and Sanders shows none of that--In fact his popularity is based almost entirely on his rejection of it. Obama has been criticized for giving away a little too much, but we've won a lot with him since 2008. Sanders' whole approach seems to be that it's miracles or nothing, and that's how you get nothing.

[El Guapo]

You two see things differently than I do. I don't know how many Bernie supporters and donators are like me but I am hoping Bernie changes the parties not be absorbed by them. Raising money to keep their machine chugging is exactly what I don't want from him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-han ... 79342.html

I get where this angry young man is coming from but I disagree with his conclusion. The democratic party is not there to represent us. They're there to get democrats elected who serve the democrats agenda. Bernie, while running as democrat and who generally caucuses as a democrat is still running outside of the agenda outside of democrat support. First party changes, then they get the funding. The idea of funding them first and suddenly things get better is fantasy. Absorb him as someone who toes the line for what is best for the party and my support for him is done.

He wouldn't have to support *every* candidate, or to support everything the DNC does. It's hard to see why he wouldn't support candidates that are committed to a similar vision as him. Otherwise how exactly is this political revolution going to happen?

[Kraken]

I, for one, will do whatever Sarah Silverman tells me to do.

Just think twice about doing anything Susan Sarandon tells you to do.

I agree with most of what she said. Living in an uncontested state gives me the freedom to vote my conscience without consequences, and I seriously doubt that my conscience is going to be at peace with Hillary Clinton in November, no matter how heinous her opponent.

If I lived in a battleground state then me and my conscience would need to have words.

[Fireball]

Hence, even in the rosiest of scenarios, the disenchantment on Facebook would be truly epic. You wonder whether it would give birth in a few years to a Tea Party of the left, crusading against DINOs.

I think the only danger of this happening is they flip on their social agenda. I think most people would be fine with a workable compromise on other domestic issues such as healthcare, jobs, etc. as long as it moves in a positive direction. But a democratic leader that shows xenophobic tendencies could well create a major disturbance on the light side of the force.

I would love to see the left's version of a tea party. I would be a day one member.

The intransigence of the Tea Party has been devastating to the operation of the government, which requires compromise and consensus to function. A similarly compromise-averse group on the left would make the system break down even more.

[Defiant]

The intransigence of the Tea Party has been devastating to the operation of the government, which requires compromise and consensus to function. A similarly compromise-averse group on the left would make the system break down even more.

This. So much this.

[Fireball]

This is what I just don't get: the myth of the Clintons as power-hungry sociopaths.

I think a big part of it is 25 years of continual attacks against her, although she's not without faults (eg, her repeated lack of transparency)

Which, of course, is her natural, if unfortunate and unhelpful, reaction to 25 years of groundless attacks against her.

[Fireball]

If I had to lay money on it today, I'd go for long odds on the Republican spoiler strategy preventing anyone from winning 270 electoral votes and the House appointing a president Ryan or Romney. Or maybe Bush. That would be a hoot!

To get on the ballot an independent candidate would have to turn in hundreds of thousands of signatures, and in many states, including Texas and Ohio, they'd have to do it by the middle of April. It's becoming way too late for a third party attempt.

And if the election did go to the House, the House could only pick amongst the top three electoral college vote-getters. They could not pick someone else.

[Fireball]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wouldn't say if he will turn his fundraising juggernaut toward the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees and down-ballot Democratic candidates in a Wednesday night interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show."

Sanders: 'We'll See' If I Will Fundraise For Down-Ballot Democrats (VIDEO)

This right here is why super delegates are overwhelmingly for Clinton: she's been working with them for decades. She and her husband were excellent at party building, much better than the Obamas have been. Yes, they took it in the teeth in 1994, but they still helped build party infrastructure and went out of their way to support lower ticket candidates. Sanders has spent most of his career castigating the Democratic Party as unworthy of his support. People have long memories for these things.

[Fireball]

You two see things differently than I do. I don't know how many Bernie supporters and donators are like me but I am hoping Bernie changes the parties not be absorbed by them. Raising money to keep their machine chugging is exactly what I don't want from him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-han ... 79342.html

I get where this angry young man is coming from but I disagree with his conclusion. The democratic party is not there to represent us. They're there to get democrats elected who serve the democrats agenda. Bernie, while running as democrat and who generally caucuses as a democrat is still running outside of the agenda outside of democrat support. First party changes, then they get the funding. The idea of funding them first and suddenly things get better is fantasy. Absorb him as someone who toes the line for what is best for the party and my support for him is done.

He wouldn't have to support *every* candidate, or to support everything the DNC does. It's hard to see why he wouldn't support candidates that are committed to a similar vision as him. Otherwise how exactly is this political revolution going to happen?

If he was the nominee, he would have to support candidates he doesn't like or agree with if he wants to get the majority back. But we all know he won't do it. That's the failure of his whole stupid "revolution".

Consider Florida: there's no path to a Democratic Senate without winning Florida. But can you see Sanders setting aside his disagreements and going down and campaigning alongside centrist, pro-trade Democratic candidate Patrick Murphy? I sure as hell can't.

[Fitzy]

Hence, even in the rosiest of scenarios, the disenchantment on Facebook would be truly epic. You wonder whether it would give birth in a few years to a Tea Party of the left, crusading against DINOs.

I think the only danger of this happening is they flip on their social agenda. I think most people would be fine with a workable compromise on other domestic issues such as healthcare, jobs, etc. as long as it moves in a positive direction. But a democratic leader that shows xenophobic tendencies could well create a major disturbance on the light side of the force.

I would love to see the left's version of a tea party. I would be a day one member.

The intransigence of the Tea Party has been devastating to the operation of the government, which requires compromise and consensus to function. A similarly compromise-averse group on the left would make the system break down even more.

That the tea party was able to cause any harm is a symptom of a bigger problem. The two parties have a very simple system. Party>country. When that system is challenged the whole thing collapses with no alternatives. That the tea party rose before a liberal alternative probably comes down to Obama winning instead of McCain. Now we are seeing a liberal version rise. Will the Democrats try to use and then shove them into the corner like the Republicans?

[Zarathud]

Republicans are turning out because of socialist Obamacare, falling wages of uneducated America, old people, terrorism and foreigners.

Bernie gives Republicans all of those issues. More socialist. More health care. Education only incites the uneducated more. A Millennial takeover will be opposed by the elderly. Bernie is "weaker" (more dovish) on terrorists and foreign policy than Trump -- he won't even bother claiming to "win." Roadmap to citizenship for illegals.

No matter how much Republicans dislike and distrust Hillary, Bernie hits ALL the buttons of the Republicans. They will turn out to vote against Bernie on issues.

[Holman]

Republicans are turning out because of socialist Obamacare, falling wages of uneducated America, old people, terrorism and foreigners.

The big issue that needs to be added is rural/suburban white America's paranoid fear that it is losing its country. They see minorities in their communities, minorities in the halls of power, minorities opposing the police, minorities becoming role models for their grandkids, minority issues getting political attention, etc etc.

Reaction against this is called "taking the country back." Trump started this whole thing as a hysterical Birther, and his appeal to whiteness is almost the only consistent line in his politics.

[LordMortis]

[Kraken]

Totally called that one

Just in case you haven't already seen this one.

[Defiant]

Bernie Sanders called Hillary Clinton ‘unqualified’ to be president

Tuesday night, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver warned the Clinton campaign to not, “destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary’s ambitions to become president of the United States.”

Strike two came Wednesday night when Sanders went off half-cocked because of a misleading headline in the Washington Post reading: “Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.”

If only someone in the Sanders campaign had actually taken a second to read the transcript — where Clinton not only said no such thing, but went out of her way to avoid saying it — before revving Bernie up before a speech in Philadelphia (video below).

Then he probably would not have said the following:

“Now the other day, I think, Secretary Clinton appeared to be getting a little bit nervous, and she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote-unquote not qualified to be president,” Sanders told the crowd at Temple University. “Well let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton, I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is — through her Super PAC — taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get 15 million dollars from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent paying jobs.”

These may be reasons to not vote for Clinton, but they are hardly evidence of a lack of qualifications. In fact, with the exception of the Iraq vote in the case of Obama, what he accused Clinton of could also be applied to Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry.

“I don’t need to spend my life attacking Hillary Clinton or anybody else. I want to talk about my ideas on the issues.”

Yeah. Those were the days.

Whatever happened to that guy?

[Jeff V]

A superpac, by law, must operate autonomously and without coordination with the candidate they support. Just because they've decided they have an interest in a Clinton presidency, Hillary has no right to tell them not to sponsor ads supporting her campaign. Superpacs do not provide money directly to the candidates campaign. Now, if he could provide proof that there is a violation of the law, then he might have something. The mere existence the superpac proves nothing.

Bernie is being very disingenuous at best, or thinks we're all idiots at worst.

[Fireball]

A superpac, by law, must operate autonomously and without coordination with the candidate they support. Just because they've decided they have an interest in a Clinton presidency, Hillary has no right to tell them not to sponsor ads supporting her campaign. Superpacs do not provide money directly to the candidates campaign. Now, if he could provide proof that there is a violation of the law, then he might have something. The mere existence the superpac proves nothing.

Bernie is being very disingenuous at best, or thinks we're all idiots at worst.

He knows his base doesn't care. And he's comfortable with lying to get his way. He'll gladly burn the party down if he doesn't get the nomination.

[Jeff V]

He knows his base doesn't care. And he's comfortable with lying to get his way. He'll gladly burn the party down if he doesn't get the nomination.

And throw away any chance to have an influential impact. Too bad, he could be a successful change agent but opting to be Conan the Destroyer instead won't leave a very good legacy.

[gbasden]

A superpac, by law, must operate autonomously and without coordination with the candidate they support. Just because they've decided they have an interest in a Clinton presidency, Hillary has no right to tell them not to sponsor ads supporting her campaign. Superpacs do not provide money directly to the candidates campaign. Now, if he could provide proof that there is a violation of the law, then he might have something. The mere existence the superpac proves nothing.

Bernie is being very disingenuous at best, or thinks we're all idiots at worst.

That doesn't seem to be how Superpacs work in practice. I know that technically they are autonomous, but they aren't really. Remember the whole year Colbert did on Superpacs and how incredibly easy it is to get around the coordination restrictions? That's why each campaign pretty much has a superpac, right?


Independence of Superpacs sure seems like just a figleaf to me.

[LordMortis]

A superpac, by law, must operate autonomously and without coordination with the candidate they support. Just because they've decided they have an interest in a Clinton presidency, Hillary has no right to tell them not to sponsor ads supporting her campaign. Superpacs do not provide money directly to the candidates campaign. Now, if he could provide proof that there is a violation of the law, then he might have something. The mere existence the superpac proves nothing.

Bernie is being very disingenuous at best, or thinks we're all idiots at worst.

That doesn't seem to be how Superpacs work in practice. I know that technically they are autonomous, but they aren't really. Remember the whole year Colbert did on Superpacs and how incredibly easy it is to get around the coordination restrictions? That's why each campaign pretty much has a superpac, right?


Independence of Superpacs sure seems like just a figleaf to me.

Robert Reich, one of the most vocal of Bernie's Supports posted this link about superPACs. Again it's a 3rd party source from an apologetic Sander's slappy, so take from it what you will:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04 ... hite-house

Still, none of it sounds even close to illegal, which I think was Colbert/Stewart's point.

[Zarathud]

Bernie is no longer offering Hope to accompany the Change He Can't Deliver.

Shame on him. The Democrats risk real disaffection when Bernie is revealed as another career politician and not a Savior.

[GreenGoo]

It's interesting watching the tone here on OO change as Bernie doesn't become a complete non-issue as was expected.

[Holman]

Nomination fights are tense because they pit allies against allies. This place is nothing compared to Facebook, and Facebook is nothing compared to the comment threads at 538/Slate/Salon/Daily Kos.

I have no problem with Sanders supporters--my pals in that camp have been civil to me, and I'm 100% willing to support Bernie if he's the nominee. (I'll just lower my expectations for what can actually be accomplished and worry that his administration will be a damaging failure.)

[Defiant]

Totally called that one

Actually, it turns out that the agreement is one of the reasons we're not seeing US names involved:

Making matters worse for Americans wanting to store their ill-gotten gains offshore, the 2010 United States—Panama Trade Promotion Agreement included a taxation clause that effectively shut down any chance of the rich in the US using Panama as a shelter.

The Tax Information Exchange Agreement includes a clause, Article 5, that specifies the terms of information sharing between the two countries on tax related matters:

The competent authority of the requested Party shall provide upon request by the competent authority of the requesting Party information for the purposes referred to in Article 1 of this Agreement. Such information shall be exchanged without regard to whether the requested Party needs such information for its own tax purposes or the conduct being investigated would constitute a crime under the laws of the requested Party if it had occurred in the territory of the requested Party.

The Article goes on to make clear that Mossack Fonseca’s type of services would particularly be included in the information request:

Each Party shall ensure that it has the authority, for the purposes referred to in Article 1 of this Agreement and subject to Article 2 of this Agreement, to obtain and provide, through its competent authority and upon request:

(a) information held by banks, other financial institutions, and any person, including nominees and trustees, acting in an agency or fiduciary capacity; and

(b) information regarding the ownership of companies, partnerships, trusts, foundations, and other persons, including…. ownership information on all such persons in an ownership chain; in the case of trusts, information on settlors, trustees and beneficiaries; and in the case of foundations, information on founders, members of the foundation council and beneficiaries.

If Panama had ever been an attractive destination for American offshore storage of funds, this agreement shut the door on that possibility.

[Max Peck]

Will a trip to Vatican City shore up Sanders' foreign relations cred?

Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders has accepted an invitation from the Pope to the Vatican. Mr Sanders, who is Jewish, accepted an invitation to Rome for a conference at the end of next week. The Vatican visit is four days before the primary contest in New York, a competitive battle between him and front-runner Hillary Clinton. Mr Sanders said he was not sure whether he would meet the Pope but he was a big fan of the pontiff. The Vermont senator said they share the same views on inequality. "He's trying to inject this sense of morality into how we do economics... and we need that absolutely desperately." He will attend a conference on social, economic and environmental issues and give a speech on 15 April, his campaign said.

[Carpet_pissr]

I thought he was an Atheist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kraken]

Based on an interview that I saw, Bernie is a humanist. Gods are optional to humanists so IDK if Bernie would consider himself atheist or not but people who are unconcerned with fine distinctions will.

[Holman]

Atheist or not, a Vatican visit on the eve of the big NE primaries is certainly good optics.

[Defiant]

I wonder if doxxing superdelegates will make them more open to considering Sanders...

[Jeff V]

Based on an interview that I saw, Bernie is a humanist. Gods are optional to humanists so IDK if Bernie would consider himself atheist or not but people who are unconcerned with fine distinctions will.

"Humanist" is a friendly rebranding of "Atheist." I have an excellent book about the foundation of Humanism that I'd love all my churchy friends to read.