-
Bernie Sanders for President !
I would love to see him win the Dem nomination and then win the Oval office.
He needs to change his views to support limiting med mal lawsuits non economic damages to 250K, and he needs to support statutes of limitations on med mel lawsuits.
Other than the above two issues, he’s a perfect candidate!
Having said all that, I’ll have to admit that if it was a choice between a tea party Republican who supported tort reform and supported physician interests and Bernie Sanders, I’d vote for the Tea Partier.
Unless of course Sanders changed his views to support tort reform (LOL).
-
61 Replies
-
No
-
not a snow ball chance
-
-
Sanders Risky Strategy – Reaching Out to Trump Voters[/h1]
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/can-bernie-sanders-really-win-over-trump-voters/2019/04/14/43744f10-5c65-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html?utm_term=.573464fbd954]Washington Post[/link]: The blistering attacks on the president reflect Sanderss developing, and arguably risky, strategy of reaching out to Trumps voters people the president has said would support him even if he shot someone. Its a sharp contrast with other Democratic candidates who are focused on mobilizing Trump opponents. Not incidentally, it is also a way to signal to Democrats that Sanders is their best hope for knocking off Trump, at a time when many fear he is the opposite.
The most striking example of this strategy will play out Monday night when Sanders appears at a town hall meeting hosted by Fox News Channel, an outlet many Democrats detest and one the party has blocked from hosting a debate. Sanders says its important to talk to Fox viewers directly and tell them Trump misled them.-
Are people really surprised to find out Bernie is a 1% earner? He released his taxes. I remember the picture of him from a few years back of him driving around DC in his $150k Audi R8 sports car.
-
Let’s elect a guy who is 90
-
What I surprised me is how many trumpers are in favor of Medicare for all
Thats surprising
-
Saw some of his Town Hall. What I did see he avoided answering some of the questions, a couple of times cut them off before they could finish the question. The guy is a phony. Go back and look at clips of him talking about millionaires of which just a couple of years later he is one of them. Three houses w a wife that bankrupt a college. He got caught stealing his neighbor’s newspapers. The millennials love him because he wants to give them all this free stuff which the country cannot afford.
-
Voting should be restricted to 30+, income tax-paying citizens.
-
Those are the ones who should also fight the wars
-
Separate issue.
Fortunately, the President is much more anti-war than the Democrat who ran against him in the general election.-
No it isnt
You want an underclass to fight your wars but you dont want them to vote
See how that works out for you
-
Is Haldol really that expensive in your neck of the woods?
I don’t want any wars. Unlike the neocons (never-Trumpers) and the rabidly Russophobic Left.-
You dont want to fight in a war
You want an underclass who isnt allowed to vote to fight in the wars that you wont fight in
Thats bull sheet
-
That’s funny – isn’t it your side that’s been vociferously advocating mass importation of a peasant class and extolling the virtues of “diversity”? You know, until faced with the actual possibility of having to [horror of horrors!] [b][i]live [/i][/b]with said peasant class in your own cities (see Cher tweet)?
I love the smell of Leftist projection in the morning. Smells like [sniffs]… a total absence of any moral compass and an unholy combination of stupidity, dishonesty, and cowardice. -
I like bernie, his views, and a long history of doing the right thing. I’m not particularly bothered that he made a mill a year. There’s nothing wrong with making money. I do think he’s too old just as I think buttigieg is too young. Beto lacks substance even though he gives great speeches. Warren, harris, booker. Any of those would be fine. There are ~20 dem candidates. Surely one of them would be adequate. If the midterms were any indication, dems just need to pick a centrist progressive enough to be remotely palatable to extreme left.
-
The way some of you harangue each other reflects a poor grasp on the reality of things. The vast majority of democrats are not ocasio cortez types. Should stop consuming so many pundit shows and arguing on twitter or wherever.
-
Denying citizens the right to vote because of age and income levels is switched to a debate over a fake argument of importing a peasant class
Hahahaha if you have to do that……thats when you know you you are losing an argument
-
And….. WTF does Cher have to do with anything
Isnt she dead?
-
Quote from kpack123
And….. WTF does Cher have to do with anything
Isnt she dead?
Don’t talk about you Mom that way Kpack. She’s made a big hit in the 70’s named after the far left: “Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves”. however, if you “Could Turn Back Time” then you could “Believe” all the stuff going on within your own party. Sorry, I’m a part-time musician.. I had to do it.
-
Quote from kpack123
Denying citizens the right to vote because of age and income levels is switched to a debate over a fake argument of importing a peasant class
Hahahaha if you have to do that……thats when you know you you are losing an argument
Age and Income? Far stretch kpack, how about documentation? proof of citizenship? and actual ID. If you want to be in the country so bad, then follow the rules appropriately. I want the government to know who you are. I don’t trust you.
Maybe we should gather a bunch of strong homeless candidates from our large Dem cities that won’t.. or don’t… help them. Put them on a bus, give them $1000 each, food, supplies, camping materials take them to the border where there is no wall and have them cross. Guess what will happen? Total outrage from Mexico. However, they will confiscate their money, maybe put them in Jail (horrible conditions I’m told), Open Boarders Right? It goes both ways. -
Quote from kpack123
You dont want to fight in a war
You want an underclass who isnt allowed to vote to fight in the wars that you wont fight in
Thats bull sheet
Again, you get caught lying. He never said that. You made up another lie. It’s time to stop the lies, kpack.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sanders Town Hall Was a Ratings Smash
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Monday evening Fox News town-hall event was the most-watched town-hall event of the 2020 campaign thus far And at least three other Democratic candidates are open to participating in one of their own, the Daily Beast reports.
According to early Nielsen data, more than 2.5 million viewers tuned in to hear Sanders The prior town-hall ratings record for the 2020 cycle was a CNN-hosted event with Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), which drew 1.95 million total viewers.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg is also in talks to participate in a Fox News town hall, as well as Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH).
-
Cuda
The quote I was responding to was
Voting should be restricted to 30+, income tax-paying citizens
If you agree with I welcome you
To the revolution that will occur in about 5 years after that takes affect-
Thats what is funny
The trumpers pro military tough guys want those 25 yr olds to go out there and risk their lives defending our freedom
But F them if they think they should be allowed to vote
Like I said good luck with that one
-
I can buy the 16 year old should get a vote argument also. As I recall the Fed, State and local were taking money from my paychecks when I was 16.
-
full time job would be my criteria. you are contributing to the country in a significant way, you get a say in how it is run. after 20 years full time you get voting rights for life.
I don’t really understand people getting things just for existing. you breathe and are over 18 so you have a vote?
yes if someone can fight in war they better be able to vote.-
Dumbocrats, keep bringing up issues that have no chance to be amended into the Constitution, and thus keep looking sillier and sillier with these idiots
They talk about nothing of substance or relevance
Sorta like the guys around here with 2 year nothing burger threads. This Thursday nothing burgers should be even funnier. -
Quote from IR27
full time job would be my criteria. you are contributing to the country in a significant way, you get a say in how it is run. after 20 years full time you get voting rights for life.
I don’t really understand people getting things just for existing. you breathe and are over 18 so you have a vote?
yes if someone can fight in war they better be able to vote.
I think the dynamics of maturity is no longer viable until you’re 25 in my eyes in this day and age. My family was flying Bombers in WW2 at 19. This generation of kids are so… baby’d, coddled and helicopter parented it’s sickening. Grown ass men are riding BMX bikes, and still skateboarding as a mode of transportation. Kids don’t know about simple interest, checking accounts. This is no doubt do the lack of high priced education that the left pushes. Feelings vs Reality and life tools. If you want the rights, you have to pay for it. You want to vote at 16?.. you should be able to join the military without mom and dads signature, get sued, and be put into Adult confinement when you commit a crime. You have to earn it. Paying taxes don’t me crap as a cornerstone for rights. I was working and paying taxes at 13. Should I been able to cast a vote a 13?
-
-
-
-
-
From none other than Karl Rove, Bernie could win this time.
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-could-win-this-time-11555541440]https://www.wsj.com/artic…-this-time-11555541440[/link]
Despite any suggestions to the contrary, Sen. Bernie Sanderss televised Fox News town hall on Monday did not come out of Bizarro World. In fact, it was evidence our politics is not as broken as many people think.
Ignoring the decree from the pusillanimous Democratic chairman, Tom Perez, that Fox News would not host any Democratic presidential debatesa not-so-subtle signal to candidates to stay off the network entirelyMr. Sanders waded into an hourlong conversation with Fox anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum before an audience in Bethlehem, Pa.
The pugnacious Vermont socialist was rewarded with around 2.6 million viewersnearly twice as many as his February CNN town hall drewmaking his appearance the most-watched election event so far this cycle.
The senator from Vermont distinguished himself by focusing on his vision, not simply bashing the president. If we spend all of our time attacking Trump, he said, Democrats are going to lose.
Still, when only 37% of Americans in the RealClearPolitics average think the country is going in the right direction while 56.4% think its on the wrong track, Mr. Sanders could be perceived as an agent of change. If he is the Democratic nominee, Mr. Trumps task will be to convince Americans that a socialist turn would be a ruinous change. Based on Mondays town hall, that wont be as easy as Republicans may think. Mr. Sanders is a real contender.-
Brett Baier or Chris Wallace would both be excellent hosts for a democratic debate
-
Or Shep Smith
-
Again you guys are insane. Do you understand if sanders is elected he’d be almost 90 during a potential second term. Should a 90 yr old be running the world? No.
-
Why is it so hard to accept that an 80 yr olds brain is not likely up to the task of running the country. Again would you let an 80 yr old operate in you? Why would you let them run the world. 90?
-
He is 5 yrs older than trump
Isnt he
Bernie 77
Trump 72
-
Personally Im not a Bernie fan but the difference in cognitive skills between him and trump is probably not an argument that you win
-
Both too old IMO.
-
I just don’t understand how thos person is going to be leader of the world and we can’t accept the fact that people with brains 3/4 of the size they started with probably aren’t good choices and everyone is afraid to talk about it.
-
“Generalized cortical atrophy with ex vacuo dilatation of the ventricular system.” Having seen trump’s fast food diet, I wonder how bad the leukoaraiosis is. At least he’s never been a drinker and I don’t believe ever a smoker.
-
1/3 of Trump’s former brain is worth all 20+ Dem potentials … combined.
-
[:D][:D][:D][8D]
-
Bernie Sanders is obviously a very smart man. He realizes that his best shot to win an election is to capture the convicted felon vote. He has figured out that the majority of convicted felons are democrats.
-
Hmmm, why would you believe that? What makes felons “Democrats?”
Is that how you believe Bernie has been re-elected in Vermont? Because of the felon vote? -
Related to Sanders… every single person I’ve met in America who’s escaped a socialist/communist country has been vociferously anti-socialism.
It’s the agitators who’ve never held down real jobs (read: Sanders) and academics who are cowards desirous of pumping their skinny, underdeveloped arms for an inane cause [i]du jour [/i]who maintain the radical Left.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
When more people vote, more people vote Democrat.
Dems want more people voting, Republicans wants fewer people voting.
Everything in our voting rights fight in the US reflects that reality…. felons no different.-
Yes I agree radical democratic far left nutcases want
more people voting, including convicted felons and illegal criminal aliens. They also want to abolish the electoral college
so a large part of the blue collar middle-class population that
lives between NY and CA have no say in the electoral process.-
Abolishing the electoral college is the [b]definition [/b]of
[size=”4″]Anti-American[/size]-
This is a really great thread for already showing us the barest essentials of the above leftist, marxist posters. They finally come clean, very honest about how disgusting their outlook on life, and power, is.
Good work IR -
Quote from Intermittent Blasting
Abolishing the electoral college is the [b]definition [/b]of
[size=”4″]Anti-American[/size]
The Electoral College was a method to give Slave States more voting power since their populations were less than the non-Slave States. This is in line with the 3/5 of a person clause except slaves could not vote so to “equal” the field the electoral College method was created.
Yes, there is the Founders’ distrust of full democracy and “uninformed” voters but both things can be true as they are not mutually exclusive.
[link=https://atlantablackstar.com/2016/11/12/electoral-college-origins-slavery/]https://atlantablackstar….llege-origins-slavery/[/link]
At the convention, James Wilson of Pennsylvania called for presidential elections based on the national vote, to which Virginian James Madison responded: The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. Madison meant that the North would overrun the South in the electoral process. As a result, the convention allowed Southern states to count three-fifths of their enslaved population to determine the representation of each state in Congress, creating a perverse incentive allowing these states to benefit from the institution. Accumulate more enslaved people and increase your influence in the federal electoral system. Free your Black people and watch your political power wane.
[b]The largest beneficiary of this process was Virginia, the California of the founding era of the nation, according to [i][link=http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/]Time[/link],[/i] with 12 out of 91 electoral votesover a quarter of the 46 votes required for victory. In the 1800 census, Pennsylvania, which did not enslave people at the time, had 10 percent more free citizens than Virginia, but 20 percent fewer electoral votes.[/b]
[b]The Electoral College was designed at Philadelphia and was revised in the wake of the Jefferson-Adams-Burr election of 1800-1801 to advantage the slaveholding South,[/b] wrote Yale constitutional law professor Akhil Reed Amar wrote in his new book, [i]The Constitution Today.[/i][i] [/i]
[link=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electoral-college-has-been-divisive-day-one-180961171/]https://www.smithsonianma…ive-day-one-180961171/[/link]
The story of the Electoral College is also one of slaveryan institution central to the founding of American democracy. The bulk of the new nations citizenry resided in cities like Philadelphia and Boston in the North, leaving the South sparsely populated by farmers, plantation owners, other landholders, and, of course, enslaved laborers. This disparity in the population distribution became a core element of the legislative branch, and in turn, the Electoral College.
“[Southerners] wanted slaves to count the same as anyone else, and some northerners thought slaves shouldnt be counted at all because they were treated as property rather than as people,” says author [link=http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10481/Klarman]Michael Klarman[/link], a professor at Harvard Law School. In his recently released book, [i]The Framers Coup[/i], Klarman discusses how each framers interests came into play while creating the document that would one day rule the country.
One of two biggest divisions at the Philadelphia convention was over how slaves would count in purposes of apportioning the House of Representatives,” he explains. The issue vexed and divided the founders, presenting what James Madison, a slave owner, called a difficultyof a serious nature.”
At the time, [link=https://books.google.com/books?id=6gbQHxb_P0QC&lpg=RA3-PA358&dq=three-fifths%20compromise%20%2240%20percent%22&pg=RA3-PA358#v=onepage&q=three-fifths%20compromise%20%2240%20percent%22&f=false]a full 40 percent of the Souths population[/link] was enslaved, and the compromise famously reached by the founding fathers determined that each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to dividing the nation into equal congressional districts. The Electoral College, in turn, provided each state with an allotment of electors equivalent to its Congressional delegation (two senators plus its number of representatives).
[link=https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/171783]https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/171783[/link]
Actually, as explained by Pierce Butler in Madisons Notes on the Constitutional Convention, the selection of the Executive was part of a four-pronged defense of slavery. Butler, a South Carolina rice planter, was one of slaverys strongest defenders and one of the largest slaveholders in the United States. He introduced the Fugitive Slave Clause into the Constitution, supported the constitutional provision prohibiting regulation of the slave trade for twenty years, demanded that the entire slave population of a state be counted for Congressional apportionment, and championed an Electoral College with voters selected by state legislatures. Such a system permitted wealthy white men to represent white women, landless whites, and enslaved Blacks.
between 1801 and 1837, every President except two were slaveholders from a slaveholding state. The South held the Presidency for 28 of the 36 years. Despite Wilentzs dismissal of the numbers, without the 3/5 Clause and the Electoral College, John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson would have been elected President of the United States in 1800. Even if the intent of the Electoral College was not to support slavery, though I believe the evidence shows it was, as Gary Willis argued in Negro President, Jefferson and the Slave Power (2003), it definitely entrenched slave power in the United States.
-
Oh look, another Frumious race card play. How novel.
-
Quote from Intermittent Blasting
Oh look, another Frumious race card play. How novel.
Uh, if you have ANY knowledge at all you’d know the Constitution is the original race card played by the Southern slave states. Not to mention the sole point of the South starting the Civil War.
But I expect too much of you. Obviously.
-
[link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/front-row-seats-bernie-sanders-anti-capitalism-speech-dc-cost-nearly-100-ticketmaster]Front-row seats to Bernie Sanders’ anti-capitalism speech in DC cost nearly $100 on Ticketmaster
[/link]if you buy the higher priced tickets you get a copy of Bernie’s book.
-
Multi-millionaire and anti-capitalist Bernie.
-
Should Bernie be paying Ticketmaster to sell tickets? Is that the way it should be for Bernies events according to detractors? Democratic Socialists have to do it all for free to satisfy the Fox & company crowd?
Last I recall, Ticketmaster has a near monopoly on ticket sales for various venues & has multiple fees. Ticketmaster is not known for cheap seats.
I dont know how much $ Bernie is getting for this event on his book tour but BAM has an event in Feb 20 for a flat rate of $40. No Ticketmaster involved as far as I can see. But even the DC talk sells tickets for $35.
[link=https://www.bam.org/talks/2023/senator-bernie-sanders]https://www.bam.org/talks/2023/senator-bernie-sanders[/link]
So who is getting the difference between $40 for any BAM seat & $95 for front row at DC, even though $35 seats could be purchased?-
BTW, the book is available in book stores at only $28 a copy. But you get a free copy just for attending the talk.
-
I’m surprised anyone would pay $100 dollars to see him. Sounds like just a money grab. Tickets I think can get onto ticketmaster and stub hub type sites by other means.
I miss the days when you could just walk up to a scalper and get some tickets to a game.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Frumious’s post… notice the Leftist propensity to deliberately merge and conflate arguments so as to make a facile point that, if not scrutinized with learned caution, will fool even the reasonably-intelligent.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was, indeed, a deal reached with the “slave states.” On the one hand, the tax burden to be levied on each state was dependent on state population – in this respect, it would have been beneficial for slaves to not be counted among the population. On the other hand, representation in the House was also to be dependent on population – in this respect, it would have been beneficial for those states if slaves [i]were [/i]to be counted among the population. Thus, the Three-Fifths Compromise essentially split the difference by counting 60 percent of the slave population as being part of the population at large for the above purposes (not, as screeching Leftists whine, to consider a slave only “3/5 of a person”).
The Electoral College may have disproportionately benefited the southern states at that time, but that was not due to slavery. It was due to the fact that – being relatively more rural states – they were less sparsely populated than the states in New England. Then, as now, the Electoral College was a bulwark against big-city urbanites imposing their will on those who lived in states with more rural flavors.
The United States is *not* a one-man-one-vote country. We were intended to be a confederation of more-or-less self-governing states, bound in fairly loose unity to (if necessary) stave off invasion or encroaching tyranny. And every state had to be courted in order to be persuaded to join. That is how the United States should remain.-
Curious
How many people have you met from socialist countries
And which countries
-
And
One should remember when defending the constitution
Defend all of it…. not just the part you are currently benefiting from
-
-
Quote from Knob Creek Rye
Re: Frumious’s post… notice the Leftist propensity to deliberately merge and conflate arguments so as to make a facile point that, if not scrutinized with learned caution, will fool even the reasonably-intelligent.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was, indeed, a deal reached with the “slave states.” On the one hand, the tax burden to be levied on each state was dependent on state population – in this respect, it would have been beneficial for slaves to not be counted among the population. On the other hand, representation in the House was also to be dependent on population – in this respect, it would have been beneficial for those states if slaves [i]were [/i]to be counted among the population. Thus, the Three-Fifths Compromise essentially split the difference by counting 60 percent of the slave population as being part of the population at large for the above purposes (not, as screeching Leftists whine, to consider a slave only “3/5 of a person”).
Sorry, explain how taxes were levied on states were determined by the state’s population? You are referring to a per person “income tax?”
Quote from Knob Creek Rye
The Electoral College may have disproportionately benefited the southern states at that time, but that was not due to slavery. It was due to the fact that – being relatively more rural states – they were less sparsely populated than the states in New England. Then, as now, the Electoral College was a bulwark against big-city urbanites imposing their will on those who lived in states with more rural flavors.
Uh, no. The US was largely an agrarian economy at the time, something that Jefferson envisioned for all time. In 1800 the populations North & South of ALL people was roughly equal which is why the South wanted the slaves counted for representation and was the worry of the South right up to the Civil War. (Only slaves could not vote – “taxation without representation.”) It was the reason for the Missouri Compromise, the South was afraid that if slavery did not spread it would lose influence to the Free states, especially since 1800 the Northern population grew due to immigration and job growth & opportunities.
[link=https://userpages.umbc.edu/~bouton/History407/SlaveStats.htm]https://userpages.umbc.ed…tory407/SlaveStats.htm[/link]
[link=https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm]https://faculty.weber.edu…tistics_on_slavery.htm[/link]Quote from Knob Creek Rye
The United States is *not* a one-man-one-vote country. We were intended to be a confederation of more-or-less self-governing states, bound in fairly loose unity to (if necessary) stave off invasion or encroaching tyranny. And every state had to be courted in order to be persuaded to join. That is how the United States should remain.The Articles of Confederation was a failed attempt which is why we got the Constitution. As for ddesigning separate sttes for the purpose to “stave off invasion or encroaching tyranny,” that is pure unadulterated made up BS. And the Civil War cemented the fact that we are NOT separate states but a single country. Are you still fighting the Civil War?
In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, [b]”Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.” [/b]I know we live in the Trump Age where “alternate facts” are some people’s beliefs but that still doesn’t make them factual. Alternate facts are still unadulterated fantasy and BS.
-
I honestly want to know how many people and from what socialist countries he is referring too
There is a wide range
-
He is likely talking about those behind the Iron Curtain, or those who fled Cuba, not exactly “socialist” as opposed to what people like Knob call Socialist today like Northern European countries. Like Norway. And Denmark. And Great Britain. And Ireland. And Sweden. And Germany. And France.
Knob does not know the difference between “Socialist” Norway and Poland under Russian occupation, they are both “Socialist” to him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
