Once again we won't release transcripts of speech. What is in those speeches? Bernie should just start bringing out people who were there to say what they remember.
Thanks again PJ, for that article, that though a little lengthy should be read.
Also, I just read the 538 article and survey/poll results that by most of the media are considered reliable. They have Wisconsin called as a 2 point difference and too close to call. If you listen to other polls they range from a 10 to 8 point spread. So I'm aware this may be tight, and I'm still floored, that so many people just believe in the hopes and pointless dreams, being advertised and the real facts being ignored and distorted by Sanders and his campaign, ( And he says he is not running an unfair campaign, that's another lie he has told).
I agree SF, if he is so hell bent on those speeches, what does he know? And what about Bernie and his disclosures? He only released his 2014 tax return when asked while Secretary Clinton released her returns for the last 8 years. He says "they'll get to it" when they can.
And Bernie talks about honesty and a fair campaign, while he is not even near a nomination, he says he has no control over what his surrogates say and what other "rally speech introducers" put forth as the truth. His splitting hairs and cop outs have already begun.
Good Grief, Charlie Brown!
Can someone who has more computer savvy than me (everyone) snip the laugh out of the end of the Chuck Todd interview on MTP for me? Scary!
Speaking of flipping...
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Sanders-Wins-Nevada-After-All-as-Delegates-Desert-Clinton-20160403-0012.html
The huzzahs keep pouring in over Hillary's Secretary of State performance!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/4/state-dept-misplaced-6b-under-hillary-clinton-ig-r/
That particular huzzah was poured a couple of years ago.
I would vote for Hilary strictly because she's the best qualified. I believe her time was truly 8 years ago and she would have made a very good president during those years. I'm not sure she will be as strong 8 years later but when I consider the alternatives, I will still go with her. The only other candidate I would have voted for is Michael Bloomberg if he considered a 3rd party run, but I don't think that will happen at this point.
Bboy, I want to thank you for all your posts and links to the pro-Bernie organization and propaganda. It's quite clear where they're coming from, but really?, the Washington Times? Give it a rest, (..he said nicely)
It's extraordinarily similar. In 2008 I was standing in a line for hours talking to black people about voting for gay rights. This year I've spent a long time talking to gay people about poor rights, both groups are the same.
I post what I want, henny. (He said nicely)
My God man. Your posts are simply indecipherable.
(Directed towards South Florida)
So, I think Bernie hitting Hillary on ties to Wall Street was a legit attack and, it seems, a pretty effective one. But, his whole approach on the oil/gas thing has kinda smelled 'off' to me from the start; especially given that his own campaign has apparently received about $50k in donations from employees oil and gas companies. Does that mean that he, too, is for sale to the energy sector? If that's what he's implying about Hillary, isn't it fair to say the same about him?
It's true that Hillary has received 6 times as much and that more oil & gas lobbyists and "bundlers" have raised funds for her, but that's still felt like a bit of a stretch to me. Especially given how forcefully she's said things like she'll put coal companies out of business [by launching clean energy initiatives].
But, then, I saw this campaign ad that Hillary ran against Obama in 2008 for exactly the same thing. Damn, Hills. If it was fair for you to attack Obama on this, I guess you kinda had it coming. I still think it's a lousy argument, but if she could dish out the exact same argument in 2008, she'll have to be prepared to be on the receiving end in 2016.
Okay, Clinton supporters, tell me what's the difference between Hillary's 2008 oil/gas-themed ads against Obama and Bernie's 2016 oil/gas-themed ads against Hillary?
What's with Bernie's tax returns? Is he hiding something illegal, immoral, or just non-progressive?
Ugh. This is annoying. Whatever you posted isn't playing for me, PJ. What's the basic gist of it?
Sanders says "My wife does my taxes, so I can't release them."
Hillary feels sorry for you, South Florida.
Hillary: ‘I Feel Sorry’ for the Young People Who Believe Sanders Camp’s Lies
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hillary-i-feel-sorry-for-the-young-people-who-believe-sanders-camps-lies/
I'm waiting for him to say that he'll release his taxes when she puts out for speeches.
He doesn't say he won't release them, he says he will when he has time. I assume Sanders will release his tax returns. He is worth peanuts in comparison to the Clinton family, so I can't imagine he has anything to hide.
Regarding the $50,000 donations HorseTears - Bernie claims there is a difference between individual employees giving donations vs registered lobbyists giving the maximum donation possible. Look, Sanders does not 'lie' - he is only quoting facts. In any case, it doesn't matter if she is taking money unless she is influenced by it. The debate should be whether Hillary is influenced by this money. It's hard to tell, but her policies regarding fracking (for example) are more favourable to the fossil fuel industry than Bernie's.
I gotta laugh at that claim of Bernie's: that he's been too busy to release his taxes. I understand that the Clintons' wealth and resources dwarfs the Sanders' and that, until recently, he and his wife probably did not have a major staffing support system. But Bernie 2016 isn't some Mom & Pop operation at this point. If there's a will, they'll have those tax returns published ASAP.
qolbinau - I understand the distinction that Bernie is trying to make between individual "worker" donations and those from official lobbyists and bundlers. But, what he's doing is playing a game of insinuation. I think it's unfair to suggest that because Hillary plays the game and accepts donations which - let's face it - are a tiny fraction of the funds she's raised that she's automatically beholden to those interests. I honestly think that's far too reductive and far too black & white.
The rise of Bernie's campaign has been nothing short of stunning, but I think it's somewhat unfair to attack other candidates because their campaigns are not as "pure" as his is. He is able to raise massive sums of money from smaller, individual donations and without relying on a SuperPac because he has a hugely popular, populist message and because he has that new car smell.
Hillary has been on the national political stage since Taylor Swift was in diapers. She's too established a figure to not play the game and take advantage of whatever fundraising sources are available to her. I'm really skeptical about whether hammering her on this non-issue is really going to resonate and whether it's going to be good for him, her or the party in the longrun.
... that said, it would be nice to see some of Hillary's supporters acknowledge that she tried the exact same thing against Obama in 2008. I think it was wrong of Hillary to do that in '08 just as I think it's wrong of Bernie to do so in '16. But, if Clinton supporters are going to be so upset about Bernie using this tactic without admitting that Hillary did the same thing in 2008 and was wrong to have done so then, then their reaction reads as nothing but faux-outrage. Just sayin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btgLIgPKYsE
No one will click your unidentified link.
No one.
He's too busy to release his taxes and too focused on his own campaign to help fund-raise for a Democratic down-ticket strategy.
I wonder what else he would be too busy to do if he took office.
Videos