#51
Posted: 4/29/15 at 11:14pm
"As a vegetarian, I'm not sure I could in good conscience vote for Col Sanders."
Vegetarian for Sanders here.
clinton vs. sanders your vote? — Page 3
#52
Posted: 4/30/15 at 1:22am
I'm all for Sanders but we all know what the reality is. He couldn't possibly carry the popular vote but will add immeasurably to the conversation. I agree that it's imperative to get a dem in the White House and if it's Clinton, so be it.
#53
Posted: 4/30/15 at 6:23am
I get it, we need Hillary to do well, we need the next POTUS to be a Democrat. Maybe it's more to do with getting tired of seeing the same familiar faces, tweaking their rhetoric more than anything. Sanders will be taking this debate where it has to go and a good thing for Hillary when she gets the nom. On election day the blue ticket will be my ticket it has since Carter. Warren has time on her side, she will run someday and that will be a good thing also.
Stephanatic
#54
Posted: 4/30/15 at 7:02am
Clinton's speech was nice. The problem is, due to her record, there's no reason to believe anything she says.
She's talking about addressing income inequality but while she was SOS she advocated for the TPP trade deal.
She talks out of both sides of her mouth while taking boatloads of cash from people who have a very vested interest in keeping things status quo.
#55
Posted: 4/30/15 at 8:20am
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "She is a poor thing, but our own."
#56
Posted: 4/30/15 at 2:07pm
Warren has time on her side, she will run someday and that will be a good thing also.
No, she doesn't. She (b June 22, 1949) is less than two years younger than Hillary (b. October 26, 1947), and people are already saying Hillary is "too old."
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
#57
Posted: 4/30/15 at 2:10pm
Hillary is not "too old," but her views and stances are. Her ideology is past the expiration date and she is far too gone in the corrupt world of DC to be a productive lawmaker. Hundreds of thousands of lobbyists and foreign cronies have her in their pocket. She is indebted to the oppressors responsible for stagnant job growth, a declining economy, and widespread poverty.
ETA: The same cannot be said of Mr. Sanders.
Updated On: 4/30/15 at 02:10 PM
#58
Posted: 4/30/15 at 2:14pm
Back to Bernie...
"I am running in this election to win," he said. "We've got a long path forward. Most people in America have never heard of Bernie Sanders. More than 90% of Americans have heard of Hillary Clinton. ... I will absolutely be out-spent. But I do believe we have a chance to raise significant amounts of money through small, individual contributions."
About 60% of the money he received in his successful 2012 campaign for a second Senate term came from small contributions from individual donors, Sanders said. He won that election with 71% of the vote."
#59
Posted: 4/30/15 at 2:52pm
The presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders, a senator from Vermont and self-described socialist who will most likely champion the liberal cause, won’t change that fact that Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to win the Democratic nomination without a serious contest
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Updated On: 4/30/15 at 02:52 PM
#60
Posted: 4/30/15 at 2:54pm
It is no surprise the "main stream media" doesn't take Bernie Sanders seriously.
#61
Posted: 4/30/15 at 3:10pm
I don't know enough about Sanders yet, but everything I've seen of him in the past I really liked. Yeah, it's not likely he'll get the nomination, but I think he'll add some necessary perspectives to the conversation and I'm grateful for that. Plus, though I don't entirely dislike Clinton, I'm glad there's at least a challenger- I don't like the idea of any candidate getting the nomination virtually unopposed.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#62
Posted: 4/30/15 at 3:12pm
Heard the hourly NPR newscast on my morning commute. Bernie Sanders' campaign announcement was the third (and shortest) story. Kinda says it all.
#63
Posted: 4/30/15 at 3:25pm
Again the lack of coverage is absolutely no surprise.
I bet that will change after the first debate.
#64
Posted: 4/30/15 at 3:59pm
That was satisfying. The primary season has taken an exciting turn.
Stephanatic
#65
Posted: 4/30/15 at 4:29pm
It will be interesting to see how the coverage of his announcement changes the balance in the polls. In the April 28 Public Policy Polling poll, Hillary leads with 62% to 14% for Bernie Sanders, 6% for Martin O'Malley, 3% for Jim Webb, and 2% for Lincoln Chafee.
PPP: April 28, 2015 Walker, Clinton lead in Iowa
#66
Posted: 4/30/15 at 4:38pm
#67
Posted: 4/30/15 at 6:26pm
FWIW, I love Sanders and I think having a worthy (if unelectable) challenger during the primary will better prepare Hillary for the brutal general election. Does anyone doubt that at the end of this process Sanders will be endorsing Hillary?
#68
Posted: 4/30/15 at 6:31pm
5 things you should know about Bernie Sanders
I don't think a Sanders endorsement is a guarantee for Hillary Clinton. He's talked about endorsing a third party candidate if he doesn't like what he hears.
#69
Posted: 4/30/15 at 6:53pm
Yeah, but she's already moving left - in a reflection of the way Dem voters are tilting and, of course, to appease the Warren crowd. I think he'll end up endorsing her.
#70
Posted: 4/30/15 at 9:06pm
He's talked about endorsing a third party candidate if he doesn't like what he hears.
Then he"s just as dumb as you or anyone who would even consider throwing away their vote and thereby giving the Republicans the presidency, just because Hillary is not your "perfect" candidate.
Let's face it, in a winner take all system there can only be two candidates with even the remotest chance of winning. And when we speak of remote here, we are not talking about come-from-behind-victory remote; we are speaking of remote as nearly impossible. In fact, the only reason I use nearly as a qualifier is because on a metaphysical level, all things are possible. But that is just philosophy. In reality, none of the third parties has any chance. None.
Hence, voting third party is akin to not voting at all. It may have some therapeutic value or serve some quasi-religious value of personal morality for people who see voting for a candidate as a moral act -- they don't want to be 'unclean' and vote for someone who isn't in near perfect agreement with them -- they also tend to like to look down their noses at the rest of us.
In short, politics is not the realm of the moral; it is a waste if voting is about electing somebody.
Salve, Regina, Mater misericordiae
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra
Salve, Salve Regina
Ad te clamamus exsules filii Eva
Ad te suspiramus, gementes et flentes
O clemens O pia
#71
Posted: 4/30/15 at 9:47pm
Politics is irrelevant. Two-party systems are corrupt, flawed, and irrelevant.
Just as many people fifty years ago could never have imagined an African-American or woman becoming President, the same is now being said of third party candidates. And I do not mean "moderates," I'm talking about true independents; whether it be a Libertarian or a Centrist or an Objectivist. Someone who governs based solely on the issues and not on the politics. One day there will be someone so incredible who can transcend party lines and call out the cronyism of D.C. And still have mainstream appeal. Just watch.
#72
Posted: 4/30/15 at 10:07pm
"Politics is irrelevant. Two-party systems are corrupt, flawed, and irrelevant.
Just as many people fifty years ago could never have imagined an African-American or woman becoming President, the same is now being said of third party candidates. And I do not mean "moderates," I'm talking about true independents; whether it be a Libertarian or a Centrist or an Objectivist. Someone who governs based solely on the issues and not on the politics. One day there will be someone so incredible who can transcend party lines and call out the cronyism of D.C. And still have mainstream appeal. Just watch. "
Sorry to be so cynical [pragmatic], Liza, but unless Citizens United gets reversed, no ****ing way.
#73
Posted: 5/1/15 at 8:18am
#74
Posted: 5/1/15 at 8:34am
It's fascinating to see where this love for a SOCIALIST is coming from.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
#75
Posted: 5/1/15 at 8:35am
"Then he"s just as dumb as you or anyone who would even consider throwing away their vote and thereby giving the Republicans the presidency, just because Hillary is not your "perfect" candidate."
Thanks for calling me dumb! I will not return to the favor to you but I will say it's that kind of thinking that prevents any real change from happening in this country. It's that kind of thinking that keeps feeding income inequality. And it's that kind of thinking that leads to over half of US public school kids living in poverty. It's that kind of thinking that lets us live in the wealthiest country in the world where your life expectancy is determined by your income.
And as I've said a million times, it's not that I don't think Hillary Clinton is a PERFECT candidate (there's no such thing) I think she's an AWFUL candidate.
Majority of US Public school children are living in poverty.
Updated On: 5/1/15 at 08:35 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
