Straight back to her wacky pseudo-Krishna cult in Hawaii. Her guru-dev, Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, a/k/a Chris Butler is likely to be disappointed in her failure to get his cult recognized as a legitimate Hindu sect. If she’s lucky, he’ll be too distracted making sure that the tinfoil covers every square inch of his walls.
1 Like
He can go ahead and do that if he wants to lose the election big time.
1 Like
A good cry or a good therapist might help. But it’s been three years for you ajm. You have to snap out of it, get a new 2020 inspirational calendar and talk to it every morning. I’m leaving, back in Nov, so maybe that will help.
1 Like
Bernie’s past history remains relevant to this election unfortunately. Bernie still stinks.
1 Like
The Grifter can’t stop griftin!
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/1/23/21077797/tulsi-gabbard-jack-dorsey-fundraiser-silicon-valley
Because we all knew that accusations of criminal behavior against her were as bogus as they are today against Biden.
Right, he was hoping for the trouble at convention instead of hoping to avoid irreparable damage to our democracy that he knew would be inflicted by Trump. You see it as a feature, I see it as an indictment of Sanders.
Yes, his unsubstantiated slander contributed to the problem. Once again, you see it as a feature, while reasonable people see it as a bug.
Clinton supporters (myself in particular) do not hate Sanders. We just know that President Sanders would be a disaster for this country. A lesser disaster than Trump by orders of magnitude but a disaster nevertheless.
(It’s not even Sanders’ political goals. It is his obvious lack of any ability – or even desire – to run the actuall effective government. For example Warren’s policies would be similar to Sanders and while she is not my preferred candidate at the moment, she would be far from a disaster – unlike Sanders she would be a positive for the country.)
1 Like
Because we all knew that accusations of criminal behavior against her were as bogus as they are today against Biden.
Oh please. You’re really pathetic. “we all knew” the FBI claims against Clinton were bogus.
You didn’t know shit. Nobody did. Plus Comey had it out for her husband. They had history but you I’m sure have no idea what I’m talking about (Marc Rich).
Give it up wo. You got nothin’.
1 Like
Hey @thunderclapnewman :
It’s been a couple, three days but the team and I have finally gotten permission from George to take a closer look into “you know who” 
and his ties to certain foreign entities, if and whenever you give us the nod. (I added the emoji, 'cos that is ALL that was meant to be.) Just let us know if/when you feel any action is necessary. LOL
The HQ Team
SOROS Group International
1 Like
Hmm. If I were that evil Vlad, nothing would make me happier that have a rear-guard action trying to sow confusion and dissension among opponents of his hand-picked President. Tell me: Is your real name Natasia Redemptionsongski of 47 Volgograd Street, St. Petersburg?
And I shouldn’t have to point this out, but Sanders made four times as many appearances for HRC as HRC did for Obama back in '08.
I wouldn’t worry, woland. I doubt Sen. Sanders’ disastrous plan to turn us into a larger version of Denmark - Oh, God, the Humanity! - is unlikely to come to full fruition unless we manage to elect several hundred more progressive congress critters.
I think you stock portfolio will survive.
Well, some Bernie supporters are probably Civil War reenactors, and some probably collect Beanie Babies. Probably, though a plurality of Sanders’ supporters would imagine someone like Elizabeth Warren to be VP. No doubt the majority want him to make a wise decision that would help him win.
One thing you can be sure of, though, is that he won’t cynically choose someone who had a shaky past regarding women’s reproductive freedom as his running mate. You know: Like HRC did when she chose Tim Kaine.
@ajm @thunderclapnewman @daulphin
Given Sanders utter lack of coattails. -’ and he did try in 2018 he.would not have the.ability to enact anything.
Trying to undo the damage the his conduct of his campaign had caused and failing. And most probably bashing the Democratic party at every stop. And resolutely blind to.how a Russian trolls were railing his supporters.
1 Like
Too much Rachel Maddow makes the baby go blind.
I imagine that people will keep effing that chicken until the cows come home.
Even you admit that there was nothing:
If this is in any way relevant to accusations that Clinton committed crimes and knowingly damaged our country’s security by keeping email on a private server – then you really admit that there was nothing. Even Comey turned out more honorable than you are willing to be.
But I’m sure you waited with baited breath for the conclusion of all 10 (was it 20? 45? does it matter?) Benghazi investigations hoping that they will take Clinton out.
You might (or might not) be Sanders supporter but you clearly show that you will do anything (including an infinitesimal amount of damage you are capable to inflict on our democracy) to badmouth people you dislike.
1 Like
You presume to know too much about my politics, my stock portfolio and my concern about the said stock portfolio. You presume without the reason. As often the case, your presumptions are completely off base.
I have no problem with us becoming a larger version of Denmark. I have a problem with Sanders roadmap for achieving this goal. More precisely I have a problem with the complete lack of the said roadmap.
In addition, Sanders has no plan to elect those several hundred progressive congress people that are required (as you admit) to implement his… for the lack of a better word… slogans.
And since you admit that Sanders can’t implement his slogans, the question becomes – can he be an effective president within the real world constraints that any Democratic president will face? The answer, once again, is an emphatic no – he has no governing plans nor the ability to govern.
Once again, I want to highlight a contrast between Sanders and Warren. Both of them might name Denmark-like country as a goal. But, unlike Sanders, Warren recognizes that this is a dream, even if it is an inspiring dream. She recognizes real world limitations and will be able to take real world actions beneficial to our country. Sanders is unable to do so and by being a completely inept executive he would make the path towards his own slogans that much harder.
3 Likes
The median TPM reader is wealthier; older; and more educated than the median American. I truly apologize if, like 50% of Americans, you have no money in a retirement plan that has at least some of that money in the stock market. I suspect you do, however, and just because one is not looking at the stock price chyron at CNBC every waking hour doesn’t mean that one isn’t, however peripherally, aware of stock prices. Perhaps not you, woland, but most people with a stock portfolio tend to have a somewhat more positive view of the status quo of American capitalism.
Oh, yes! Let’s only elect people whose policies have the votes now, or conceivably will have soon, the votes to pass! Let’s lower our sights to conform to the nature of a gerrymandered and paid-for legislature! After all, what’s important is passing any legislation, no matter how crappy, is to get things done!
Oh, and where does Warren say that a Denmark-like US is “just a dream”? Perhaps I missed it. But if so, that might explain why she’s declining in the polls. Imagine the Obama slogan, realistically reimagined:
“Yes, we can!- Or rather, we could, if the world were different!”
Here, dear Woland, you are just talking out of your ass. You have no idea about how effective of an executive either one would be. You are just passing your relatively uninformed opinions off as facts.
I do not care about your apology nor, to be honest, your opinion – I simply stated the fact: you presume too much without any justification. You should understand that this damages validity of your conclusions.
It is notable that you decided not to address my support for transformation to a Denmark-like country (if I thought it was possible). This was one thing which I stated explicitly and one thing for which you had no “statistical” counter-argument.
Let me actually comment a bit more:
Do you imply that the other 50% of Americans are the elites that we have to fight?
Amusing that a true Sanderite seems to think the current direction of the American capitalism is helping anyone in the American middle class, even the upper middle class. This is one thing where Sanders (and Warren and most other Dems) is correct: the high stock prices have nothing to do with long term well-being of Americans, including middle class and upper middle class; the current direction of the market is such that in the long term all the apparent gains people may be seeing now will turn into deep losses (except for ultra-rich). Not everyone is as short-sighted as you seem to believe people are (as can be evidenced by the results of 2018 election despite the apparent tax cut and bubbling stock market).
Let’s elect honest people who know that they can not turn this country into Denmark in 10 years. Who know that to turn this country into Denmark one must go through a series of evolutionary – not revolutionary – steps. Who know that yelling “revolution” is not going to yield any results.
When she says that she will do whatever helps as long as she can do that. E.g. she will sign Klobuchar’s health care plan if that is what is passed by Congress (and something like Klobuchar/Biden/Buttiegig plan is the most progressive thing that one can hope to pass if there is a landslide Democratic victory in November). So she knows (as her evolved health care plan shows even if it does not explicitly admits it) that she can’t pass to Medicare-for-All in 10 years. But she is flexible enough to take the steps that will still improve lives of Americans (and unlike Sanders she knows what steps to take).
Yet, up to statistical fluctuations Sanders numbers are not really growing. If you “explain” Warren’s slump in the polls by relabeling her as a moderate rather than progressive, then you must lump her with the rest of the moderates. In which case moderates are winning in a landslide over Sanders-style “progressives” (I prefer to call him a sloganeer). And then you must admit that Snaders support ceiling is somewhere around 25-30% even among the Democrats. (Sure, if he makes it to the general, he might still win because every non-gullible democracy-valuing American will vote for him over Trump in a heartbeat. But in that sense, the general election vote does not represent support for any specific Democrat.)
I have more than enough information to make the judgement. I can simply note that Sanders’ answer to any question about details of his future policies and/or their implementation always – always! – boils down to one – and only one! – statement: “we will have a political revolution, we will have everyone on the steps of the Capitol urging their representatives to pass [insert your goal here]”. (I am paraphrasing but I can find you real examples of quotes to this effect.)
Well, I love you too woland. But I can’t help but noticing (it’s notable!) that you dodged my supposition that you had a retirement plan that had stocks in its mix. Care to respond?
That’s just stupid, woland. Most people I know have stocks in one form or another. Many of them would still support a Sanders-type for President, because they understand that we live in a fucked-up country that has toxic and crazy wealth disparity. I was merely accusing you of feeling fat and happy, because of your over-heated invective toward Sanders. I won’t. of course, ask you how much your personal wealth is because, well, it’s personal. I’m just guessing it’s a couple of notches above the non-stock-holding
50%ers.
I’m amused that you call me a “Sanderite”, and happy that you’ve graduated beyond “Berniebro”. Baby steps! You do not need to pontificate about the difference between the stock market prices and the long-term well being of Americans, as I’m several decades ahead of that concept. And of course, the 2018 elections do not definitively illustrate the short- or long-sightedness of Americans - there were a lot of reasons to vote against Trump and his acolytes. We’ll see when it comes down to a choice between Trump and somebody who wants to raise taxes on the comfortable in the country.
I am impressed that you have transmuted your feelings into “information”.
I see… To have any credibility I must answer your question about my finances while you have every right to dodge my support for “Denmark as a goal” twice and continue to insinuate about my reasons for opposing Sanders. Interesting attitude. (Question to self: where did I see this attitude before?)
Btw, another question you dodged: if Warren’s slide in the poll is a reflection of the fact that she is not a real progressive, do you agree that moderates have overwhelming support of the Democrats?
- So anyone in the upper 50% who strongly opposes Sanders is “feeling fat and happy” and can be dismissed. Thanks for clarifying.
- Did not I tell you that you presume too much? There is no invective, I am simply stating the facts: Sanders has great admirable slogans but nothing else (and you agreed by saying he does not need plans until after he is elected).
But you essentially did, did not you? You even dismissed my arguments simply because I did not reply to your questions about my finances. (Btw, if you don’t accept my statement about my political priorities on faith, what is the point of asking for an unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable information about my economic interests?)
You have almost certainly lived longer in this country than I have. Other than that… what is the name of that syndrome when people consider themselves the foremost experts in all areas?
Wait, I thought you are arguing that majority of the country is itching to vote for a democratic socialist who will raise the taxes on the “comfortable in the country” (upper 50% in your definition).
What feelings? Once again, you presume to know too much about me and my feelings.
The the lack of information provided by Sanders is the information in and of itself. And this lack of information is all I need to make my conclusions about Sanders (there is, of course, a lot of other information that leads me to the same conclusion but which is not a part of this conversation).
1 Like