Berntrayal: we wuz robbed

    Keeping an eye on the Bernie squad's meta for some time, there's been an interesting undercurrent of how unfair the whole process is since last summer.

    What's funny to me is why this is news.

    Howard Dean's groundbreaking grassroots effort got largely derailed by CNN pushing his voice up in the mix to make him sound ridiculous, the Aaaarrrgggh heard round the world.

    Hillary's defeat in 2008 was largely by the DNC disqualifying Florida and Michigan, her strong states, so that black majority South Carolina would be the first large contest.

    As someone noted, a guy who in over 30+ years never declared himself a Democrat shifted his allegiance a few months ago, getting full access to the DNC database of contacts and likely voters.

    Life is full of peculiarities and surprises.

    Hillary gets a front page smear job from the NY Times or WaPo every few months - something she just has to take into account like needing a couple more minutes in the ladies' bathroom.

    Is the debate schedule tilted towards Hillary? Likely - one would expect a well-connected candidate who'd lost once to try to get the upper hand this time.

    Which is why Hillary's locked up ~200 congressional and gubernatorial endorsements ahead of time, rather than waiting for these superdelegates to go to an upstart competitor like happened last time (if she'd split superdelegates even, she'd have won the nomination).

    There was big talk at the time about how unfair superdelegates were - until Obama started attracting them, and then they were okay again. Repeat after me: "fair is frequently fungible".

    Even for debates, there's always push-and-shove from the different campaigns to get the best conditions that favor their candidate - and the stronger leading candidate usually gets the most concessions. NEWSBREAK: Sun rises in East.

    Now we've got database-gate, where a db glitch exposed the opponent's data to the other campaigns. Occam's razor has been suspended for many:

    1) despite H being ahead by 25% nationwide with an upsurge since her Benghazi hearing and first debates, she must have set this up (goes with "more paranoid than Nixon" territory)

    2) Debbie Downer has conspired to be unfair to Bernie by cutting off access to the database (which was resolved within a day)

    3) Despite Bern's apology,his team's line is that this was a setup by the DNC and the db contractor NGP VAN - designed to entice them like cheese before mice (and despite initial reports that it was a single supervisor Uretsky running online checks, the audit apparently showed multiple useful opposition research reports prepared for download by multiple staff)

    4) but if Bernie could do it, Hillary could and likely did too!!! (except no audit has shown that her team or O'Malley's did, but whatevers - make the claim and move on - she can't prove for sure she didn't !!!)

    5) and now, it was the NGP VAN's COO that recommended Uretsky and then left the company (as if that never happens - maybe a quarter of my LinkedIn contacts shift jobs each year and it'd be more suspicious if the COO stuck with the VAN contractor through all this - and if a COO could predict Uretsky's and subordinates' in every incident 5 months later)

    So lawsuits move forward. But what more intrigues me is from comments in places like Huffpost Yahoo, the comments are 100% certain that it was a setup, a Berntrayal, a well-calculated dirty trick designed to take away the (inevitable?) underdog upset.

    If there was debate about this, I'd find it unremarkable. But the overwhelming certainty that rhe Evil Queen has foisted one (or more) off on the rightful aspirant is rather noteworthy. Perhaps the Clinton fans simply don't care enough to argue anymore (but this is the Internet, so that's doubtful). It's a "dog that didn't bark" oddity.

    On the Internet, Occam's Razor has become Occam's Tweezers, to pull out the most favorable interpretation of events to your cause. Or maybe it's Occam's Steamroller or Sledgehammer - I'm losing my analogies. In any case, it looks like the party's destined to stay divided, but maybe the primaries will do as they're designed - make clear the real winner and delve out the right policies. Inch'allah.


    It seemed, when Bernie began, that everyone knew he was a long shot but that it was good for him to get his ideas out there and good for HRC to have a primary, rather than a coronation. Now? Conspiracy! Bernie is a great guy but he does not represent a silent majority, or a silenced majority.

    Yeah, rather the subtext I had in my head - exceptional 2008 is the new normal in 2015/6.

    As 538 notes, "Pat Buchanan claimed New Hampshire in 1996, for instance, while Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008. Steve Forbes took 30 percent of the Iowa vote in 2000."

    The difference between Hillary & Bernie nationally has been roughly 23% for the last 2 months - there's no budge. Iowa's spread out to about 15 points, Bernie's do-or-die state of New Hampshire peaked at 8.6% Bernie's way, but now is below 6% - and since it's not winner-take-all, they'll split delegates anyway. In Nevada it's Hillary by some 20-30 points, and South Carolina, the first slightly larger state, Hillary is up by some 40+ points, and then it's into Super Tuesday where Hillary has typically 20-40% leads.

    Better to focus on the *ideas*, not the likelihood of winning.

    I am ignorant.

    I have known this for a long time.

    I cannot figure out this email thingy ever. I do not even understand what they are talking about.

    I know what Cheney did by his own memo with the CIA debacle. hahahahah

    This claim against Bernie is beyond my experience,

    LisB showed up a short while ago and said:

    What is the difference?

    Any Dem Prez will have to face conservative pricks in both Houses of Congress anyway except...

    A Dem will veto and...

    I am enheartened that WE might win one of the Houses?

    I like Bernie.

    I do not think that Hillary is conspiring with WALL STREET!

    Life is full of peculiarities and surprises!

    I hereby render unto Peracles the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, Given to all of him from all of me.


    ​I would like any candidate to ignite my soul....


    A little controversy and scandal was needed to spice up this listless and boring Democrat PR campaign to anoint the next Sociopath in Chief, HRC.

    I suspected long ago that many of Bernie's activists and extended staff were well placed DNC/HRC operatives and this Uretsky';s exposure shows how high that infiltration was placed.

    They're not there to sabotage just to observe and stir the pot when the Kabuki of Choice gets stale and too predictable.

    When Bernie does his final kowtow bow to HRC and his followers are reminded by Rahm that they are 'fucking retards'  and to shut up and follow the Leader the real fun will begin.

    Trump is waiting and eager for this fight and has already warned HRC to watch her lying mouth.

    What, Trump the Huckster Supreme bellowing out "You're Fired/I'm Hired" to the admiring schlong throng's frenzy? The anticipation's killing me. Maybe the Donald can describe pulling his wife's hair out by the roots so we understand the virile hunting patterns of Homo Blowhardonus, the inspiration for Devo - first little brain and big mouth, then big brain and smaller mouth, finally no brain and all mouth. And a penis, of course, because a dickhead without a penis is something like The Donald looks like in a wrinkled oversized turtleneck sans glans.

    I realize you and other Liberals are terrified about HRC facing The Donald in the coming political cage fight where there won't be a carefully staged superficial exchange of bland talking points. Trump may be rude and crude but he knows HRC's real history,crimes and her tendency to fabricate stories.

    It won't take much to shuck off of her PR veneer of pleasant smiling  Leadership Class entitlement and expose what lies beneath, seething arrogance and a vicious personality.

    This is going to be fun to watch!

    I realize you and other Liberals are terrified about HRC facing The Donald

    You keep repeating that but it's just not true. I don't know any liberal that's terrified of Trump in any way shape or form. We could be wrong and he could win the republican primary, general election, and be our next president. But I don't think either of those things will happen and I'm not even worried let alone terrified.

    Peter identifies with Trump. Trump sees everyone not like him as an enemy. Trump goes after Mexicans, women, blacks, etc. To Trump the "other" is something to be feared. Peter sees everyone who is not a "pure" Muslim as the enemy. Life under the ideologies represented by Trump or Peter would be intolerable. Both realize that there is o rational basis for the ideas they support, so instead of putting forth a reason to follow their irrational thought process, they resort to creating fear. They need the diversion because what they propose stinks.

    If you are going to talk about me you could at least be man/woman enough to directly address me with your ignorant statements about what i supposedly support or identify with.

    If you had been paying attention to what i have written you would see that i have never uttered a word in support of Trump, or any other candidate, only observations on the contest and how it is progressing along with what is coming.

    The reactions and distortions of liberals to what Trump says are often as cringe worthy as what he actually says. Trump's first controversial statement about illegal Mexican immigrants and the criminals, however small or large a percentage they are of the whole, that are part of that group is immediately distorted into 'Trump goes after Mexicans'  All this condemnation and hand wringing is occurring while our Black Liberal president is deporting millions of Brown people, who first go through the lucrative Clinton promoted private prison system, and for Xmas he decides to have Homeland Security hunt down and  deport whole families.

    Trump's statement about restricting Muslim visits to the US, until screening is improved, receives the same treatment while the Obama regime blocks the entry many Muslims for their thoughts and writing especially Palestinians and their supporters.

    I take your rant to suggest that your name isn't Peter? Using Peter is not direct enough for you?

    Nobody is distorting what you Peter are saying. No one is distorting what Donald Trump is saying. 

    Here is an article pointing out Trump's statements about Mexicans and Latinos

    ​No one wants a government led by Trump or one led by Islamists.



    "he knows HRC's real history,crimes and her tendency to fabricate stories" - ah yes, I bet she left a drop of pee on the toilet seat at the debates - he's "disgusted" and she'll pay for that one. Hillary's never topped "thousands of Arabs in New Jersey cheering on TV". But enjoy your Fantasy Football - seems to be what's driving the GOP these days.

    Hey, what about that $1 trillion a year Trump's going to cut? No comment about something real? Only personality cults - pathetic.

    In any case, elections are decided on votes, not fanbois. All Hillary has to do is let Trump piss off 70% of the electorate. He's just in it for the vanity, so if he gets 30%, he'll get to play his "we wuz robbed" schtik too. (ok, "we got schlonged"). Then he can put together a reality TV show based on victimhood - will play well in Peoria.

    Since I am certain Bernie is much the best candidate both because he is very good and Clinton and O'Malley are not, I cannot understand why Clinton retains such a formidable lead in the polls. I don't attribute it to media bias because the differences between the candidates and Sanders' superiority are easy to see. Regarding HC's popularity at Dag, despite my many blogs explaining why she's not a good choice compared to Bernie, I can only conclude I am a poor writer and worse arguer.

    The sense that I get about Bernie is that not enough people believe that Bernie can do what he promises. People sense that Bernie will appear weak in debates against Trump et. al.People have seen Hillary stand up to assaults from wingnuts. The image of Hillary as a fighter and survivor is easy to construct. Sanders has the image of a guy who talks a good fight. 

    Hal, it might be that such things as "better candidate" are subjective. Or, as the great RD Reynolds says, "That's why they make chocolate and vanilla, because I like chocolate and you like crappy ice cream."

    There are some premises that you accept as truth that others don't subscribe to. For example you see Hillary as bought and paid for by Wall Street and other large campaign contributors. Is it just Hillary that is tainted by accepting large donations or are all politicians that accept large donations bought and paid for? Convince me that Ted Kennedy was bought and paid for by the large donations he accepted. Convince me that Obama was. Convince me that even Al Franken is bought and paid for by the large donations he accepted from the pharmaceutical industry and Comcast as well as others. If accepting large donations means ipso facto the politician is bought and paid for then Sanders is the nearly the only politician that isn't corrupt.

    I think we all bemoan Citizens United and would like to see reforms but your premise is too extreme for most of us to accept. Frankly I don't think even you accept it. I think you just apply it selectively to Hillary.

    Hal also assumes his key issues are shared by the average voter, or that the average voter will see the huge differences he does. I'm pretty sure the average American doesn't know what the Keystone pipeline is, and doesn't see TPP as affecting them much at all. For a politics fan, which candidate supported or opposed something earlier may matter - for most people, they're simply looking at the now (and the now will more come in January/February as they start to pay attention). A position of "$12-$15" vs "$15" on the minimum wage doesn't draw ire from most people - they rightfully see both as a huge increase over the current $7.25/hour. Aside from pocketbooks, probably the only issues registering are guns and terrorism and refugees/immigrants. They simply don't care about making Obamacare single payer - if they are upset, they're more likely been led to think it should be repealed.

    Voters often don't vote their own interests - a major feat in the 80's/90's was getting the typical American to identify with the Dow Jones average, even when the majority weren't investing. IRAs and 403(b)s got us all rooting somehow for Wall Street and stock prices. It's the same principle of spreading defense dollars out to every congressional district - no one will give up their little piece for the greater good.

    It's easier to draw a crowd when you speak out against the status quo, but there's a reason why the status quo got there - it's usually the most popular bland ugly compromise. Most innovation is incremental, not pie-in-the-sky.

    Most people are not that angry at Wall Street, or at least not compared to other things as well. #Occupy Wall Street  got traction among liberals and a news-starved media, but it didn't come close to a revolution. 

    Do I think any of these arguments will persuade Hal? extremely doubtful - he has his opinions and thought processes, I have mine. Probably we're more wedded to the lather-rinse-repeat futility of arguing the same things over and over - the frustration is so fulfilling, like something caught in your teeth that you'd rather poke at with your tongue for an hour than go get a floss or toothpick..

    PS - Jerry McNerney, congressman for San Francisco's east side, just came out forcefully for HIllary because of her proposals & activity on climate and environmental issues. I assume he's rather liberal/progressive, and I would guess he's not BS'ing as to his evaluation of her - what do you think, Hal - is this a plus for Hillary, not enough compared to Bernie, misleading, McNerney's angling for a cabinet position, or .....? Does he argue well enough?

    PP writes here about me "he has his opinions and thought processes, I have mine."  Exactly.  I am 99% sure that I am right that Sanders is much better than Clinton.  At the same time, I agree that many Americans don't recognize the harm that "free trade" has done to our nation, the crucial role that economic injustice plays in nearly all of our travails, or that humans are burning up our beautiful blue and green mother on which all life depends.  Yet I haven't been able to persuade people of these facts or that Sanders is the one candidate committed to addressing them.  Accordingly, I can only conclude my arguing skills must be lacking.

    I remember McNerney vaguely from my 9 years in California but couldn't recall his record at all.  I looked it up.  He is rated as "weakly liberal" by That's My Congress.  On the other hand, "[h]e voted against free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia despite support by President Barack Obama and both parties of Congress because they didn’t eliminate outsourcing jobs to foreign countries."   I am disappointed that he endorsed Clinton.

    Not to worry, in the end, truth will outWell, Maybe, but in the "end" that could be small consolation.


    I have a number of degrees plus have homeschooled kids, so I'm pretty good at discerning arguments even if not expressed well. Could it be your 99% overestimated your case and ignores many relative subjective and even temporal factors to what "best" might mean? Context isn't everything, but certainly it's quite important - not so many absolutes.

    Here's what I want - a prosperous peaceful United States that's embraced clean green energy and acts as a good global citizen.  More specifically, I want true economic justice which means, inter alia, 1) nobody sleeps in the streets, 2) everybody has free healthcare and can access without significant economic hardship the highest level of education that their achievements and aptitude warrant, 3) safe and secure retirement for all, 4) a living wage, 5) nobody has a billion dollars or even close to that much.  I also want social justice which means racism, sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices hold nobody back.  I'm sure I missed something here which somebody deems of major importance.  I'm sorry.

    I assume that a relatively sizable majority of Americans share all or most of these goals. My confidence is at a near-certain level that Sanders is the candidate who, if he's elected, who will move us most forcibly towards them.  That's why I define him as the best.

    Right. I don't think he can get elected and I dont think he can pass the legislation. So I'll take my turkey on rye I can eat over the Reuben I can only dream about.

    Of course you write shit like this:

    2) everybody has free healthcare and can access without significant economic hardship the highest level of education that their achievements and aptitude warrant,

    FYI, Healthcare is not free anywhere. In the civilized world, people pay their insurance premiums via their taxes it's called Universal Care but it's you paying your premiums through your taxes instead of what we do. But it isn't free, it's never free.  

    Healthcare and access to it, costs money. Doctors don't work for free, nurses don't work for free, equipment is not given away by companies and drugs cost money. What you wrote is the epitome BS but it's typical mythology from folks who don't understand public policy and how it works.

    The only free healthcare you can ever get is from your mom, she is the only one who is going to fix your booboo for free.

    "Healthcare is not free anywhere."  You know what I meant by free - specifically, the recipient (or her/his guardians) aren't charged for accessing services.

    The French National Health Service

    reimburses medical expenses through social security to all those legally resident in France for more than three months. Furthermore, for people on low incomes, the CMU also offers complementary health coverage of 100%, which is added to standard Social Security payments; this avoids the necessity for additional private (top-up) insurance. Illegal aliens are entitled to health care via the Aide médicale d'Etat (AME, State medical aid).

    Single payer health care is a good example of how our different ways of thinking leads us to support different candidates. It seems to me that for you theory and practice are congruent, for me they often diverge.

    In theory I support single payer. Yet even there I supported an incremental approach, a gradual expansion of medicare that would be the foundation that in the end resulted in a single payer system. We got the ACA instead and practically speaking we're stuck with it for many years.

    Single payer is a political loser. Most people already have insurance through their jobs and are relatively happy with it. They will resist any attempt to take it away and replace it with a government run single payer system. I agree that single payer would probably be better for them than the current system but convincing them of that would be a huge battle that would shift only a minority of voters.

    After the two year long battle that resulted in the ACA liberals are mostly not ready to fight all over again for single payer. If single payer was passed the 85% of the population that would lose their employer based insurance would be furious. The anger over single payer would exceed the anger over "Obamacare." Even if in the end it turns out the new system is better.

    In theory I support Sanders' single payer proposal. In practice I support Hillary's proposal to fix the problems with the ACA and incrementally make it better. The first is pie in the sky by and by and the second has a reasonable chance of success.

    I set out why I support Sanders.  I believe that he is most likely to push us towards the society that I favor.  Single-payer will be tough to achieve.  So will whatever Clinton wants to do if it will lead to better outcomes for the American people.  If she has in mind a bargain with the Republicans, that will mean less money goes for care and more to insurance companies, it will be achievable. 

    Regardless, Clinton has deliberately misled the American people with respect to the costs of Bernie's medicare-for-all plan implying that it will impose a net burden on taxpayers when in fact it will save us money.  When so-called progressives adopt conservative talking points, it becomes that much harder to achieve true reform.

    Hal, you've done a much better job in this post than in earlier ones depicting the Dark Side of HRC and why you support Bernie.

    What i wonder about is how you and other hard-core Sanders supporters will handle his defeat and submission to the Party. Will you follow Bernie there and champion HRC knowing what you do about her dark past or strike out in another direction?

    Peter - you make two premature assumptions. Sanders - will 1) be defeated and 2) submit "to the Party".  Still, I won't dodge your question as at this point I agree 1 is more likely than not and regarding 2, if you mean that Sanders will endorse Clinton if she's the nominee I would agree that too is probable.

    So what will I do under those circumstances, I anticipate reluctantly and grudgingly voting for Clinton since she will be the least bad alternative.

    What will you do?  Vote for Ralph Nader?  We all know how well that worked out.

    Voting for Ralph in 2000 was a liberating experience and even though it took SCOTUS to  slam the White House door in his face Gore was punished and banished for good. What happened after that is history but it may not have been much different if Gore had prevailed, LBJ lied us into war and Gore was just another compromised Democrat.

    Compromise is part of our system - for better and for worse.

    Gore's biggest problem was running against the successes of the Clinton years, trying to be a Bradley- or Sanders-like populist and thus losing the support of his Silicon Valley next-get technology base.

    And then there was the 24x7 anti-Gore media smear.

    Folks voting for Nader were just voicing their preference, their policy position. Media personalities from Chris Wallace to Cokie Roberts to Maureen Dowd to practically anyone in media were busy blowing up minutia and torching the candidate from any vantage point.

    I was looking for some backing articles, and came up with this interesting piece from The Nation assessing the 2000 landscape - has anything much changed? Except that Trump is this year's more successful Perot and Jeb Bush is this year's less successful Bob DOle? The public is somehow always yearning for a new authentic (yet unprepared to vote for him/her), and the left is always divided in ambitions between pushing a true leftist agenda or consolidating a fragile power base. ("grab power, push a liberal agenda, work within the law - choose 2 out of 3" - the recipe of why we'll always be unhappy)

    Liberal Democrats and especially their leaders have monopolized compromise but only with the Right never with the Left who they affectionately refer to as 'fucking retards' which is actually an accurate description of any real Leftist who associates with  or believes the Democrats represent them.

    Ralph Nader is no Socialist just as Bernie Sanders is not, all they call for is reform and better Capitalism. Nader was only trying to push Gore a little to the left and offered his full support if Gore and the DNC would adopt some mild corporate restraint planks into their platform. This was too extreme for the corporate/DNC stooge Gore who told Nader and his supporters to piss-off.

    Sanders sheepdog campaign is an attempt to fool the retards and return them to what someone above called 'unprincipled support' of the Party, we'll have to wait and see if it works.

    Communism lost. I'll take Capitalism with a liberal sprinkling of Socialism on top. Gore ran against the capitalist innovation that let his administration be a success. Don't kill the golden goose - channel its eggs.

    Then poach them, with care given to the boil.

    Melt them down, rivulets of molten gold thru America's streets - with "do not touch" signs

    Your words define you as Petite Bourgeoisie what Kierkegaard described as spiritless and devoid of imagination. The use of 'I'll take' and 'golden goose' shows where petite becomes petty and the only thing you sprinkle is BS.

    Capitalism certainly rules but even though you keep your nose firmly up its butt the egg you receive for your dedication will be malodorous.

    Sour grapes, dude. You're bitter.

    Responding to "Hillary misled" - 

    As Gerald Friedman has written in an open letter to the Huffington Post:

    [The Wall Street Journal article] correctly puts the additional federal spending for health care under H.R. 676 (a single-payer health plan) at $15 trillion over ten years. It neglects to add, however, that by spending these vast sums, we would, as a country, save nearly $5 trillion over ten years in reduced administrative waste, lower pharmaceutical and device prices, and by lowering the rate of medical inflation. These financial savings would be felt by businesses and by state and local governments who would no longer be paying for health insurance for their employees; and by retirees and working Americans who would no longer have to pay for their health insurance or for co-payments and deductibles. Beyond these financial savings, H.R. 676 would also save thousands of lives a year by expanding access to health care for the uninsured and underinsured. (9)

    In addition to the federal government saving money with NHI, 95 percent of Americans would pay less than they now do for health insurance and medical care. 

    Fine, Hal - but that's $15 trillion into the government that the "shrink it until you can drown it in a bathtub" Republicans will never allow. Even Obama has played deficit scold all his years, and the smaller government bit, cutting valuable jobs for minorities. America's riding the Tea Party see-saw - yet you're traipsing along whistling as if we live in a society that gives a shit. Hillary's bit about "we don't live in Denmark" pains me - but it's also accurate. We've got knee-jerk reactions to anything perceived as "socialist", yet we're supposed to pin the tail on this donkey proposing everything socialist, as if that won't get butchered? We're about 1/10th as socialist feeling as when I grew up - LBJ was acceptable in those days. Now it's all market economy/IRA/every man-woman an entrepreneur.


    There are two separate questions. One is Sanders' plan politically viable? Two will it cost or save US taxpayers money? Answering 2 first, yes it will save US taxpayers money. Now to 1, not now and in the future it will be that much more difficult to get through a more progressive Congress since the Democratic frontrunner, putative nominee, and overwhelming favorite of the party establishment has adopted bogus right-wing talking points. 

    I can't see how this is debate redounds to Clinton's favor.

    How are they bogus right-wing talking points? You live in liberal la-la land - there is 0 appetite among 90% of the population for adding $15 trillion into the budget. I had hoped that severely driving down costs would have been a major feature of Obamacare, but it's been more "containing costs". Still, I dont see a groundswell of people willing to bet trillions on Obamacare 2.0 anytime soon - so why are we discussing this, and why is it "right wing" to say the obvious? You like pigeon-holing people with tags that fit your agenda, and then you assume those tags are objective reality rather than just your opinions and preferences.

    Here's why what Clinton said is bogus.  She said the cost of Medicare-for-all + free tuition at state schools would be $18-20 trillion.  In fact, by the numbers you (and Friedman) cited, the net additional government healthcare outlay would be half that or $10 trillion.  $15 trillion - $5 trillion.  (The additional college expenditures would come from a financial transactions tax that wouldn't hit most taxpayers at all.) 

    Regarding the $10 trillion in added spending over a decade, the US economy would benefit to the tune of an estimated $15 trillion in net savings from reduced healthcare expenses, efficiencies, and better health.  In other words, Sanders' medicare-for-all plan would result in a net savings to the entire country of about $5 trillion which directly contradicts Clinton's implication that it would cost us $15 trillion or more.

    Again, one reason there may not be a groundswell of support for medicare-for-all, which obviously would be very very different from Obamacare 2.0 which is what Clinton supports, is because Democratic leaders - excepting Sanders and Warren - deny its obvious benefits.

    53% of Americans tired of the health debate, want to move on to something else.
    Hillary called for having an expanded Medicare as a "barebones" option to others. She continues to say she doesn't think Americans will support the socialist nature of single-player, and after 7 years of propaganda, I think that's pretty true. I have socialist mandated universal Healthcare and am happy with it, but I'm a much more open guy than most Americans, IMNSHO. And "cost savings" aren't guaranteed cost savings. The rich siphoned off the benefits of Bill Clinton's balanced budget. The rich siphoned off the majority of the 2009 bailout. It's not unreasonable to assume any large new program will be gamed to favor the rich, just as big pharma made sure to get their hooks onto ACA. All these political policy debates need to address political realities, and they seldom do.

    Would like to say I'm happy we're skipping the DNC disgruntlement topic of the post and skipping to policy - always more fruitful than campaign meta.

    Nicely done, as usual, Peracles. My political equation for 2016 is simple and unprincipled. Clinton has, imo, the best odds of defeating whomever the Republicans nominate.

    The data day was one of Bernie's best days of the campaign.  He won the Huge Endorsement of Democracy From American that day.  HE also got news of the huge CWA Union Endorsement along with reaching a record breaking 2 Million donations.

    What Bernie/WE are calling for is a FULL independent(not Kroll) investigation of all of the Data Breaches and a Review of the DNC's Corrupt behavior in support of Hillary during the PRIMARY.

    What outrages me is people such of yourself making light of it and Not caring at all.

    This bs about the democratic party is just that bs, the Democratic Party belongs to the people! The system is set up so that you can only win (so for but we may have to test this) if you run with one of the main two parties.  SO pretending that Bernie running as a Dem is an excuse for the corruption & bias promoting Hllary is LUDICROUS!!

    The fundraising for Hilary during the PRIMARY, strict rules & rigged debate schedule, DNC changing rules to accept HUGE sums of money from HC Super Pacs during the PRIMARY,  DNC callers telling voters they 'need to vote for Hillary' during the PRIMARY, and now this data treatment that should never have even been brought to the media.  DAMN STRAIGHT I think this was contrived!!  

    Add all of this together and 'if' HC were to take the nomination (VERY GOOD CHANCE SHE WON"T) MANY of US Will See it as Bought/STOLEN!

    FACT: Corps & Billionaires R Ruling OUR Country & Bernie Sanders is ONLY Candidate fighting w/Us 2 Restore Democracy

    I Will NOT Use My Vote To Perpetuate the 'Illusion' of Democracy by voting for Hilary.

    Please Sign & Share.  Help Bernie get the full audit he is fighting for. This petition is for an independent audit of all firewall breaches & review of the conduct of DNC.


    But you're wrong sync, we do care about it. We're not conspiracy theorists so we accept that it was just the over zealous actions of Sanders staff. Since Sanders has admitted his staffers were wrong and fired them it's over for us. We don't believe that Sanders had anything to do with it so we don't blame him. Just as we don't blame Sanders for your insane post. Every candidate has a few supporters that go off the deep end. One can't blame the candidate for every crazy thing one of his supporters does or posts.

    He didn't just do that he called for an independent investigation of all of the firewall breachers that have occurred and there were widespread reports of Bernie supporters receiving Hillary emails after the breach issue.  

    I don't consider this event something that the Sanders campaign did wrong.  I consider it sabotage by the DNC on the behalf of Hillary on a day that should have given Bernie Sanders more press and big momentum.

    I want to add to that.  There is still a group of Democratic voters that were reluctant or refusing to vote for Clinton from the last time she ran that still feel the same way now. We had a economical melt down followed by a depression since the 2008 primary.  Many were hurt and that frustration which drove people to occupy Wall Street was never resolved.  

    They already think the cards are stacked against them.  Right now many think the DNC is trying to engineer a win for Clinton in the primary.  Clinton wins the primary there will be little support from these groups.  This is an anti establishment election year in both parties. Clinton is part of the establishment.    

    All the available evidence doesn't support your view. Polls show the vast majority Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary if she wins, just as polls show nearly all Hillary supporters will vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination.

    Many of those who claim they won't vote for Hillary are just load and angry in their ranting, like sync, and that makes it appear like there are more of them.

    Which polls? Corporate polls?  Pretty sure that's what they want you to believe & to the extent that may be true I would suggest that is less and less true every day as people become more aware of the stark realities taking place.  We can't reward the corruption of the DNC Or Hillary by then giving her our votes.  AND Hillary will NOT get the independent or republican support Bernie Sanders can and WILL Get!  I consider her new 'endorsement' by planned parenthood, kind of silly because they can't speak for anyone, just another board of a company thing.  Many of her unoin endorsements have been hollow because they were decided by a few high level members and NOT the rank and file.  Hillary hasn't won ANYTHING yet.


    I don't quite understand how Obama was the stacked longshot winner last time, but the same candidate Hillary is the establishment candidate this time - so the people somehow won in 2008?  the guy who was going to represent women better than a woman could?

    I just don't think there are that many candidates, and this is about the best we can manage. Yeah, people manage to be disappointed with our system - it's a big lumbering arbitrary machine, especially once the media distortion begins.

    But folks complaining about the "true purpose" of the party and the way it should be seem to be too young to remember the party & backroom selection process in 1968, the free-for-all and meltdown in 1972. Good Boss Tweed stuff plus an appetite for (self) destruction. Things are 100 times more transparent now, but people still want to feel victimized. Hey, the DNC should be scouring the streets and alleys for new blood, set up 1000 debates. Except I was all for the 50-state plan which would have been our farm club, but Obama shut any semblance of that down when he won.

    Weirdly enough, the candidate I wanted in 2008 is blamed both for her traditional evil conniving ways, but also everything bad her opponent who won did* - instead of "I told you so" I get transferral & accumulation of damage - heads you win, tails I lose stuff - and somehow the new guy on the block will cure all the improprieties of the party, just like McGovern, then Gary Hart, then Nader, then.... so just pull the handle, overcome my adolescent fears and support for the Gang of Four...

    *They told me a vote for Humphrey would lead to war, poverty and fighting in the street. So I voted for Humphrey, and that's what I got....

    Enough shilly-shally, let's cut to the chase. You state:

    3) Despite Bern's apology,his team's line is that this was a setup by the DNC and the db contractor NGP VAN - designed to entice them like cheese before mice...

    This, frankly, is tosh. 

    Science has shown that cheese is not - repeat, NOT - appealing to mice. It's a vicious goddamn slur, PP, and we, the MPAFOM - mice people and friends of mice - have had enough. 

    We know where you live.

    In fact, we're already in your goddamn attic. 

    Your ass - as well as your leftovers - belong to us.

    You won't feel your face.

    - the Six



    Latest Comments