• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Bullish on Bernie: The Bernie Sanders 2016 Thread II

Slings and Arrows said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_696355704898b73480.png[/qimg]

"I am so sick of the Sanders campaign winning. I'm sick of it."
Click to expand...


Aaaand, it looks like the Clinton campaign is finally starting to break down and show their true colours. They only care about winning, not about party unity and "building coalitions". Starting to look a lot more like the devisive GOP candidates than the party of "bringing people together" that they claimed early on.

Video clip from CNN.



AUDIO: "The Clinton Campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience…. so they're going to begin deploying a new strategy… it's going to be called 'DISQUALIFY HIM - DEFEAT HIM' … and then they can unify the party later.

For the last several months, the Clinton Campaign has been first ignoring Bernie Sanders, then dismissing him -- now they are going to go head-long into him, I'm told, beginning here in the New York Primary in two weeks on his gun record, on other things. So Party-unity aside for now, one aide told me that will come later. They're going to start trying and defeating Bernie Sanders so that scenario you saw play out there on John's wall, does not come true. The Clinton Campaign is running out of patience. They want to stop Bernie Sanders, and move on to the Fall Campaign."
Click to expand...


More links to reportage on the Youtube page.

Clinton is truly out of touch with the people, and all her hobnobbing with the 1% is not helping either her image or her chances.

It was said by many early on, including myself, that money is what decides elections, and big money influences politicians. That's clearly true here. Clinton has been spending most of her campaign time at fundraisers with the economic and social elite, and they have been the primary supporters of her campaign, and the beneficiaries of her past legislation to a very great degree.

But... Sanders is still managing to outspend Clinton. The big difference between them is that while Clinton's campaign funding comes from SuperPACs and corporate donations via a rather clever but IMO unethical use of a legal loophole permitting effective laundering of corporate donations to work around donation limits; Sanders' is coming almost entirely directly from grassroots supporters, which means that he's more likely to be beholden to the people, than to the lobbyists. It also shows that the people can and will support candidates that demonstrate that they are supporting the interests of the people, instead of the interests of corporations and the 1%.

Another interesting twist that may hurt Clinton is the release of the Panama Papers, and her campaign's link to some of those named. She voted in favour of the Panama trade deal that enabled this situation, and I fully expect the Sanders campaign to take advantage of that.

Panama Papers: Obama, Clinton Pushed Trade Deal Amid Warnings It Would Make Money Laundering, Tax Evasion Worse
Excerpt:
Years before more than a hundred media outlets around the world released stories Sunday exposing a massive network of global tax evasion detailed in the so-called Panama Papers, U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for a Bush administration-negotiated free trade agreement that watchdogs warned would only make the situation worse.

(...)

Even while Obama championed his commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy, he pursued and eventually signed the Panama agreement in 2011. Upon Congress ratifying the pact, Clinton issued a statement lauding the agreement, saying it and other deals with Colombia and South Korea "will make it easier for American companies to sell their products." She added: "The Obama administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world, and these agreements are an example of that commitment."

Critics, however, said the pact would make it easier for rich Americans and corporations to set up offshore corporations and bank accounts and avoid paying many taxes altogether.
Click to expand...


Worse for her, it appears that her campaign chairman has links to some of the names in the Panama Papers. I hate to use right-wing sources; but since Clinton supporters in this thread have no problem using hard conservative sources to try and discredit Sanders, I'll go ahead and do so in this instance:
‘Panama Papers’ Implicate Client of Clinton-Linked Lobbying Firm
Excerpt:
The “Panama Papers” are being called “the Wikileaks of the mega-rich.” Corporate documents leaked from the law firm Mossack Fonseca show how world leaders have used offshore tax havens to hide their involvement in lucrative companies and business deals around the world.

Among those companies is the Russian Sberbank, whose U.S. investment banking branch recently enlisted the services of the Podesta Group. According to its lobbying registration form, the firm will work on banking, trade, and foreign relations issues.

One of the three lobbyists working on the account is Tony Podesta, a bundler for the Clinton campaign and the brother of campaign chairman John Podesta, who co-founded the firm.

Politico reported last month that Podesta and two of the firm’s other lobbyists would be working to affect “the scope of U.S. sanctions against Russia for its role in the Ukraine conflict and whether relief is possible.”
Click to expand...


Wonder if Clinton's campaign will address this particular link.
 
Are you saying Luchog that Sanders has not distorted Clinton's record, it's only her distorting his?

It will be interesting to see if his interview flubs or the Panama Trade Deal take precedence with NY voters.
 
Fixed it for you:
luchog said:
Worse for her, it appears that her campaign chairman's brother has links to some of the names in the Panama Papers. I hate to use right-wing sources; but since Clinton supporters in this thread have no problem using hard conservative sources to try and discredit Sanders, I'll go ahead and do so in this instance:
‘Panama Papers’ Implicate Client of Clinton-Linked Lobbying Firm
Excerpt:


Wonder if Clinton's campaign will address this particular link.
Click to expand...
I hope they show the decency and common sense to also address the links they have to Kevin Bacon.
 
As someone who lives in Wisconsin and voted Sanders, I'd like to point out that while the Sanders win was nice, overall the election wasn't a win for progressives.

Those same people who voted for Sanders didn't also vote in sufficient number for Kloppenburg for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Instead corrupt crony Bradly won the spot, making the court conservative and locking in all branches of government for the conservatives. The judicial branch has been about the only thing that has slowed the degradation of the state, and now they have full reign to completely **** up the state.

If the democrats can't get their act together and understand that state elections are just as important, if not more so than Presidential ones, we're screwed.
 
The_Animus said:
As someone who lives in Wisconsin and voted Sanders, I'd like to point out that while the Sanders win was nice, overall the election wasn't a win for progressives.

Those same people who voted for Sanders didn't also vote in sufficient number for Kloppenburg for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Instead corrupt crony Bradly won the spot, making the court conservative and locking in all branches of government for the conservatives. The judicial branch has been about the only thing that has slowed the degradation of the state, and now they have full reign to completely **** up the state.

If the democrats can't get their act together and understand that state elections are just as important, if not more so than Presidential ones, we're screwed.
Click to expand...
That sucks. Bradly sounded downright atrocious.
 
The_Animus said:
snip...Those same people who voted for Sanders didn't also vote in sufficient number for Kloppenburg for Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice. Instead corrupt crony Bradly won the spot, making the court conservative and locking in all branches of government for the conservatives...snip
Click to expand...
We're in for a rough ride :(
 
James Hansen Condemns Bernie Sanders' Fear-Mongering Against Indian Point

"The last few weeks have seen an orchestrated campaign to mislead the people of New York about the essential safety and importance of Indian Point nuclear plant to address climate change. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has repeatedly certified the safety of Indian Point. The scaremongers have taken minor maintenance questions and wrongly suggested they point to significant problems with the plant.

Now, Bernie Sanders says he wants to shut down the plant. If that happened, it would be replaced in substantial part by fracked natural gas that would create the equivalent carbon emissions of adding roughly 1.4 million new cars to the road.

Sanders has offered no evidence that NRC has failed to do its job, and he has no expertise in over-riding NRC’s judgement. For the sake of future generations who could be harmed by irreversible climate change, I urge New Yorkers to reject this fear mongering and uphold science against ideology.”

Is James Hansen right that the energy would be replaced by natural gas? It is hard to say, I mean when Vermont Yankee was shut down after years of protests from anti-nuclear activists, and after years of opposition from Sanders - who after Fukushima was really worried about the same thing happening there...because land tsunamis I guess....they knew, they just knew, that wind and solar, not natural, gas would make up the difference. They were 100% wrong, but what are the chances of a bunch of anti-science ideologues being wrong twice in a row on a scientific question?
 
Wayward son said:
James Hansen Condemns Bernie Sanders' Fear-Mongering Against Indian Point

"The last few weeks have seen an orchestrated campaign to mislead the people of New York about the essential safety and importance of Indian Point nuclear plant to address climate change. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has repeatedly certified the safety of Indian Point. The scaremongers have taken minor maintenance questions and wrongly suggested they point to significant problems with the plant.

Now, Bernie Sanders says he wants to shut down the plant. If that happened, it would be replaced in substantial part by fracked natural gas that would create the equivalent carbon emissions of adding roughly 1.4 million new cars to the road.

Sanders has offered no evidence that NRC has failed to do its job, and he has no expertise in over-riding NRC’s judgement. For the sake of future generations who could be harmed by irreversible climate change, I urge New Yorkers to reject this fear mongering and uphold science against ideology.”

Is James Hansen right that the energy would be replaced by natural gas? It is hard to say, I mean when Vermont Yankee was shut down after years of protests from anti-nuclear activists, and after years of opposition from Sanders - who after Fukushima was really worried about the same thing happening there...because land tsunamis I guess....they knew, they just knew, that wind and solar, not natural, gas would make up the difference. They were 100% wrong, but what are the chances of a bunch of anti-science ideologues being wrong twice in a row on a scientific question?
Click to expand...



There's nothing anti science about preferring renewable energy to nuclear power. As I said above, if the same amount of subsidies as the nuclear industry receives had been invested in renewable energy sources, the technologies would be far more advanced by now, and they are still a preferable road to take than the uneconomical nuclear behemoth with its legacy of radioactive waste which has no viable storage solution that can be trusted to remain safe for thousands of years.
 
asydhouse said:
There's nothing anti science about preferring renewable energy to nuclear power.
Click to expand...

There's nothing anti-science about the preference, and in the future renewables may be objectively better. But there's nothing rational about the rejection of nuclear as an alternative.

As I said above, if the same amount of subsidies as the nuclear industry receives had been invested in renewable energy sources, the technologies would be far more advanced by now
Click to expand...

Since we have no idea how far these technologies can or will go, this is pure speculation. It might very well be that renewables _never_ fill our energy needs, and that we _need_ nuclear and other such technologies to do so.
 
This from the NY Daily interview was funny, admittedly not a reason not to vote for Sanders unless you want to chalk his mistake up to lying as surely Clinton would have been charged with had she made the same error:
Daily News: I know you’ve got to go in a second. When was the last time you rode the subway? Are you gonna a campaign in the subway?

Sanders: Actually we rode the subway, Mike, when we were here? About a year ago? But I know how to ride the subways. I’ve been on them once or twice.

Daily News: Do you really? Do you really? How do you ride the subway today?

Sanders: What do you mean, “How do you ride the subway?”

Daily News: How do you get on the subway today?

Sanders: You get a token and you get in.
Click to expand...
Tokens haven't been used on the NY subways since 2003.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
This from the NY Daily interview was funny, admittedly not a reason not to vote for Sanders unless you want to chalk his mistake up to lying as surely Clinton would have been charged with had she made the same error:Tokens haven't been used on the NY subways since 2003.
Click to expand...

Hillary has driven a car once in the last two decades, she emailed her chief of staff to find a tv channel, and she emailed someone to email someone to get her a *********** iced tea.

When asked whether she wiped her server, she answered, "what with a cloth?"

She is so out of touch she makes Prince Charles look positively ghetto.

Here ya go, enjoy the daily life of an American princess:

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-startling-amount-dependency-stephen-l-miller
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom