|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 25 2016 12:16 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 11:43 oneofthem wrote:
maybe im living under a rock or something but i find the left's hate on hillary really perplexing. it's not even limited to the far left socialists, just general philosophers and humanities people are pretty uniformly against her. i'm pessimistic enough to be content with her, but it really is an outsized hate relative to a similar person with her actions and positions.
yeah I agree, I don't know where it's all coming from. I mean she's cringingly bad at lying and she takes money from whoever will give it to her, but I wouldn't put that past any republican candidate either. I blame right-wing conspiracy, that usually makes me feel better 
I guess people are just really desperate for genuine politicians with convictions and don't want opportunists anymore, I don't think there's anything 'deep' to it.
|
A judge has approved a nearly $1 billion settlement between the Obama administration and Native American tribes over claims the government shorted tribes for decades on contract costs to manage education, law enforcement and other federal services.
Attorneys for the tribes learned Wednesday that a federal judge in Albuquerque, New Mexico, approved the agreement, about five months after the Interior Department and tribal leaders announced they had reached a proposed $940 million settlement in the class-action lawsuit.
The judge's approval filed late Tuesday starts a process to release payment to the tribes that an attorney said could take several months. The ruling also authorized a $1.2 million reimbursement for lead plaintiff's costs, and an agreement for attorneys to receive 8.5 percent of the final settlement amount.
"The end result was there were no objections to the settlement and no objections to the fee request," said Michael Gross, an attorney for the tribes. "This showed a unity among Indian tribes that is absolutely astounding."
Nearly 700 tribes or tribal agencies are expected to claim compensation, with amounts ranging from an estimated $8,000 for some Alaska Native villages and communities elsewhere to $58 million for the Navajo Nation.
Some underfunded federal contracts in the case reportedly dated back to the 1970s, when a policy change allowed tribes to gain more oversight of federal programs meant to fulfill obligations established through treaties and other agreements.
Val Panteah, governor of Zuni Pueblo, described "a financial death spiral" that came as his government tried to offset losses from the contracts in New Mexico. Other tribal leaders described trying to stem losses from the underfunded contracts with painful budget cuts as they tried to meet critical needs in their communities.
The case was first filed in 1990 by the Ramah Navajo Chapter, a community of about 4,000 that became the case's lead plaintiff, along with the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota and Zuni Pueblo.
Source
|
On February 25 2016 12:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 11:15 xDaunt wrote:
If Bernie doesn't come out of Super Tuesday with some big wins and serious traction, he'll be done. Even if he has a bad super Tuesday Winning the big states of new york texas and Florida (whos demographics all break nicely for Bernie) will keep anyone still running.
Hillary will definitely win New York, not sure about Florida but she's also winning Texas handily right now. There's the chance for that to narrow, but I doubt there will a flip in either state.
I think ST could be potentially worse than Nevada with the African American vote, I see the potential for some 80-20 splits. Sanders had time to campaign and money to spend in Nevada. In the South, the black electorate is more moderate (I think), and the CBC PAC and various other black leaders are really actively campaigning for her, and the Clinton brand is real strong in the region as well.
On February 25 2016 12:23 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 12:16 strongwind wrote:On February 25 2016 11:43 oneofthem wrote:
maybe im living under a rock or something but i find the left's hate on hillary really perplexing. it's not even limited to the far left socialists, just general philosophers and humanities people are pretty uniformly against her. i'm pessimistic enough to be content with her, but it really is an outsized hate relative to a similar person with her actions and positions.
yeah I agree, I don't know where it's all coming from. I mean she's cringingly bad at lying and she takes money from whoever will give it to her, but I wouldn't put that past any republican candidate either. I blame right-wing conspiracy, that usually makes me feel better I guess people are just really desperate for genuine politicians with convictions and don't want opportunists anymore, I don't think there's anything 'deep' to it.
I will say Bernie has given us the idea that there should be something better out there (part of his conversation changing thing). However, the problem is he's not really that embodiment, just more a messenger and a fairly flawed one at that.
|
On February 25 2016 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Texas is one of 12 states voting on "Super Tuesday" next week, but Republicans there are a little nervous about this year's election.
Less than two years ago, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, won 48 percent of the Hispanic vote during his re-election.
However, in an election season dominated by calls to build a wall with Mexico and deport every immigrant who's in the country illegally, some Texas Republicans fear years of outreach is being undone.
In fact, Republican operatives use Cornyn's re-election, specifically, as proof conservatives can continue to win statewide elections in Texas. That's even as the Hispanic vote, which on a national level leans Democratic, keeps growing.
Outreach to Latinos was a big part of Cornyn's campaign, which is why strategists say he was able to win the Texas Latino vote in 2014. Campaign ads in multiple languages — including Spanish — blanketed the state. Republican operative Brendan Steinhauser, who helped Cornyn win that election, said the campaign also knocked on doors and held events in communities of color.
"If you show respect to people as an individuals and as a community — you show up, you break bread, you get coffee, and you show that you are listening to their concerns – you can still can have some disagreements on public policy and still end up winning those votes," he said.
Steinhauser is optimistic Republicans have a good future in Texas — even if they stand their ground on issues like immigration. He said the party doesn't need to waiver on issues such as amnesty for people living in the U.S. who entered the country illegally. The key, Steinhauser said, is making a case using a respectful tone.
However, Steinhauser and other Republicans here worry that's not happening in the current Republican presidential primary. Source
Trump won the Latino vote in Nevada by a huge margin. Legal Mexicans generally hate the illegal ones.
|
On February 25 2016 11:43 oneofthem wrote:
maybe im living under a rock or something but i find the left's hate on hillary really perplexing. it's not even limited to the far left socialists, just general philosophers and humanities people are pretty uniformly against her. i'm pessimistic enough to be content with her, but it really is an outsized hate relative to a similar person with her actions and positions.
You're not supposed to be on the left and so obviously corporatist. She let the genie out of the bottle. Where do her loyalties lie, if she has them?
Secondarily, I think the left isn't used to having a long fight with an entrenched enemy within the democratic party. Pro gay marriage is a thing now? Dems are on it. Free birth control? Dems are on it. Free college, medical care? Dems aren't ready yet, but Bernie is ready to make it happen and pay for it. I think this Hillary line is utterly emblematic of her break, one that would be utterly excoriated as conservative babble had the GOP said it: But I want you to think about this. It can’t be just about what we’re going to give to you. + Show Spoiler +Note the pedantic tone. Note how dismissive this sounds of Bernie Sanders supporters ... you only support him because you like free stuff. Not a uniter line, a fighting line ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sGFGryW.png)
Obama was supposed to be the change dems were looking for, and did accomplish a lot. He was an outsider candidate. Now, the insiders are back in power because Bernie didn't do an Obama-style sweep (and likely couldn't in the same way with donors and party hierarchy). This is the first time in three quarters of a decade the left's fringe/today's center-left Dems had to fight to get their guy nominated. That's why there's a lot of hate directed at Hillary. Add it to what myself and others have already covered on nobody liking the "pragmatic"/ideological sell-out candidate.
|
I will say Bernie has given us the idea that there should be something better out there (part of his conversation changing thing). However, the problem is he's not really that embodiment, just more a messenger and a fairly flawed one at that.
Not saying he's flawless but what flaws are you referencing?
it really is an outsized hate relative to a similar person with her actions and positions. (@one)
Who is this similar person?
If I end up thinking Danglars and xDaunt are being more reasonable than Hillary supporters on the nature of the democratic race a few more times I might lose my mind lol.
EDIT: Tell me you're just blowing smoke up my ass with this...?
Bernie is ready to make it happen and pay for it.
We don't actually agree on that (even if you disagree on how) while Hillary doesn't? I don't know if I could handle that.
|
On February 25 2016 12:54 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Texas is one of 12 states voting on "Super Tuesday" next week, but Republicans there are a little nervous about this year's election.
Less than two years ago, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, won 48 percent of the Hispanic vote during his re-election.
However, in an election season dominated by calls to build a wall with Mexico and deport every immigrant who's in the country illegally, some Texas Republicans fear years of outreach is being undone.
In fact, Republican operatives use Cornyn's re-election, specifically, as proof conservatives can continue to win statewide elections in Texas. That's even as the Hispanic vote, which on a national level leans Democratic, keeps growing.
Outreach to Latinos was a big part of Cornyn's campaign, which is why strategists say he was able to win the Texas Latino vote in 2014. Campaign ads in multiple languages — including Spanish — blanketed the state. Republican operative Brendan Steinhauser, who helped Cornyn win that election, said the campaign also knocked on doors and held events in communities of color.
"If you show respect to people as an individuals and as a community — you show up, you break bread, you get coffee, and you show that you are listening to their concerns – you can still can have some disagreements on public policy and still end up winning those votes," he said.
Steinhauser is optimistic Republicans have a good future in Texas — even if they stand their ground on issues like immigration. He said the party doesn't need to waiver on issues such as amnesty for people living in the U.S. who entered the country illegally. The key, Steinhauser said, is making a case using a respectful tone.
However, Steinhauser and other Republicans here worry that's not happening in the current Republican presidential primary. Source Trump won the Latino vote in Nevada by a huge margin. Legal Mexicans generally hate the illegal ones.
Given the small numbers of Latinos in the exit polls that's based off of (I think it's +/- 10 percentage points, which is enough to eliminate his margin) AND the fact that it was only Republicans, I think it's pretty disingenuous to use it to say anything about what "legal Mexicans" think.
|
First, the idea he's running a clean campaign is basically bullshit. Initially, I thought he was someone really special to gloss over the emails. However, while Bernie hasn't directly said anything, he insinuates and uses syllogism to "artfully smear" Hillary. He has never directly said that Hillary is untrustworthy, but he's definitely intimated she is (disregard for the moment if it is fact or not). A: Wall Street is bad. B: Hillary is close to Wall Street. Never a C, but he's happy to let his supporters and others (hello Koch brothers) connect the dots. It's cowardly and pretty much standard politics. What makes it despicable to me is that he's pretending he's better.
Second, he's an ideologue first and foremost. He's been on the right side of history (though his record is rather more spotty once you look at it). He's had the luxury of a safe Senate seat to cast protest votes, give speeches but never really act. He talks the talk, but he has not walked the walk nearly enough for my liking. This is a guy who others found very hard to work with--- for example, Barney Frank calls him out for his holier-than-thou and smarter-than-thou and better-than-thou attitude. He's had something like 3 colleagues endorse him. Yes, Bernie has been an independent. That label alone means diddly squat to me. What matters to me is his ability to form relationships with people (on both sides of the aisle) and get things done. Sanders has done that occasionally, but he has rarely, if ever, been a true driver on issues he proclaims to care about as measured by results.
Third (this ties closely with the second) is that he's woefully unknowledgeable on a wide range of issues. I won't insult his intelligence because he's a very bright dude, almost guaranteed to be smarter than everyone on this forum. However, the fact that after so many years in public office he remains unversed in many fields is a massive turnoff. First, foreign policy-- it's clear that this is a weak point where he has only, belatedly, begun to shore up. Beyond that, things like his misunderstanding of fiscal policy and assorted mistakes (like saying he would save more on pharma than we actually spend on it) are signs to me he is not nearly ready to be president. I find the problems he points out to be real ones, but the way he goes about addressing many of them are at best naive and at worst laughable.
Fourth (this one isn't as big), his message is narrow and divisive. From hearing his speech, we're still deep in the recession and things are going to shit and it's the fault of the one percent. It's a very black and white picture, and by virtue of that incorrect. Sure we have a huge problem with a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence going to a small number of people and "people" (corporations). However, framing this minority as some sort of enemy that we have to destroy is plain harmful. Like, Bernie wants to kick anyone with any tie to the banks off the fed, which is ridiculous. That's the kind of rhetoric that leads to gridlock, bad feelings and a even more screwed up situation than we are now. Finally, dismissing groups like Planned Parenthood, economists like Krugman and the rest and other politicians who have definitely fought the good fight but disagree with him is terribly petty.
EDIT: Regardless, I still do like Sanders and appreciate what he's done with his message. That carries a lot of weight with me. Just not enough to put him over the top when I put him beside Hillary in my mind.
|
First, Hillary is doing the same but much, much, much, much worse.
Second, I'll take idealistic over a corporatism
Third, If people like Alan Greenspan, and Hillary are the types that "get it" I'll pass
Fourth, Hillary is purposefully dividing white and black America within the democratic party
I think that explains a bit about why we find ourselves on different sides of this. What you see as a flaw "Barney Frank calls him out for his holier-than-thou and smarter-than-thou and better-than-thou attitude. " I see as an attribute.
I don't want someone to go to DC to get along, if people just pulled their heads out of their ass we could replace congress with people who aren't bought and will vote how we want and not how a wealthy elite wants. The acceptance that the system is broken and Hillary is the best at playing the rigged game is in no way what I am looking for in a candidate.
Not the flaws I was expecting, but hardly flaws in a candidate like Bernie. Those would be flaws if he was Hillary, but much of that is what we are voting for. If people can't form relationships with Bernie it's probably because they are like Hillary or worse. The people he represents absolutely love him, that's what I like to see from a candidate.
|
"Hillary is worse" isn't much of a defense. Fundamentally I don't think pointing out Hillary's connections to Wall Street is either dirty or cowardly.
|
Yea I don't see why him respecting Clinton enough to not dog her outright about the Wall Street thing (but still get the point across that she is probably too close to them) is dirty. I think its perfectly consistent with his message that establishment is too close to Wall Street, even those he likes. He is trying to say that big money in politics is the new norm, which is why he is different because he is essentially anti that. He is just basically saying she is too much like the status quo and trying to paint himself as someone divorced from the same old.
He has also given her a shit ton of passes during the debates and even bailed her out by forcibly changing topics about her major scandals that are all over the news.
|
Yeah, the nominations over Hillary is out.
|
Re:1, My problem is that Bernie is pretending to run a clean campaign when he really isn't. It goes beyond Wall Street. Hillary made a few jabs, but they've been for the most part honest ones and she's not pretending she's a saint. To me, there is a fundamental tension: Bernie is running as the outside, honest, principled dude, but his policy proposals don't add up and he's running a pretty typical campaign, except he and many supporters are willing to cry foul at every turn.
Re:2, I have no idea where corporatism comes in. Sanders for most of his Congressional career has not been a leader. He has not been one of the great voices and movers. With regards to the issues, he doesn't get much more than a certificate of participation for being right.
Re:3, Sanders made an argument about how he has better judgement while acknowledging he was short on knowledge. Maybe he does. That's not an argument that persuades me. If you're 70+ years old and it's your job to know but you pretty much don't that's a problem.
Re:4, No she isn't. African-Americans like Hillary and are familiar with her. She has a connection with them and furthermore knows how to connect with them. Like it or not, it's an advantage she has and has cultivated for 20 years. Furthermore, if you argue that Sanders is capable of compromise and that for example he can move from the single player position towards a public option as a negotiating strategy, his dismissal of anyone who disagrees belies that.
Beyond that, for a strategy that relies on a preposterously large shift to a preposterously liberal Congress Bernie has done pretty much zero outreach to Congress (and he hasn't done that in his 20 years in office either). He cannot force this revolution alone, but alone he is both by choice and past action. "If people can't form relationships with Bernie they are like Hillary or worse"-- so all of Congress? That is precisely the attitude that I was talking about. It seems Bernie would need about 400 clones of himself to fill Congress for the revolution to come to pass.
|
So it's ok to trash Bernie for having a "rather spotty" record when you look at it and for never having "been a true driver on issues he proclaims to care about as measured by results." He both isn't as ideological as he says he is AND is unwilling to work with anyone else who isn't as ideological as he says he is.
I can see why Clinton's constant back and forth, being a true driver on the big important neoliberal agenda in one decade and rolling it back in her stump speeches 2 decades later is appealing.
Edit: the key point about Bernie's proposals is that it is actually quite reasonable to think that better economic policy could deliver higher output and increase employment. Just because a bunch of orthodox hacks like Krugman think his policy "doesn't add up" doesn't mean that the underlying basis of his policy proposals is ridiculous. In fact, the implicit acknowledgement by the economists criticizing Bernie is that they are drastically adjusting the basic rules of macroeconomic analysis going forward. The analysis put out by Friedman is actually in line with ordinary economic theory, in that his hypothesized gains would only put us back on track for where we were heading before 2008. The ordinary presumption is that the harder a recession hits the stronger the surge back, assuming the fundamentals haven't changed, because long-term macroeconomic numbers are tied to underlying demographic and technological factors, and the business cycle kind of oscillates on top of it. So the economists who criticized Friedman's analysis, for whichever reason(s) they chose, are tacitly admitting that the underlying fundamentals are shit and we are going to be stuck in a low-growth environment for the foreseeable future. If that's the case, then all of their models are broken anyway and we shouldn't be listening to them, and oneofthem's cries about trade and geopolitical maneuvering also lose much of their cogency.
|
On February 25 2016 14:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
First, the idea he's running a clean campaign is basically bullshit. Initially, I thought he was someone really special to gloss over the emails. However, while Bernie hasn't directly said anything, he insinuates and uses syllogism to "artfully smear" Hillary. He has never directly said that Hillary is untrustworthy, but he's definitely intimated she is (disregard for the moment if it is fact or not). A: Wall Street is bad. B: Hillary is close to Wall Street. Never a C, but he's happy to let his supporters and others (hello Koch brothers) connect the dots. It's cowardly and pretty much standard politics. What makes it despicable to me is that he's pretending he's better.
Second, he's an ideologue first and foremost. He's been on the right side of history (though his record is rather more spotty once you look at it). He's had the luxury of a safe Senate seat to cast protest votes, give speeches but never really act. He talks the talk, but he has not walked the walk nearly enough for my liking. This is a guy who others found very hard to work with--- for example, Barney Frank calls him out for his holier-than-thou and smarter-than-thou and better-than-thou attitude. He's had something like 3 colleagues endorse him. Yes, Bernie has been an independent. That label alone means diddly squat to me. What matters to me is his ability to form relationships with people (on both sides of the aisle) and get things done. Sanders has done that occasionally, but he has rarely, if ever, been a true driver on issues he proclaims to care about as measured by results.
Third (this ties closely with the second) is that he's woefully unknowledgeable on a wide range of issues. I won't insult his intelligence because he's a very bright dude, almost guaranteed to be smarter than everyone on this forum. However, the fact that after so many years in public office he remains unversed in many fields is a massive turnoff. First, foreign policy-- it's clear that this is a weak point where he has only, belatedly, begun to shore up. Beyond that, things like his misunderstanding of fiscal policy and assorted mistakes (like saying he would save more on pharma than we actually spend on it) are signs to me he is not nearly ready to be president. I find the problems he points out to be real ones, but the way he goes about addressing many of them are at best naive and at worst laughable.
Fourth (this one isn't as big), his message is narrow and divisive. From hearing his speech, we're still deep in the recession and things are going to shit and it's the fault of the one percent. It's a very black and white picture, and by virtue of that incorrect. Sure we have a huge problem with a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence going to a small number of people and "people" (corporations). However, framing this minority as some sort of enemy that we have to destroy is plain harmful. Like, Bernie wants to kick anyone with any tie to the banks off the fed, which is ridiculous. That's the kind of rhetoric that leads to gridlock, bad feelings and a even more screwed up situation than we are now. Finally, dismissing groups like Planned Parenthood, economists like Krugman and the rest and other politicians who have definitely fought the good fight but disagree with him is terribly petty.
EDIT: Regardless, I still do like Sanders and appreciate what he's done with his message. That carries a lot of weight with me. Just not enough to put him over the top when I put him beside Hillary in my mind.
Well, you're not wrong about Bernie; a lot of the flaws that you mentioned are valid and legitimate criticisms of him. However, based on who you support, it seems you think that Hillary is a good candidate. I disagree, and I think that if there were another candidate with Sanders' ideas who was a bit better about being part of the party and about having a broader appeal, said candidate would easily exploit Hillary's weaknesses and defeat her.
Sure, he's not great at foreign policy - Hillary is god damn awful at it with a proven track record of doing badly. And I will agree that he is a little less-than-practical about ideas such as Wall Street, fiscal policy, etc., though he does bring up good points that could be implemented if done right. His big advantage is that people don't really trust Hillary very much. Right now she is like the Richard Nixon of the Democratic party, with more than a fair share of party support and connections but with a shady and checkered history that will come back to bite her in the ass.
If Hillary were a strong candidate then she would have been able to easily dismiss Sanders early on in the campaign. The fact that he is still around is a sign of her being a very weak and ineffective candidate.
|
I'm going to be crushed when they finally determine their Democratic nominee because then you guys will stop discussing Bernie versus Clinton.
I love reading these conflicting opinions and ideologies.
|
11589 Posts
|
On February 25 2016 14:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
First, the idea he's running a clean campaign is basically bullshit. Initially, I thought he was someone really special to gloss over the emails. However, while Bernie hasn't directly said anything, he insinuates and uses syllogism to "artfully smear" Hillary. He has never directly said that Hillary is untrustworthy, but he's definitely intimated she is (disregard for the moment if it is fact or not). A: Wall Street is bad. B: Hillary is close to Wall Street. Never a C, but he's happy to let his supporters and others (hello Koch brothers) connect the dots. It's cowardly and pretty much standard politics. What makes it despicable to me is that he's pretending he's better.
Second, he's an ideologue first and foremost. He's been on the right side of history (though his record is rather more spotty once you look at it). He's had the luxury of a safe Senate seat to cast protest votes, give speeches but never really act. He talks the talk, but he has not walked the walk nearly enough for my liking. This is a guy who others found very hard to work with--- for example, Barney Frank calls him out for his holier-than-thou and smarter-than-thou and better-than-thou attitude. He's had something like 3 colleagues endorse him. Yes, Bernie has been an independent. That label alone means diddly squat to me. What matters to me is his ability to form relationships with people (on both sides of the aisle) and get things done. Sanders has done that occasionally, but he has rarely, if ever, been a true driver on issues he proclaims to care about as measured by results.
Third (this ties closely with the second) is that he's woefully unknowledgeable on a wide range of issues. I won't insult his intelligence because he's a very bright dude, almost guaranteed to be smarter than everyone on this forum. However, the fact that after so many years in public office he remains unversed in many fields is a massive turnoff. First, foreign policy-- it's clear that this is a weak point where he has only, belatedly, begun to shore up. Beyond that, things like his misunderstanding of fiscal policy and assorted mistakes (like saying he would save more on pharma than we actually spend on it) are signs to me he is not nearly ready to be president. I find the problems he points out to be real ones, but the way he goes about addressing many of them are at best naive and at worst laughable.
Fourth (this one isn't as big), his message is narrow and divisive. From hearing his speech, we're still deep in the recession and things are going to shit and it's the fault of the one percent. It's a very black and white picture, and by virtue of that incorrect. Sure we have a huge problem with a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence going to a small number of people and "people" (corporations). However, framing this minority as some sort of enemy that we have to destroy is plain harmful. Like, Bernie wants to kick anyone with any tie to the banks off the fed, which is ridiculous. That's the kind of rhetoric that leads to gridlock, bad feelings and a even more screwed up situation than we are now. Finally, dismissing groups like Planned Parenthood, economists like Krugman and the rest and other politicians who have definitely fought the good fight but disagree with him is terribly petty.
EDIT: Regardless, I still do like Sanders and appreciate what he's done with his message. That carries a lot of weight with me. Just not enough to put him over the top when I put him beside Hillary in my mind.
1. How is it cowardly to point out she is taking corporate money during her campaign? That's basically what his agenda is all about: getting special interest money out of politics. He's not throwing ad hominems at her or anything. I understand why you might think it's an "artful smear", but compared to how everyone else is running their campaigns, he's been holding a lot of his punches. A truly "clean" campaign by your definition means he probably can't even talk about her at all, which is ridiculous.
2. This argument has time and again been shown to be misconstrued.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/how-bernie-sanders-fought-for-our-veterans-119708#ixzz3fDNTu300
3-4. What really gets me about all the shade thrown(!) at Bernie is that people only put his policies under the microscope. Has Trump ever mentioned his 12-point economic plan? Hillary? Why does Bernie get all the scrutiny while everyone else gets a pass? If you check his website he has some specifics regarding his policies, but let's be real. No one wants to hear a candidate talk about his 12-point plan. That's not how these things work. When FDR ran for office, people wanted to see a leader with a clear vision for where America should go, and to trust him to take them in that direction. I think Bernie has shown that he can work across the aisle to get things done (Burlington, VT is in great shape, he was the Amendment King in Congress).
|
Seriously yall still don't know? What are you guys the MSM? hahahah
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
