Bernie

[Boobalaa]

I don't want to forget about Bernie. The ideas he expressed shouldn't be pushed to the background after this election cycle. Too many "Berniebots" figured that he had to become President if change was to happen but change can still be had if the effort is made and continues. It takes more than one man to make a revolution.

If all you have to complain about is my choice of font then you really are as pathetic as you recently seem.

Thak you once again..Thank you ..you are much better at this than I am..once again, thanks for being BOLD

 

[StormfrontFL]

Thak you once again..Thank you ..you are much better at this than I am..

Look, if you want to keep this up I can go on as long as you can.

I'd rather focus on the things we have in common. isn't it more productive to discuss the positive direction we hope to see this country take instead of trading jibes(even passive aggressive ones)?

 

[b.c.]

What people was the author referring to

oh... so now we're playing Twenty Questions. Must be a slow night over there. Okay... I can spare a few.

answer: yes. Next question?

Seriously though, if you actually READ the piece, you SHOULD know she referred to many. So maybe the question is indicative of something more you're (obviously) trying NOT to say.

Go ahead. Spit it out. The truth shall set you free.

 

[b.c.]

I don't want to forget about Bernie. The ideas he expressed shouldn't be pushed to the background after this election cycle. Too many "Berniebots" figured that he had to become President if change was to happen but change can still be had if the effort is made and continues. It takes more than one man to make a revolution.

Oh I agree 100%. I firmly believe the man has EARNED the right to the vice presidency.

Yes, I like Warren. But hey, Warren chose not to RUN.

If all you have to complain about is my choice of font then you really are as pathetic as you recently seem.

Lol. I've had complaints too. So I was thinking of changing it up to THIS.... or maybe THIS.... or how about this??

 

[Boobalaa]

Look, if you want to keep this up I can go on as long as you can.

I'd rather focus on the things we have in common. isn't it more productive to discuss the positive direction we hope to see this country take instead of trading jibes(even passive aggressive ones)?

Ok, I agree...let's focus on the things we have in common.....................

 

[Boobalaa]

Oh I agree 100%. I firmly believe the man has EARNED the right to the vice presidency.

Yes, I like Warren. But hey, Warren chose not to RUN.



Lol. I've had complaints too. So I was thinking of changing it up to THIS.... or maybe THIS.... or how about this??

What I have actually read, the mainstream media wants Hillary to ask Elizabeth Warren as her VP, but then again maybe I didn't read it right..howabout a husband and wife team? Talk about historic milestones..

 

[Boobalaa]

oh... so now we're playing Twenty Questions. Must be a slow night over there. Okay... I can spare a few.

answer: yes. Next question?

Seriously though, if you actually READ the piece, you SHOULD know she referred to many. So maybe the question is indicative of something more you're (obviously) trying NOT to say.

Go ahead. Spit it out. The truth shall set you free.

Sorry, Why nobody has come out about republicans voting for Hillary intrigues me..They already give her money, I mean, what's so crazy about bringing up that possibility? Google "republicans voting for Hillary".. Her piece was just an antidote piece to all the other pieces about republicans voting for Hillary

 

[StormfrontFL]

What I have actually read, the mainstream media wants Hillary to ask Elizabeth Warren as her VP, but then again maybe I didn't read it right..howabout a husband and wife team? Talk about historic milestones..

Husband and wife? As in Bill and Hillary? I doubt that Bill would ever want to be second fiddle to his wife. I also doubt Hillary would want Bill being that close. Imagine that every success is credited to Bill.

I wouldn't object to Warren but I still see Sanders as a good choice for VP. His involvement on the ticket could serve as a unifying force between Clinton and Sanders supporters. He would also be better positioned to work on enacting some changes in policy.

 

[Boobalaa]

Especially if she gets indicted and possibly impeached..he would become President ..
Scary thought

 

[StormfrontFL]

Especially if she gets indicted and possibly impeached..he would become President ..
Scary thought

Even though your post is VERY CLEAR in it's intent I will let this little passive aggressive nugget slide

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Even though your post is VERY CLEAR in it's intent I will let this little passive aggressive nugget slide

But with each answer, you're feeding him.
Boobz is very simple. He just wants attention.
You know that, right?

 

[StormfrontFL]

But with each answer, you're feeding him.
Boobz is very simple. He just wants attention.
You know that, right?

I think he's better than a troll. At times he really does post things that matter but lately it seems like a person off their meds. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I will, however, be on my guard.

 

[Boobalaa]

Back on topic, focus ...
Read this in this morning's editorial page, Charles Krauthammer.s latest;
The morning after, the nation awakes asking: What have we done?

Both parties seem intent on throwing the election away. The Democrats, running against a man with highest-ever negatives, are poised to nominate a candidate with the second-highest-ever negatives. Hillary Clinton started with every possible advantage -- money, experience, name recognition, residual goodwill from her husband's successful 1990s -- yet could not put away until this week an obscure, fringy, socialist backbencher in a country uniquely allergic to socialism.

Bernie Sanders did have one advantage. He had something to say. She had nuthin'. Her Tuesday victory speech was a pudding without a theme for a campaign without a cause. After 14 months, she still can't get past the famous question asked of Ted Kennedy in 1979: Why do you want to be president?
So whom do the Republicans put up? They had 17 candidates. Any of a dozen could have taken down the near-fatally weak Clinton, unloved, untrusted, living under the shadow of an FBI investigation.

Instead, they nominate Donald Trump -- conspiracy theorist (from Barack Obama's Kenyan birth to Ted Cruz's father's involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald), fabulist (from his own invented opposition to the Iraq War and the Libya intervention to the "thousands and thousands" of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11), admirer of strongmen (from Vladimir Putin to the butchers of Tiananmen).


His outrageous provocations have been brilliantly sequenced so that the shock of the new extinguishes the memory of the last. Though perhaps not his most recent -- his gratuitous attack on a "Mexican" federal judge (born and bred in Indiana) for inherent bias because of his ethnicity. Textbook racism, averred Speaker Paul Ryan. Even Trump acolyte and possible running mate Newt Gingrich called it inexcusable.

Trump promptly doubled down, expanding the universe of the not-to-be-trusted among us by adding American Muslims to the list of those who might be inherently biased.

Yet Trump is the party's chosen. He won the primary contest fair and square. The people have spoken. What to do?

First, dare to say that the people aren't always right. Surely Republicans admit the possibility. Or do they believe the people chose rightly in electing Obama? Twice. Historical examples of other countries choosing even more wrongly are numerous and tragic. The people's will deserves respect, not necessarily affirmation.

I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don't have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him. They have unique party and institutional responsibilities.

For some, that meant endorsing Trump in the belief that they might be able to contain, constrain, guide and perhaps even educate him. To my mind, this thinking has always been hopelessly misbegotten but not necessarily -- nor in all cases -- venal.

Which brings us to the matter of Paul Ryan, now being excoriated by many conservatives for having said he would vote for Trump.

Yet what was surprising was not Ryan's ever-so-tepid semi-endorsement, which was always inevitable and unavoidable -- can the highest elected GOP official be at war during a general election with the party's democratically chosen presidential candidate? -- but his initial refusal to endorse Trump when, after the Indiana primary, nearly everyone around him was falling mindlessly, some shamelessly, into line.

That was surprising. Which is why Ryan's refusal to immediately follow suit created such a sensation. It also created, deliberately, the time and space for non-Trumpites to hold the line. Ryan was legitimizing resistance to the new regime, giving it safe harbor in the House, even as resisters were being relentlessly accused of treason for "electing Hillary."

In the end, Ryan called an armistice. What was he to do? Oppose and resign? And then what? What would remain of conservative leadership in the GOP? And if he created a permanent split in the party, he'd be setting up the GOP's entire conservative wing as scapegoat if Trump loses in November.

Ryan had no good options. He chose the one he felt was least damaging to the conservative cause to which he has devoted his entire adult life.

I wouldn't have done it but I'm not House speaker. He is a practicing politician who has to calculate the consequences of what he does. That deserves at least some understanding.

One day, we shall all have to account for what we did and what we said in this scoundrel year. For now, we each have our conscience to attend to.

(present company excluded of course..because that's why your here isn't it?)

 

[ConanTheBarber]

I think he's better than a troll. At times he really does post things that matter but lately it seems like a person off their meds. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I will, however, be on my guard.

Off meds? Yes, that might be it.

 

[b.c.]

Back on topic, focus ...
Read this in this morning's editorial page, Charles Krauthammer.s latest;
The morning after, the nation awakes asking: What have we done?

Both parties seem intent on throwing the election away. The Democrats, running against a man with highest-ever negatives, are poised to nominate a candidate with the second-highest-ever negatives. Hillary Clinton started with every possible advantage -- money, experience, name recognition, residual goodwill from her husband's successful 1990s -- yet could not put away until this week an obscure, fringy, socialist backbencher in a country uniquely allergic to socialism.

Bernie Sanders did have one advantage. He had something to say. She had nuthin'. Her Tuesday victory speech was a pudding without a theme for a campaign without a cause. After 14 months, she still can't get past the famous question asked of Ted Kennedy in 1979: Why do you want to be president?
So whom do the Republicans put up? They had 17 candidates. Any of a dozen could have taken down the near-fatally weak Clinton, unloved, untrusted, living under the shadow of an FBI investigation.

Instead, they nominate Donald Trump -- conspiracy theorist (from Barack Obama's Kenyan birth to Ted Cruz's father's involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald), fabulist (from his own invented opposition to the Iraq War and the Libya intervention to the "thousands and thousands" of New Jersey Muslims celebrating 9/11), admirer of strongmen (from Vladimir Putin to the butchers of Tiananmen).


His outrageous provocations have been brilliantly sequenced so that the shock of the new extinguishes the memory of the last. Though perhaps not his most recent -- his gratuitous attack on a "Mexican" federal judge (born and bred in Indiana) for inherent bias because of his ethnicity. Textbook racism, averred Speaker Paul Ryan. Even Trump acolyte and possible running mate Newt Gingrich called it inexcusable.

Trump promptly doubled down, expanding the universe of the not-to-be-trusted among us by adding American Muslims to the list of those who might be inherently biased.

Yet Trump is the party's chosen. He won the primary contest fair and square. The people have spoken. What to do?

First, dare to say that the people aren't always right. Surely Republicans admit the possibility. Or do they believe the people chose rightly in electing Obama? Twice. Historical examples of other countries choosing even more wrongly are numerous and tragic. The people's will deserves respect, not necessarily affirmation.

I sympathize with the dilemma of Republican leaders reluctant to affirm. Many are as appalled as I am by Trump, but they don't have the freedom I do to say, as I have publicly, that I cannot imagine ever voting for him. They have unique party and institutional responsibilities.

For some, that meant endorsing Trump in the belief that they might be able to contain, constrain, guide and perhaps even educate him. To my mind, this thinking has always been hopelessly misbegotten but not necessarily -- nor in all cases -- venal.

Which brings us to the matter of Paul Ryan, now being excoriated by many conservatives for having said he would vote for Trump.

Yet what was surprising was not Ryan's ever-so-tepid semi-endorsement, which was always inevitable and unavoidable -- can the highest elected GOP official be at war during a general election with the party's democratically chosen presidential candidate? -- but his initial refusal to endorse Trump when, after the Indiana primary, nearly everyone around him was falling mindlessly, some shamelessly, into line.

That was surprising. Which is why Ryan's refusal to immediately follow suit created such a sensation. It also created, deliberately, the time and space for non-Trumpites to hold the line. Ryan was legitimizing resistance to the new regime, giving it safe harbor in the House, even as resisters were being relentlessly accused of treason for "electing Hillary."

In the end, Ryan called an armistice. What was he to do? Oppose and resign? And then what? What would remain of conservative leadership in the GOP? And if he created a permanent split in the party, he'd be setting up the GOP's entire conservative wing as scapegoat if Trump loses in November.

Ryan had no good options. He chose the one he felt was least damaging to the conservative cause to which he has devoted his entire adult life.

I wouldn't have done it but I'm not House speaker. He is a practicing politician who has to calculate the consequences of what he does. That deserves at least some understanding.

One day, we shall all have to account for what we did and what we said in this scoundrel year. For now, we each have our conscience to attend to.

(present company excluded of course..because that's why your here isn't it?)

(Ah, morning time, and a much more cohesive response. What a difference a good eight hours can make.)

Actually I agree with many of your observations and analyses above. However, I don't think it entirely accurate to say that Hillary Clinton started with every possible advantage ALONE.

In addition to "money, experience, name recognition, and residual goodwill from her husband..." she also started with "Benghazi-gate," that whole email snafu (including her handling of it), and for SOME (apparently) TOO much "familiarity" (the last having been rumored to "breed contempt"). ALL of that and more, in a year when MUCH of the electorate (right AND left) seemed hell bent on rejecting ANYONE with too close connections with Congress and the status quo.

Add to that the "woman factor," an almost imperceivable bias that SOME here have seen fit to go through great lengths to dismiss, and it MIGHT be just as easily argued that it is small wonder she did not LOSE. Therefore any examination of why she didn't (I think) would have to include and examination of why Bernie didn't win.

On the GOP side, I think a valid assessment of what happened there would have to do with several factors, including resentment and anger of a certain portion of the populace over societal changes, TOO many candidates in the field up against someone with celebrity status, Trump's ability to tap into that anger/resentment and somewhat legitimize it (for MANY in his constituency) and mostly the inability and UNWILLINGNESS of his opponents to disavow/distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric, mainly because they and their party had courted it all ALONG, albeit in slightly less subtle form.

 

[Boobalaa]

Hillarious (oh, I meant the article and video, but you guys crack me up too..keep it up)

Hillary Clinton has been running for president for a quarter-century, to hear the media tell it

Blast from the past..

 

[Boobalaa]

(Ah, morning time, and a much more cohesive response. What a difference a good eight hours can make.)

Actually I agree with many of your observations and analyses above. However, I don't think it entirely accurate to say that Hillary Clinton started with every possible advantage ALONE.

In addition to "money, experience, name recognition, and residual goodwill from her husband..." she also started with "Benghazi-gate," that whole email snafu (including her handling of it), and for SOME (apparently) TOO much "familiarity" (the last having been rumored to "breed contempt"). ALL of that and more, in a year when MUCH of the electorate (right AND left) seemed hell bent on rejecting ANYONE with too close connections with Congress and the status quo.

Add to that the "woman factor," an almost imperceivable bias that SOME here have seen fit to go through great lengths to dismiss, and it MIGHT be just as easily argued that it is small wonder she did not LOSE. Therefore any examination of why she didn't (I think) would have to include and examination of why Bernie didn't win.

On the GOP side, I think a valid assessment of what happened there would have to do with several factors, including resentment and anger of a certain portion of the populace over societal changes, TOO many candidates in the field up against someone with celebrity status, Trump's ability to tap into that anger/resentment and somewhat legitimize it (for MANY in his constituency) and mostly the inability and UNWILLINGNESS of his opponents to disavow/distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric, mainly because they and their party had courted it all ALONG, albeit in slightly less subtle form.

Yup, Charles Krauthammer seems to be a regular addition to the Mercury-News now..seems the Washington Post and the Mercury are corporately connected in some way.,..And since the guy who owns Amazon bought the WP, I've been gettin junk mail from the WP since I also have an Amazon Prime acct..

 

[keenobserver]

Yup, Charles Krauthammer seems to be a regular addition to the Mercury-News now..seems the Washington Post and the Mercury are corporately connected in some way.,..And since the guy who owns Amazon bought the WP, I've been gettin junk mail from the WP since I also have an Amazon Prime acct..

It has been an interesting marriage between Bezos and The Washington Post. The subscription on kindle for the post is really an easy way to get The Post at a fair rate.

 

[Boobalaa]

Yup..they keep hounding me

 

[slurper_la]

It's not over til it's over! Feel the Bern

California Counts Millions Of Provisional And Mail-In Ballots, Counties Flip For Bernie And Nine More Superdelegates Drop Clinton - Inquisitr News
https://apple.news/ANSQCk0FdM0qJ3OWIdSePRg