Ah, the dog and pony show at its best. Trump just castigated Bernie as: "A maniac/socialist-communist". Wait for it! That is just the beginning of the demonization of Bernie. Even if he wins the debates hands down, he will be denied the democratic nomination for POTUS.
To paraphrase Bernie: “Americans are sick of hearing about your damn anointed candidate!”
It's the job of corporate media to promote the most telegenic, connected candidate. That means Hillary, just like in the past it meant Ronnie, the Bush Syndicate, etc. Bernie seems to care about the people, while Hillary and others give a discreet chuckle at the notion.
You're likely right. Same lines: If Trump gets the nomination, and beats Hillary or Bernie, he will not take office.
It's just an impossibly great exercise in deep narcissism for the Donald. He could not care less about governance, just like his fellow Repugs.
I could tell Bernie won by the large increase in disparaging comments about him on CD.
Yeah but I would love to be proven wrong!
Rethugs, Shiilary-bots, or doctrinaire ultra-leftists (the left's version of tea-partiers).
What they all have in common is they hate Bernie.
And at the onset the same was said, by the so called media, that Clinton was ahead of Obama. Can we count on the voters of America to see beyond the media bias and B.S? The ads that Sanders camp produce have to be more informative than ever before.
Even if they have to use sock puppets for the monkey masses do it!
I don't think any explanation for Rethugs or Hillary supporters is necessary. They see Bernie as an enemy opposing what they believe and/or their candidate.
But the vehemence from the left comes, in large part, from:
1) Those who opposed Obama before he was elected and were vindicated by his actions in office and
2) Those who supported Obama and feel they were hoodwinked and betrayed.
Both of them feel Bernie is Obama II, a corporate candidate dressed up like a progressive.
There are also some progressives/Greens/Independents who hate the Dems so much that running as a Dem is enough to convince them a candidate is already completely owned by the 1%/Corporations. They can't see it as a tactical move to get attention on the national stage. If Jill Stein were running as a Dem they'd be condemning her.
And given the history of the Dems, I think how they feel is understandable - even while they're acting against our only real chance to get progressive values on the national stage and a progressive candidate into the White House.
I understand them but I don't agree. Their opposition to Bernie reminds me of the old dictum about cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's self-defeating.
Hillary and her pathetic Bots had better be worried. One of the biggest rounds of applause during his campaign stops has been when Sanders says that we need a revolution in this country. Hillary and her ten top donors (mostly from Wall Street and Big Media) get very nervous about that. The media presstitutes that insisted that she won the debate could have a lot to lose if she fails and so the inevitable spin goes on just as it did against Howard Dean and the BS about his "scream".
Thing is - despite the corpo media doing what they could to make him insignificant in order to help their girl - Sanders now has a national platform and I'm sure that even more people will listen and contribute AND vote for him.
Bernie voted against those gun bills because they had poison pill amendments. That point has been "accidentally" ignored by his critics.
Can you name one politician in office that wants to be known as anti-semitic?
Sanders is Obama II?
I had no great drive to vote Obama in 2008 or 2012.
And I voted Kucinich in the 2008 primary, and Stein in the 2012 general.
But I'll be voting Sanders in 2016.
It's way misleading to say Sanders is much like Obama, except Sanders is also running against Clinton.
At least no one asked him about seeing a UFO!
That's news to me. Did Sanders talk about it during the debate? What were the poison pill amendments?
I'm supporting Sanders, but he owes his supporters an explanation for the pro-gun votes.
The article mentions that most murkins didn't watch the "debate" but got a secondhand corporate media spin on it. The Democratic Party has been very hypocritical in chastising the GOP for disenfranchising voters in the lower economic demographics.
Seeing how this "debate" was not broadcasted on NPR, PBS or any non cable TV network, the Democratic Party is deliberately preventing viewing of the "debate" by millions of potential voters who do not pay a monthly cable TV bill. Although the GOP may be more blatant in this regard, this travesty is one of the Democrats' passive aggressive forms of voter disenfranchisement.
WHO GIVES A DAMN WHAT THAT BLOW-HARD BIGOT SAYS??? Polls suggest that many Americans attitudes about "socialism" are CHANGING. Why? Because "free market" capitalism ONLY WORKS for the top 10%---& SCREWS THE REST OF US. This is just the first debate & NOT ONE PRIMARY VOTE HS BEEN SCAST. Shetlanda: For at leat a litle while,.et's PRETEND wwe actually have a democracy & follow the candidates.
Perhaps what they have in common is looking at an unacceptable foreign policy. All the lip service he gives is undermined by his adoption of the deranged confusion between what the war department should be doing and what the Department of state should be doing. At the debate, in the same segment he said war was only the last choice after failure of diplomacy, and a few sentences later he said he supported the Invasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a very willing participant in diplomacy, even offering to turn Bin Laden over to a competent World Court upon presentation of evidence of guilt. Is it unreasonable to at least requiring an indictment? No enforcement agency ever made an indictable case against Bin Laden, and the FBI didn't even want him for 9/11. Was Bernie lying about his commitment to diplomacy, or his support for Bush's first war of choice? We cannot afford to be bled by our military any longer. Only peace activists need apply. Maybe the folks who really focus on the issues with no existential implications are the party's tea-bagers, and the folks who understand that we cannot survive continuous war are the serious people. People who glibly accept war as a fact of life live in a dreamworld.
He explains it here: