The 2016 US Election (Part I)

[Flagg]

Well there's This from Slate. I can't find an A+ from the NRA, so I retract that, but this is worse, IMO:

None of these views are particularly shocking for a Vermont representative: Sanders’ deep-blue state has both high gun ownership and incredibly lax gun laws, and it’s perfectly logical for the senator to support his constituents’ firearms enthusiasm.

Vermont is a fairly rural place that fought as an independent power against the motherfucking British Empire in the 1770s because fuck you, United States, we're the Green Mountain Boys and we don't want to deal with your shit. Being anti-guns there is more or less political suicide.

Yeah, but how many of his super duper Bernie to the death supporters are willing to overlook that yet claim they are the ones with integrity? And I'm observing this as a liberal from the outside. Frankly, the more I hear about the guy and the general hypocrisy and sliminess of his actions while his supporters are holding this "We're so superior to Hillary and the CLINTON MACHINE" attitude annoys me. It's like Trek v Wars. I don't care except one guy is being a lying dickface.

Plus he's not running for President of Vermont.

[Raw Shark]

Yes, but he did spend his entire career until now representing the interests of Vermont, quite well. Why believe that he would not represent the interests of the United States in general equally as well if that became his job?

As for guns, I support reasonable gun control but personally don't give a fuck about Sanders' actions on the matter. It's not a political priority for me compared to things like single-payer healthcare, and I personally think that the idea of being able to sue the manufacturers for the actions of one teenage whacko is fucking stupid. I'm probably one of the most active and leftist Bern-Feelers here, I lived in Vermont for the four years that I variously refer to as "college" and "Toon Town," and I own a gun, so my perspective may be a little skewed here, but I don't consider it logically-inconsistent.

[Lord MJ]

Well there's This from Slate. I can't find an A+ from the NRA, so I retract that, but this is worse, IMO:

Vermont is a fairly rural place that fought as an independent power against the motherfucking British Empire in the 1770s because fuck you, United States, we're the Green Mountain Boys and we don't want to deal with your shit. Being anti-guns there is more or less political suicide.

Yeah, but how many of his super duper Bernie to the death supporters are willing to overlook that yet claim they are the ones with integrity? And I'm observing this as a liberal from the outside. Frankly, the more I hear about the guy and the general hypocrisy and sliminess of his actions while his supporters are holding this "We're so superior to Hillary and the CLINTON MACHINE" attitude annoys me. It's like Trek v Wars. I don't care except one guy is being a lying dickface.

Plus he's not running for President of Vermont.

How is supporting policies of his actual voting constituents when he was a congressman have anything to do with hypocrisy in running for president against Clinton now.

Particularly when he did support several gun control legislations, and the bill you pointed to earlier essentially said a gun manufacturer should not be held liable if a gun they manufactured kills someone. Same bill does include provisions for liability in case of negligence of gun manufacturer or store.

You're trying to argue that running as a Democrat is "slimy" because he did it for media exposure. Considering you need media exposure to win an election that doesn't sound particularly slimy to me... Furthermore if he ran as an independent he increases the chances that a Republican wins the White House. Oops.

[Lord MJ]

I'm struggling to find Sanders having said anything about wanting superdelegates to switch to voting for him. Can you link that for me?

I think it's here. He's basically starting to make a case for the Superdelegates to switch support from Clinton to him. And that was when he was behind by less than he is now. So when Clinton goes to the DNC ahead, Sanders may be in the position of doing something (wanting Superdelegates to overrule the primary voters) that he was demanding they not do when his campaign assumed he was going to be winning.

The key point in this is that his campaign stated that he needs to make up the difference in pledged delegates by winning the upcoming states. It mentions nothing about Bernie being behind 300 some delegates and having the super delegates hand it to him. In fact if Bernie comes close to Hillary or overtakes her in pledged delegates on June 7 or some such, then he will need super delegates to come on his side in order to win the nomination.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Sanders' only remotely plausible path to victory (barring a massive Clinton scandal likely involving indictment) is to overtake Clinton in the pledged delegate count, then persuade super delegates to go with the will of the voters rather than give it to Clinton and risk alienating a large chunk of the party in the general election.

As I recall, to overtake Clinton's super delegate lead without any switching to him, he'd need to get about seventy percent of all remaining delegates. Which while theoretically possible is not something I'd want to bet money on.

So the path to victory is not "get the super delegates to give it to me against the voters." Its "win enough voters that the super delegates are pressured to reconsider their position."

Mind you, I'm not sure even that is realistic. I have a bad feeling a lot of the super delegates will stand with Clinton no matter what. My biggest fear for the Democratic Primary, at this point, is probably that Sanders will win a tiny lead in pledged delegates but lose due to super delegates, causing a major rift in the party. Don't know how likely that is, but it could happen, and it would be very ugly if it did.

[Lord MJ]

Another reason Sanders flubbed so badly with the black vote:

About That Stump Speech, Bernie? Most Black Folks Haven’t Seen the Inside of a Jail
Blacks, Latinos and criminal justice don’t always go hand in hand. We have classes and jobs and bills, too.


BY: CHARLES D. ELLISON
Posted: Feb. 12 2016 3:00 AM


Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES
With the Democratic primary headed to South Carolina and Nevada Feb. 20, now’s the time when you can put some money on the market. Iowa, followed by New Hampshire, offered a juicy appetizer. Yet both were as white and middle-class as a row of picket fences in a Hallmark Channel movie.

Bernie Sanders’ once mythical, long shot campaign has caught fire, and the growling senator from Vermont now has eyes on the coveted black vote.

But before he wins it, Sanders first has to fix his stump speech.

It’s that annoying, tad-offensive shoutout to black and brown folks only after he gets to the part about incarceration and criminal-justice reform. (Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul had that problem, too.) Not that Sanders is wrong about how disproportionately impacted we are by the prison-industrial complex—in fact, he’s pretty spot-on.

The problem is his presentation during those crucial primary-winning moments when we know everyone is watching. There’s an entire half-speech in which he’ll discuss inequality, the 1 percenters and mounting student loan debt. But it’s not until he mentions jails that we finally get his nod of electoral endearment.

So, here’s a little text lifted from Sanders’ roaring speech before a stoked (mostly white) crowd after his handy dispatch of Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire: “And when we talk about transforming America, it means ending the disgrace of this country having more people in jail than any other country in the world, disproportionately African American and Latino. Not only are we going to fight to end institutional racism, and a broken criminal-justice system, we are going to provide jobs and education for our young people, not jails and incarceration.”

And he did it a week prior, seemingly unfazed by the lead Clinton may have scraped in Iowa; same speech: “We will end the disgrace of having more people in jail than any other country. Disproportionately African American and Latino. What we are going to do is provide jobs and education for our kids not more jails and incarceration.”

In the ever evolving, important world of speechwriting and campaign messaging, these are “cues” or “triggers,” strategically placed junctures within a text that lead you to a main point. The two speeches above are cited because they are Sanders’ national connection moments, big stage events when he must create stirring visuals to move the audience. Rhetorical acupuncture. In these glaring samples, Sanders doesn’t work up a reference to people of color until he’s (perhaps unintentionally) created that visual in which the vast majority of black and brown folks are perpetually imprisoned.

Maybe that’s what he’s used to: Vermont’s population is just barely 1 percent black, but its prison population is nearly 11 percent black.

Still, nationally, the vast majority of black folks are not holed up in C block. It’s a dangerous and often messy turn in racial language that Sanders, being the suddenly anointed “civil rights” and Black Lives Matter stamp-of-approval candidate that he is, should know. Despite the purse-clutching stereotype that all of us are having chronic brushes with the law, some perceptions can be much more harmful than helpful.

It is true that black people, especially, are routinely targeted by law enforcement and do end up as a horrifically overwhelming share of incarcerated individuals. The record is straight and stark on that: Sixty percent of those imprisoned are people of color; the Bureau of Justice Statistics predicts 1 in 3 black men are on a prison trajectory; and black women are three times more likely to face jail than their white counterparts. This terrifying chart from Washington Post’s Wonkblog (citing a University of Chicago study) shows a whale-sized gap between incarceration gaps for black men and white men. There’s no sugarcoating it.

But despite routine odds and racism’s hurdles, black success is often the rule rather than the exception. It’s not confined to “firsts” or those rare moments when Hollywood is willing to release a black-history biopic. American Council on Education analyst Bryan Cook slaps back at the prison-life notion, quickly correcting the record to show the reverse and an 86 percent increase in black male college attendance since 2000. Howard University’s Ivory Toldson shut it all down with his discourse-shaking 2013 piece in The Root. Before Cook and Toldson, there was documentary filmmaker Janks Morton on the subject in his 2012 flick, Hoodwinked: We Can No Longer Doubt Our Greatness.

So let’s do the math rather than feed the image of an entire population stuck in cell blocks. According to the 2014 census, there are a total of nearly 46 million black people in the United States. Nearly 22 million are black men, and 24 million are black women. Overall, 6 percent of working-age black men ages 18-64 are in state, local or federal jail, which translates into 1.3 million out of the 22 million. A total of 368,000 black women are in prison, making up 23 percent (still too many) of the 1.6 million women incarcerated.

SEE ALSO
#ByeAnita: Change the Prosecutor, Change How the Police Are Policed
Is DeRay Mckesson the Changemaker Baltimore Needs?
5 Theories on Why President Obama Made the White Choice for the Supreme Court
About Us
Donald Trump: He Was Made in America
Press
That’s about 1.7 million black people out of 46 million—or just under 4 percent of the black population that’s seen the inside of a jail.

In the countdown to the Palmetto State, a place where both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will test their mettle with black voters, both candidates will need to speak to a wide range of issues in a state where black Democratic primary voters rule. And, at some point, both—particularly Sanders—will need not only to embrace other domestic and (yes) foreign policy elements of an expansive black agenda, but also to make specific commitments should either become president.

Perhaps a pivot is happening as we speak. In his meeting with Sanders on Wednesday, National Action Network’s Al Sharpton noted that a “window is opening” for black community advocates, elected officials and thinkers to force real policy proposals and promises out of both candidates. Maybe Sanders changes up on the stump, since he’ll expect far more folks of color as he heads South.

Black voters are a lot more sophisticated and diverse in their thinking than just worries over criminal-justice issues. Just like the white voters packing Sanders’ Iowa and New Hampshire rallies, black people are disproportionately burdened by high student loan debt, outrageous college tuition and 1 percenters who beat them daily with an economic billy club. Middle-class whites, stung by the Great Recession, are just now getting a foreclosing taste of what it’s like to be black in America.

But don’t get it twisted: We’re not all laying up in jails waiting for you to fix it.

Charles D. Ellison is a veteran political strategist and a contributing editor at The Root. He is also Washington correspondent for the Philadelphia Tribune, a frequent contributor to The Hill, the weekly Washington insider for WDAS-FM in Philadelphia and host of The Ellison Report, a weekly public-affairs magazine broadcast and podcast on WEAA 88.9 FM Baltimore. Follow him on Twitter.

In Sander's speeches he only mentions blacks when talking about criminal justice and poverty and not about other issues. When he is talking about "the middle class" he doesn't mention blacks. Which leads many blacks to conclude that he only thinks about blacks as poor or in jail. And also leads them to think that he is focused on "white people problems" and doesn't care about black people.

I had someone say that since Bernie said "He's going to continue the race because the only place that voted decisively for Hillary is the south, there are other places in the country still to cast a vote" that means that Bernie really doesn't care about Black people. Because if he did care about black people he wouldn't still be running for president after Blacks decided they didn't want him.

[Feil]

Most of that essay is pretty good. Part of it is so horribly false that I felt the need to correct it.

4% of a population are incarcerated now, therefore only 4% of that population have ever been incarcerated because nobody gets out of jail ever!

Statistically speaking, we can surmise that about 13% of the black population has seen the inside of a prison cell. There are probably studies to that effect somewhere, but we don't need them to get a good estimate.

Five seconds on google shows that the average sentence is about five years and about 2/3 of prisoners are repeat offenders. Ignoring a multitude of complicating factors and generously assuming that all repeat offenders have been in and out of the system since they were children, that gives us...

A brand new 1.5% of the population every five years that will go to prison for the very first time. Since we're using the entire population for our percentages, we have to use full life expectancy, too, so multiply that out by 5/75: that's 22.5% of the population right there.
With about a 3 year average between release and re-conviction for recidivists, about 2% of the population that was in prison five years ago and will be in prison 5 years from now, but is currently not in prison.

This gives us 24.5% as a rough estimate for the percentage of black Americans likely to be in prison at some point in their lives, and 13.25% that have "seen the inside of a prison cell."

[Lord MJ]

The one thing the upsets me about the comments section of the article is that anytime someone (white) points out that when Bernie Sanders is talking about the middle class, universal health care, fixing student loans, that he is including black people. Black people get all offended and accuse the white commenter as "whitesplaining" and being condescending and offensive. Even one black Bernie supporter was considering changing over to Hillary because of being offended.

I fail to see how pointing out that when talking about the "Middle Class" he doesn't need to explicitly call people out by race is so offensive. Basic rules of debate that someone makes the argument that Bernie doesn't care about black people, its perfectly legit to say the middle class he is talking about includes black people even if he never explicitly says "black" when talking about middle class issues.

[Flagg]

The one thing the upsets me about the comments section of the article is that anytime someone (white) points out that when Bernie Sanders is talking about the middle class, universal health care, fixing student loans, that he is including black people. Black people get all offended and accuse the white commenter as "whitesplaining" and being condescending and offensive. Even one black Bernie supporter was considering changing over to Hillary because of being offended.

I fail to see how pointing out that when talking about the "Middle Class" he doesn't need to explicitly call people out by race is so offensive. Basic rules of debate that someone makes the argument that Bernie doesn't care about black people, its perfectly legit to say the middle class he is talking about includes black people even if he never explicitly says "black" when talking about middle class issues.

Maybe if a bunch of minorities get offended by something and you don't understand why, you should ask them instead of getting all huffy about the fact they are offended?

[Lord MJ]

Maybe if a bunch of minorities get offended by something and you don't understand why, you should ask them instead of getting all huffy about the fact they are offended?

You know if someone got all huffy about being offended when it's mentioned to them that the middle class includes black people when they tried to claim "Bernie Doesn't care about black people" on this board, that wouldn't really fly around here. The commenters did explain it, the argument still doesn't hold water. Essentially saying that something doesn't apply to black people unless you explicitly use the word "black" in explaining something.

When Sanders talks about poverty, jail, incarceration, police brutality, it's in direct response to the concerns of Black Lives Matter. At least at one point in time BLM referred to Bernie's plan as the best overall plan. It's not BLM activists and organizers that are in a tizzy about Sanders' positions on race. It's armchair mostly older and well to do middle class that follow BLM but are not activists that are upset about how Sanders is dismissive about black people because they watched on TV and read about BLM activists taking over the stage during one of his speeches. Meanwhile the actual BLM at least at one time was considering his plans the most comprehensive in addressing race issues.

[Raw Shark]

Middle to upper class black people, in general, don't need the kind of help that Bernie is offering very much, except insofar as it would help them by bettering society in general, any more than well-to-do white people do. He's never stated that he thinks there aren't any black people in that group, it's just not his priority, nor IMHO should it be. The middle class may not have flawless equality, as it should, but can take care of itself, regardless of color.

[Flagg]

Frankly, I'm sick of Democrats (and Liberal Independents like Sanders) focusing on the Middle Class. They get by fine as long as they, you know, stay in the middle class. If you can afford to pay all of your bills, spend a sensible amount on luxury/entertainment, and still have enough at the end of the month to actually save money, then you're not in an economic group the government should be focusing on IMO.

I mean the Republicans focus on helping the upper-middle, wealthy, and obscenely wealthy classes. So we know where they stand. They help those who can more than help themselves.

But there's no party that truly focuses the majority of its attention and efforts on the working class, working poor, and impoverished. There's an old Bill Maher line from a stand-up about how "trickle down economics" (supply side) is basically the Republicans admitting to pissing on the poor. But the Democrats give you an umbrella.

I'd really hoped (and still do) that the GOP would collapse (more than it has, I mean it's all but a regional party when it comes to Republicans who follow the official party platform completely) and the Democrats would become the Center-Right (because even by US standards it's mostly centrist with some who lean a bit right and most who lean left, some outright liberal) party, and we might get an actual liberal party in this country that focuses its efforts on the poor and working classes.

[Lord MJ]

Sanders at least is including helping the poor as well as the middle class by expanding the social safety net. I would include "working class" in the middle class.

I would also think Sanders' definition (maybe not mainstream Democrats definition) of middle class includes working poor as well. It relates directly to the fact that prior to the late 70s the growth rate in people's income and wealth was nearly the same. After the late 70s, almost all the new wealth went to the very top.

You can blame Reagan, but the cause is more deeper than that. That's when SCOTUS started saying corporations could start funneling money into politics almost unhindered. That resulted in politicians beholden to those corps writing the rules to their favor.

That means as a middle class American you are seeing your earnings decrease (taking into account inflation). Meanwhile combined with credit issues and student loan debt, medical expenses, etc, the middle class is being squeezed. Most in the middle class are not as fortunate as I.

[Flagg]

Maybe if a bunch of minorities get offended by something and you don't understand why, you should ask them instead of getting all huffy about the fact they are offended?

You know if someone got all huffy about being offended when it's mentioned to them that the middle class includes black people when they tried to claim "Bernie Doesn't care about black people" on this board, that wouldn't really fly around here. The commenters did explain it, the argument still doesn't hold water. Essentially saying that something doesn't apply to black people unless you explicitly use the word "black" in explaining something.

You get that there is a difference between talking about minority issues and broad economic ones, right? If a candidate almost always talks about water, and swimming pool owners get offended because there are specific issues regarding them that the candidate rarely if ever mentions, you don't get to say "You don't get to be mad, swimming pools use water, and I talk about that all the time!"
So no, just because there are black people in the middle class and Sanders talks about the middle class, it doesn't mean he's talking about black people.

When Sanders talks about poverty, jail, incarceration, police brutality, it's in direct response to the concerns of Black Lives Matter. At least at one point in time BLM referred to Bernie's plan as the best overall plan. It's not BLM activists and organizers that are in a tizzy about Sanders' positions on race. It's armchair mostly older and well to do middle class that follow BLM but are not activists that are upset about how Sanders is dismissive about black people because they watched on TV and read about BLM activists taking over the stage during one of his speeches. Meanwhile the actual BLM at least at one time was considering his plans the most comprehensive in addressing race issues.

It doesn't really matter what Bernie thinks about blacks and other minorities. But I'm sure his views are that they are normal people who should be treated as such, since being a political whore with few scruples in taking advantage of what he can to get ahead is just politics. Unless he comes out to a rally filled with white supremacists like Fake Billionaire Donald "Il Douche" Trump and incites violence against anyone there who is protesting (or perceived to be).
What matters is what blacks and other minorities think about him. And given the primary results and exit polling, they don't think much.

[Flagg]

Sanders at least is including helping the poor as well as the middle class by expanding the social safety net. I would include "working class" in the middle class.

I would also think Sanders' definition (maybe not mainstream Democrats definition) of middle class includes working poor as well. It relates directly to the fact that prior to the late 70s the growth rate in people's income and wealth was nearly the same. After the late 70s, almost all the new wealth went to the very top.

You can blame Reagan, but the cause is more deeper than that. That's when SCOTUS started saying corporations could start funneling money into politics almost unhindered. That resulted in politicians beholden to those corps writing the rules to their favor.

That means as a middle class American you are seeing your earnings decrease (taking into account inflation). Meanwhile combined with credit issues and student loan debt, medical expenses, etc, the middle class is being squeezed. Most in the middle class are not as fortunate as I.

The shit bolded is important, the other stuff is blather everyone already knows or shit not relevant.

You're pulling the exact same bullshit that you did in this very thread regarding Secretary Clinton's resume, which is essentially "being a lying ass". You don't get to just handwave away that there is a difference between the middle class and the working class. And you certainly don't get to pretend you're clairvoyant and say that Sanders considers the "working poor to also be part of the middle class". And frankly, if he thinks that, which I doubt, he'd be as dumb as you are.

[Lord MJ]

Sanders at least is including helping the poor as well as the middle class by expanding the social safety net. I would include "working class" in the middle class.

I would also think Sanders' definition (maybe not mainstream Democrats definition) of middle class includes working poor as well. It relates directly to the fact that prior to the late 70s the growth rate in people's income and wealth was nearly the same. After the late 70s, almost all the new wealth went to the very top.

You can blame Reagan, but the cause is more deeper than that. That's when SCOTUS started saying corporations could start funneling money into politics almost unhindered. That resulted in politicians beholden to those corps writing the rules to their favor.

That means as a middle class American you are seeing your earnings decrease (taking into account inflation). Meanwhile combined with credit issues and student loan debt, medical expenses, etc, the middle class is being squeezed. Most in the middle class are not as fortunate as I.

The shit bolded is important, the other stuff is blather everyone already knows or shit not relevant.

You're pulling the exact same bullshit that you did in this very thread regarding Secretary Clinton's resume, which is essentially "being a lying ass". You don't get to just handwave away that there is a difference between the middle class and the working class. And you certainly don't get to pretend you're clairvoyant and say that Sanders considers the "working poor to also be part of the middle class". And frankly, if he thinks that, which I doubt, he'd be as dumb as you are.

LOL.

Have you been paying attention to what has happened to the middle class over the last few decades? Only difference between middle class that has little savings vs working poor with little savings is a matter of degrees. And considering this issue is what he's based most of his career dealing with, I would consider his knowledge on the subject more substantive than yours.

And the comment at Secretary Clinton's resume wasn't BS. You made the argument that only Hillary had credible domestic or foreign policy knowledge. That was false. It is yet TBD what benefit if any that her experience of being secretary of state will have in regards to actually formulating policy as POTUS vs Senator Sanders experience as senator. It's already well documented the differences in philosophies and judgment between the two regarding the US role in world affairs.

[Lord MJ]

You get that there is a difference between talking about minority issues and broad economic ones, right? If a candidate almost always talks about water, and swimming pool owners get offended because there are specific issues regarding them that the candidate rarely if ever mentions, you don't get to say "You don't get to be mad, swimming pools use water, and I talk about that all the time!"

Of course there is a difference, but that is not the point of the posted article. The posted article specifically referred to Bernie only thinks about black people as being poor or in jail. Because the only time he specifically uses the word "black" is when talking about incarceration, poverty, or police brutality. And that if he doesn't specifically use the word "black" when talking about student loan debt, universal heath care, gender wage gap, middle class income shrinking, etc, etc, he must not be referring to black people. You should know that is a horribly fallacious argument to conclude someone does not care about black people because he doesn't explicitly use the word "black."

since being a political whore with few scruples in taking advantage of what he can to get ahead is just politics.

So in your mind running as a Democrat where he can actually get his message out, vs running as and independent which he largely will be ignored and in the off chance he does get some publicity he would be risking a Republican winning the election = being a political whore. Wow just wow.

What matters is what blacks and other minorities think about him. And given the primary results and exit polling, they don't think much.

That much we can agree on. Other minorities he does a little better, but blacks in general have been lockstep against him except younger blacks where he has more of a share.

[Lord MJ]

I would add that if say another progressive (like Elizabeth Warren) was running in the race, or the Democrats were not so bought by big money interests, or Hillary wasn't a corporatist Democrat; Bernie would likely not have even entered the race.

[Flagg]

Sanders at least is including helping the poor as well as the middle class by expanding the social safety net. I would include "working class" in the middle class.

I would also think Sanders' definition (maybe not mainstream Democrats definition) of middle class includes working poor as well. It relates directly to the fact that prior to the late 70s the growth rate in people's income and wealth was nearly the same. After the late 70s, almost all the new wealth went to the very top.

You can blame Reagan, but the cause is more deeper than that. That's when SCOTUS started saying corporations could start funneling money into politics almost unhindered. That resulted in politicians beholden to those corps writing the rules to their favor.

That means as a middle class American you are seeing your earnings decrease (taking into account inflation). Meanwhile combined with credit issues and student loan debt, medical expenses, etc, the middle class is being squeezed. Most in the middle class are not as fortunate as I.

The shit bolded is important, the other stuff is blather everyone already knows or shit not relevant.

You're pulling the exact same bullshit that you did in this very thread regarding Secretary Clinton's resume, which is essentially "being a lying ass". You don't get to just handwave away that there is a difference between the middle class and the working class. And you certainly don't get to pretend you're clairvoyant and say that Sanders considers the "working poor to also be part of the middle class". And frankly, if he thinks that, which I doubt, he'd be as dumb as you are.

LOL.

Have you been paying attention to what has happened to the middle class over the last few decades? Only difference between middle class that has little savings vs working poor with little savings is a matter of degrees. And considering this issue is what he's based most of his career dealing with, I would consider his knowledge on the subject more substantive than yours.

Anyone who would say that the MIDDLE CLASS includes the WORKING CLASS is an imbecile of the highest order. And you made the claim, not Sanders. You said that you somehow can read Sanders' mind and that he considers the working poor (Who you seem to think have savings. I doubt many do since poor people have to spend all of their money to live) to also be in the middle class. And I don't care how long someone has been in the Senate, if they think that, they are a bigger idiot than you are, which is saying something.

And the comment at Secretary Clinton's resume wasn't BS. You made the argument that only Hillary had credible domestic or foreign policy knowledge. That was false. It is yet TBD what benefit if any that her experience of being secretary of state will have in regards to actually formulating policy as POTUS vs Senator Sanders experience as senator. It's already well documented the differences in philosophies and judgment between the two regarding the US role in world affairs.

I never said Clinton was the only one with credible domestic or foreign policy knowledge you lying ass, I said she was the only one with BOTH credible foreign and domestic policy experience. That's because, as much as you want it to not be a fact, Clinton being Secretary of State for 4 years gives her a lot MORE foreign policy experience (And, even though you're too dumb to know this, as Secretary of State, you are a big part in crafting foriegn policy with the POTUS) than a Senator from Vermont.

Then you said that if Clinton had not been Secretary of State they would have the same amount of foreign policy experience or Bernie would have more. Which doesn't matter because she was, and she does have a vast amount of foreign policy experience over Sanders. Even implying otherwise is not just dishonest, it's bald-faced lying and you can't seem to stop doing it.

[Flagg]

You get that there is a difference between talking about minority issues and broad economic ones, right? If a candidate almost always talks about water, and swimming pool owners get offended because there are specific issues regarding them that the candidate rarely if ever mentions, you don't get to say "You don't get to be mad, swimming pools use water, and I talk about that all the time!"

Of course there is a difference, but that is not the point of the posted article. The posted article specifically referred to Bernie only thinks about black people as being poor or in jail. Because the only time he specifically uses the word "black" is when talking about incarceration, poverty, or police brutality. And that if he doesn't specifically use the word "black" when talking about student loan debt, universal heath care, gender wage gap, middle class income shrinking, etc, etc, he must not be referring to black people. You should know that is a horribly fallacious argument to conclude someone does not care about black people because he doesn't explicitly use the word "black."

Kinda says something if he only brings up blacks and other minorities in relation to poverty, law enforcement, and our fucked up "Justice" system, though, doesn't it? Maybe he should use better language so people don't get the wrong idea? This is called a "messaging problem." As in, he needs to mention minorities when talking about all issues, not just the stereotypical "minority (black) issues"

since being a political whore with few scruples in taking advantage of what he can to get ahead is just politics.

So in your mind running as a Democrat where he can actually get his message out, vs running as and independent which he largely will be ignored and in the off chance he does get some publicity he would be risking a Republican winning the election = being a political whore. Wow just wow.

He hasn't been a Democrat for decades while in the Senate, so he clearly has some kind of issue with the Democratic Party that causes him to refuse to be a party member.

But when he wants to run for POTUS? He suddenly has no issues with them and runs for the Democratic Party nomination, admitting outright that he did it for money and exposure. So yeah, in my mind, and frankly IMO any sensible person's mind, he's a sellout whore.

If he wants to run for POTUS he can set up the "Bernie Sanders Liberal Independent Party" and do his own fundraising to get his message out. That's what someone with integrity would do. But being a repeat liar in this thread alone, it's clear that either you don't understand or you simply don't value integrity.

[Flagg]

I would add that if say another progressive (like Elizabeth Warren) was running in the race, or the Democrats were not so bought by big money interests, or Hillary wasn't a corporatist Democrat; Bernie would likely not have even entered the race.

Who cares?

[Lord MJ]

Anyone who would say that the MIDDLE CLASS includes the WORKING CLASS is an imbecile of the highest order. And you made the claim, not Sanders. You said that you somehow can read Sanders' mind and that he considers the working poor (Who you seem to think have savings. I doubt many do since poor people have to spend all of their money to live) to also be in the middle class. And I don't care how long someone has been in the Senate, if they think that, they are a bigger idiot than you are, which is saying something.

Tell me what is the difference between "working" class and "middle" class? Does "working" refer to blue collar and "middle" refer to white collar? If not then there is an undeniable overlap between working and middle. There might be some people in the working class that happen to be poor. If you also recall most of Sanders' statements indicates that the middle class is shrinking which means that the overlap between who we would refer to as working class and middle class is getting bigger.

Furthermore much of the middle class does not have savings, which is another part of the problem. People having savings is rapidly becoming the exception.

Now in regards to the working poor, It's not me reading Sanders mind, it's reading and seeing his statements about the issue over the last several years. It's not an issue of how long he has been in the Senate. Furthermore I never said (nor did he) that all the working poor are middle class, I said that his definition when talking about helping the middle class includes the working poor. The working poor might have additional issues on top of those of the middle class (such as living wage for starters) but that doesn't make his definition any less correct.

You're the one that started this "working poor" vs "middle class" argument not me.

I said she was the only one with BOTH credible foreign and domestic policy experience.

Which is something that is blatantly false. You implied that Bernie Sanders did not have credible foreign policy experience. Meaning that it is perfectly valid that the only thing that gives Clinton and edge over Sanders is that she happened to have the added advantage of serving as SECSTATE. If you simply said Clinton had more experience by virtue of being SECSTATE we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

Say if it was someone like John McCain vs Hillary Clinton, and I said that the only thing that gave Hillary the edge over McCain is her years as SECSTATE, would that be "ridiculous" also? I think not.

[Lord MJ]

Kinda says something if he only brings up blacks and other minorities in relation to poverty, law enforcement, and our fucked up "Justice" system, though, doesn't it? Maybe he should use better language so people don't get the wrong idea? This is called a "messaging problem." As in, he needs to mention minorities when talking about all issues, not just the stereotypical "minority (black) issues"

And when he talks about latinos specifically he talks primarily about immigration. Does that imply that he thinks of latinos only as illegal immigrants? When he talks about Muslims specifically he talks primarily about the fear-mongering against Muslims in response to islamic terror. So now he has to specifically mention race or religion when talking about every issue otherwise he doesn't care about anything other than whites? That is pretty absurd.

He hasn't been a Democrat for decades while in the Senate, so he clearly has some kind of issue with the Democratic Party that causes him to refuse to be a party member.

So?

But when he wants to run for POTUS? He suddenly has no issues with them and runs for the Democratic Party nomination, admitting outright that he did it for money and exposure. So yeah, in my mind, and frankly IMO any sensible person's mind, he's a sellout whore.

No that's not in your mind, a sensible person would have no problem with it. Seriously this party affiliation argument is literally is the DUMBEST argument ever. So you're a politician and you decide to run in the party that gives you the best chance to win, has a set of core constituents that your message will appeal to, and in theory aligns in the spectrum politically, that makes you sellout whore? Wow.

If he wants to run for POTUS he can set up the "Bernie Sanders Liberal Independent Party" and do his own fundraising to get his message out. That's what someone with integrity would do. But being a repeat liar in this thread alone, it's clear that either you don't understand or you simply don't value integrity.

Umm no. What does deciding to run as a Democrat have to do with Integrity? Absolutely NOTHING. It has more to do with the fact we have a two party system and the fact that running as an independent is both a waste of time and also risks handing the election to the GOP if in the off chance he does manage to get exposure as a third party candidate.

Who cares?

Goes to motivation for entering the race in the first place.

[Starglider]

It appears that my guess about the Republicans resorting to whatever back-room deals it takes to prevent a Trump nomination was correct. Coalescing around Cruz, what a bitter pill for them. If I understand this correctly, if Trump does not get an outright delegate majority they will ensure Cruz gets the nomination, no matter how far behind he was on delegates, and many establishment donors are prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to boost Cruz vs Trump. As the chance of Cruz actually overtaking Trump still seems low, presumably they believe Cruz will still be more generally electable having overriden the will of primary voters than Trump would be. I am still curious just how far they would go to block Trump even if he does end up getting a delegate majority.

[LaCroix]

Is there a rule that all the delegates have to be present at the first vote? I can very much imagine that they try to have a "closed door" convention if they can get away with locking a lot of the delegates out.