The next president of the United States

[Pogo]

I'm afraid that IS the only function of a political party. It's the horse you ride to get to the office.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

It doesn't mean anything ideologically --- it means "what will work in this time and place". That's why mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin ran as Democrats .... they knew if you're going to run a city that's the only way you get elected. That's simply practical, nothing to do with ideologies. That's why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Richard Shelby and Trent Lott et al jumped from Democrat to Republican. Same people with the same ideologies, jumping to a different horse because the odds had changed.

I keep bringing up the example of the sheriff in my town. In different years he runs as a Democrat or as a Republican, depending on whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job in the same way.

This is step one to overthrowing the Duopoly --- to be honest about what it IS. What it is NOT is anything "ideological". It's a racket, with the goal of attaining Power. I think the more we exalt them with this cockamamie idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" somehow mean something "pure", the longer the Duopoly stays entrenched.

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

I mainly liked your comment because you said "erstwhile"

Hey c'mon, there's three hundred thousand more words in there.

I know and I read it. And I do agree with a lot of it. My statement was less about the issues with the two party system and more just that as they exist I don't think that the RNC or DNC would be all in on a candidate who is just running their caucus to beat their candidates and then not accept the nomination.

I can't think of another major politician who runs with a party to beat their candidates in the primaries to not accept the nomination and leave their party without a candidate to run as an independent. Maybe it has happened... and the only thing keeping it ok now is that he for a majority of his votes sides with them.

Of course not --- they're running to GET the party's nomination and all the wind it puts in their sails. That's the whole point.

Where we started with all this was the idea that in order TO run for that party's nomination, a candidate has to be a "member" of that party ---- a distinction which, I'm saying, has no meaning. Frankly when I read that kind of demand from a party all I see is "you agree that we will tell you what to do". And that's not good.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

Sorry about that, browser's pulling some shit. Here ya go this should work. Read it an' weep.
That's March 10-11, through yesterday.

Say, do you know you keep inserting the word "viewers" to try to rescue your doomed bullshit claim? It's prolly a defective keyboard, made in Jina.

So you're going to discount the one done the day after the SOTU speech?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

Sorry about that, browser's pulling some shit. Here ya go this should work. Read it an' weep.
That's March 10-11, through yesterday.

Say, do you know you keep inserting the word "viewers" to try to rescue your doomed bullshit claim? It's prolly a defective keyboard, made in Jina.

WTF do Trumps tweets have to do with his SOTU speech?

 

[SandSquid]

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

I mainly liked your comment because you said "erstwhile"

Hey c'mon, there's three hundred thousand more words in there.

I know and I read it. And I do agree with a lot of it. My statement was less about the issues with the two party system and more just that as they exist I don't think that the RNC or DNC would be all in on a candidate who is just running their caucus to beat their candidates and then not accept the nomination.

I can't think of another major politician who runs with a party to beat their candidates in the primaries to not accept the nomination and leave their party without a candidate to run as an independent. Maybe it has happened... and the only thing keeping it ok now is that he for a majority of his votes sides with them.

Of course not --- they're running to GET the party's nomination and all the wind it puts in their sails. That's the whole point.

Where we started with all this was the idea that in order TO run for that party's nomination, a candidate has to be a "member" of that party ---- a distinction which, I'm saying, has no meaning. Frankly when I read that kind of demand from a party all I see is "you agree that we will tell you what to do". And that's not good.

Well it's the party selecting the person who best represents their parties platform. Used to be selected by a few in the party saying this was their candidate. It wasn't "telling a candidate what to do," but rather choosing the person who best represents.

And that's the purpose of the primary vote, to find the person who the people who register with that party pick the candidate that they feel best represents their parties platform.

I'm not shedding a tear that the party is used by an independent just using those primaries to stop their actual candidates from taking his votes. I'm not saying that system is right.

What I am saying is I'm not shocked the party doesn't give their full support behind a candidate who does that is all.

 

[SandSquid]

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

Sorry about that, browser's pulling some shit. Here ya go this should work. Read it an' weep.
That's March 10-11, through yesterday.

Say, do you know you keep inserting the word "viewers" to try to rescue your doomed bullshit claim? It's prolly a defective keyboard, made in Jina.

WTF do Trumps tweets have to do with his SOTU speech?

About as much as those wanting to see his SOTU speech have to do with his overall approval by any party or independents.

 

[the other mike]

The New York Times Has Been Sandbagging Bernie Sanders for Years

While the New York Times has been sandbagging Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for years (Rolling Stone, 3/15/16), a recent headline: “Bernie Sanders Is Making Changes for 2020, but His Desire for Control Remains” (3/1/19) is a particularly overt example.

Unless one reads past the headline, which most Americans don’t, one is left wondering about what exactly Sanders desires to “control.” Is it the country? The media? When one actually digs into the Times’ article, written by Sydney Ember and Jonathan Martin, one quickly discovers that what Sanders desires to control is his own campaign, and that his oppressed victims were his highly paid media consultants, who quit because Sanders was “not willing to empower them.”

Left unreported by the Times were statements by the consultants themselves (CNBC, 2/26/19) claiming that they were leaving on a “very positive note” over “differences in a creative vision,” and that they would be happy to assist his campaign again in the future. In the Times version, instead, we’re given anonymous sources described as “Democrats directly familiar with the episode” who give the impression the consultants were “enraged” over their “humiliation.”

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

 

[the other mike]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

Bernie Sanders raises $1 million in less than four hours after announcing 2020 bid, campaign says

 

[RealDave]

The Independents determine the winner.

Which at the moment heavily favor Trump.

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

ow, you really are as stupid as yuour posts.

You said 82% of Independents approved while the truth is that 82% of those that watched the SOTU approved. Most recognize what a dirtbag Trump is & never watched at all.

 

[RealDave]

"He's Just Not Worth It" Speaker Pelosi Comes Out Against Impeaching President Trump ...(For Now)

Now the speed of the rats running and hiding will increase

The MEN have awakened !!

Tucker Carlson and others will keep spreading this awakening !!

The cat is out of the bag

The rats went too far and too long and too deep !!

After years of screech and outrage he's just not worth it?

Are her voters really this stupid?

How about we stop spending more than we collect in revenues?

that is one hell of an idea. have you ever voted for anyone that supports doing that?

YEs I have have you?

See I always vote third party

You throw your vote away. Since you don't want to really participate, what are you doing complaining?

I'm not complaining I made a statement

You morons are the ones who keep voting for the same two parties and think you're going to get different results

What's that called again?

Bernie wont be president because socialism is scary and we will become Russia and stuff...and end up having a president like Putin or something ..oh wait!

Yet all of Trump's policies are largely anti Russia including the most important one, his ENERGY POLICY which is killing the Russian economy and Putins income. Yet, the clueless are still yelling about Russia, but even Nancy Pelosi has given up.

Like the one where Congress passed sanctions & Donnie waited months to enact them. Or when Donnie works to break up NATO. Or when Donnie looks to alienate our European allies?

 

[RealDave]

Were you aware that the proposal would actually OUTLAW private health insurance

No, because I don't think that's true.

A single-payer system or 'medicare-for-all- would simply phase out private health insurance
over a period of time. It would be a complicated process , but doable in a way nobody gets hurt and we all win with a less expensive more efficient health care system. And we have plenty of models around the world to emulate into our own version very easily. Big Pharma and the for-profit health insurance industry has lots of capital to diversify and retrain everyone for the transition.

Why would insurance companies have to retrain anyone? What kind of business do you think that they will want to get into that the same people that worked on health insurance would have the interest in doing?

Help administer Medicare for all?

 

[Polishprince]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

Its a totally different race this time, a couple of dozen candidates in the Democrat Party Clown Car.

The real question here is going to be who is going to distinguish themselves and set themselves apart from the mob. B. Hussein O did it in 08 by being the first clean, well groomed black guy ever to join the Democrat Party, according to Sen. Biden, and that distinguished him. Now, you have multiple people of color in the race, that isn't going to be enough.

IMHO, John Kasich should switch parties and run. He would seem really "middle of the road" on most issues compared to everyone else who is on the AOC wing of the party. But the Son of a Mailman's hatred of President Trump will really endear him to the voters in the D Party. He hated Donald J Trump before almost everyone else

 

[Pogo]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

"Very wealthy" huh.

Last klown that tried to float that turd, I flushed him. Your turn.

 

[Polishprince]

Were you aware that the proposal would actually OUTLAW private health insurance

No, because I don't think that's true.

A single-payer system or 'medicare-for-all- would simply phase out private health insurance
over a period of time. It would be a complicated process , but doable in a way nobody gets hurt and we all win with a less expensive more efficient health care system. And we have plenty of models around the world to emulate into our own version very easily. Big Pharma and the for-profit health insurance industry has lots of capital to diversify and retrain everyone for the transition.

Why would insurance companies have to retrain anyone? What kind of business do you think that they will want to get into that the same people that worked on health insurance would have the interest in doing?

Help administer Medicare for all?

So the Sanders plan is to hire Insurance Companies to do the administration of this risky scheme?

 

[Polishprince]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

"Very wealthy" huh.

Last klown that tried to float that turd, I flushed him. Your turn.

Sanders has 3 pricy homes, and has a net worth in the millions. Yes, he is very rich. Maybe not as rich as Clinton or Obama, but he's working on being a real Public Service Tycoon.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Bernie Sanders raises $1 million in less than four hours after announcing 2020 bid, campaign says

Just as he could last time. "Sanders raised over $1,500,000 in the first 24 hours after he announced his presidential campaign on April 30, 2015."
Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign - Wikipedia

Tell me how his presidential run did last time. Did he win? Or did he have to grovel and kiss Hillary Clinton's butt by the end of things in a humiliating end to his presidential dreams?

 

[Pogo]

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

Sorry about that, browser's pulling some shit. Here ya go this should work. Read it an' weep.
That's March 10-11, through yesterday.

Say, do you know you keep inserting the word "viewers" to try to rescue your doomed bullshit claim? It's prolly a defective keyboard, made in Jina.

So you're going to discount the one done the day after the SOTU speech?

Your claim was that Independents at the moment heavily favor Rump. Which said nothing about any "speeches".

Inasmuch as your criterion was "at the moment" I gave you a poll from literally at that moment. Then you want to change trains, because you got on the one going the wrong way. That ain't the train's fault.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Sanders has 3 pricy homes, and has a net worth in the millions. Yes, he is very rich. Maybe not as rich as Clinton or Obama, but he's working on being a real Public Service Tycoon.

He's a living tribute to the stupidity of the American electorate.
He's a monument to the fact that capitalism has worked out so well in America that most younger voters live in a consequence free bubble and are very willing to throw away what has worked so well so for something that has been a ghastly failure wherever it's been tried.

 

[Pogo]

Old, white. No chance.

Old, white and a very wealthy socialist hypocrite.

No reason to think the fool will do better this time than last.

"Very wealthy" huh.

Last klown that tried to float that turd, I flushed him. Your turn.

Sanders has 3 pricy homes, and has a net worth in the millions. Yes, he is very rich. Maybe not as rich as Clinton or Obama, but he's working on being a real Public Service Tycoon.

BULLSHIT. I already know better than that, so show your figures.

Besides which, if "very wealthy" was supposed to be a slur, where the fuck does that leave Rump? Oops, it's the having-it-both-ways monster again...

 

[RealDave]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats..

You still don't get that he was cheated by the DNC and Clinton campaign ? That this is what the whole Russiagate charade is really about ? The "DIRT" on Hillary is that they rigged the primaries ! ( among other things)

No one cheated Bernie.

Russia helped Trump you moron.