Essential "The Real Truth Is Wall Street Regulates Congress": The Offical Bernie Sanders CircleJerk Thread

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,200
Daps
620,144
Reppin
The Deep State
If you criticize bernie sanders you must be a neoliberal establishment hack that is how his cult group reason, they dont see the truth or chose not to and this is wrong. It is the same thing trump supporters are doing.
Remember sanders called the south the confederacy to try to diminsh black voters because he lost the south?
Imagine tad devine was hillary campaign manager and was brought into court for questioning you think the far left would give hillary the benefit of the doubt and still continue to support her?
Bruh, I've been through HELL the last 2 years and its all coming to a head.

Ive BEEN telling people Bernie's people were flaw as fukk.

Mueller comes out in February 2018 and literally says the Russians amped up Sanders supporters.

Now we had his fukking campaign strategist and top guy being exposed as coordinating moves with the opposition!

This is fukking THEATER bruh.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,525
Reputation
5,131
Daps
63,034
Reppin
NYC
Not really. I posted it elsewhere, which is why it wasn't specifically directed at you (obviously implied).

Have you ever heard of Fruit of the poisonous tree? That's the lens with which your posts about Sanders are read from.

Your posts on Bernie have never read like someone with legitimate criticisms, which stems from the fact that you have none. It's rarely about ideology or policy implementation, if it were we may end up on the same side depending on the topic. It's a personal vendetta and that's why you aren't afforded the benefit of the doubt when possible issues do arise.

There is cause for concern about Bernie Sanders' former campaign manager and I've been discussing that elsewhere.

The best case is that Tad Devine is an unscrupulous piece of shyt who has no qualms working to get Putin's guy elected in Ukraine. Again, that's the BEST case for Devine.

It's hard to say it means anything about Bernie himself, given he's pretty much held the same positions his entire career.

The point about vetting is fine, however...

It's also not surprising he would have done a shytty job of vetting him. Considering what we know about his campaign infrastructure and his own view of his candidacy in the beginning (ie a message campaign to drag the heir apparent to the left).

Unless you have an agenda, this isn't the correct venue to be discussing the alleged issue. It's apart of the Manafort trial which is already being covered.

Nailed it. Blatant agenda poster. Good take on Devine as well, nuanced and contextual. Take this rep!
 

Don Homer

Molto Bene
Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
31,035
Reputation
5,392
Daps
105,021
I will never vote for bernie sanders and support any our revolution candidate and i am as progressive as they are, if the choice is him and trump in 2020 i wont support any of them. Just like hillary he should retire and remove himself from the public discourse.
you must be out of your fukking mind. You're as progressive as a middle aged man in the 1950s

we see your posts, and no1 is buying your bullshyt. Please peddle it elsewhere
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
310,140
Reputation
-34,200
Daps
620,144
Reppin
The Deep State
You boys keep thinking this shyt is a motherfukking game.




We need to draw a line. Enough is enough.




Wipe the slate clean.



WE'RE ON TO YOU MR. VERMONT SENATOR.

HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU NEED TO SEE?

TAD DEVINE NEEDS TO BE DEPOSED PUBLICLY. THIS IS ABSURD.




@GzUp @wire28 @Blessed Is the Man @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Darth Nubian @Dameon Farrow @jj23 @General Bravo III @BigMoneyGrip @hashmander @Call Me James @VR Tripper @Iceson Beckford @dongameister @Soymuscle Mike @BaileyPark31 @Lucky_Lefty @johnedwarduado
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,525
Reputation
5,131
Daps
63,034
Reppin
NYC
UaLpJOK.jpg


Like I keep saying...just wait for the chips to fall and if there's criminal activity, I trust Mueller to find it without bias.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
73,223
Reputation
8,397
Daps
220,739
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
UaLpJOK.jpg


Like I keep saying...just wait for the chips to fall and if there's criminal activity, I trust Mueller to find it without bias.

It's funny how people like Nap are thinking Bernie is going to be indicted, criminally charged because Devine had a working relationship with Manafort for years :mjlol:
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
73,223
Reputation
8,397
Daps
220,739
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
User Data and Cookie Consent

JEREMY CORBYN, 1970S REVANCHIST, IS SUDDENLY THEFACE OF THE NEW NEW LEFT

By Andrew Sullivan

The politics of Britain and the U.S. can have a strange, synchronized rhythm to them. Margaret Thatcher was a harbinger of Ronald Reagan as both countries veered suddenly rightward in the 1980s. Prime Minister John Major emerged as Thatcher’s moderate successor as George H.W. Bush became Reagan’s, cementing the conservative trans-Atlantic shift. The “New Democrats” and the Clintons were then mirrored by “New Labour” and the Blairs, adapting the policies of the center-left to the emerging consensus of market capitalism. Even Barack Obama and David Cameron were not too dissimilar — social liberals, unflappable pragmatists — until the legacies of both were swept aside by right-populist revolts. The sudden summer squall of Brexit in 2016 and the triumph of Trump a few months later revealed how similarly the Tories and the Republicans had drifted into nationalist, isolationist fantasies.

But what of the parallels on the left? What’s generating activist energy and intellectual ferment in both countries is an increasingly disinhibited and ambitious socialism. Bernie Sanders’s strength in the Democratic Party primaries two years ago was a prelude to a new wave of candidates who’ve struck unabashedly left-populist notes this year, calling for “Medicare for all” and the end of ICE, alongside a more social-justice-oriented cultural message. Some, like the charismatic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have achieved national visibility as an uncomplicated socialism has found more converts, especially among the young. Moderate Democrats have not disappeared, but they are on the defensive. A fight really is brewing for the soul of the Democrats.

And so it seems worth trying to understand what has happened in the Labour Party in Britain in the past few years. In 2015, in a flash, Labour became the most radical, left-wing, populist force in modern British political history. Its message was and is a return to socialism, a political philosophy not taken seriously there since the 1970s, combined with a truly revolutionary anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist foreign policy. This lurch to the extremes soon became the butt of jokes, an easy target for the right-wing tabloid press, and was deemed by almost every pundit as certain to lead the party into a distant wilderness of eccentric irrelevance.

Except it didn’t. Today, Labour shows no sign of collapse and is nudging ahead of the Tories in the polls. In the British general election last year, it achieved the biggest gain in the popular vote of any opposition party in modern British history. From the general election of 2015 to the general election of 2017, Labour went from 30 percent of the vote to 40 percent. It garnered 3.6 million more votes as a radical socialist party than it had as a center-left party. Hobbled only by a deepening row over anti-Semitism in its ranks, Labour will be the clear favorite to form the next government if the brittle Tory government of Theresa May falls as a result of its internal divisions over Brexit.

This success — as shocking for the Labour Establishment as for the Tories — has, for the moment at least, realigned British politics. It has caused Tony Blair, the most successful Labour prime minister in history, to exclaim: “I’m not sure I fully understand politics right now.” It comes a decade after the 2008 crash, after ten years of relentless austerity for most and unimaginable wealth for a few, and after market capitalism’s continued failure to meaningfully raise the living standards of most ordinary people. When the bubble burst ten years ago, it seemed as if Brits were prepared to endure an economic hit, to sacrifice and make the most of a slow recovery, but when growth returned as unequally distributed as ever, something snapped. The hearing the hard left has gotten is yet more evidence that revolutions are born not in the nadir of economic collapse but rather when expectations of recovery are dashed.

Revolution is not that much of an exaggeration. In the wake of capitalism’s crisis, the right has reverted to reactionism — a nationalist, tribal, isolationist pulling up of the drawbridge in retreat from global modernity. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before the left reacted in turn by embracing its own vision of an egalitarian future unimpeded by compromise or caveat. This is the socialist dream being revived across the Atlantic, and not on the fringes but at the heart of one of the two great parties of government.

Democrats should pay attention. Labour’s path is the one they narrowly avoided in 2016 but are warming to this fall and in 2020. It’s an English reboot of Clinton-Sanders, with Sanders winning, on a far more radical platform. And, politically, it might just work.
 

storyteller

Veteran
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
16,525
Reputation
5,131
Daps
63,034
Reppin
NYC


They probably shoulda read the article before they tried to call this racist...identity politics at its most toxic on display in a couple of dumbass tweets, thanks for the share.

Mr. Sanders’ bill is more radical than one proposed last year by two of his colleagues, the Democrat Kamala Harris of California and the Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, which sought to reform but not eliminate cash bail. In completely prohibiting “the use of payment of money as a condition of pretrial release” on the federal level, the Sanders bill turns one of Black Lives Matter’s most broadly popular demands directly into legislation.

It may not pass under a Republican-controlled Congress, but the bill has garnered support from heavyweight liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, indicating the idea’s transformation from activist demand to mainstream policy proposal. And with Mr. Sanders himself leading the charge, maybe it’s finally time to put to rest the myth that the senator doesn’t care about criminal justice reform.

Here's an interesting piece...
The Two Faces of Kamala Harris

Harris’s concern about mass incarceration similarly failed to come up when California Governor Jerry Brown reacted to a Supreme Court order to reduce prison overcrowding by announcing a $730 million plan to move inmates to private prisons and vacant county jails. One would expect Harris may have had some words of criticism, especially as California’s senate president had an alternative, better plan that focused on getting inmates mental health and drug treatment. But she was silent. San Jose’s Mercury News criticized her inaction, rightly pointing out that “she wrote a book about” the issue.

Harris has also recently taken up the habit of reminding us that “the war on drugs was a failure.” Yet Harris’s record on drug reform while attorney general is nonexistent.

She opted not to join in other states’ attempts to take marijuana off the DEA’s list of most dangerous substances. When Obama raided California’s medical marijuana dispensaries, Harris put out an empty statement. When asked about legalizing recreational marijuana in 2012, only a week after the New York Times endorsed national legalization and less than a year before she started warning about the failure of the war on drugs. Harris laughed. As was the case with respect to the three-strikes law, her 2014 Republican opponent ran to her left on the issue.

The limits of Harris’s approach are likewise evident in her actions on police shootings. She did back a bill that required reports on officer-involved shootings to be posted publicly online and mandated bias training and that justice department agents wear body cameras. But as district attorney, she refused to hand over the names of police officers whose testimonies had led to convictions despite the officers’ arrest records and histories of misconduct. As attorney general, she also opposed instituting police body cameras statewide and stood against a bill requiring her office to investigate fatal police shootings.

Members of California’s Legislative Black Caucus (who are fellow Democrats) criticized her over the latter, as did Melina Abdullah, a Black Lives Matter activist and professor of pan-African studies, who commented: “This is not the time for timidity. … Martin Luther King said if you tell black people to wait, that means never.”

These are just a few of a large group of civil rights advocates and activists who criticized her on the matter, including San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi and Phelicia Jones, an organizer with the Justice for Mario Woods Coalition and a former Harris supporter, who wondered “how many more people need to die” before Harris stepped in, and accused her of “turn[ing] your back on the people who got you to where you are.” Although Harris’s defenders have singled out a small number of her critics who are white, complaining that it’s “the same three people” criticizing of her, it’s not hard to find a range of people who criticize her record, many of whom are people of color.

In fact, despite being well-placed to reshape California’s criminal justice system, Harris has something of a reputation in the state as a marginal figure on the issue. As the Orange County Register put it, she was viewed by some as a “too-cautious and often calculating politician” who has avoided hot-button issues.
 
Last edited:
Top