Of course I got an FFR for saying that last week, but here is the deal. I am a female business owner, and I started my career in a man's business IN THE SOUTH no less. I am 56 years old and had my fricking head patted by men for decades. I recognize this shit when I see it. And so do my sisters in political activism. This is not controversial in the real world of sentient human beings who are politically active.

And you can tell me all damn day that it has nothing to do with Clinton being an accomplished female (much more accomplished than Bernie by the way) and Bernie being an older white male from a generation that is accustomed to women being second class citizens. But all you need to do is talk to other women he has run against, or even check out the youtube of him pushing his wife out of the way, or examine some of his earlier essays about rape and the idea that women get cancer if they don't put out enough to know the real truth here.

And I think I am allowed to have that opinion. So whatever. I am tired of watching him smear one of the most accomplished Democrats in my lifetime. I think it's Democratic Underground and I have a RIGHT to defend her from his smears.

I do not buy into this meme that all of these ideas are his. She has had held out most of these issues for a very long time, AND her policy proposals are much more detailed than his, and frankly more practical and likely to see the light of day in congress. Folks that can't admit that are the same people who will not accept that they voted the same way 93% of the time, or continue to insist she is republican light when that is just factually incorrect.

I also will not soon forgive him for spending a solid year trashing the Democratic party, claiming the system is rigged, and attacking the DNC. The party is the ONLY thing that stands between liberal people and the horrific damage the GOP has done and will do to this country. And the fact that he has convinced a generation of young people that Dems are crooks is pretty much unforgiveable in my opinion.

To potential jurors - I am simply answering the question Ken asked. I assume he did want an honest response.

There is never a shred of substance to these kind of posts. Be respectful that you're at a site to support Democrats. Take it somewhere else.

Think of it as short hand. And this "theory" was clearly developed based on the fact that he's a white guy living in VT his whole adult life.

He's clueless. For example, at the beginning of the campaign he went to SC and in a video taped meeting with AA he acted amazed to find out that blacks were given fines for petty things then thrown in jail when they could not pay the fines. "I had no idea this was happening" he said.

He didn't know that happens because he is clueless. I don't know a single liberal in real life that is unaware that happens to AA, particularly in he south. OR he could have just read the Ferguson DOJ report which discussed that problem in depth. He clearly didn't read it because he doesn't fucking care.

Worse yet, he put a video of that on his Facebook page because he really had no idea how fucking clueless it made him look. He's even clueless about that.

I have been looking for this list since he made the claim in the SC Townhall. I have concluded he told a big whopper. These "130 economists and healthcare experts" do not seem to exist. Please do not trot out the list that endorse his Wall street reform proposal. That has nothing to do with what he was asked.

Here is what Bernie said:

"CUOMO: Alright, in terms of what you want to provide, then you get to the wealth, will that be enough? Will that pay for it?

As you're aware, four former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, all appointed by Democrats, by the way. Say there's no credible economic research that supports the positive impacts that you're touting. One of them goes as far to say that it's like magic flying puppies with winning lotto tickets tied to their collars.

SANDERS: Those economists were organized by the Clinton campaign. It's a wild and crazy guess.

CUOMO: No, that's not true, they weren't...

SANDERS: ... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html

NB: Here are the liberal leaning economists that say Bernie is full of it that Cuomo is referring to: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

And you know why? Because that is the baloney Bernie is slinging. Even though it is completely false. Please tell us who these 130 economists and healthcare experts are? They do not exist.

"CUOMO: Alright, in terms of what you want to provide, then you get to the wealth, will that be enough? Will that pay for it?

As you're aware, four former chairs of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, all appointed by Democrats, by the way. Say there's no credible economic research that supports the positive impacts that you're touting. One of them goes as far to say that it's like magic flying puppies with winning lotto tickets tied to their collars.

SANDERS: Those economists were organized by the Clinton campaign. It's a wild and crazy guess.

CUOMO: No, that's not true, they weren't...

SANDERS: ... We have well over a hundred, it's a 130 economists, and healthcare experts who will say the same."


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1602/23/se.01.html

So it looks to me like Sanders is going to lose LA, MI, MS, FL, IL, and MD by pretty large margins. He may come close in OH, WI, NC, and PA if we are being generous. I think he will lose OH, PA, UT and NC but not by large margins. He may win WI, but not by a large margin.

Do you think he will get half the 166 Mar 8th Delegates (MI and MS)? No way. Maybe a third at best.

Do you think he will half the 691 March 15th delegates (OH, NC, IL, MO, and FL)? Again, nope.

Unless the polling is very far off (when it hasn't been in previous states) he has no chance to catch up after the 15th. In fact, realistically, I think he will be trailing her by over 300 delegates by then (versus the 200 delegates he is trailing now).

If I am correct, will he drop out after the 15th? If the situation comes about as predicted, what would be the reasoning to stay in the race? Is it credible to think he would win each of the remaining states by 70% or more in order to catch up to the lead she has built?

Thoughts?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=875065

This is from June 2015:

I wonder how much of his donor's hard earned money is going to straight into the Sander's family pockets this time, don't you?

"Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.

His wife Jane O’Meara Sanders received $91,020 for “consultation” and to negotiate the purchase of television and radio ads. Approximately $61,000 of that was “pass through” money used to pay for the ads, O’Meara Sanders told the Bennington Banner. She kept about $30,000 as pay for her services.

Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, earned $65,002 from the Sanders campaign between 2000 and 2004, records show."


http://www.progressivestoday.com/bernie-sanders-used-campaign-donations-pay-family-members-2000-2004/

ETA: It was a hoot to watch the sudden conversion about right wing sources by Sanders supporters. Now that we've seen that, here is a source where his campaign admits it is true.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.

Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."

... is that none of you have read her book. It was published a year and a half ago, and written at least 2 years ago. And she exhibits plenty of skepticism about the TPP there. Yes, TWO years ago.

As SOS she was cheerleading for her hopes for it, even while she was trying to assist the US Trade rep in getting things like the right of workers in signatory countries to organize into unions, and prohibitions against currency manipulation included in the agreement. Those two items alone would have made a world of difference for workers in every country signing on to it.

The right to unionize in Asian markets would have done more to level the playing field than any other trade agreement in the world between any country. Indeed it would have set the gold standard and precedent for existing and new trade agreements.

Currency manipulation hurts US workers tremendously because it makes imported goods costs artificially low and therefore US products less competitive.

When neither of those things (and others) made it in to the final agreement she stated she did not support it. And that is exactly what she said in her book written 2 years ago.

AND she voted against CAFTA while in the senate. So, given that a) she stated 2 years ago what she needed to see to support the final product, and b) she has a history of voting against trade bills, I don't think you can credibly claim she ended up not supporting it for reasons of political expediency.