Someone I respect posted this video to Facebook, and I would like DU's help in responding to that post:



To my knowledge, the only "news" source that carried this aspect of the Congressional Investigation was FOX, so I'm not going to quote the article, just post the video. I ask DU - has FOX doctored, or misrepresented the conversation between Gowdy and FBI Director Comey in any way?

If so, how? I'd like to debunk a false narrative.

If not, if Gowdy is correct, has Hillary followed in Bill's footsteps, and responded to an annoying witch hunt with a series of unfortunate falsehoods, thereby creating a real scandal where none previously existed?

I hope any jury that may be asked to rule on this post to trust that I bring this to DU in an honest attempt at soliciting the opinions of people who are much smarter than myself, with the desired outcome being a better grasp of the facts, and a solid refutation of the FOX story.

IMO, the most partisanly patriotic role a loyal Democrat can play is that of the progressive, populist, party reformer. I'm not a Blue Dog Democrat, or a Yellow Dog Democrat. I'm a Watchdog Democrat - and proud of it.

Is patriotism related to anti-globalism, or a half step from nationalism?

If your primary has passed, change your party affiliation to "Unaffiliated" until the day after the GE.

You can still vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE, and you can restore your Democrat Party affiliation well before the next election in your state.

The reason is twofold:

• First, it allows you to show displeasure with a corrupt system, without harming the party.
• Second, it sends the message that rigged machines aren't the only way that party affiliation can be switched.

Think the party takes you for granted? Let's let them know exactly what they have to lose.

Again, IF your primary has passed, go down to the library and update your affiliation to Unaffiliated, just remember to switch it back again! We want to reform the Democratic party, not damage it.

Feel free to share this on the social network of your choice. Let's be heard.

Bernie's campaign has come much further, much more quickly, than anyone could have imagined. Despite what his opposition would have us believe, Bernie is in the position where, following an admittedly narrow path, he could win the White House.

Now that Bernie's knocking on that door, the entrenched powers are in a panic to throw the deadbolts. The media either blatantly ignores or derides Bernie, team Clinton alternates between shamelessly smearing Bernie and plagiarizing him, and entrenched politicians (the so called "super" delegates, as if their votes were greater, or more heroic than yours and mine) lock arms to support the establishment's candidate, even in states where the citizen voters have clearly indicated a different preference.

Obviously, the powerful will not relinquish power without a fight. So what happens if the DC and Wall Street power brokers successfully stop Bernie from wining the nomination? Is the revolution over?

The short answer is "Hell no"

With a great investment of human resources, Bernie can pull this off. But the system is rigged, and the primary process is a part of that system. If we do not win the nomination, then what should we do to move the revolution forward after the primary?

I think it's time that we start discussing a peaceful "Plan B." What would that plan look like? Organized civil disobedience? A general strike?

When asked how he plans to move his agenda through Congress, Bernie remarks that if we put a million protesters on the ground outside the Capitol Building, then Congress will have to listen. That sounds like a good start, but why wait till after the election?

Hell, why wait till after the primary?

I have no experience organizing an event, but someone reading this OP does. It's time for us to step up and give Bernie the revolution he's asked for.

You say you want a revolution? Good. It's time to act like revolutionaries.

First, a comparison of the old photos:


Photo's 3 & 4 are clearly Bernie Sanders.

Green Ellipse guy from photo#1 is Bernie from photo #3, taken from a different angle.
They have the same hair, the same clothes, the same watch, and are sitting in exactly the same position.

Green Ellipse guy from photo#1 is also Green Ellipse guy (the speaker) from photo#2.
The have the same hair, clothes, and shoes, and are holding the same small white book/notepad, The book is a little hard to see in photo #1, but you can tell it's there because you can see the shadow of the left hand, just beneath that hand. Something is in that hand, and it's small, white, and of the same shape.

The guy in the Red Octagon is NOT Bernie.
He has his hair parted in the left and has no sideburns, which is very different than the known Bernie in photos #3 & #4. Plus, if you accept that the Green Ellipse guy in photo #1 is Bernie from photo #3 taken at a different angle, then it's obvious that the Red Octagon guy can't be Bernie because (duh) Bernie can't be in a photo with himself.

So far we know that photos #3 & #4 are Bernie, and that photo #1 shows Bernie sitting just like photo #3, but from a different angle.

The speaker in the disputed photo (#2) is wearing the same shoes, clothes, and hair style as Bernie in photo #1. He is also is wearing the same clothes (same collared shirt under the exact same stretched neck sweater) and has the same hair style as Bernie in photo #4.

It pretty obvious the Bernie in photo #3 is also in photo#1. It's also obvious that the speaker is the same person sitting in photo #1, taken just before or just after he stood to speak.

In short -all 4 pictures are of Bernie.

If there's any doubt left, look at the speaker's hand, shown below. Compare them to Bernie's hand from recent photos, below.

Same lanky thumb, same crooked index finger, same lazy pinky finger, same "Bernie explains stuff" hand gesture that we've all seen dozens on dozens of times.

The speaker is Bernie Sanders, the photo's - then and now - show it, and the photographer's own word confirms it.

Unless you have real evidence that proves otherwise, kindly shut the hell up before you leave a stench on this primary season that can never be washed away.

Not the GE, that's months away. Not the nomination, nor even the IA and NH races.

I mean, Bernie won the Focus Group:
Sanders 27 / Hillary 2 / O'Malley 1
https://twitter.com/ChrisKofinis/status/688936424708673536


And Bernie won the Online Polls:
Bernie - 87% / Clinton - 10% / O'Malley - 3%
http://time.com/4183949/democratic-debate-fourth-charleston-poll-survey/

Bernie - 94.5% / Clinton - 4% / O'Malley - 1.5%
http://fox5sandiego.com/2016/01/17/poll-who-won-the-4th-democratic-debate/

Bernie - 84% / Clinton - 12% / O'Malley - 2% / Other - 2%
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/who_won_the_democratic_presidential_debate_vote_in_our_poll.html

Bernie - 94% / Clinton - 4% / O'Malley - 2%
http://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/poll_who_won_sundays_democratic_2016_presidential_debate.html


And Bernie won on Social Media:
Bernie was the most talked about, and the most searched on Facebook, Twitter, and Google
http://www.politico.com/blogs/live-from-charleston-sc/2016/01/democratic-debate-social-media-217930


but will Bernie win it all, and finally win the Pundits?
Tomorrow will tell...

.

.

.

.

Oh hell, who am I kidding? The punditry are owned by the Corporate Media giants, and despite what "we the people" say, the Wall Street welcome wagon will roll out for Hillary, truths will be ignored, and lies will become canon. Lather, rinse, repeat.

There is an upside, though. The beauty of the talking head is that if you don't listen, then all that talking wont matter.

Fuck the punditry, and just vote! With our help - not by their decree - Bernie will win it all.

Must-see video of Martin O’Malley's historic meal with a DAPA-eligible family

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251822952#top

It deserves a kick and a rec!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-44-of-democrats-think-bernie-sanders-won-debate-1447609672

<snip>

But what is this "Google Consumer Surveys" you ask?

Only the 2nd most accurate pollsters of the 2014 election, according to Nate Silver:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0

UPDATE: More from Nate Silver on ONLINE POLLS in 2014:

<snip>

Remind you of anyone?