How do Democrats feel about Bernie looking like the eventual nominee?

I've not noticed what powers Trump supporters have handed over to the Office of the President. What new powers does the President have that he didn't have in the pre-Trump era?

 

And you missed my sarcasm and also missed my point...The President of the United States should not tolerate Russian interference in our elections no matter who they support and neither should any patriotic American.

 

Of course you are right. The same thing happened with Trump. People dont remember it now but fox news hated Trump until he was the nominee. He boycotted one of their debates even. Its the same with Sanders. MSNBC hates him but if he's the nominee he'll be a saint who can do no wrong.

 

Trump has recommended that Bob Mueller and his thirteen angry Dem Party investigators look into Bernie and Russia for Hillary Clinton (even sans a disinformation dossier). That would seem to cover the traditional things where Russia and Collusion is concerned for the political Left.

 

Will you panic about Bernie:

 

Fair point well taken. I agree. I wish Obama would have taken more steps to counter Russian interference rather than tell his National Security Advisor to stand down.

 

Our political leftists HATE being reminded of that or of Barack saying something to the effect that it is ludicrous to think that Russian interference affected the outcome of the election.

 

Your ignorance of words is showing. Socialism no longer exists, except perhaps in North Korea. It's central credo was that the government owned all the means of production.

That exists nowhere in the modern world today (except for some well-performing programs such as National Healthcare in Europe). So, let's stop casting the Left in the US as "socialist" because it aint.

Except to dunces who don't know any better ...

 

So what? Everybody is getting upset because Bernie mentioned an historical fact? Yes, Castro saw that the central weakness of Cuba was that people could not read&write, which its previous-to-Castro dictator had assured in order to better dominate the lower class.

And I have found amply on this forum that a good many here are just as dense.

Keep it up, Donald Dork is counting on your ignorance to get himself re-elected. Otherwise he is sooooo bored and does not know what else to do with himself ...

 

and our current one refuses to believe that Russia ever did or ever would interfere in spite of being told so by his own people. I can find no reference to what you say Obama said. Can you give me a citation or quote?

 

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobb...ree-and-fair-from-a-cybersecurity-perspective

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/white-house-hackers-election-recount-231849

"
“We stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” a senior administration official told POLITICO late Friday.
“The federal government did not observe any increased level of malicious cyber activity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on election day,” the official added. “We believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective.”

=======

 

C. S. Lewis drew a beautiful contrast between the "robber-baron" and the "moral busybody" that is just as beautifully illustrated in the contrast between Trump (at worst, the robber-baron) and Sanders (at best, moral).

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under a robber-baron than under an omnipotent moral busy body. The robber-baron's cruelty may sometimes rest, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end because they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

I'm not going to contest the benevolence of Sanders' intentions. I just think that the authority to implement those types of things, especially by force, even by force of law, should be reserved to the parents of small children.

 

Thank you. Note he did not say there was no interference only that it did not change the results. If I understand it correctly it was in a response to a call from the Green Party for recounts in several states. If that is correct, what President Obama said was favorable to President Trump.

 

yep...that's the point...Trump also said there was interfere and it didn't change the results. The Dems however, have ignored Obama's clear report, and suggested it did change the results

 

Trump doesn't disbelieve that Russia interfered in the election either. But that is the dressed up accusation. The accusation that he does not believe, and that was never proven, is the silent meme that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help him.

Susan Rice, the NSA, told her counter cyber team in August 2016 to stand down from their activities combating Russian cyber attacks, because they were getting ahead of the president. A number of people verified this including the head of the NSA counter cyber security team who terrified to this under oath to congress. Rice never denied it because in my opinion, as stated in another post, I think she felt she had already done her lying to the public duty with Benghazi.

 

I always liked Bernie in the Senate. That said he is not my first choice for Prez but you better believe he is head and shoulders better than Trump

I'd vote for him in a New York minute if it keeps the Orange Moron out of the White House

 

First of all what you call moderate Dems are actually corporate centrist Democrats almost as beholden to big money as the Republicans, just a little less radical right - and they are scared sh*tless of Bernie because they think he will automatically hand Trump another 4 years as you alluded to.

I am a foreigner (foreign troll as called on another thread) but I certainly supported Bernie as candidate in 2016 and will again this year.

I think Sanders is the polar opposite of Trump and the debate between them will be nasty but fantastically good entertainment and it will be good for the US to have an honest discussion of issues Bernie will bring up.

The question is, is America ready for that kind of a discussion or is it to be the usual theatre of the absurd we are used to on the cable news?

We shall see.......

 

70 MILLION AMERICANS

What a load of putrid BS!

The US is a tyranny (of the rich) sincerely exercised? Then you do not live in the US - you live in some other planet orbiting some other sun! (You-plural and the Donald.)

Factual Statement: The better-off statistically are those - in terms of lifespan and healthcare - the better off the nation is in general. Poor people living/working below the Poverty Threshold have a lifespans as shown in this graphic below:

Shown on the above chart is:
-8.8% of those 65 or older that remain within the Poverty Threshold.
-Add to that another 12.4% of those 18 to 64 and
-We have added together most of the "working plus retired population" in America.

Which totals 21% of the total population. (Or, 70 million Americans living in abject-poverty!)

Now you can respond with another vapid expression of how all-is-hunkey-dory in the land of Donald Dork - because you are BLIND to the underlying facts of the situation ... !

PS: Yes, there is another larger percentage (nearly 20%) of those under-aged at 18 or less. But these tend to be the younger set who go in and out of jobs with regularity. And most remain members of "families" and should be counted as such - which is why I have separated them from the "count"..

 

CIVICS, CIVICS, CIVICS

Donald Dork is laughing all the way to his return to the White House if Bernie is/was his opponent.

I quite like Bernie for his beliefs - and I am sure he obtained most of them from his visits to Europe. Bernie is well known politically in France (amongst fellow politicians) because he is treated as a "Social Democrat". What's that?

This: "Democratic socialism is defined as having a socialist economy in which the means of production are both socially and privately owned or controlled, alongside a democratic political system of governance. Democratic socialism rejects self-described socialist states just as it rejects Marxism–Leninism."

America is undergoing one of the less fortunate facets of the Internet Revolution (of news). Before the advent seriously of the Internet as THE means of self-information, we had newspapers. Most of them have closed or gone "Internet" but at a cost to the reader.

Meaning quite simply that anybody - even a Donald Dork with bundles of money - can influence Public Opinion to a much, much wider scale than before. It takes just a bit of internet-knowhow - and, evidently, FACEBOOK. (See here from BBC News.)

Moreover, and this is the most important factor, Americans have a very poor understanding of Civics. Which is due to the well-known fact that the subject is badly taught in high-schools across the nation. Question and Answer from here:

 

OFFAL OFFICE

The Ukraine is a fine example of a use-of-power that Donald Dork DOES NOT HAVE and thus he abused in his position as PotUS.

That of refusing to make good on funding to the Ukraine that was passed by legislation in both houses of Congress. He may have had a good personal reason for delaying funding but HE HAD NO RIGHT TO ACTUALLY DO SO. The funding was approved by Congress!

Of course, a Senate "owned" by the Replicants voted to refuse to hear any testimony that might underscore the gravity of what the Dork did. Namely the deposition of his fired Top Aid John BOLTON as revealed in Bolton's yet-to-be-released Tell-It-All book. Whyzzat?

Because that particular "story" comes directly from the White House and pertinently from the Offal Office. And it corroborates the allegations made against Donald Dork and his yelping-dogs in the Ukraine ...

 

Just a quick aside. Obama was refering to cybersecurity, and stating that no polling place had been breached. Not the same thing as saying that the Russians did not interfere or influence the US election. I for one, do not beleive that Russia's facebook schemes influenced anything. I do however think that the hacking of the DNC papers, combined wih Comey's ill advised statements DID swing the election towards Trump.

 

Obama said it had no impact. That’s all I was saying and what trump has said as well

 

Just to be clear. Matthews never compared Sanders to Nazis, and I have no idea what Matthews' feeling towards Bernie are. If you don't understand Matthews comparing Sanders' lightning fast (Blitzkrieg) victory over what had been considered solid defense by Biden (Maginot line) that is on you. There was no characterization of either candidate in his statement. I guess that today conservatives are just as sensitive to trigger words as democrats. This sort of analogy has been used for 70 years with no one thinking that there were Nazi comparisons. I guess now we are more (over)sensitive to them.

 

As to Bernie as Democratic nominee.
He is not my first, second, or third choice.
As a more moderate democrat, some of his platform I do not abide by (actually it's just medicare for all (rather than building on Obamacare), and free college tuition). I know of no Bernie supporters in my group of friends and family. i am surprised that an old leftist democrat has such a great following, especially amongst the young. He is an electrifying presence, and if he does become the nominee, you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump will try to keep the number of debates to an absolute minimum (I'm going to say 1).
Should he be the nominee, I will enthusiastically support him.

 

Foreign Aid funds have always been approved by the Congress and have always been distributed via the Executive branch at it's discretion. So...not a new power. I asked what new powers does the President have that he didn't have in the pre-Trump era? Can you answer that question, or are you just going to be wrong again and bark "Ukraine!"