Sanders wins debate, but media calls it for Hillary

POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 05:16
VIEWED: 2963
PAGE 1 of 3

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:43 PM

Sanders won every poll and focus group by wide margins. Americans said Bernie won.

The media spins it for Hillary, anyway.

REAVERFAN

Wednesday, October 14, 2015 10:50 PM

According to CNN's own poll, Bernie Sanders wiped the floor.

Sanders 81%, Clinton 13%

Let there be NO doubt. Contrary to the mainstream media's lies, Bernie Sanders is the Democratic choice of America.

Time Warner Inc owns CNN.
Time Warner Inc is Hillary's 7th biggest financial supporter.
CNN is posting all over that Hillary won the debate.
CNN's own polls show that 81% of their viewers think Bernie won.
CNN will not even post the results of their own poll.

[img][/img]

SECOND

Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:45 AM

Sanders made it even clearer than ever that he doesn't really want to be president. He just wants to move the race to the left.

Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton argued about the 1999 repeal of a 1933 bank regulation. Offering an appealing dose of clarity, Bernie Sanders burst in with his take: "Congress does not regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates Congress."

To Clinton, policy problems require policy solutions, and the more nuanced and narrowly tailored the solution, the better. To Sanders, policy problems stem from a fundamental imbalance of political power. The issue with finance isn't so much the presence or the absence of any specific rule; it's that the system is rigged, and the fat cats are running the show.

Sanders posits — against all evidence — that changing the occupant of the White House will suddenly alter dynamics in Congress and allow for the passage of sweeping legislation that is currently frustrated.

There's just no reason to believe this is true. To really, truly get Democratic policies passed would require the banal work of recruiting dozens of talented House and Senate candidates and getting them to win elections in GOP-held districts.

WHOZIT

Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:42 AM

I didn't watch it, but I heard O'Malley was able to keep his shirt on and Sanders didn't blow any old man farts.

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:11 AM

Quote:
Sanders posits — against all evidence — that changing the occupant of the White House will suddenly alter dynamics in Congress and allow for the passage of sweeping legislation that is currently frustrated.

If there was any truly democratic candidate with a popular mandate within one vote of becoming President, he (or she) would last as long as a snowflake in Miami in July. Expect a small plane accident or something.

[/sarcasm]

--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.

1KIKI

Thursday, October 15, 2015 10:16 AM

If there was any truly democratic candidate with a popular mandate within one vote of becoming President, he (or she) would last as long as a snowflake in Miami in July. Expect a small plane accident or something.

I wonder if Sanders would test that out.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

1KIKI

Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:39 PM

Second

In the words of John Lennon - or was it Vlad Lenin - imagine.

Imagine a phenomenal turnout and a vote that says MANDATE. A country mobilized and alert, ready for real change. Do you think Congress would drag their feet and make themselves sitting ducks? Or would they give way to political self-preservation and align themselves with the forces of history?

I've always thought that a single election cycle was never going to be the key.

But (while I don't think Sanders is even close) I've been reconsidering that idea. I think it would depend on how dynamic did the situation seem, how large and mobilized was the population, ... etc. So I'm edging toward the idea it could, under specific conditions, be possible.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

SECOND

Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Second

In the words of John Lennon - or was it Vlad Lenin - imagine.

Imagine a phenomenal turnout and a vote that says MANDATE. A country mobilized and alert, ready for real change. Do you think Congress would drag their feet and make themselves sitting ducks? Or would they give way to political self-preservation and align themselves with the forces of history?

I've always thought that a single election cycle was never going to be the key.

But (while I don't think Sanders is even close) I've been reconsidering that idea. I think it would depend on how dynamic did the situation seem, how large and mobilized was the population, ... etc. So I'm edging toward the idea it could, under specific conditions, be possible.

What you're imagining is a Parliamentary system rather than a Presidential system. The Prime Minister gets what she wants because the Opposition Party is powerless.

In Presidential systems, politics is the process of making decisions amid diverse opinions. It involves conversation, calm deliberation, self-discipline, the capacity to listen to other points of view and balance valid but competing ideas. But this new Republican faction regards the messy business of politics as soiled and impure. Compromise is corruption. Inconvenient facts are ignored. Countrymen with different views are regarded as aliens and any compromise is regarded as a blood betrayal.

The only MANDATE that will change America is voting Republicans out of thousands of offices across America. Electing, even by a landslide, one Democrat to the Presidency will not change the minds of elected Republicans in Congress.

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, October 15, 2015 8:54 PM

I was watching Hardball last night and Chris Matthews declared Bernie the winner. Others called it a tie between Hilary and Bernie. The "experts" seemed to be split, but I counted more votes for Bernie than for Hilary.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Sanders won every poll and focus group by wide margins. Americans said Bernie won.

The media spins it for Hillary, anyway.

REAVERFAN

Friday, October 16, 2015 1:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Sanders made it even clearer than ever that he doesn't really want to be president. He just wants to move the race to the left.

Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton argued about the 1999 repeal of a 1933 bank regulation. Offering an appealing dose of clarity, Bernie Sanders burst in with his take: "Congress does not regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates Congress."

To Clinton, policy problems require policy solutions, and the more nuanced and narrowly tailored the solution, the better. To Sanders, policy problems stem from a fundamental imbalance of political power. The issue with finance isn't so much the presence or the absence of any specific rule; it's that the system is rigged, and the fat cats are running the show.

Sanders posits — against all evidence — that changing the occupant of the White House will suddenly alter dynamics in Congress and allow for the passage of sweeping legislation that is currently frustrated.

There's just no reason to believe this is true. To really, truly get Democratic policies passed would require the banal work of recruiting dozens of talented House and Senate candidates and getting them to win elections in GOP-held districts.

He made no such claim. There will have to be a more progressive congress, too.

Clinton is a neocon, barely different from Romney, bought and sold by big money. If elected, she will do NOTHING about Citizens United. Her fake progressivism is appalling and a demonstrable lie.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE