Thank you Comrade.

So this is what Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist look like.


A bunch of nuts.

Your video, S. Sanders Says Congress Not "Smart Enough" for Trump's Tax, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I want to preface this comment by saying that I am a political independent, and something that might help convince you of that is that I didn't vote for Donald Trump. The reason I didn't vote for him is because I had serious reservations about him considering what I knew about his character. Now that he is president I support him because I respect the office of the President and I pray for him just as I did for President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with a lot of what he does, or that I am under any illusions about his character. It just means that I know God is working in these circumstances for a greater good.

I know a lot of Christians voted for Donald Trump because they knew he would side with them in the culture wars. And he has, to a large part. But that isn't the issue with me. I do not fight the culture wars even though I find abortion abhorrent and I lament the deepening darkness that pervades our culture. It is moral and spiritual darkness which will eventually lead to the one world government of the Antichrist.

My issue has to do with the church waking up, and stop thinking the solution is in fixing the culture because the culture is influencing the church more than the church is the culture. The solution is to get right with God and show the love of Christ to a lost and dying world.

So, here is the comment:

It's obvious that the entirety of news media is corrupt; if 2016 didn't make that obvious I don't know what would. They pick winners and losers, as supporters of Bernie Sanders realized. They all have a political agenda and will write either negative or positive coverage based on that agenda. They will present a certain slant to every issue which is favorable to their political aspirations. It is patently obvious and I think most of the country realizes this.

So, this outrage over Fox doing what every other news media company has done in the past, is pretty lame. Maybe Fox is better at it than MSNBC but the point is, they both function as the arm of their respective parties, and manipulate their media coverage to brainwash people into believing their worldview.

while I am absolutely delighted to watch both the democratic and republican parties LOSE their minds over AOC,and watch them bumble and stumble all over themselves to discredit this 29yr old Latina spitfire.

the political establishment continues to miss the plot,because they live in their own tiny,elitist bubbles.

every time they attempt to marginalize her,attack her outright,shame her,belittle her...
her numbers go up.
the republicans try to attack her by exposing her ideas as laughable,but what they are really doing is campaigning for her.
she literally gets more popular every time FOX news has ben shapiro on to "expose" AOC as the "loony left".

and the democrats may actually be MORE afraid of AOC than the republicans!
they are trying to primary her out of her seat,which he has only been in a few weeks.
which has seen AOC's war chest boom with private,small amount,donations.


they (meaning the establishment,corporate lackeys in congress) along with their corporate media stooges.

are doing their best to paint AOC as a "kook" as a "crazy" as somehow not being an actual representative of what normal folk want in a representative.

just like they did with nader,paul,sanders..


but it looks like the American people are finally on to the games of the kleptocrats.

and AOC has become the youngest and most popular congresswoman..ever.


because AOC Is not a kook,or a crazy.

she is whip smart and politically savvy.

and in five minutes she lays out the ease of corruption in our government.


suck a dick trumpters!

*promote

Sanders: 'We are not a compassionate society'

I have two boys, 9 and 14. If they treated people the way Trump, and most of the right, treats people, I'd be ashamed and reprimand them, especially if they did it publicly the way Trump has mocked a disabled reporter, Ford, the parents of fallen soldier... we could go on and on about how he mocks people on a regular basis. Every major religion has some variation of the Golden Rule, treat others as you'd have others treat you, especially Christianity, and yet the entire right ignores this rule, especially when it's somebody they oppose. Be it LGBTQIA+ people, political opponents, economic opponents, they ignore the Golden Rule. They in fact view it as a sign of strength to openly be hostile and rude to others, and yet, when one of theirs is mocked by late night TV, or when Sarah Sanders is kicked out of a restaurant (days after the fact that the entire right was celebrating the Supreme Court victory that they don't have to serve people they don't like), suddenly it is all "why can't people be civilized"? Plank in your own eye ass holes.

As Bob says politics is mean and ugly, but Republicans, Christians, made it that way and have been doubling down on it, ignoring the commandments to Love on another, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, not to judge least ye be judged and on and on. And somehow the right views that as a strength, as a good thing. They view McCain's efforts to reach across the isle and find a common center ground that everyone can agree on as a weakness. They don't want or will accept a 50/50 solution, they want a solution that is 80 or even better 90 percent on their side, and anything less than that is the other side being obstructionist.

Anyhow, if my kids acted the way Trump does, our President, whom we should hold to the highest standards, I'd make them apologize and be frank with them that I was appalled at their behavior, to mock a person with a disability or a woman or any other person the way Trump does on a regular basis. Yet the entire right is falling over themselves with pleasure at this rude behavior... I just don't get it. I don't get how that is acceptable behavior now from the President of the United States. It'd be one thing if he was still the piece of shit business man (who's business' constantly fail and need bankruptcy protection, even though he rarely pays contractors), 2nd rate reality TV show star, but this is the highest office in the land, where we should expect a person to act with dignity. I may have found Bush Jr to be an idiot and a horrible President, but at least he treated people with respect and the way one would expect of a President. Now we have a man-child and somehow this is a great thing. Fuck our lives when this is acceptable, when this is in fact praise worthy by far too many on the right (and I know, many Republicans said it was wrong of Trump to mock her the way he did, but they didn't really stand up to him, just a quick line to appease the few who might vote for them that would be appalled at that behavior).

EDIT TO ADD: What's upsetting about the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination is that they didn't even hold hearings. They had the votes to block him from confirmation, so hold hearings, say "no" and move on, but they wouldn't even do that. And he'd probably have been one of the most moderate justices in the modern era, which would have made explaining the "no" harder perhaps, but at least it would have been fair. But apparently fair is for the weak, one must play the ugly game now... and look at Bob's one reply, they got their eye on Ginsburg, they are hoping she dies so they can replace her with another theocrat like Kavanaugh, and because of that expectation and hope, you can guarantee that all the right will be out in force come November. We really need a miracle turnout to start to change things...

Warren could be good. I'm not 100% sold that she can play the political game particularly well -- the "Pocahontas" thing should have been pretty gracefully manageable, but she kinda fumbled there a bit. Still, if the Democrat primary system can avoid being the train wreck it was leading up to 2016, I think she could go through that and prove that she's got what it takes. So, maybe.

I love Sanders, but he's divisive because of the "Socialist" thing, which is still quite a scary word for Cold War-era people. I think that is surmountable by calmly explaining exactly what his brand of Democratic Socialism means, but there's always going to be that easy Fox News narrative against him. So between that, age, and other factors, he's not a slam dunk.

Obama? I'm assuming you mean Michelle? Name recognition yes. Firsthand political experience, not so much. I don't think I've ever heard her say anything about wanting to get into politics directly.

I concur about Avenatti.

I hope the D's don't screw this up. All of these celebrity / political celebrity candidates seem risky and hit or miss to me. Might be better to go with a relative unknown -- somebody who's been through a hairy campaign or two (because we know Trump will attack and try to rattle) and knows how to walk the line between giving those attacks legitimacy by responding to them and seeming too milquetoasty by ignoring them. (Barack) Obama was quite good at having that calm outer demeanor while also having a quick wit and knowing when to get counter-jabs in. Seems like someone with those kinds of skills could really lure Trump into a bunch of pitfalls.

What about a celebrity politician like Warren, Sanders, or even Obama? They all have name recognition and experience.
Abonetti is like nominating Clinton, not exciting and a bit scary for many Democrats and independents, totally divisive, and a reason to go vote for Republicans. Please let's not make that mistake again.

I appreciate your response to my question earlier, @bobknight33.

I don't mean to try to drag you back into the thread here if you're trying to disengage -- I dunno what you mean by #walkaway. Anyway, this doesn't require a response.

I largely agree with you on the specific subtopic of both parties being pretty dirty and frequently engaging in "government theater" just to draw attention to trivialities while promoting their own self interests. I also largely agree with Trump being a "true outsider" in the sense that he holds no particular allegiance to party machinations, etc.

However, even though I was willing to give him a chance after the election, at this point I have zero trust in Trump's intentions. Trumps friends -- the "best people" -- have this interesting trend of becoming his detractors and enemies. Trump wants us to accept the word of people that vouch for him, but days, weeks, or months later they fall out of favor and suddenly he says that they are scum and we shouldn't listen to a word they say.

That's a "cry wolf" or "fool me once" sort of problem. Sessions, the guy you mentioned as protecting Trump from the "witch hunt", has been pretty relentlessly bashed by Trump for the weighty offense of allowing investigators to investigate. Giuliani spouts nonsense, doublespeak and contradictions. Huckabee-Sanders refuses to answer very basic questions from the press (which is her job) not because they misquote her or take things out of context (which would be legitimate gripes) but because she's been bitten in the ass a few too many times by people pointing out blatant contradictions in Trump's statements. And that's just the current people.
There's a large list of short-term Trump appointments that end up out of favor.

What all that stuff says to me is ... "something is rotten in the state of Denmark". Is it possible that there's a vast conspiracy against him in the media, justice department, etc.? Um, well, maybe -- but Occam's Razor tells me that other possibilities are rather more likely. Like, for example, that Trump being a "true outsider" doesn't preclude him from holding the same self-serving motivations that are unfortunately common in slimy career politicians. That he acts shady and dirty because he is shady and dirty.

I dunno. It just seems like it takes a lot of work to keep up with Trump's revolving door of steadfast allies that become traitorous enemies.

To be fair, Sanders and his supporters were accused of some horrible stuff too....by both sides. Not child sex slavery and multiple murders, but still slanderous mud slinging.
Also to be fair, a large enough portion of the left turned on her in April/May when the DNC actions came to light and she didn't honorably walk away from a tainted candidacy, and instead hired the people who had clearly broken the rules in her favor....not just after the election.

That said, she has every right to be bitter, and she would have been exponentially better than Trump....Sanders could have been at least one order of magnitude better than that given the chance, imo, and he didn't come with an ingrained, well structured, long practiced, and exceptionally well funded opposition in place.

Thanks for the video reminding me of why (and how much) I like Bernie Sanders.

I liked what he had to say, but on the other hand I really think Maher was asking the right questions and I don't know that Bernie had great answers.

Shattering Trump's cult of personality is necessary. Maybe Trump will do that himself by just continuing to dodge and not follow through on anything, but we can't take that for granted because A) it is possible that he will put forth enough token effort into his campaign promises (wall, etc.) that he can simply blame lack of completion on "Democrat obstruction", and B) even if he does *nothing*, it has totally worked for him so far with regards to approval ratings in his base.

"Make America Great Again" was a stroke of genius, whether he happened on it by dumb luck or not. Obviously a good thing at face value, yet vague enough that anyone can attach their own baggage to it and feel like Trump is totally in sync with them. What do Democrats have to counter that? All of Bernie's offerings are campaign-promise-speak that can't happen unless there's a D in the White House and a majority in Congress. And no sure thing even then.

Like I said, I don't know that I think Bernie had great answers to those questions. I don't know that anybody else has better answers right now. I certainly don't. But I DO think that those questions are the right ones to be pondering over the next two years.

I thought parts of it were cringeworthy, but that that was entirely intentional. Sometimes that cringe is precisely what a comic is going for.

Honestly, I don't remember any of these being a "roast" to the degree that this one was. Thinking back on them in Obama's era, all I can remember is the mic-drop moment when Obama turned the tables and said Dick Cheney was the worst president in his memory, and Keegan-Michael Key being Obama's anger translator. Obama could certainly handle light/moderate jabs directed at him, but I don't remember that being done much if any at these specific events. Maybe it was and I just don't remember it.

Anyway, I think that saying that this upped the ante and went for the jugular significantly more than in the past is almost certainly correct. But that doesn't make it "bad" or "disrespectful" or whatever. I don't care that Trump didn't attend, even though presidents "traditionally" do. Hell, given the whole "fake news" shtick that he is trying to sell, he should have barred any White House staff from attending -- even/especially Press Secretary Sanders.

BUT, then after the event he should have simply said that he didn't watch it and that he doesn't give a rats ass what was said there instead of sulking about it on twitter. Acting all offended just makes him look like a little bitch (and that goes for all the other R's that have whined also).


Anyway, I guess overall I thought her bit was a good but not great set. Doing that material with that mixed audience guarantees that there's going to be some uncomfortable silences and crickets, but she clearly anticipated and managed that quite well. Roasts aren't really my thing, but given the machismo image that Trump tries to push it may well have been the perfect way to bait him into looking like a crybaby in his inevitable response. Mission accomplished?

Past Correspondents dinner roasts had much more bite than Wolf's and nary got 1/10th of the "controversy."

If I understand the situation correctly, the MOST "divisive" joke Wolf told was the "Smoky Eye" joke. The Right claims it's divisive & disgusting because it's a physical attack on Sanders? What the hell? In what context it's physical? The punchline is all political/fake-news rebuttal, not physical to me. It's not a comment of Sanders' physique/appearance. Wolf's not that cheap. IMO that joke was brilliantly delivered, unique and all hers. Most of the rest are not Wolf's best though. I've seen her jokes that are far more biting, I honestly think she toned it down already for the dinner.

Wolf made fun of her own body ALL THE TIME at Trevor Noah's Show and other comedy venues. That's a sign of self-confidence.

Besides, past Presidents (Dem AND Rep) also got chances to roast many people (themselves, others and a bit of self-loathing too) at these dinners too.

Comedy roasts ARE suppose to be non-PC. Taking the punches well actually humanizes the POTUS.

I saw a good juxtaposition video of her toothless jokes about Conway and Huckabee-Sanders at what's usually a roast of the current administration followed by Trump talking about Rosie O'Donnell and others on the campaign trail and later.
Funny how exponentially more personal and nasty remarks about a private citizen being disgusting, fat, and ugly inside and out are funny to them, but a joke about the Whitehouse spokesperson using burnt facts as makeup are just uncalled for and totally out of line.
*facepalm

Wait...your post didn't contain your argument? ;-)

If you read that as a mere partisan argument, you fail to grok my position.
As I wrote, I do not choose terrible vs less terrible, but for those who do, I suggest it's clear which is which.

As I often reiterate, finance reform is the number one issue that must be tackled in order to make any other political reform. That's why I backed Sanders, and still do but less so. I just wish he would leave the democratic party.