Some of you Clintonistas sure are mad she hasn’t had a cake walk. You’re gonna have an honest to god heart attack about how she gets treated in the general, I suspect.
Really Brian?
Sanders’ Politifact scores score not so well compared to Clinton’s. Moreover his recent lies are lies about his opponent and basic facts about his plans and positions. Her most recent ones were calling Villanova a come from behind win and stating that she is the “only” candidate that wall Street is attacking (they attack Trump even more).
He’s the somewhat chubbier guy at the fat camp who insists that he’s by far the skinniest guy there.
CarnalK, she won’t need to hold her fire fighting back against their lies.
Yes, Hillary has been at such a disadvantage this primary. Well, good luck to the underdog.
OK, OK, so where’s his birth certificate, hah?
I’ve been meaning to ask you after seeing this in a couple other of your posts: Who’s Brian?
Right, I meant “rules” more in the sense of “as a general rule…”; that is, what’s generally “done.” Sorry that this was unclear.
Yes, there’s no law that forces presidential candidates to release their taxes, but these days it is expected.
I’m kind of agnostic about whether it is reasonable or whether it is “quite distasteful,” but there’s no question that candidates generally do it these days, and (reasonably enough) face questions about it if they don’t.
If Sanders agrees that releasing his taxes is distasteful, he can say so: “On principle, I refuse to release my taxes; they are nobody’s business but my own because etc.” I could probably get behind that. But he didn’t do that; he implied he hadn’t had time (what, he doesn’t know how to delegate?), and then said he *had *released them, only of course he hadn’t.
[He may have *thought *he had released them, with that two-page summary you linked to. But that’s not what people in politics mean when they say “release your taxes.” They mean the whole thing, all the schedules and such. My link below explains it in more detail. I guess it’s possible the senator and his staff don’t know that the two-pager isn’t sufficient. If so, that’s not a good sign. It’s not exactly a secret in political circles.]
Anyway, what I’m kind of getting at with “rules” is something that Sanders’s senatorial campaign said a few years back, as reported in the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/05/bernie-sanderss-false-claim-that-he-has-released-his-full-federal-tax-returns/):
“During the 2006 Senate race, Sanders said he would release his tax returns if his opponent did so, and his campaign had said it was a “good idea” for political candidates to release their federal and state returns. But there is no indication that Sanders ever released his federal returns during that campaign.”
So in 2006 he thought it was a good idea; now he won’t do it himself. Sounds like he thinks releasing taxes should be standard practice for other people, just not for him.
As for other ways in which he seems to set up a different set of rules for himself, my favorite is how outside money/PACs/SuperPACs is a terrible influence on politics, except when it’s the nurses’ union providing financial help to the Sanders campaign, in which case they’re not *really *a SuperPAC, so it’s fine. As I wrote in another thread, paraphrased, “It’s not that outside money is bad, it’s that outside money from sources I don’t like and in amounts I don’t approve of is bad. That’s not a stand of principle, it’s a stand of convenience.”
Dud you even read post 206? Sheesh.
Here is his “Four Pinocchios” writeup in the WaPo. That summary you linked to does not reveal anything about his charitable giving, which I still am betting is the hitch. Nor has he released any tax information from previous years, despite lying to Jake Tapper that he had done so.
My shorthand for BrainGlutton. It just doesn’t feel right to call him Brain for short in these posts! 
And I also am not so sure if I believe in dog …
I believe in dog; he’s sitting here begging for food as we speak.
All good. The first time I saw it I figured it was a typo. After the third time I just kept going back and forth between your Brian and his BrainGlutton trying to see which of you and I are dyslexic. 
In truth a persistent brain fart.
And his green card!
I think you are making too much of this snafu. Bernie gave an ok response to Charlie Rose. Not great, but ok. He said he would support Clinton if she were nominated and “We should not get into this tit for tat”. Well it wasn’t quite that, but frankly I don’t see a big breakdown in character. Charlie Rose Asks Bernie Sanders If Clinton Is Qualified - Business Insider
It’s lying about policy that concerns me. Like GWBush did when he sold his tax cuts. Or lying about what you just said the other day, like Trump does repeatedly. There are kinks in Bernie’s armor -he acts like some great hero for calling for the banks to be broken up when by far the bigger problem is excessive leverage and the emergence of a shadow banking system. But to be honest I think the problem is that the ideas of the Progressive Caucus simply haven’t gotten the sort of scrutiny that they need and deserve. Sanders’ campaign has been a good thing for progressives, but once again I wonder about how we/they can build on those strengths after Sanders loses.
Or hell, even if he wins. It will be hard for a guy like Sanders to lead the Democratic coalition from the farthest left rump. Though a similar point could be made about Ted Cruz, whom the Republican establishment despises.
He has tats?
Who ya gonna propose for Honesty Champ? Clinton? Cruz? TRUMP???
The actual data shows the answer to be: Clinton.
Wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.
More talking head bullshit. What are the candidates’ policies? What is the evidence that he or she will attempt to follow through on those policies? Those are the only questions that matter. Everything else is a distraction. We know what Sanders’ policies are, we know he has a long history of advancing those policies, and we know he’s not taking any money from anyone with vested interests that go against those policies.
Not so much. Unfortunately.
She actually has had a cake walk. Far easier than Obama in '08, Clinton in '92, Dukakis in '88, or Carter in '80. This campaign is just unique in that a candidate losing pretty badly in a two-man primary has super vocal internet fans who magnify the appearance of the competitiveness of the primary to people who get most of their “sense” of the campaign from the internet. It’s probably comparable to Romney in '12, where Santorum won a lot of states but was never seriously threatening of Romney’s march to the nomination.
Yup. IMO there are two electorates out there. The one that gets all its facts & opinions and state-of-the-world knowledge from Facebook, and the other who doesn’t.
What’ll be interesting in 2016, 2018, etc. is to see which one carries the day. Much was made in 2008 of Obama’s much greater command of cyberspace vs. Clinton and the advantage it conferred. Facebook is much more a monopoly on folks’ attention spans today vs 2008.
Social media vastly rewards slactivism. And greatly amplifies the voice of the prolific (obsessive?) few. Which needn’t preclude the actual IRL activism of the obsessives bothering to actually vote. But might. We shall see.
One things for sure: if you earned one vote per social media post, Sanders & Trump would have won their respective nominations by landslides a couple months ago. And if it’s really one dollar earns one vote the Koch brothers would already have painted their name over the door on Congress and would be counting down the days until they own the White House in Nov.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. And very much up for grabs in 2016 as society is changing on its way to the future.