Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Looks as though it's not a maybe. He is running.

Bernie Sanders To Launch Presidential Campaign

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will launch a campaign seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 on Thursday.

Sanders will be the first official challenger for the Democratic nomination to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who launched her campaign earlier this month.

Sanders' decision was first reported by Vermont Public Radio, and confirmed by The Huffington Post.


Sanders, who first entered the Senate in 2007, has criticized Clinton for being too soft on Wall Street and has doubted whether Clinton can address income inequality.

Sanders has been an outspoken critic of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal the Obama administration is negotiating with 11 Pacific countries. Sanders is also a critic of the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which struck down corporate campaign contribution limits. Sanders has tried to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

While Clinton is heavily favored over Sanders, the Vermont senator's entry in the race will provide a platform for Democrats to criticize Clinton from the left. Sanders' presence could also highlight a divide between progressive and moderate Democrats.

Before assuming office in the Senate in 2007, Sanders represented Vermont in the U.S. House for 16 years. He is the longest serving independent member of Congress.

According to HuffPost Pollster, which aggregates publicly available polling data, Sanders trails Clinton by 55.1 percentage points. He also trails Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Vice President Joe Biden.

Bernie Sanders To Launch Presidential Campaign

^ I really would love to see him in the oval office with Elizabeth Warren as VP, but his running will be good even if he doesn't win. He is really running to get his message out and it is very important.

Income inequality, corporate greed, etc will now be big topics of the primary.

Originally Posted by bsnub

He is really running to get his message out and it is very important.

Yes, but if he gets enough support from the street, he could pull the Hillary juggernaut to the Left, and she is, for all practicle purposes, the winner of at least the Democratic Primary.
The interesting thing is that, as in '68 when we had canditates (Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy), pulling the Democratic Party "management" to the Left, we could have one stalwart in Bernie Sanders doing the same thing now. And the times are just as critical, if not more so.

If the last seven years have taught us anything it is that POTUS can achieve nothing with a bloc of right wing extremists calling the shots in the house and senate. So unless Bernie can miraculously manage to turn solid red states into blue his hopes of doing anything of substance will be stillborn.

He describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist" so not only will Booners be squealing like a schoolgirl but Fox News will be going apoplectic. I don't think he'll last very long.

Bless him, he is a caring idealist though, people like that just don't get elected because they can't tell lies.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

He describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist" so not only will Booners be squealing like a schoolgirl but Fox News will be going apoplectic. I don't think he'll last very long.

Bless him, he is a caring idealist though, people like that just don't get elected because they can't tell lies.

Heh, Bernie Sanders is a raving lunatic!

Originally Posted by rickschoppers

That poll looks scary. Clinton leading democrats, Christie leading republicans. Had a stroke at first since I read it as Bush leading the republicans.

It's real early, man. Way too early to predict other than we'll be in for more revelations re Clinton Scandals which will hopefully seal her fate before election day.

Originally Posted by Humbert

So unless Bernie can miraculously manage to turn solid red states into blue his hopes of doing anything of substance will be stillborn.

Well SCOTUS may lend a hand as it just decided to take up right wing gerrymandering.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Couldn't agree more. Lying, egotistical, narcissistic, bottom-feeding scum - all of them.

Pretty much mirrors the general public's view of their political representation. From a sea of scum one will emerge as the next Emperor of the United States.

Seldom have so many done so little to deserve any vote whatsoever.

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

Couldn't agree more. Lying, egotistical, narcissistic, bottom-feeding scum - all of them.

Pretty much mirrors the general public's view of their political representation. From a sea of scum one will emerge as the next Emperor of the United States.

Seldom have so many done so little to deserve any vote whatsoever.

So of all the turds in the bowl, you think the floater will win?

Well, this smarmy-lookin' fella has the best creds but whether or not he's going to win?

We can always hope!

^ The biggest turd in the bowl is the douche in your avatar. He looks like a pedo.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ The biggest turd in the bowl is the douche in your avatar. He looks like a pedo.

Heh...

Chelsea Clinton's Claim That An Independent Watchdog Rated the Clinton Foundation As Among the World's Most Transparent Organizations is, Get This, a Complete Lie.

Imagine that!

"Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, sought to tamp down new allegations that rich foreign donors had influenced her mother while she was secretary of state by noting that an international anti-corruption group had endorsed the foundation's disclosure practices.

"What the Clinton foundation has said is that we will be kind of even more transparent," said the former first daughter, now vice chairman of the foundation, at an event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. "Even though Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations, we'll disclose donors on a quarterly basis, not just an annual basis."

The problem with that, though, is Transparency International never cited the Clinton foundation. It did award Hillary Clinton its 2012 TI-USA Integrity Award when Clinton was secretary of state for "recognizing her contributions as secretary of state in raising the importance of transparency and anticorruption as elements of U.S. policy," Claudia Dumas, president of Transparency International, told NPR. (The organization put out a fuller statement Monday.)

She never mentioned the Clinton foundation, and Dumas' organization is focused on promoting government transparency.

"We do not do an examination or any ranking of foundations," said Dumas, who noted that Chelsea Clinton may have simply made an innocent mistake.

Fact Check: Is The Clinton Foundation 'The Most Transparent'? : It's All Politics : NPR

Heh...it takes real big stones to send out your child to lie to the American people, eh?

Ace of Spades HQ

HILLARY HAS ‘CONVERSATION’ WITH NO ONE TO AVOID REPORTERS’ QUESTIONS ABOUT BALTIMORE RIOTS



Tuesday afternoon, Hillary Clinton demonstrated the awkward inability to respond off-the-cuff that makes her one of the least spontaneous candidates in memory.

While leaving a fundraiser in New York, Hillary was captured making a brief walk to her car. Perhaps aware that reporters had gathered outside, Hillary began talking loudly, apparently in mid-conversation, just before she exited the building. “No, no, that’s not it. It’s just the time, the focus and everything,” Hillary said, her hands up as if explaining something. But to whom was she talking? Therein lies the mystery.

Two people exited the building ahead of Hillary. One was clearly Secret Service. The other was a woman in a red dress. Both exited well of ahead of her, and neither one was looking back or listening to her. No one walked out beside Hillary, and no one followed close behind her either. She appeared to be talking to herself.

When a reporter interrupted Hillary’s “conversation” to ask a question about the riots in Baltimore, Hillary waved in the direction of the interruption to her monologue but kept walking without responding to the question. Was this all a ploy to avoid questions? That’s how it looks."

Hillary Avoids Questions by Having Loud Conversation with No One

Yup, she's slipped over the edge boys. Talking to yourself in public?

Not a good sign.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

So of all the turds in the bowl, you think the floater will win?

Not sure Hairy if there's a floater in the bunch...I suspect it'll run down one's leg in the end and we'll all continue to slap our foreheads in disbelief.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

When a reporter interrupted Hillary’s “conversation” to ask a question about the riots in Baltimore, Hillary waved in the direction of the interruption to her monologue but kept walking without responding to the question. Was this all a ploy to avoid questions? That’s how it looks."

Maybe Hillary had a phone bug in her ear.
Looks like this reporter's ploy to report "news" where there is none.
I the words of the one who filed the report, "That's what it looks like to me".

She's done flipped out, boys...



HILL RUNS AGAINST BILL!

Foundation in Tailspin, donors having second thoughts...

38% of Iowa Dems Want Someone Else...

Not looking too good for 'ol Piano Legs already...

^ Interesting first article, though the title has been edited for maximum wing-nut effect.

In 2016 Dem race, Bernie Sanders is the new Elizabeth Warren

On issues large and small, the Democratic presidential contender is increasingly distancing herself from — or even opposing — key policies pushed by Bill Clinton while he was in the White House, from her recent skepticism on free-trade pacts to her full embrace of gay rights.

The starkest example yet came Wednesday, when Hillary Clinton delivered an impassioned address condemning the “era of incarceration” ushered in during the 1990s in the wake of her husband’s 1994 crime bill — though she never mentioned him or the legislation by name.

“We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance,” Clinton told an audience at Columbia University in New York, making references to unrest in Baltimore and elsewhere and elsewhere over actions by police. “And these recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”

The contrasts between some of Clinton’s positions and those of her husband from 20 years ago show the extent to which Democrats, and the country as a whole, have shifted to the left on a number of key issues. Indeed, Bill Clinton now says that some of his incarceration policies went too far and that he regrets backing a federal law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.



It's good to know she's got the moxie to fix the broken policies of the past, even though they are those policies of her husband.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

38% of Iowa Dems Want Someone Else...

Another edited title.

This is a snip from the end of an item that the real title is...get this!

In 2016 Dem race, Bernie Sanders is the new Elizabeth Warren

Maybe those 38% of Iowa Dems want Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that.



Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. 52 percent of Democrats are OK with that. - The Washington Post

Afraid that old boy won't cut in in flyover country or Jaw Jaa either.

Damn Progressives.

They just get in the way.

Given the grim reality of slipping living standards for the average American (Not because of recession, or shrinking wealth, but because those at the top are monopolising more and more of the Pie for themselves), one would logically think that a Sanders/ Warren ticket would be a very strong contender.

But, does anyone really believe it will? I doubt it.

Robert Reich: Americans are utterly powerless



As I travel around America, I’m struck by how utterly powerless most people feel.The companies we work for, the businesses we buy from, and the political system we participate in all seem to have grown less accountable. I hear it over and over: They don’t care; our voices don’t count.

A large part of the reason is we have fewer choices than we used to have. In almost every area of our lives, it’s now take it or leave it.

Companies are treating workers as disposable cogs because most working people have no choice. They need work and must take what they can get.

Although jobs are coming back from the depths of the Great Recession, the portion of the labor force actually working remains lower than it’s been in over thirty years – before vast numbers of middle-class wives and mothers entered paid work.
Which is why corporations can get away with firing workers without warning, replacing full-time jobs with part-time and contract work, and cutting wages. Most working people have no alternative.

Consumers, meanwhile, are feeling mistreated and taken for granted because they, too, have less choice.

U.S. airlines, for example, have consolidated into a handful of giant carriers that divide up routes and collude on fares. In 2005 the U.S. had nine major airlines. Now we have just four.

It’s much the same across the economy. Eighty percent of Americans are served by just one Internet Service Provider – usually Comcast, AT&T, or Time-Warner.

The biggest banks have become far bigger. In 1990, the five biggest held just 10 percent of all banking assets. Now they hold almost 45 percent.

Giant health insurers are larger; the giant hospital chains, far bigger; the most powerful digital platforms (Amazon, Facebook, Google), gigantic.

All this means less consumer choice, which translates into less power.

Our complaints go nowhere. Often we can’t even find a real person to complain to. Automated telephone menus go on interminably.

Finally, as voters we feel no one is listening because politicians, too, face less and less competition. Over 85 percent of congressional districts are considered “safe” for their incumbents in the upcoming 2016 election; only 3 percent are toss-ups.
In presidential elections, only a handful of states are now considered “battlegrounds” that could go either Democratic or Republican.

So, naturally, that’s where the candidates campaign. Voters in most states won’t see much of them. These voters’ votes are literally taken for granted.

Even in toss-up districts and battle-ground states, so much big money is flowing in that average voters feel disenfranchised.

In all these respects, powerlessness comes from a lack of meaningful choice. Big institutions don’t have to be responsive to us because we can’t penalize them by going to a competitor.

And we have no loud countervailing voice forcing them to listen.

Fifty years ago, a third of private-sector workers belonged to labor unions. This gave workers bargaining power to get a significant share of the economy’s gains along with better working conditions – and a voice. Now, fewer than 7 percent of private sector workers are unionized.

In the 1960s, a vocal consumer movement demanded safe products, low prices, and antitrust actions against monopolies and business collusion. Now, the consumer movement has become muted.

Decades ago, political parties had strong local and state roots that gave politically-active citizens a voice in party platforms and nominees. Now, the two major political parties have morphed into giant national fund-raising machines.

Our economy and society depend on most people feeling the system is working for them.

But a growing sense of powerlessness in all aspects of our lives – as workers, consumers, and voters – is convincing most people the system is working only for those at the top.


Robert Reich: Americans are utterly powerless - Salon.com


I hope Sanders gets off the ground, and strikes a chord with the American people, who aggregately seem to have meekly accepted their lot in the 'new order' of things. But in the NWO, Hope doesn't win elections- Money does.