Good point and I don't disagree. My point is the more health care we can offshore, the more we can hope to have power over it. I wish it were not this way.....but it is. I don't know a better solution than to starve the system for those who can. RobOriginally Posted by UltraliteAngler
Kinda like boycotting Wal-Mart.
I noticed that too the last few days. He was ticked that Clinton would not debate with him in CA. Why would she? From what I understand is that it is VERY UNLIKELY he will have enough delegates. Time for him to call it a day and let Trump and Clinton duke it out.
that's the time to truly stop listening, what could anyone possibly hear at that point that wouldn't just destroy another brain cell (and not the most pleasant way to kill them either)Time for him to call it a day and let Trump and Clinton duke it out.
Trees don't grow on money
He should be ticked. She, and her supporters like Debbie Wasserman Shultz, have spent the whole campaign trying to minimize his abililty to influence the primary through debates. She's rightly afraid that the more people hear him actually talk the less effective the "democratic SOCIALIST" meme will stick. And since California is the most populous state in the union I personally think he should absolutely stick it out to the end. While she has sold her soul to EVERYONE http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...nton-2013-2015 just maybe he will be able to keep pushing things in the right direction. Especially if he wins CA. Bottom line, if she can't win after this primary season with Bernie then she deserves to lose, considering who her presumptive competition in the general is.
[QUOTE=frugal-one;242240]I noticed that too the last few days. He was ticked that Clinton would not debate with him in CA. Why would she? From what I understand is that it is VERY UNLIKELY he will have enough delegates. Time for him to call it a day and let Trump and Clinton duke it out.[/Q
Honestly I am getting beyond frustrated, he has amazing sized rallies, small dollar donations that are at least if not more than the other candidates (I am not sure how to get the 100% truth so I am giving everything I read some wiggle room), and he is gaining support throughout the race. The most recent information I got from his campaign are several candidates in a variety of races that he supports, if you donate it will be shared with all the candidates (wasn't that Clinton's reasoning for raising so much money) So I see pictures from rallies of these enormous crowds and then sometimes I turn on regular TV to just check in and all I see is Trump.
Maybe he won't get the nomination, I can live with that but he is my first choice.
The best explanation I've heard for Bernie staying in the race is that he simply can't stop talking. I've read he was invited to leave a commune in 1971 because his devotion to talking precluded maintaining a work ethic acceptable to hippies. His career since seems to have been based on the primacy of talk over outcome. So as long as there are baristas willing to send him their tip jars to pay for the microphone, he'll keep talking.
I've heard the Sanders camp complain that Mrs. Clinton has only debated him three of the four times she had previously agreed to. In their innocence, they fail to see that a 25% discount rate on a Clinton promise is actually a pretty good deal. Honor does not come easily to someone who claimed to dodge Bosnian bullets which harsh facts revealed to be flower petals. I would disagree with jp1 that she sold her soul. It would be more accurate to say she has crowd-sourced it. I must admit the accountant in me is impressed by the tax-effective way in which she has monetized her prospective influence.
As a Republican, I hope Mrs. Clinton rewards Debbie Wasserman Schultz for her fealty. We Republicans have little enough to rejoice in this year, and any bone Hillary could toss us would be appreciated.
She'll toss you plenty of bones and other kitchen scraps. Don't you worry.
[QUOTE=Zoe Girl;242248]A growing number of principled voters are saying that they can't live with that. Sanders clearly has ignited a significant base of supporters. If you look at his policy it is night and day different than Clinton's entire political career. And Bernie supporters know it. So the question is, do you vote for someone you quietly despise just so someone you openly despise does not win? Or do you make your vote a personal reflection of your own values, morals and judgement?
I say the longer this goes on, this fractured Democratic Party, the more exposed Clinton becomes. At this point in time in 2008 wasn't Obama the unifying candidate? The Clinton's need to be exorcise from the Democratic Party. It could be so much better than it is without them. Ditto the Republican Party, which is in shambles.
The Libertarians and for that matter I guess the Green .....is there another, they have such an opportunity to expand there spheres of influences. People are looking around for something to get behind. Right or wrong in their solutions they have correctly identified what troubles our country and neither mainstream party has the integrity to address them. Tired of economics that favor the wealthy, tired of a crusade against self defense at home while being #1 in arms exports to the dictators and regimes in chaos, tired of a health care system too expensive for many to access, tired of schools that can't produce well rounded thinking citizens, tired of consuming on the worlds largest debt, tired.........and what are our choices, a really tired old politician and a hypocrite who can't make his mind up about what he will do today let alone six months from now.
Yeah. And then bill us for filet mignon.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote