BERNiacs after Hillary's win?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

What will the BERN do after the primary?

[Bret Cahill]

> What will the BERN do after the primary?

Get sworn in as President of the U. S.

Sanders is the most popular politician in America.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 4:14 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> What will the BERN do after the primary?
>
> Get sworn in as President of the U. S.

No.

[nickname unavailable]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:12:59 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> What will the BERN do after the primary?

pick a running mate.

[nickname unavailable]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:19:49 PM UTC-5,

> No, you cannot stop shehuizhuyi xiandaihua shehui.

sent from my phone at the part time cashier job

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

> nickname unavailable

> On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:19:49 PM UTC-5,

> - show quoted text -

>> No, you cannot stop shehuizhuyi xiandaihua shehui.

That's funny. Hil can't be stopped either. How does seeing the words *** Madam President *** make you feel?

[nickname unavailable]

no different than trump. if she wins, we lose. and i said that a year or longer ago.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Brett Cahill wrote:
>
> Sanders is the most popular politician in America.

Only among "red state" democrats.

The Sanders crowds don't crystallize into serious votes in the large blue states like MA, CA and NJ. Its not working. Its simple math.

[nickname unavailable]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 7:58:31 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Brett Cahill wrote:
> >
> > Sanders is the most popular politician in America.
>
> Only among "red state" democrats.

that is the only place where hillary actually won consistently.

>
> The Sanders crowds don't crystallize into serious votes in the large blue states like MA, CA and NJ. Its not working. Its simple math.

you forgot the many blue states he won. all it will take is for a few blue states, and a couple of swing states to go trump, and most likely they will, because bill partnered up with the chinese communist party and wall street, to strip middle class america of its jobs, homes, wealth and pensions, and say hi to president trump.

[Bret Cahill]

> > Sanders is the most popular politician in America.
>
> Only among "red state" democrats.

Actually HRC won the Southern states.

Super Tuesday was set up to nominate the more conservative candidate, i.e., tough on "super predators" under the assumption Dems were losing because the majority of general election voters were more to the right of Dems.

If that assumption was ever true before it isn't true now. The more popular general election candidate, Sanders, runs to the left of HRC.

Even the GOP candidate is running to the left of HRC on many economic issues which _alone_ is reason enough to guess HRC will concede defeat to tRUMP.

tRUMP runs as a pre civil rights Dem who always won and HRC runs as a country club Republican who never won.

The legacy media have been telling whoppers about the political slant of Americans being way to the right when it is, as Sanders has just proved, slightly to the left of N. Europe.

The real reason the 0.1% sponsored media want Sanders out ASAP is because his very existence threatens all their Big Lies and boy are there a lot of 0.1% serving legacy media Big Lies.

To be sure most general election voters don't want to hear Nina Totenberg gush hype the imPOOOOORtant flag burner issue 24/7/52 but that doesn't mean they want tax cuts for the rich, corp. managed trade agreements and endless bailouts for unregulated banksters either.

There is an more compelling reasons to be certain HRC will lose to tRUMP.

A legacy media hyped Democratic candidate hasn't won in half a century barring some extraordinary circumstance, damage sustained by the GOP, i.e., Carter/Watergate, Clinton/Internet, Obama/BushCo quagmires & economic meltdowns.

There is nothing comparable to those situations this year. If anything HRC is an even weaker candidate than Gore or Kerry who ran unchallenged in their primaries only to concede a total of 3 times to the most inarticulate apolitical slacker in the history of the republic.

And it's getting worse for the LMC. As goes the legacy media so goes the legacy media Democratic candidate.

General election voters just aren't interested in watching HRC play paddy cake with Anderson on gun control. They are interested in tax hikes on the 0.1%

Super delegates were introduced and sold to the Democratic Party specifically for the situation we are in now. Democratic primary voters pick a candidate who cannot win the general. Since every primary voter cannot be expected to be omniscient the super delegate was supposed to step in and help choose someone who can win in November.

Like it or not, one way or another, 2016 will be the end of the legacy media supported Democratic candidate, if not this summer then December at the latest.

The problem with nominating HRC and allowing tRUMP into the White House is he won't be able to deliver on anything except jingoism and prosecuting HRC. Everything Chomsky fears about this situation being like 1930s Germany will be proven true.

So it won't be much fun bragging that I was right way back in May 2016.


Bret Cahill

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> ... you forgot the many blue states he won.

No. Those places are a few recently-established suburbs. VT, ME and RI?

> all it will take is for a few blue states, and a couple of swing states to go trump, and most likely they will...

Feel free to say which even has a sitting Republican governor or senator.

(in Maine, the independent gov is trying to be a trump trainer)

[nickname unavailable]

On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 9:14:37 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> nickname unavailable wrote:
> >
> > ... you forgot the many blue states he won.
>
> No. Those places are a few recently-established suburbs. VT, ME and RI?

oregan. washington, very blue.

>
> > all it will take is for a few blue states, and a couple of swing states to go trump, and most likely they will...
>
> Feel free to say which even has a sitting Republican governor or senator.
>

minnesota, i have a hunch hillary will be hard pressed in that one, just like michigan and PA.. then there are swing states like oh. all beneficiaries of bills fine fine economic policies.

> (in Maine, the independent gov is trying to be a trump trainer)

all trump needs to do, is to campaign in front of one of 65,000 plus closed down factories all over america, and say, bill did this to you. he can do this 50 times, in fifty different states. its all it will take. he is even beginning to win the latino vote. because they need work to. i bet many blacks will vote for him to, after all, bill and hillary are white supremacists, and many blacks are beginning to find that out, besides being economically disenfranchised in their own land by bills policies.
you forced a loser onto us. you may well pay the price when you are forced into saying president trump.

[nickname unavailable]

if they lose with her, i will enjoy it immensely. if they stick with the neo-liberals. they will be like the liberal democrats in the u.k., small, and out of power for a century or longer.


> Bret Cahill

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/20/2016 4:50 PM, nickname unavailable wrote:

> On 5/20/2016 4:19 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/20/2016 4:14 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> What will the BERN do after the primary?
>>>
>>> Get sworn in as President of the U. S.
>>

>> No.

No.

> sent from my rectum

Yes.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

On 5/20/2016 4:14 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:

>>What will the BERN do after the primary?
>>
>Get sworn in as President of the U. S.

If Bernie is supposedly doing so well, why is his delegate count AND popular vote lagging?

Right here, MSNBC's Chuck Todd writes: "The Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders race really isn't that close – certainly not as close as it was in 2008 between Barack Obama and Clinton."

-- http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/democratic-race-isn-t-as-close-as-you-think-689908291690

[nickname unavailable]

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 1:23:53 AM UTC-5,

> Yes,

sent from my phone from my part time cashier job

[nickname unavailable]

todd is a legacy media shill. if hillary was doing so well, she would not need to threaten california voters.

[Bret Cahill]

> >>What will the BERN do after the primary?
> >>
> >Get sworn in as President of the U. S.
>
> If Bernie is supposedly doing so well,

Sanders beats tRUMP by 16 points in the general.

That's what normal loyal Democrats call "doing well."

Winning.

What do you call "doing well?"

Legacy media candidates Gore and Kerry conceding defeat to W. Bush?

That's what Kerry called "doing well."

Losing.

Six months after Kerry conceded defeat to the most inarticulate apolitical slacker in the history of the republic Kerry announced he "ran a good campaign."

HRC is on track to run as "good" a campaign as Kerry's.

> why is his delegate count AND popular vote lagging?

Sanders is _ahead_ of HRC in the general election which, in case no one told you, is what matters.

Do you know why we have super delegates?

To pick a Democrat who can win in the general.

Legacy media Dems _never_ win in the general unless the outgoing Republican administration screwed up big time, i.e., Carter/Watergate and Obama/BushCo quagmires & meltdowns.

Bill Clinton only won to the extent he was _not_ a legacy media candidate. Both WWII war heros went AWOL in their campaigns to throw both elections to Bill.

That ain't true for HRC. Hillary is going to try to hide behind media hyped culture wars. This will piss off the general election voter and tRUMP will win.

And it's not like she's running against Dumbya either.

tRUMP completely destroyed the 120 year old Bush dynasty in a few months.

You need to stop listening to the Big Lies put out by the 0.1% controlled legacy media.

Otherwise a year from now we'll be once again listening to a legacy media Democrat bragging about a "good campaign" that ended in a concession speech to a Republican.

HRC just isn't a public servant.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > >>What will the BERN do after the primary?
> > >>
> > >Get sworn in as President of the U. S.
> >
> > If Bernie is supposedly doing so well, why is his delegate count AND popular vote lagging?
> >
> > Right here, MSNBC's Chuck Todd writes: "The Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders race really isn't that close – certainly not as close as it was in 2008 between Barack Obama and Clinton."
> >
> > -- http://www.msnbc.com/mtp-daily/watch/democratic-race-isn-t-as-close-as-you-think-689908291690
>
> todd is a legacy media shill. if hillary was doing so well, she would not need to threaten california voters.

Her numbers against tRUMP are tanking so fast she's afraid the super delegates will do what they are supposed to do:

Nominate a Democrat who can win.

A legacy media Democrat cannot win in the general election, not even running against Dumbya, not even after Dumbya started moronic quagmires.

If you want to help drive the shill media out of the Democratic Party the feedback diagram is like holding a cross up to vampires.


Bret Cahill

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> todd is a legacy media shill.

OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)

> if hillary was doing so well, she would not need to threaten
> california voters.

Whoa! Wait a minute! Who defines what "well" is? Shills? Outsiders? Others?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> Sanders beats tRUMP by 16 points in the general.

NOW! , but what about in early November? That's the point.

[nickname unavailable]

On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 6:29:41 PM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> nickname unavailable wrote:
> >
> > todd is a legacy media shill.
>
> OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)

that does not negate the fact that he is a shill, like you.

>
> > if hillary was doing so well, she would not need to threaten
> > california voters.
>
> Whoa! Wait a minute! Who defines what "well" is? Shills? Outsiders? Others?

you. soon you will try to scare us with the supreme court.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > todd is a legacy media shill.
> >
> > OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)
>
>
> that does not negate the fact that he is a shill, like you.

He's not a shill. A real shill wouldn't post here because he knows he'd lose.

He's just confused, a product of the 0.1% controlled media.

[nickname unavailable]

he is to slick, to prepared. but you are right, he is still losing.

[Bret Cahill]

> > > > > todd is a legacy media shill.
> > > >
> > > > OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)
> > >
> > >
> > > that does not negate the fact that he is a shill, like you.
> >
> > He's not a shill. A real shill wouldn't post here because he knows he'd lose.
> >
> > He's just confused, a product of the 0.1% controlled media.
>
>
> he is to slick, to prepared. but you are right, he is still losing.

Actually he isn't prepared or slick unless you call being evasive "slick" but you were right about him being a paid shill.

He's just a really stupid one.

HRC just tanked on predictit so if he's gone by Tuesday we'll know he gets paid by the day.

Poke around enough and you obtain all kinds of trivia about the oligarchy.


Bret Cahill

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > todd is a legacy media shill.
> >
> > OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)
>
> that does not negate the fact that he is a shill, like you.

Then you never cared about right or wrong, just about name calling. At least you are one of the few who admit it.

[Bret Cahill]

You have confused posters but it's moot here as you are now as incoherent as HRC on free trade agreements or tRUMP on taxes.

You may be confused about what political party is the best match for you.

Not that position papers are worth a cup of coffee but do you support HRC on her trade agreements to ship jobs overseas, unregulated banking, bailouts for billionaires, etc?

Or do you just support her for her legacy media jerryspringered culture wars, i.e., toilets & guns?

<CIA>

[nickname unavailable]

On Sunday, May 22, 2016 at 2:11:48 AM UTC-5, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > todd is a legacy media shill.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, prove him wrong. (just a slight request to help your credibility)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > that does not negate the fact that he is a shill, like you.
> > >
> > > He's not a shill. A real shill wouldn't post here because he knows he'd lose.
> > >
> > > He's just confused, a product of the 0.1% controlled media.
> >
> >
> > he is to slick, to prepared. but you are right, he is still losing.
>
> Actually he isn't prepared or slick unless you call being evasive "slick" but you were right about him being a paid shill.
>
> He's just a really stupid one.
>

agreed.

> HRC just tanked on predictit so if he's gone by Tuesday we'll know he gets paid by the day.

ROTFLOL!!!

>
> Poke around enough and you obtain all kinds of trivia about the oligarchy.
>

cool.

>
> Bret Cahill

[nickname unavailable]

i am simply stating a fact. no name calling. i have outed more than one shill in my two decades plus on alt.politics.economics. including one from some well know free market think tanks, and it made headlines on blogs, and one from the chinese communist party. i am used to your type.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Brett Cahill wrote:
> You may be confused about what political party is the best
> match for you

Well whatever happened, the Hillary camp certainly put up more fortitude than your side did, otherwise millions more votes would have gone to Bernie. He knew the rules before voting even started.

Secondly here, the rightist Fox News and Rasmussen polls that you enjoy so much just don't compare. Here's RealClearPolitics data:

ABC/WP 5/16 - 5/19 46 44 Trump +2
NBC/WSJ 5/15 - 5/19 43 46 Clinton +3
Rasmussen 5/17 - 5/18 42 37 Trump +5
FOX News 5/14 - 5/17 45 42 Trump +3
CBS/NYT 5/13 - 5/17 41 47 Clinton +6

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Polling Data

[nickname unavailable]

the super delegates are there just for this sort of situation. so that the democrats do not lose again with such a weak hated candidate. now post bernies numbers against trumps. the electoral college is all the super delegates should look at now, and it should send shivers down their backs, if they are real progressives that is.

[Bret Cahill]

> > You may be confused about what political party is the best
> > match for you
>
> Well whatever happened, the Hillary camp certainly put up more fortitude than your side did

Which explains why she tanked on predictit against tRUMP in the few days you've been posting here.

Keep up the good work!

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> i am used to your type.

But are you used to having to prove what you say and what you say about the media? That's where you are constantly question.

[nickname unavailable]

i have a rather large dossier about the legacy media. in fact if you have seen that terminology batted around recently, it was i who coined it here many years ago.
this is just a tiny example, i have many many more, showing that the legacy media today, ranks about where used car salesmen ranks amongst the american people.
so quoting a known obvious shill like todd, exposes what you are to me. and remember, hillarys husband bill tried to privatize social security, so that his rent seeking corporate ghouls could feed off of us. if you do not know what rent seeking means, i will help you, like i will help you with the legacy media.

of course the legacy media is in the pockets of the oligarchs: Both the New York Times and Washington Post decided to ignore the Senate's passage by voice vote of the Sanders Amendment. This was an amendment to the budget put forward by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that puts the Senate on record as opposing the switch to the chained CPI as the basis for the annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/senate-unanimously-votes_b_2951945.html


Dean Baker
Co-director, CEPR; author, 'The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive'


Senate Unanimously Votes Against Cuts to Social Security, Media Don't Notice
Posted: 03/25/2013 7:23 pm

There are few areas where the corruption of the national media is more apparent than in its treatment of Social Security. Most of the elite media have made it clear in both their opinion and news pages that they want to see benefits cut. In keeping with this position they highlight the views of political figures who push cuts to the program, treating them as responsible, while those who oppose cuts are ignored or mocked.
This pattern of coverage was clearly on display last weekend. Both the New York Times and Washington Post decided to ignore the Senate's passage by voice vote of the Sanders Amendment. This was an amendment to the budget put forward by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders that puts the Senate on record as opposing the switch to the chained CPI as the basis for the annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).
Switching the basis for the COLA to the chained CPI is one of the most beloved policies of the Washington elite. The idea is that it would reduce scheduled benefits for retirees by 0.3 percentage points annually. This amounts to a cut of 3 percent after 10 years, 6 percent after 20 years, and 9 percent after 30 years.
If a typical retiree lives to collect benefits for 20 years the average cut in benefits over their retirement ends up being around 3 percent. This is a much bigger hit to the typical retiree, who relies on Social Security for more than two-thirds of their income, than the tax increases put into law this year were to the typical rich person.
But the magic of the chained CPI is that everyone gets to run around saying that they are not really cutting benefits, they are just "adjusting" the cost of living formula. And the media do their best to assist the politicians pushing these cuts. They almost always uses euphemisms like "changing" or "restructuring" Social Security, trying to conceal the simple reality that politicians are pushing cuts to the program.
It is also worth noting, in contrast to the claims of the pretentious elites, there is no -- as in zero, nada, none -- basis for the claim that the chained CPI would give a more accurate measure of the rate of inflation experienced by seniors. Research by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows that the rate of inflation seen by seniors is actually higher than the CPI that provides the basis for the current COLA.
While this research is far from conclusive, the answer for those interested in accuracy would be to have the BLS construct a full CPI for seniors. But the Washington elites don't give a damn about accuracy, which is why not one of them has called for a full elderly CPI. The elite want cuts to Social Security; accuracy is just something they talk about to children and reporters for major media outlets.
This is why the vote on the Sanders Amendment should have been newsworthy. Here was an opportunity for all the senators who have explicitly or implicitly supported the adoption of the chained CPI to step up and say why the switch to the chained CPI was a good and necessary measure. However, not one senator was prepared to stand up and argue the case. Not one member of the Senate wanted to go on record in support of this cut to Social Security.
With all the Republicans who pronounce endlessly on the need to cut entitlement spending, there was not a single Republican senator who was prepared to say that switching the Social Security COLA to a chained CPI was a good idea. And even though President Obama has repeatedly stated as clearly as he could that he supported the switch to a chained CPI, there was not one Democratic senator who was prepared to stand up and speak in solidarity with the president.
This is a clear case of the elite lining up together against the bases of both political parties. If the chained CPI were put to a vote of the people it would lose in a landslide. But the elites are prepared to use their control of the political process and the media to do everything they can to push this cut forward.
The battle over the chained CPI provides a great case study in the state of American democracy. We will get to see whether the rich and powerful are able to attack a program that is vital to the security of almost all working people, even when the vast majority in both parties stand against them.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable:

>
> i have a rather large dossier about the legacy media.

Not.

[Bret Cahill]

> > i am used to your type.

> But are you used to having to prove what you say and what you say about the media?

> That's where you are constantly question.

You are becoming incoherent -- much like the HRC campaign.

The Bern wouldn't pay to have you deliberately make Hillary supporters look dumb. You must be doing this false flagging for another progressive group.

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > i am used to your type.
>
>> But are you used to having to prove what you say and what you say >> about the media?
>>
>> That's where you are constantly question.
>
> You are becoming incoherent -- much like the HRC campaign.

Just yesterday on ABC News This Week, a poll came out saying that 85% of Bernie supporters would vote for Clinton.

[Clave]

<bruce2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7ef6cd5-0dd8-493c...@googlegroups.com...

Cahill's become rather unhinged of late.

[mog...@hotmail.com]

Bret and "Nickname Unavailable" are basing their whole understanding on early, conflicting and inaccurate polling. Here's what Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.org says:

"For f--k's sake, America. You're going to make go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?"

(www.politico.com)

[nickname unavailable]

perhaps, perhaps not. in my circles, i know of no one that is will to dirty their hands on another neo-liberal democrat.

[nickname unavailable]

what did good ole nate say about trump, and where is trump today? why do you guys want someone who is a elite, that has made it her life's work to help strip the american middle class of their jobs, homes, wealth, pensions, is a white supremacist, a war monger, a globalist that is destroying our sovereignty, a corporatist is beyond me, unless some of you are shills.

[Bret Cahill]

We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ in the White House.

This requires us to urge super delegates to do their duty and nominate the Democrat candidate that isn't tanking against tRUMP.

Are you a loyal Democrat?

Or are you a Republican?

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

nickname unavailable:
>
> what did good ole nate say...

Oh wait! Lemmie guess, Lemmie guess! You're gonna say that Nate is "legacy", right?

> why do you guys want someone who is a elite, that has made it her ...

Everyone knows Hillary left the White
House in debt. Bernie was probably worth more than her back then, or do you want to pretend not to know that, too?

How easily the BERNiacs PRETEND to forget the truth - explains something of why you all are not only behind in both the popular vote and delegate count but even having to beg for superdelegates
(continue to enjoy your life of deception)

[Bret Cahill]

> You're going to make go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?"

Nate Silver thinks the convention is in May?

Nate thinks the Bern has _already_ flash persuaded the super delegates to do their duty and nominate the candidate that can take out tRUMP?

Wow! Take a nap and all kinds of thing have changed by the time you get back on line.

Sorry, I don't work 24/7.

[Bret Cahill]

> > You're going to make go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?"
> >
> > (www.politico.com)

Actually they are already on record saying the polls mean something by March.

> what did good ole nate say about trump, and where is trump today?

Nate exposed himself as a shill when he tried to do damage control against Sam Wang at Princeton Elections.

Nate was triangulating between Wang's 99% number at the "horse race" polls to get ~75% Obama in 2012.

> why do you guys want someone who is a elite, that has made it her life's work to help strip the american middle class of their jobs, homes, wealth, pensions, is a white supremacist, a war monger, a globalist that is destroying our sovereignty, a corporatist is beyond me, unless some of you are shills.

As a loyal Democrat, I always support the stronger candidate to keep Republicans out of the White House.

Nominate HRC if she's the stronger candidate.

We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ in the White House.

Bret Cahill

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ ...

You all? Ha! Me and my candidate have always been that ;D

[Bret Cahill]

> > We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ ...
>
> You all? Ha! Me and my candidate have always been that

In that case you'll want a Democrat in the White House and you'll email party leaders reminding them the job of the super delegates is to nominate the stronger general election candidate.

If HRC is the stronger candidate in July then she's the nominee and there is no controversy. As Nate correctly pointed out polls change so this could be the situation in a few weeks.

Right now it appears Sanders is the overwhelmingly stronger candidate so if you want to posture as being a loyal Democrat, then you have no choice except to support Sanders.

Otherwise loyal Democrats will just think you are a GOP trojan horse.

[Clave]

<bruce2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e120c5e-7f10-483d...@googlegroups.com...

> Bret Cahill wrote:
>>
>> We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ ...
>
> You all? Ha! Me and my candidate have always been that ;D

Bernie wasn't even a Democrat before he wanted to run for President.

There's loyalty.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> We loyal Democrats want a _Democrat_ ...
> >
> > You all? Ha! Me and my candidate have always been that ;D
>
> Bernie wasn't even a Democrat before he wanted to run for President.
>
> There's loyalty.

The desire to get a Dem in the White House is what matters to be a loyal Democrat, not length of time as a registered Dem.

The "entitlement mentality" comes from spending a long time thinking you deserve something when that is not necessarily the case.

The "entitlement mentality" -- NY Times' Maureen Dowd's term for Jeb! and HRC -- is how tRUMP beat Jeb! and why HRC is tanking in the polls so fast even Berniacs cannot keep up.

And you don't even have the legacy media on your side on that one.

Anyway, time for more crickets:

Can you explain the purpose of the super delegate?

<CIA>

[nickname unavailable]

On Monday, May 23, 2016 at 11:18:31 AM UTC-5, bruce2...@gmail.com wrote:
> nickname unavailable:
> >
> > what did good ole nate say...
>
> Oh wait! Lemmie guess, Lemmie guess! You're gonna say that Nate is "legacy", right?
>

ah, nate was wrong, he is not invincible.

> > why do you guys want someone who is a elite, that has made it her ...
>
> Everyone knows Hillary left the White
> House in debt.

oh bull shit. cry me a river shill.

Bernie was probably worth more than her back then, or do you want to pretend not to know that, too?
>

bull shit. corrupt people do corrupt things because they expect a payoff in the future. see why she will NOT release her transcripts.
but do not worry, if the democrats are stupid enough to run her, trump has some, and it will be entertaining to say the least.

> How easily the BERNiacs PRETEND to forget the truth - explains something of why you all are not only behind in both the popular vote and delegate count but even having to beg for superdelegates
> (continue to enjoy your life of deception)

you will be long long gone either after the convention, or the election. you will be working for someone else, on some other thing, you have no interest in, except a paycheck.

[nickname unavailable]

could be, the feverish urge for purity, the insulting of the independents they so dearly need to win, the telling us we must accept becoming third world serfs, to shut our mouths, accept reality, gives me pause here. you could be right.

[nickname unavailable]

thomas paine was not born in the colonies. but franklin knew that paine had to be recruited to the colonies if we were to win our independence from the british free trade corporate empire.
franklin used paine to recruit the brightest, such as jefferson and washington. the declaration of independence, the preamble, and the constitution were all based on the writings of thomas paine. not bad for a newbe who became a colonialist just a few years earlier.
the fever for purity here reminds me of all failing movements, that have no real justifications for their existence, like a cult.