Mr. Trump

ostap bender wrote:


pravi white trash in the white house je bio bubba.

ostap bender wrote:
ne kapiram ovo. pravi white trash in the white house je bio bubba.

It’s ironic that we complain about voter suppression and shortened voting times and then we have so many caucuses. The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what’s interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.

I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.

Q: I think that part of the argument that people like Sanders would make is that, the financial system is corrupt fundamentally and that we don’t want to merely make it slightly more stable—

A: Well if that’s the case it’s even dumber than I thought. The financial system is people lending money to other people so they can do things. I do think that he overstates it when he says, “they’re all corrupt.” It’s simply not true. And by the way, when it comes to specifics, the only specific I have heard is Glass-Steagall, which makes very little change in the finance system.

I think he gets a pass from the media. Other than Glass-Steagall, what did he propose in 2009 and 2010 when he was a senator when we were dealing with this? The answer is nothing. Why haven’t you looked at his record?

What Sanders basically says is, “They’re trying to bribe you.” Well what do they get for money? He shows nothing.

There have been a couple of cases of Republican senators trying to weaken the Dodd-Frank Act.

Elizabeth Warren has been a much more successful defender of that bill than Sen. Sanders has been.
There was this complaint, “Oh she had contributions from Wall Street.” So did Barack Obama. So does almost every Democrat because you can’t unilaterally disarm.

mikelandjelo wrote:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/274880-rand-paul-endorses-entropy-on-april-fools-day

Kinder Lad wrote:Novi poll, od juče, za Wisconsin, vodimo 6%, ali ono što je (možda) najbitnije, vodimo među afroameričanima za 11%  

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/WisconsinPrimaryPoll33116.pdf

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:intervju Barnija Frenka

manje-više ovo nezadovoljstvo pučinom

It’s ironic that we complain about voter suppression and shortened voting times and then we have so many caucuses. The caucuses are the least democratic political operation in America. They cater to the people who have a lot of time on their hands, and what’s interesting is Sanders is the nominee of the caucuses and Hillary is the nominee of the primaries.

I am disappointed by the voters who say, “OK I’m just going to show you how angry I am!” And I’m particularly unimpressed with people who sat out the Congressional elections of 2010 and 2014 and then are angry at Democrats because we haven’t been able to produce public policies they like. They contributed to the public policy problems and now they are blaming other people for their own failure to vote, and then it’s like, “Oh look at this terrible system,” but it was their voting behavior that brought it about.

i nerazumevanje razloga za nezadovoljstvo sistemom, ovo je ipak vrh vrhova, od čoveka čije ime je ugrađeno u zakon o regulisanju finansijskog tržišta:

Q: I think that part of the argument that people like Sanders would make is that, the financial system is corrupt fundamentally and that we don’t want to merely make it slightly more stable—

A: Well if that’s the case it’s even dumber than I thought. The financial system is people lending money to other people so they can do things. I do think that he overstates it when he says, “they’re all corrupt.” It’s simply not true. And by the way, when it comes to specifics, the only specific I have heard is Glass-Steagall, which makes very little change in the finance system.

I think he gets a pass from the media. Other than Glass-Steagall, what did he propose in 2009 and 2010 when he was a senator when we were dealing with this? The answer is nothing. Why haven’t you looked at his record?

The financial system is people lending money to other people so they can do things.

i onda ovo za kraj:

What Sanders basically says is, “They’re trying to bribe you.” Well what do they get for money? He shows nothing.

There have been a couple of cases of Republican senators trying to weaken the Dodd-Frank Act.

Elizabeth Warren has been a much more successful defender of that bill than Sen. Sanders has been.
There was this complaint, “Oh she had contributions from Wall Street.” So did Barack Obama. So does almost every Democrat because you can’t unilaterally disarm.

carski, you can't unilaterally disarm. ne može se bez njihovih para, ali to nije problem jer svi uzimaju pare. dakle problema nema.

The financial system is people lending money to other people so they can do things. 

As I see it, the Sanders phenomenon always depended on leaving the personal attacks implicit. Sanders supporters have, to a much greater extent than generally acknowledged, been motivated by the perception that Clinton is dishonest, which comes — whether they know it or not — not from her actual behavior but from decades of right-wing smears; but Sanders himself got to play the issue-oriented purist, in effect taking a free ride on other peoples’ character defamation. There was plenty of nastiness from Sanders supporters, but the candidate himself seemed to stay above the fray.

But it wasn’t enough, largely because of nonwhite voters. Why have these voters been so pro-Clinton? One reason I haven’t seen laid out, but which I suspect is important, is that they are more sensitized than most whites to how the disinformation machine works, to how fake scandals get promoted and become part of what “everyone knows.” Not least, they’ve seen the torrent of lies directed at our first African-American president, and have a sense that not everything you hear should be believed.

So now, in a last desperate attempt to beat the arithmetic, the Sanders campaign is turning the implicit character attack explicit, and doing so on the weakest possible ground. Clinton, who has said that coal is on its way out, is a tool of the fossil-fuel industry because some people who work in that industry gave her money? Wow.

But, instead of educating people about the way lackluster civic engagement will lead to the eventual doom of the nation, Sanders engages in bizarre friendly fire that weakens the candidate who’s most likely to win and do something about this: Hillary Clinton.

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:Krugman 

 Wow.

Radagast wrote:

 bizarre friendly fire 

Radagast wrote:

But, instead of educating people about the way lackluster civic engagement will lead to the eventual doom of the nation, Sanders engages in bizarre friendly fire that weakens the candidate who’s most likely to win and do something about this: Hillary Clinton.

Lik tvrdi da je prestao da podrzava Sandersa jer ovaj napada najboljeg demokratskog kandidata, Hilari. Kako ovakvi tekstovi uopste bivaju objavljeni?

BernedOut ‏@BerniedOut
Poor @ChrisSosa. Imagine lunch in @Salon's cafeteria. @HAGOODMANAUTHOR and @BillCurry trying to knock over his tray. http://www.salon.com/2016/04/04/im_done_with_bernie_sanders_why_this_democratic_socialist_is_voting_for_hillary_clinton/ …