Feel the Bern!

Cool. He's one of the guys behind the Hayek/Keynes rap videos.

https://www.facebook.com/TheOther98/...6617887015853/

^^ Funny bit, unrelated to Sanders specifically

Bernie Sanders has officially won Wyoming in a blowout, meaning the Vermont senator has now won 8 of the last 9 contests.

Conservatives eat babies at breakfast. Oh wait, that's the Communists, I always get them confused, sorry!

Seriously now, I like Sanders! He's the most similar politician to an European leftist leader you have and I don't see any European country ruled by a socialist government going communist. I see the opposite though, overly conservative countries going fascist.

Health and education should be free to everyone, but that's impossible to achieve in every country of the world, not only America. However, the difference between studying in USA or in pretty much every country of the "1st World" is too damn big.

Last night, I saw Sanders won, so I turned on the TV and couldn't find it anywhere....

I do not think hes taking New York, dont even think its gonna be close. Thats too bad, New York would have been huge.

A sobering reality, and even more disillusionment with the voting process.....

https://www.facebook.com/MorningJoe/...4096851828762/

Tongo: If I bother to talk about the Wyoming Caucus rules with you, will you care or will you ignore me and instead listen to the human SEO, Joe Scarborough's, faux-populist outrage?

In short: The percentages derive from caucuses, where Bernie won 156-124 (which is where the 55% comes from, not an actual vote count), but Wyoming allocates on sub-state level. Bernie won big in rural counties, and Clinton won narrowly in urban areas (like Cheyenne). Hence, they ended up with 7 a piece; when Sanders won a delegate, he won big, when he lost, he lost slightly.

The extra 4 are super delegates which are unbound, despite Joe lumping them in with the bound delegates. And again, if Bernie wins the majority of bound delegates, the super delegates will more than likely fall in line. If they don't, then that is actual rigging.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wyoming

Edit: Again, I like Bernie, and I'd like nothing more than his support becoming a groundswell to taking back the legislature. But I hate wading through countless articles and videos full of careless misinformation, only designed to get page views from Sanders supporters.

A little more on the disconnect between the countries Sanders' touts as examples and their actual policies:

Bernie's Right—America Should Be More Like Sweden:

The kind of socialism Sanders talks about has not worked for a sustained period of time. An unusually strong social safety net has, however, but it invariably coincides with free trade, low business regulation, and higher middle-class tax rates, none of which he favors.

Winning the presidency and turning the United States of America into a socialist society are two different things. Hes not going to infect our country with disease like beliefs which grow into communism. Hes functioned in the US Govt for too long to be honestly labeled a socialist zealot.

Bernie Sanders’ Brilliant Plan to Turn Post Offices into Banks

Here’s why Bernie’s plan makes a lot of sense.

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...ostal-banking/

I don't think I claimed any of those things. I'm simply pointing out that the countries in his examples do a lot of things he's against, and without those things the policies he wants to emulate aren't possible.

Im sorry I inferred you implied that, I took it wrong. Im extremely disilluisoned with our government, rightfully so. The person people are turning too is Trump when it should be somewhat sound & proven like Sanders. Im not convinced Cruz or Hillary will fix anything, or really do anything substantial on their own. Neither of their track records show theyd benefit the country in any way. What have they DONE? Not what they say or believe, politics isnt church. Who is the best person for the presidency, and I feel its Sanders.

Well, same question: what has Sanders done?

Sorry Im not able to spit this stuff out freestyle, this is a cut and paste, but me looking good in the conversations not the point anyway

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...l-surprise-you

He was first elected to House of Representatives in 1990, heres a cut n paste "He found his vehicle in legislative amendments. Amendments in the House of Representatives are often seen as secondary vehicles to legislation that individual members sponsor, but they are an important way to move resources and build bipartisan coalitions to change the direction of the law. Despite the fact that the most right-wing Republicans in a generation controlled the House of Representatives between 1994 and 2006, the member who passed the most amendments during that time was not a right-winger like Bob Barr or John Boehner. The amendment king was, instead, Bernie Sanders.

Corporate Crime Accountability (February 1995): A Sanders amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995 required “offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution.”

Saving Money, for Colleges and Taxpayers (April 1998): In an amendment to H.R. 6, the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, Sanders made a change to the law that allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services.

Holding IRS Accountable, Protecting Pensions (July 2002): Sanders' amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that “violate current pension age discrimination laws.” Although he faced stiff GOP opposition, his amendment still succeeded along a 308 to 121 vote.

Expanding Free Health Care (November 2001): You wouldn't think Republicans would agree to an expansion of funds for community health centers, which provide some free services. But Sanders was able to win a $100 million increase in funding with an amendment.

Getting Tough On Child Labor (July 2001): A Sanders amendment to the general appropriations bill prohibited the importation of goods made with child labor.

Increasing Funding for Heating for the Poor (September 2004): Sanders won a $22 million increase for the low-income home energy assistance program and related weatherization assistance program.

Fighting Corporate Welfare and Protecting Against Nuclear Disasters (June 2005): A Sanders amendment brought together a bipartisan coalition that outnumbered a bipartisan coalition on the other side to successfully prohibit the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China.

In the Senate....

Greening the U.S. Government (June 2007): A Sanders amendment made a change to the law so at least 30 percent of the hot water demand in newer federal buildings is provided through solar water heaters.

Protecting Our Troops (October 2007): Sanders used an amendment to win $10 million for operation and maintenance of the Army National Guard, which had been stretched thin and overextended by the war in Iraq.

Restricting the Bailout to Protect U.S. Workers (Feburary 2009): A Sanders amendment required the banking bailout to utilize stricter H-1B hiring standards to ensure bailout funds weren't used to displace American workers.

Helping Veterans' Kids (July 2009): A Sanders amendment required the Comptroller General to put together comprehensive reporting on financial assistance for child care available to parents in the Armed Forces.

Exposing Corruption in the Military-Industrial Complex (November 2012): A Sanders amendment required “public availability of the database of senior Department officials seeking employment with defense contractors” – an important step toward transparency that revealed the corruption of the revolving door in action.

Support for Treating Autism in Military Health Care: Sanders worked with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to pass an amendment by a vote of 66-29 ensuring that the military's TRICARE system would be able to treat autism.

While Sanders was an amendment king who was able to bring bipartisan coalitions together to make serious changes to laws, he also knew how to be a thorn in the side of the establishment until it offered up something in return. Sanders was able to get the first-ever audit of funds given out by the Federal Reserve, which made transparent over $2 trillion of funds handed out by the secretive organization. This was a cause that Republican congressman Ron Paul (TX) had been pursuing for decades, but Sanders was able to get the votes to do it by forging a compromise that required an audit for the bailout period alone.

When the Affordable Care Act was in danger of not having the votes to pass, Sanders used his leverage to win enough funding for free health treatment for 10 million Americans through Community Health Centers. This gutsy move—holding out until the funds were put into the bill—has even Republican members of Congress requesting the funds, which have helped millions of Americans who otherwise would not have access.

Another moment came when Sanders, who was then chair of the Veterans committee, worked with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), to overhaul the Veterans Administration. McCain praised Sanders' work on the bill in an interview with National Journal. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) even went so far as to say the bill would never have passed without Sanders' ability to bring the parties to a deal.

Without researching each of those, I'm going to guess that at least a few were slam-dunks, or co-sponsored, or otherwise not really things Sanders himself made possible that otherwise would not be. And the author sort of preemptively acknowledges this, but a handful of amendments over 25 years in Congress really isn't much.

For the record, I don't think he needs to have done a lot of highly tangible things to be "qualified." Electing someone based on simply agreeing with their policies is perfectly fine. I just don't think he has much of an advantage over Ted Cruz or Hillary Clinton based on the "what's he DONE and not just SAID?" test that you're talking about. Pretty much everything I hear in defense of Sanders is the opposite: it's about what he says he'll do.

Anyway, I'll take him seriously if and when he stops telling us we can have all the benefits of a huge social safety net without any of the trade-offs. It'd also be nice if he could demonstrate even basic economic literacy on things like trade, a topic on which he sounds a lot closer to someone like Trump than his supporters seem to realize (or admit).

Im seriously asking this....if you had to vote between only Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, and you had to vote and not abstain, who would you vote for?

I'm not sure how much a hypothetical like that means, since I'm not sure it really counts as voting if you can't literally vote for whoever you want (even if it's a write-in). But in that case I might pick Sanders, because that would at least be a vote for someone who acknowledges the need to stake out positions, argue for them, etc. And preserving that expectation of persuasion and decorum, long-term, is probably more important than what any one President does.

And, out of self-interest, I think a Sanders Presidency might help conservatism in the long run, because I honestly think it would damage the Democratic party.

So glad you didnt pick Trump over Sanders. Would a Sanders presidency help conservatism? It all depends on the execution. I know Trumps an execution blunder just from his campaign. Sanders may surprise. Would a Cruz presidency help conservatism also, in a different more positive way? Sounds like a cop-out answer, but it all depends on the execution. i.e. It depends on the person.

Hillary will have a hard time executing anything because of the Clinton prejudice, and I know little about Cruz as a person but his policies and Sanders are completely at odds with each other. Is Cruz the type that can "get it done"? I know you said you picked him by process of elimination and he wasnt your first pick. Do you think he'd be another George W?