fbpx ');*/ /*jQuery("#postgridID").addClass("second"); jQuery("#content-wrapper #page-wrapper .tt-content .vc_row .tt-slider-content #postgridID").before(''); */ });

Type to search

Bernie Sanders Wants It All

Campaign 2016 Elections Featured Post Politics Top News Uncategorized

Bernie Sanders Wants It All

Share
Sanders at the National Press Club.

In the face of their increasingly slim chances at winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, both Bernie and Jane Sanders have repeated in recent weeks their desire to change the party’s “agenda” — interpreted by many pundits, perhaps incorrectly, to mean that they had all but ceded the fight for delegates and would instead focus on forcing Hillary Clinton to adopt a more progressive slate of priorities.

Not so. In a news conference Sunday at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., Sanders made explicit a strategy that his campaign has flirted with from its start: urging so-called superdelegates, or unbound delegates, to change their vote according to the results in those states where either candidate won “landslide victories.” Sanders mentioned Washington, Minnesota, Colorado, and New Hampshire by name.

Discussion of “delegate math” starts at around six minutes:

Sanders’ supporters have argued that superdelegates’ early and overwhelming support of Hillary Clinton, even if votes aren’t officially cast until the convention itself, has given her campaign an unfair advantage.

“It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 — that is, the last day that a primary will be held — with pledged delegates alone,” Sanders told the Press Club. “In other words, the convention will be a contested contest.”

Sanders also reminded reporters that national polls have him beating Donald Trump by greater margins than Hillary Clinton does, though this point, Sanders’ primary argument to superdelegates in states which he hasn’t won by a landslide, seems moot. Clinton’s national approval numbers may be lower, but she has decades more experience dealing with the right wing attack machine, a crutch that Donald Trump will surely lean heavily on to compensate for… himself.

Despite Sanders’ signature perseverance, it’s simply not very likely that superdelegates will flock to him in droves to support a wildcard candidacy that relies on young people voting in record numbers — they haven’t been, and as a general rule, they don’t.

Far be it for me to tell Bernie Sanders how to lead a movement. And perhaps all of this jockeying is simply meant to keep the Vermont senator’s unlikely momentum building all the way to the convention, where he can make an extremely strong case for what would essentially be a transformation in the party’s priorities on issues like climate change, electoral reform, and trade.

But there are other ways to get the Democratic Party to listen to you, including, as Hillary Clinton does often, supporting the kinds of down-ballot races that will take back the Senate and maybe even the House in November. If Sanders really wants to change the party, he doesn’t need a “contested convention.” Heck, he doesn’t need to be president, either, but people like me (supporters of his record and his ideas) have been saying that for a year now.

Bernie’s not done making his case, no matter how steep a climb he faces.

“What happens if we do really, really well in the remaining 10 states?” he asked Sunday, explaining his superdelegate campaign.

What if, indeed.

Photo: Still, Sanders at the National Press Club. CSPAN. 

Tags:

93 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila May 2, 2016

    Sen. Sanders has made a tremendous contribution to the Democratic party by reminding us of what our values and goals are supposed to be. He is likely to play a major role in the making of the political platform that will be used by the Democratic nominee, and if Hillary is as savvy as everyone thinks she is, she will pick him as her running mate.

    Reply
    1. yabbed May 2, 2016

      He’s too old to be VP. Hillary Clinton will chose a genuine member of the Democratic Party who is young and personable.

      Reply
      1. Roseann Duchon May 2, 2016

        I’m sure you did not know that Nelson Mandela was 76 years old when he was elected President of South Africa. I could name others who were in the autumn of their lives who achieved greatness but I don’t think that falls in line with your bigoted way of thinking.

        Reply
        1. yabbed May 3, 2016

          If Sanders had “greatness” in him we would have seen it in the decades he’s been languishing on the public payroll in Congress accomplishing absolutely nothing. Mandela was a hero long before he became leader of South Africa.

          Reply
          1. Roseann Duchon May 3, 2016

            You are guilty of presuming that age has a bearing on greatness. It does not so stop using it to deflect from the facts. Sanders has remained in congress BECAUSE he gets things done. Do your research to see the committees he’s served on and how he has worked across the aisle to do so.

            And now for all of you who do not know what “Democratic Socialism” is, I’m going to give you some examples of taxpayer sponsored programs that are just that:

            Our military including border patrol, homeland security, the coast guard, the national guard and all branches
            Firefighters
            Law enforcement and 911
            Our national highway system
            Our public transportation system
            Our public libraries
            Our public education system
            Research and educational grant programs
            Our public parks, museums, and monuments
            All of the agencies that keep our food, air, and water safe: EPA, FDA, USDA
            TSA keeping us safe while flying
            Our banking safety
            The Internet
            The FCC
            OSHA
            Our Worker’s Compensation program
            Unemployment Compensation
            WIC (women, infants and children)
            SNAP
            Medicaid
            Some parts of our healthcare system
            Medicare
            Social Security
            Disability programs
            The VA
            Early Childhood education

            I’m sure I missed a few. People please educate yourselves and open your minds to progress. As we proceed ahead in this election, please do your research and think about what our priorities should be. We are already great but we can improve in many areas when compared to some of our other industrialized neighbors.

            Reply
          2. yabbed May 3, 2016

            You don’t seem to understand what it means to cosponsor a bill. It’s not Sanders’ work. It’s someone else’s legislation. The man is lazy. He’s never done a lick of work in the Congress. No one ever heard of him for all those years on the government payroll.

            Bernie is a USSR Socialist with a capital S. He’s not talking about public education as socialism. He’s talking about income redistribution and nationalizing banks and public works. Sanders is not who you think he is.

            Reply
          3. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            And just what evidence do you have to support your assertions?

            Reply
          4. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            What you and all the Bernie haters fail to understand is that it is not about Bernie! It is about getting corruption out of politics. It is about getting big money out of politics. It is about getting back to “We, the People,” it is about putting our priorities back on track.

            The American people, in this election, more so than ever have a choice. It’s very simple. You can vote for the unqualified, racist, bigot, misogynist who rubs elbows with the corporate elite because he’s pro business (even though his own clothing line is made in China) who thinks climate change is a hoax and will step up the war if not get us nuked by North Korea.

            Or you can vote for the establishment candidate, who very few voters trust whose campaign and everything else comes from corporations, banks and Wall Street who may or may not step up the wars and who may or may not be indicted.

            Or you can vote for the candidate who believes people come first, not corporations. Who believes we can innovate and create jobs through a highly educated, healthy populace, where we can reverse the damage we have done both on our planet and in our democracy.

            I think the choice is clear.

            Reply
          5. yabbed May 5, 2016

            I’m not making “assertions”. It’s fact. Everything I said is in the public record. Look it up.

            Reply
          6. Roseann Duchon May 3, 2016

            You need to do your homework and find out just how many committees Bernie has served on and how he has worked across the aisle to get things done. Your biased viewpoint prevents you from from really investigating the Facts about the candidates. He has served the people for a very long time. Longer than ALL other candidates. Experience counts. So does wisdom and sound judgement.

            Reply
          7. yabbed May 3, 2016

            He’s done nothing. He has drawn a government paycheck for decades and there is nothing to show for it. No one ever heard of Bernie Sanders. No one in Congress gives a hoot for Bernie Sanders. He is after all these years the junior Senator from VT.

            Reply
          8. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            Congress is about to be changed in this election. Indiana just voted for Bernie. You are only one and entitled to your OPINION. I’ve done my homework and research and frankly calling Bernie a USSR socialist is quite amusing. Would you call me a member of Boko Haram because I visited Africa?

            Frankly I’d trust the man who has worked quietly, steadfastly and diligently to get things done, while serving as a public servant his whole career than the bloviating, racist, misogynist bigot who rubs elbows with corporate elites who couldn’t keep his businesses out of bankruptcy and failures and makes his clothing line in China!

            Reply
          9. yabbed May 5, 2016

            Indiana is an open primary which means Republicans can vote for Bernie. You need to grow up. Bernie is being funded by the Republican SuperPacs. He lies to people and denies having SuperPacs but he has many. Here are just a few of Bernie’s SuperPacs, all Republican conservative groups and the last donations to Bernie I saw listed:

            ESA Fund $776,201

            Reply
      2. FT66 May 3, 2016

        Agreed. We must also think the future of our Party.

        Reply
    2. plc97477 May 2, 2016

      Hillary is savvy enough to realize she needs to chose someone who can help bring in votes.

      Reply
  2. FireBaron May 2, 2016

    I like Bernie. I even voted for him in my state’s primary. But at this point, the likelihood of his winning the nomination is getting smaller and smaller. While he may carry Indiana tomorrow, I have a hard time seeing him carrying the day’s other contests.

    Reply
  3. TigerKim May 2, 2016

    The polls vary a little every week: there has NOT been a consistent Sanders triumph over Trump in the polls.People can research this for themselves — Sanders insults my intelligence when he constantly tells half-truths. Gone are the days when women are just going to take men’s word for everything and not fact-check on their own; someone needs to tell Sanders this. .http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

    Reply
  4. FT66 May 2, 2016

    Sanders will ask Super Delegates who are all democrats to consider him! That sounds a bit funny to me. By the way Bernie, before you place your request to them, you need to assure SDs (Super Delegates) that your supporters who most of them it will be their first time to vote and have no experience on voting, that all of them without missing a single voter will show up to vote. Contrary to that, it will be hard for Super Delegates to change their stand.

    Reply
  5. charleo1 May 2, 2016

    I would add, in as much as many dislike inner party politics, and who doesn’t? Isn’t this the way they are supposed to work? And given what is happening on the other side of the isle, shouldn’t we as Democrats take some pride in that? President Obama in his usual knock ’em dead comedy routine at the annual Washington Press Corp dinner this weekend alluded to the Republican’s dissatisfaction. Steak or fish? He said. The menu for the evening is steak or fish. The Republicans he quipped, keep writing in Paul Ryan!

    Reply
  6. yabbed May 2, 2016

    Sanders has a lot of chutzpah to think as a non Democrat he can come into our party and tell delegates they should vote for a member of the Socialist Workers Party instead of long time faithful Democrat Hillary Clinton. The truth is he’s just milking this campaign for money. He is living the billionaire’s life and loving it. He has private jets and limos and bodyguards, fancy pants accommodations, and his wife is taking home 20% of campaign contributions so the old Socialist is watching his bank account grow large on someone else’s money and someone else’s work. He’s living the Socialist Billionaire’s Life and he’s not going to let it go until he has wrenched the last penny he can get his greedy hands on.

    Reply
    1. charleo1 May 2, 2016

      By making such specious unfounded accusations, you are not being helpful in your support of Hillary Clinton. Let’s not become T-Party nutty.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker May 2, 2016

        The fact is that Sanders publicly stated his intention to unite the 2 parties into one. Are you ready for a Socialist who was a former Libertarian to be president?

        Reply
        1. charleo1 May 3, 2016

          I think Sander’s numbers clearly show there’s a lot of Democrats that just aren’t all that afraid of the Socialist label anymore. Plus, many would counter he’s a Democratic Socialist. The kind we fought for in two great World Wars, and are allied with all across Europe. As to being a former Libertarian, I’m not sure what Libertarians stand for today. People change. Did you know Hillary once worked for the Goldwater campaign, and I’m fine with that.

          Reply
      2. yabbed May 2, 2016

        What “unfounded accusations”? He not only is prancing around gleefully in private jets and limos with Secret Service attendees, he chartered a 747, an commercial airliner which carries 450 people, to fly 10 family members like rock stars to Rome. His wife is paid as a consultant 20% of campaign contributions. When he cut back his campaign because he knows he can’t win squat, it wasn’t his millionaire consultants he cut back on but the over than 250 staffers who really need their salary. He didn’t fire his wife, either, I notice. 🙂

        Reply
        1. charleo1 May 3, 2016

          The first unfounded accusation is obvious. Sanders is not running as a non-Democrat, or as a member of the Socialist Workers Party, or the Communist Party, as that label might infer to some. Frankly, I’m a bit distressed at those in my Party who have resorted to throwing around the old Republican trope about Socialism being nothing but Communism in the making. It’s beneath a Party that prides itself on being the one entity using real facts, rather than Rw corporate propaganda, designed to quash any initiative that uplifts or helps the masses.
          As to the private jets, limos, and mandatory secret service. Excuse me please, but you sound like the Republicans who like to bash Obama for playing golf. The thing is, unless you were a contributor to Sanders campaign, which is highly unlikely, what’s your beef with what he does with the funds? There are laws he must follow, and if he breaks them, consequences. But those issues would be between him, his campaign, the law, and his donors. I’d rather hear you talk about his policies. Those that you disagree with, and perhaps why you disagree. Those policies that differ in substance with those of Hillary. And why you believe her approach to solving some of our most urgent problems is far better than Sander’s.

          Reply
          1. yabbed May 3, 2016

            I’m just pointing out the blazing hypocrisy of Bernie Sanders. He’s not a Democrat. He has never been a Democrat. He has, in fact, been quite the anti-Democratic Party operative in opposition to our legislation on gun control and immigration reform. He has been as obstructionist to Democratic Party initiatives as has the GOP.

            Bernie has no “policies” to discuss. He only has platitudes he yells out over and over and over. Just like Trump, there are no answers to the question “how”? How is he going to break up big banks? Where is the world to go with their trillions in our big banks? It’s nonsense. How is he going to destroy billionaires? Confiscate their fortunes? Bernie did once run on a Socialist Workers Party to confiscate the Rockefeller family fortune? Is that what he means? On that same Socialist Workers Party platform Bernie promised to nationalize the banks. Is that what he means by breaking up big banks? On that same platform he was promising to give utility companies “to the people”. What people?

            Bernie is a fraud. He’s taken quite comfortably to the billionaire’s life. We’ve all noticed he’s not carrying his own bags onto a Greyhound bus. He’s just milking the donors to enrich himself. 20% of campaign contributions being paid to his wife as a consultant rivals the income of the biggest of Wall Streeters he rails against constantly but with no “policy” to change anything. All Bernie is “changing” is his own bank balance.

            Reply
          2. charleo1 May 3, 2016

            Again, Burnie is more supportive to the Democratic Party’s platform, than any Republican serving anywhere. Plus, and this is a matter of my own sense of where the Democrats should be. Those platitudes you point to, breaking up the virtual monopoly of the largest financial institutions, creating a more progressive tax schedule, rebalancing an economy that has 90% of the wealth being created going to the top .005%. Where it’s invested in third world, subsistence wage, non regulatory environments. Or the environmental crisis of global climate change. Are all things Democrats should be talking much more about than I believe Hillary initially intended to. Asked if these issues are important to her, she would I’m sure say yes. But, how important they would have been minus Burnie’s unexpected success? You tell me.

            The other personal stuff about how the Sander’s campaign is using the voluntary public funding. Whether he’s going to fire his wife. I’m guessing not. Anyway, is that 20% of all donations he’s paying her, or 20% of something else? Your source of that information might hint of it’s veracity. FYI. No, neither the banks nor the oil companies will be nationalized. Nor will the large landowner’s banana plantations be divided amongst the oppressed peasant population in any People’s Revolution. You sound like the Right Winger Billionaire that compared President Obama’s raising his tax rate by an extra nickel on the dollar after the first million in annual income, to the Nazi Holocaust, while he called him him anti colonist, Maoist. It’s hyperbolic absurdity!

            Reply
      3. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

        unless I see court records of what Hillary is accused of that prove she is guilty, these are not unfounded accusations. They are lies from men like Gowdy who edited emails and now should go to prison. Or like Chaffetz who edited a Planned Parenthood video who should also go to prison.

        Reply
        1. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

          The FBI ha not yet concluded its investigation

          Reply
  7. Marta Hewitt May 2, 2016

    Contrary to this articles misrepresentation of Sanders’ vs Hillary’s experience dealing with Republicans, Sanders has spent 25 years dealing directly with Republicans as opposed to Hillary Clinton’s 8 years as Senator and 4 years as Secretary of State. And I suppose if you wanted to include her 8 years as first lady (which is not dealing directly with Republicans), she still doesn’t have as much experience as Bernie. And if you want to look at Hillary’s record dealing with Republicans, what did she do? She follows right in line with their footsteps. She is more like a Republican than many Republicans.

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker May 2, 2016

      Contrary to the fabrication of reality in your post, Sanders, a Democrat from Vermont is an interloper with the same years of experience in government as his fellow Vermont Democrat, Senator Patrick Leahy. So..tell us…how is it no one EVER heard of Sanders until he decided to run for president and most of us know far more about Senator Leahy?

      Sanders has a “movement?” Sorry Lady Jane we don’t elect a “movement” for president. No, do we elect a phony like Sanders.

      Hillary was a member of a presidential cabinet, In those 8 years, she has traveled millions of miles as Secretary of State, met with key world leaders and what has Sanders done? Spent two years hiding his true income and the fact that his wife was forced to resign from Burlington College as a result of a few of her shady deals. Now you know why Sanders doesn’t dare show ALL of his tax records. Brainey Janey knows damn well 2014 was the year that shows their
      “lowest” income. Sorry..most of us are not stupid enough to vote for a 1960s Protester who didn’t become mayor of Burlington until he finally got elected after 7 tries.

      Reply
      1. Marta Hewitt May 2, 2016

        My post was not comparing Senator Sanders experience to Senator Leahy but to Hillary. And you may want to check your facts and your history. Hillary only served 4 years as SOS, not eight. And yes inherent to her role as SOS, she is expected to meet with World Leaders and in the process she sold us out to the Middle East in exchange for donations to her Foundation. Her released emails are evident of her “pay to play” relationships with other nations; confirmations of $200k donations from Saudi Arabia to her foundation via email and only days later approving an arms deal with Saudi Arabia (one example of several). Her selling out uranium resources to Russia. Wonderful work as SOS that made us so much safer, NOT!

        Sanders has already submitted his 2014 taxes. Like he said, nothing exciting to look at there. Jane resigned from Burlington College because she (among others) were not able to secure the necessary pledged donations for a capital project.

        And if you decide to look back at history, it was revolutions and movements that made this country.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker May 2, 2016

          You are a liar Lady. First of all, name one single piece of legislation related to ANY of the issues SAnders had 44 years to legislate . Can’t can you?

          Even better, IN 4 years as SOS, Hillary travel according to all records nearly 2 million miles, more than any Senator, any Congressman or any other SOS. Jane resigned from Burlington College over a deal where she sold a part of the college that the college considered conflict of interest.

          Time for you to stop the sucking up to Sanders. I don’t have to look back at Hillary’s history. People like you have shoved it in our faces for years.

          That 2014 tax return is not going to get him elected. All presidential candidates have to show tax records back at least 10 years. And Sanders admitted he owns 3 homes. So, he has to be a millionaire unless he goes around buying up ghetto homes.

          Here liar lady…www.politico.com/…/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-col…
          Politico
          Feb 11, 2016 and more from VT: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/…jane-sanders..Come on liar lady…time to fess up.

          Reply
          1. Marta Hewitt May 2, 2016

            Eleanor Whitaker, I realize that it may be very difficult for you to accept facts that don’t paint your candidate in the purest of light, but your failure to know the facts or accept the truth does not make me a liar. I would also highly recommend that you keep current on your information. http://time.com/4296683/bernie-sanders-tax-returns-2014/

            In regards to Clinton’s “pay to play” with foreign gov’ts, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/emails-show-hillary-clinton-aides-celebrating-f-15-sales-to-saudi-arabia-good-news/5514365?print=1

            Or, http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

            I am unsure what your other link is in regards to Burlington College because it fails to open for me. Although, I agree that Jane’s tenure at BC is not favorable, it pales in comparison to the many scandals surrounding the Clintons. To understand the BC resignation/situation, there are many articles detailing the opinions regarding her departure. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-college-219114

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker May 2, 2016

            Marta Hewitt…Or should I have posted Sanders Sugar Daddy liar. You don’t accept facts unless you create them. Hillary Clinton is the ONLY candidate who has the ability to take this country where it belongs. I’ve listened to your nutbag Sanders who sounds like all those college protestors I grew up with . You Perimenopausals don’t get to make up facts.

            Hillary Clinton swore and oath of office to do the best job she could as SOS. You can’t answer one word I post because the only woman behind Sanders is that fat ass wife of his who helped him as HE stated a month ago in his AZ speech, “she helped me write 55 pieces of legislation.” Do you admit this when half the country heard him say it?

            Jane’s tenure wasn’t just “not agreeable.” She was asked to resign and Vermont is still deciding whether or not to prosecute Mrs. Senator Fat Ass.

            Sanders used the Democratic Party like a dockside harlot. Now, he doesn’t have the votes OR the delegates he needs because as EVERYONE BUT YOU heard him say, He isn’t really a Democrat. He just play acts at being one so he can be the first Jewish male President. So if your religion is your pecking order Toots. Keep your damn religion and his out of our elections.

            Reply
          3. Marta Hewitt May 2, 2016

            Oops, excuse me, I believe I forgot to answer one question. Here’s the answer… https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/#content

            And no, I did not create the facts. Facts are facts.

            Perimenopausal??? At 56 years old, I’m well beyond that. The one acting perimenopausal, menopausal or postmenopausal is your name-calling and throwing temper-tantrums. Be careful, your woman card is showing and it doesn’t look good.

            Reply
          4. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

            Hey moron..here is the ONLY way in the USA you prove you have facts. They can stand up in a court of law. You have NO facts. All you have is a misguided ideology you hope will get you a ton more freebies from the rest of us working long beyond SS eligibility we paid for more than 4 decades to earn.

            You are a moron and you just can’t admit it. I provided several links which like a nut freak that you are living in your Grand Denial fest choose to pretend isn’t fact. Want to bet Toots?

            The wonder of it is that a woman like you with that self-created superiority act is MAN-dependent and you have ALWAYS been. Some women are like Hillary…financially independent and we don’t need any man’s approval to live our lives like you suck ups do.

            If you can’t show me court records of the things you accuse Hillary, you are a LIAR..got that Sweet Cheeks? LIAR..because if you haven’t gotten court records, anything else you post is not legal and binding. So shove it up your Man loving double wide ass.

            Reply
          5. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            Whoa, take a chill pill! Where are all your links you supposedly provided that prove your “facts” that “stand up in a court of law?”. A whopping two links; one of them doesn’t even open and the other one is an opinion price and neither are worthy of even a local courts attention to “stand up in a court of law.” I provided six links; five of them stating facts and one stating opinion. Here they are again…
            http://time.com/4296683/bernie-sanders-tax-returns-2014/ (which proves your first two links as outdated and false).

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/emails-show-hillary-clinton-aides-celebrating-f-15-sales-to-saudi-arabia-good-news/5514365?print=1 (facts and are currently under federal review and potential doj indictment)

            http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187 (fact and public information)

            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-college-219114 (opinon)

            https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/#content (facts, public record)

            The two links you provided…

            http://www.politico.com/…/bernie-sanders-jane-vermont-burlington-col... (which happens to be the same link I provided and is an opinion piece as opposed to facts).

            http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/…jane-sanders..Come (will not open so who knows? )

            Contrary to your limited view of facts, they come from many sources, not just “court of law.”

            And while you’d like to package me up in your limited stereotypical bubble with your absurd claims of who I am, you are so off it is as laughable as you are. No, I am not “man dependent.” I happen to be single, have been for 20 years, living in my own home that I bought with my own income as a single mom, have worked over four decades and will be working at least one more. Not that any of that has any bearing on the “facts” but considering you think it does, thought I would put that to rest.

            Instead of relying on name calling and hypocracy, you may want to check your “facts” and take a chill pill so that you are better prepared to handle them.

            Reply
          6. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

            Hey Dunderhead…Can you prove a single thing YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU posted in a court of law? Or do you just like to judge others whoknow they can.

            Now you unless you show me court records of what you posted, your attempt to refocus the spotlight proves you are a liar. Come up with the court records on Hillary or you prove you are a liar. I want to see the court records of what you accuse Hillary of OR ELSE…got it yet moron?

            Sanders is losing and no matter what he does, he will NOT be president. So all of your sucking up is useless. And all of your Hillary bashing is a huge yawn..we have heard it all before from morons with minds like yours.

            Reply
          7. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            I can’t argue with stupid!

            Reply
          8. Roseann Duchon May 3, 2016

            You’re right Marta. I’ve been reading this discussion between you and Eleanore Whitaker and frankly I find her name calling, condescending responses, not only childish but sad and hinting of desperation.

            I recently had to block a Hillary supporter because of the foul language and name calling he descended into after I presented the facts. He didn’t like the facts. Oh well…

            Reply
          9. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            Thanks Roseann! Sometimes you have to throw in the towel. I actually supported Hillary until I started to look at her record in 2008. I didn’t like what I saw and it has just gotten worse from there.

            Reply
          10. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

            You only throw BS not the towel. You are a liar and you can’t prove the things you accuse Hillary of. Now..where are the court records of proof of what you accuse her of?

            Reply
          11. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

            Frankly my dear Roseann…I don’t give a damn what you like or don’t like and stow the sweetness and Flower of Womanhood BS. I don’t fall for it. You sling quite a few choice words at McHubby when he comes home drunk and reeking of another woman’s Chanel No. 5. Who do you think you are fooling? You women are pathetic examples of what women should never be…clinging vine dependents.

            Reply
          12. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            First of all Eleanore you don’t know me. I don’t have a McHubby and I’m the one who wears Chanel haha! Nice try!

            But from what you post it’s very easy to surmise you have suffered some abuse at some point in your life. You may want to get some help with your internal anger issues because they are obviously spilling out through your hateful diatribes on this thread. Everyone has an opportunity to voice their opinions or post citations and FACTS. But your name calling, condescending vitriol and just plain nastiness only displays the inner workings of your own issues. Get some help!

            Reply
          13. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

            I’m guessing you can’t prove what you posted with court records that prove your accusatiuons, right.

            I don’t argue with morons but in your case, you have the mentality of spoiled overindulged 2 year old who just wants YOUR way. Give it up.

            Reply
          14. Charlotte Sines May 3, 2016

            She is one of the most hate filled people on this site. If you disagree with her, then you are man dependent and are against women. It doesn’t matter if you have always supported yourself as far as she is concerned, you are nothing but a man-loving, woman-hating useless person. I answered her once and I will never do so again. I don’t need that kind of hatred and anger in my life and she is not worth the effort.

            Reply
          15. Marta Hewitt May 4, 2016

            Yes, she is quite bizarre! Oops, I better have court records to prove that statement, lol! Well, that should be easy enough to do. All I’d have to do is show this thread to a judge and the judge and jury would agree that she is certifiably bizarre, lol!

            Reply
    2. King of America May 2, 2016

      Yes she is just like them, that is why the Republicans have spent 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to smear her.

      Reply
  8. A. D. Reed May 2, 2016

    I’m saddened that Bernie has now, in the end game, proven himself to be what he always says he isn’t: “just another politician.” Bernie refused to join the Democratic Party for 30+ years, often opposing its platform and policies, though he caucused with them. Then when he decided his voice needed to be heard, he suddenly had a death-bed conversion and joined the party he had always despised.

    Four years ago he himself was a superdelegate, and he knows perfectly well why the party established the structure of pledged delegates and superdelegates: to be able to ignore “the will of the people” if necessary to save the party as a whole from a disastrous candidate. Those superdelegates are elected officials and elected party officials who have worked for the party and its platform, who have given their loyalty and their money and time to furthering Democratic policies, and to fighting the excesses of the Republicans. Of course they make mistakes, and take wrong votes (like offering blanket immunity to gun manufacturers), and sometimes give in when they should fight. But the last thing they are expected to do is switch their loyalty based on the popular vote.

    Bernie also publicly considered challenging President Obama in the 2012 primaries. But now, as his campaign nears its inevitable end, he suddenly wants those superdelegates to turn around and support him, because “based on polls” he’s the stronger candidate.

    Perhaps if he gets a taste of what the right wing will do to a 75-year-old socialist from Vermont he’ll understand why at this time, when the right has been pumping him up in state after state, he seems “stronger” than Clinton against a Republican. She’s been put through that grinder for 24 years, nonstop, and has still earned 2.5 million more votes than he has from actual Democratic voters.

    Early in the campaign I was glad Bernie was pulling Hillary to the left and making her a better candidate; now he wants to push her off the cliff, like every other selfish, self-serving politician.

    For shame. Go away.

    Reply
    1. Roseann Duchon May 2, 2016

      It is precisely your phrase, “to be able to ignore the will of the people if necessary…” That I am a Bernie supporter. I have been a life long Democrat. I’m 66 and if you think that the system of pledged and super delegates and the electoral college is not corrupt, rigged and ignores the will of the people, YOU and the DNC is what is wrong with the process. What the DNC should be fighting is voter suppression, voter fraud, rigged voter machines and bought and paid for elections!

      The voters no longer trust that their vote counts. But thank God for the young and those who are informed thanks to the Internet. They are engaged. They are smart and they will vote for the best candidate even if it’s a write in vote. Bernie will make the kind of changes to this system that are necessary and long overdue.

      It’s time the DNC machine cleaned house and support the candidate that they KNOW is the only one to beat ANY GOP candidate, especially Trump! Wake up!

      Reply
      1. A. D. Reed May 2, 2016

        I, too, am a life-long Democrat, and I’ve watched as the party has been riven by factionalism several times during my 40-year involvement. Kennedy-Carter, Humphrey-Kennedy-McCarthy, McGovern, and … Sanders threatening to challenge Obama in 2012!

        And it’s not just nationally, but locally as well. I’ve watched as the Republicans have stuck together and won election after election at the national, state, and local level, all the way down to school boards.

        Numbering among my close friends my county party chair, who is a Bernie superdelegate, and the state chair, who is a Hillary superdelegate, I know that both of them made their decisions out of a sincere belief that their choice is right for them personally (based on their policy positions), and for the party, and for the nation. Neither they nor any of the other party executive committee people I know has ever been part of anything corrupt or rigged, and if you think they have, you’re sadly mistaken and sadly cynical.

        Furthermore, they, too, are “the people,” and they have been chosen by their fellow party members for their integrity and leadership; as such, their will is representative of the people they represent. If the people — Democratic voters, or the independents that have shown up at caucuses month after month — had promoted Donald Trump as the Democratic candidate, based on his anti-TPP and anti-free-trade positions, would you still demand that the will of the people be followed? I doubt it. It’s YOUR will that you want to win, and the fact that your colleagues and candidate are not winning impels you to proclaim the system corrupt and rigged — even though Mr. Sanders himself is a Superdelegate (as a sitting Senator) and has been one for decades.

        Also, if you imagine Mr. Sanders could beat any GOP candidate, you have never noticed the right-wing attack machine. Amazing that you could be so oblivious, but then …

        Reply
        1. Roseann Duchon May 2, 2016

          First of all, it is no secret that in AZ since the 2008 election the number of polling locations has dropped from 400 to 60 in 2016! That is a FACT and it is blatant disenfranchisement of the voters. It is a FACT that in NY in Brooklyn alone, 126,000 voters were somehow taken off the voter log books. It is a FACT that Diebold’s voting machines software was able to be breached with votes being changed. So no. It’s not my will that compels me to vote for the best candidate who believes in transparency and honest elections and integrity.

          Anytime, ANY voter is denied their right to vote our system is corrupt. I do not doubt that there are honest people who work within the party and are doing their jobs. However, all you have to do is Google voter fraud and there are numerous cases the ACLU has taken up to find and prosecute those bad apples.

          We all must inform ourselves as best we can with the information out there. However unless one is a party insider, we really do not know what is going on behind closed doors. Too much dark money, too much corporate influence and too much mistrust by the voters leads people to distrust the process. They then stay home.

          Oblivious?? No! I’ve seen the nastiness of the right and those who are not open minded to listen and work toward compromise. They have no business being public servants. I want the best candidate to win. The one who is the most honest and has MY interests at heart. There is no way I would ever vote for Trump even if he was on the Democrat ticket, or Cruz or ANY GOP candidate.

          It is incumbent upon the delegates to vote for the candidate that the people vote for in the primaries. It is always, we the people! ALWAYS!

          Reply
          1. A. D. Reed May 3, 2016

            Last point first: it is incumbent only on the pledged delegates to vote for the candidate the people voted for in the primaries. And in fact, that’s what the superdelegates have done in every single election since 1984, the first year the party had superDs. Now, given that 3 million more of The People voted for Hillary in the primaries than for Bernie, it’s clear that the superdelegates MUST support Hillary at the convention. 12 million to 9 million is a huge difference.
            But even given that, the superDs are still free to vote as they wish; there is no legal or moral obligation on them to follow anyone’s will but their own. Bernie knows that, having been one for years; that’s why he is trying so desperately to convince them to switch their votes to him — despite that doing so would be in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to following the will of We The People — who, again, and again, supported Hillary by a 14-point margin!

            Back to your first paragraph: do I assume from this and your earlier post(s) that you believe Hillary is responsible for Arizona’s Republican government’s curtailing the number of polling places? Is it Hillary who runs Diebold? Or do you just throw the kitchen sink at her because … Bernie.

            You then imply that being “open minded to listen and work toward compromise” is a good thing. If that’s what you mean, I agree. The fact that Hillary was willing to listen and work toward compromise was what made her a respected and effective Senator and Secretary of State … while, in my opinion, the fact that Bernie is an absolutist who refuses to compromise is what has made him one of the least effective or influential officials in Washington for the 30 years he’s been there. Maybe he is the most honest; maybe he does have your interests at heart; but he can’t get anything done without allies and supporters in Congress.

            I happen to believe that Hillary is both the best qualified and the most capable candidate for president in 2016; 12 million other primary voters have agreed with me, while 9 million have disagreed. Well, that means she’s winning. And if Bernie tries to subvert the will of the people who helped her win, you better believe I will fight him.

            Reply
          2. Roseann Duchon May 3, 2016

            Do not make assumptions. I’m not holding Hillary responsible for fraud during the election. It’s some of her overly enthusiastic supporters who are responsible.

            I as a taxpayer contribute to the entire voting process as do others. Tell me what is fair about closed primaries when ALL of the taxpayer funds in the community are being used but the Independents are not allowed to vote in those primaries? That’s taxation without representation. And that is what is wrong with the system that the DNC has created. Just don’t forget that the national election is an “open” one.

            Please do your research on just how much Sanders has gotten done. I should think that you would welcome the fact that unlike the GOP, we actually have two very qualified candidates. In my opinion, I think Bernie should be the nominee. The only reason Hillary is ahead in pledged delegates is because they committed to her BEFORE anyone knew who else would run. Now that Bernie has won 17 states, people realize he is the stronger candidate. Hillary has moved to the left of center because the people are speaking and agreeing with his message. Now it’s time for those delegates to do the will of the people.

            May the best candidate win.

            Reply
          3. A. D. Reed May 3, 2016

            Your assertion that Hillary’s “overenthusiastic supporters are responsible for fraud during the election” has no basis in fact or evidence, to my knowledge. They certainly had and have nothing to do with Arizona’s number of polling places — slashed by a Republican administration and legislature — or with Diebold machines, owned by Republican megadonors. If you insist on believing that Hillary’s supporters removed Bernie voters from the rolls in Brooklyn, I eagerly await your evidence (other than “I’ve heard” or “it’s clear that”).

            And, please: taxation without representation? That’s absurd hype. The only right of representation we have under federal law is voting for congressional and executive-branch representation in the general election in November. Primary elections choose nominees for those roles, and nominated candidates have absolutely no role in imposing taxes on us. One of them (or more, in some states) loses, and only the winner can help impose taxes. Furthermore, the primary system does not prohibit you from voting in the general: it simply limits the choices you have on the official ballot. But even there, it doesn’t keep you and millions of others from voting for a write-in candidate.

            As a taxpayer each of us pays to support the elections in our state. Federal funds are used to support certain aspects of elections, including some voter registration options (like HAVA and motor-voter), but it’s each state that sets up and allocates funds for its primary and general election costs. Some, like New York, make it very difficult to get on the ballot, though NY had four active parties not long ago (D & R plus Conservative [and later Right-to-Life] and Liberal).

            Each state’s party designs its own rules for voting in partisan primaries or caucuses. Some open their caucuses to anyone who shows up, and their primaries to any registered voter, as Bernie has used to his advantage; others require registered party membership. Yet others allow independents to vote in a primary if they declare for that party for the primary, but they can’t then switch to the other party for the general. California now has nonpartisan primaries in which anyone can vote and the two top vote-getters move on to the general regardless of party, thus removing the “right” of members of one party to vote for their preferred candidate (so all Democrats have to choose between two awful Republicans, for example — or vice versa).

            I as a taxpayer contribute to many things from which I don’t directly benefit, including schools (I have no children and I attended private schools), military excesses, corporate subsidies, welfare, Food Stamps, etc. I tend to believe that society as a whole benefits from those expenditures (well, most of them) and therefore I pay taxes willingly. My North Carolina state taxes go to support a partisan primary system in which independents can choose either party to vote in for that election, but voters registered in a party can vote only in that party’s primary. Do I like the fact that independents — including right-wing-leaning indies — can come in and vote in my party’s primary to try to nominate a candidate who’s less electable in the fall? Hell, no: I think each primary should be for its registered members, period. But my taxes go to allow them to vote, and my only way of changing that is by working with party leaders to change their rules.

            I agree that Hillary has moved to the left because of Bernie’s strong showing; I’m glad of it. But while Bernie has won 18 states, Hillary has won 23!!! What part of that math don’t you get?

            Reply
          4. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            Bernie just won Indiana.

            I agree with much of what you are saying. The problem with the primaries is precisely what you stated. Each state has different rules. Why? Most American voters do not understand the internal workings of the primary process. And it is precisely WHY the system is skewed. It’s because “party leaders” make up the rules. CA has the right idea. Why should anyone have to declare which party they are at all? The system of the two parties has previously been based on ideological differences and what are the solutions for handling the problems we face. This election is very different in that people who do not like either party are coming together to make fundamental changes to the system. Anyone who pays taxes supports taxpayer sponsored “socialist” programs that they may or may not use. But we all benefit as a country when we have a healthy, educated, hard working, innovative populace. The system right now is corrupt with bought and paid for “insiders” whose agendas match those of their donors. And when it comes election time, those same insiders will do everything they can to keep the status quo! Rigged machines? Yes. Create laws to disenfranchise voters? Yes! Media propaganda? Yes!

            Your average voter is not an insider and many do not vote because they just don’t care and don’t feel government cares about them. I work with a smart young lady in her mid 20’s who is getting married soon. She has never voted! Her fiancé and his family are voting for Trump! She says at family gatherings when politics comes up, she just sits there with her mouth shut for fear of starting an argument! Is this what it comes down to? Fear? And how often is this scenario repeated all across the country? I am truly saddened to see what our country has become and how our democracy has been hijacked by capitalistic cronyism, war mongering for profit and power and a total disregard for the basic tenants of “we, the people.”

            Reply
  9. Big Blue May 2, 2016

    The DNC decided this before the first vote was cast and Sanders knows this. The only way this Independant would have voted Democrat was if they had Sanders as their candidate.

    Reply
    1. King of America May 2, 2016

      Yes, that is why Obama lost in 2008. Oh wait…

      Reply
      1. Big Blue May 2, 2016

        Obama won because he had SUCH an amount of support that the Superdelegates saw the writing on the wall.
        The Superdelegates decide who the nominee will be. Sanders knows this because he used to BE a Superdelegate.

        Reply
        1. King of America May 2, 2016

          Sanders lost because he didn’t do a damn thing about his lack of appeal to minority voters. It has nothing to do with a CONSPIRACY or super delegates at all; people didn’t vote for Sanders because he gave them no reason to.

          Reply
          1. Big Blue May 2, 2016

            Sanders lost because neither you nor the Republicans give a damn about anything other than what you’ve been told to think. The superdelegates decide who the nominee is. Period. THAT is what you cannot prove wrong.

            Reply
          2. King of America May 2, 2016

            No, he lost because he was unpopular.

            Reply
          3. Big Blue May 2, 2016

            Hardly. And you’d better get on your knees and pray to whatever passes for a god that he doesn’t decide to run as an independent or with the Democratic Socialists.

            Reply
          4. King of America May 2, 2016

            Uh huh. Sanders has never come close to having 50% support among Democrats; if it wasn’t for undemocratic caucuses, he would have crashed and burned months ago. Hillary has won a crushing landslide victory against him.

            And again, no third party candidate has ever been remotely viable. Sanders won’t run as third party because – unlike you – he is not delusional.

            Reply
          5. Big Blue May 2, 2016

            There have been two.
            George Washington belonged to no party and vehemently opposed political parties.
            Teddy Roosevelt won his second term as an independent.
            next?

            Reply
          6. King of America May 2, 2016

            Roosevelt was a popular former President who was a Republican in all but name; the split in his party was genuine and huge, unlike the the tiny minority of sore losers like yourself in the Sanders camp.

            Washington predated the two party system and hence doesn’t actually count.

            Sanders is no Roosevelt and definitely no Washington; the comparison is actually laughable.

            I will qualify my remarks by saying that no third party candidate has ever been viable in the modern era, which is generally dated as starting in 1972.

            And I note that you ignored the fact that Clinton has always been the more popular candidate and always had majority support among the Democrats; this is not a conspiracy, you ignorant crybaby, it’s just a fact. Again, if it wasn’t for caucuses Sanders would have lost long ago and withdrawn; he has nowhere near the amount of support Clinton does.

            Reply
          7. Big Blue May 2, 2016

            And yet she lost to the person the DNC wanted last time around.
            Funny how that happens. 😉

            Reply
          8. King of America May 2, 2016

            Yes, it is almost like the inane conspiracy you are claiming prevented Sanders from winning doesn’t exist. Weird!

            Reply
          9. Big Blue May 2, 2016

            You were dropped on your head as a child, weren’t you?

            Reply
          10. King of America May 2, 2016

            Yes I already realised that you have nothing but insults to back up your ridiculous crybaby claims. Sorry that your candidate wasn’t very good at running for President; it shows that he wouldn’t have actually made a good President in the first place.

            Reply
          11. King of America May 2, 2016

            Also I don’t actually see the problem you seem to have with that? Clinton was popular, but Obama narrowly eked out a close victory (in part because several states that had voted for Clinton were stripped of half their delegates). There’s no resemblance to the current primary, where she has soundly and thoroughly beaten Sanders by every metric. Sanders lost because he wasn’t very good at running for President; get over it.

            Reply
          12. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            Unfortunately, Democrats are only 32% of the voting public. Independents are 39%. Republicans only 23%. Independent voters overwhelmingly support Sanders which is why he has done well in open primaries and caucuses. And it is those open caucuses and primaries that are much more representative of how the presidential election will be.

            Reply
          13. King of America May 3, 2016

            Caucuses are not even CLOSE to representative. What the heck are you talking about?

            Reply
          14. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            Open caucuses and primaries are more representative because it is not limited to just democrats voting for Democrats or Republicans voting for Republicans. Everyone, no matter their party affiliation, gets to vote for the candidate they prefer in an open caucus or primary. Considering that there are more independents than any other party affiliation, open caucuses and primaries serves as a likely representation of how they will vote in a general election.

            Reply
          15. King of America May 3, 2016

            Caucuses are IN NO WAY more representative than primaries, whether closed or open. I repeat: what the heck are you talking about? (That’s a rhetorical question – you want to change the rules so that people who voted against Sanders are disenfranchised).

            Reply
          16. Marta Hewitt May 3, 2016

            I would agree that open caucus is not as reliable as an open primary but are still much more representative of the total voter population than a closed caucus. So let me rephrase, open caucus is more representative of the total voter population than a closed caucus and an open primary is much more representative of the total voter population than a closed primary.

            Reply
          17. King of America May 3, 2016

            That’s better, but getting rid of caucuses altogether is hundreds of times more important than opening primaries up, which has no real benefits whatsoever.

            Reply
  10. Eleanore Whitaker May 3, 2016

    When Sanders supporters make accusations about Hillary they can’t prove with legal documents from a court of law, they are guilty of libel and slander under the law. But, they figure no matter how Sanders, the weasel that he is and his fat tub wife Brainey Jane contort facts, winning is all they care about.

    How on earth did the Sanderistas become such bare faced liars that you demand they show proof and they can’t and so they change the subject. If you don’t have the proof to back up your posts, that means all of your posts are lies. Right Marta and Roseann?

    Reply
    1. David May 4, 2016

      Eleanore!!! First, learn the difference between libel and slander. Second, learn how defamation cases are handled when the subject is a “public figure”. Have you taken your meds today?

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker May 5, 2016

        Hey folks! Here’s David playing at being Mr. World Book of Knowledge. Watch how I make a DUH out of him.

        According to Webster, the formal definition of the word “libel” is “defamation by written or printed matter.” So David the phony who pretends he knows it all at every opportunity is wrong. When anyone posts something they cannot prove is legal and that post defames someone, that is libel. Right Davey Old Man?

        Now …the formal definition of slander according to Webster: “A malicious, false and defamatory statement or report.”

        So David…KNow it all…You are wrong. Unless of course you think you can reinvent the word “false” to mean “true,” anyone who posts something they cannot provide legal domcument as proof is knowingly defaming someone with the intent to slander or present a “malicious, false and defamatory” post. You are so out of your league with me.

        Legally, if someone is guilty or libel or slander, and that causes “personal injury or “loss” of reputation or income, they can be sued…and have been on many occasions.

        Reply
        1. David May 5, 2016

          Eleanore!!! So, you know have learned that libel is defamation by the printed word. Slander is defamation by the spoken word. But, go back and now research how being a public figure affects defamation suits. Look at what I previously sent to you, take your meds and calm down!

          Reply
          1. Eleanore Whitaker May 5, 2016

            You are a one OBTUSE dude…I am a “wordsmith” in case you missed it. I’ve ghost written more technical white papers on robotics, engineering, electrical, solar and a host of other business content. Nearl 5,000 to date.

            Do tell..Did you Mommy tell you you are the smartest man in the world?

            I don’t need to go back and do one thing you say. You can NEVER admit YOU are wrong, can you?

            Here is a link for a dunderheaded Obtuse guy like you…http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/11/18/6-most-successful-celebrity-libel-and-slander-case.

            Do yourself a favor and don’t tell another adult what to do. Especially not one so far above your head. When you can prove that you are superior in a court of law, let me know. Till than you are just another man who assumes NO woman can be as smart as you. Wow…and I wondered why I can’t stand that sexist jerk Sanders?

            Reply
          2. David May 5, 2016

            Eleanore!!! First, you were a secretary–not an engineer. Second, your posts are rife with profanity, hate, and vitriolic rantings — you are NOT a wordsmith.
            How was I able to tell you the difference between libel and slander AND the difference being a celebrity makes? For the reason I would own you in a court of law. I am an attorney — you’re not. Aren’t you getting a little tired of constantly being proven wrong? And generating so much dislike? Maybe you should visit your physician and have your dosage checked. Have a blessed day.

            Reply
          3. Eleanore Whitaker May 6, 2016

            DAVID!!!!!!!!!!! First..NO I was NOT a secretary. The job title was Accounting Manager and then they added Tech writer. Eat your heart out. Now..let me be clear..I never take any information from a dumbass like you.

            The men I worked were with were so much more educated than YOU can EVER be. The VP of ChemE was a PhD from MIT and the VP of MeEng was educated at Cambridge in England…pissing your pants yet stupid?

            And all three of us reported to the owner of the business. Those two men taught me all I know about things you can’t EVER hope to know…like the mechanics of counter-current industrial scrubbers and cyclones. Like Biofilters and bio-trickling filters which our company was 1st to have a license for here in the USA.

            So shitboy would you like me to show you the White Paper I wrote on HCFCs? Or the white paper a PhD intern at UCAL asked me to write for him? Perhaps, I could teach you how PLCs are used in the biofilters? Or may be I could teacyh you to ram a show up your stupid ass which is more on your level. Try again hot shot. I know who “I” am..you? YOu are an unknown and mostly useless turd.

            Reply
          4. David May 6, 2016

            Eleanore!!! Excuse me…you were an “administrative assistant” and not a secretary. Forgive me.
            Now go take your meds.

            Reply
          5. Marta Hewitt May 7, 2016

            David, as you have noticed, the best thing to do with persons who are crazy (as you’ve noticed with the notorious EW), is to ignore them. You can’t fix stupid. And it becomes foolish to try to reason or argue with “stupid” because the best they can do to to try to disguise their stupidity is flame and name call. She is very much like Donald Trump… unable to present a viable point so resorts to name calling instead. She and Donald Trump are experts at it.

            Reply
          6. David May 7, 2016

            I believe that you are totally correct. EW is one of the most hateful individuals I have come across on the internet. She is vile. She is angry. She is determined that any who disagree with her are se

            Reply
          7. Marta Hewitt May 7, 2016

            Hateful is one of many things that come to mind, lol! Be thankful you don’t know her personally. Can you imagine trying to have an intelligent conversation with this woman? I’m sure she doesn’t get out much.

            Reply
          8. David May 7, 2016

            I I know that she lives in New Jersey. I know she is single. She says she has two children that are grown. I ASSUME she had a nasty divorce and that contributes to her angry attitude toward men. I hope she can find peace — with Christ.

            Reply
          9. Marta Hewitt May 7, 2016

            I can’t imagine any man or woman wanting to marry her and if anyone made that mistake, I’m sure it was short-lived.

            Reply
          10. David May 7, 2016

            Lol!!! Actually, “short-lived” was likely NOT how he probably felt about it!

            Reply
          11. Roseann Duchon May 5, 2016

            Get some help. You have major issues. And yes I am telling an adult what to do. If you want to be taken seriously or respected for your opinions, you first have to be congenial. People are not going to respect someone who calls them names and displays a superior, I’m smarter than you attitude. We know you have issues with men and we sympathize, but seriously Eleanore, work on your social skills. You’re too smart not to be condescending to people. You can make your points and post citations to back up your arguments. But stop the name calling. People will stop paying attention and you will lose your audience.

            Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.