Bernie Sanders

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by KittyKatSpanker, Aug 30, 2015.

  1. The Internet Member

    Ok I watched the vid. Holy shit AOTF, for once you are actually right! This is a very interesting video everybody ought to watch.

    Brief summary: The guy giving testimony to congress used to work for Yang Enterprises ( The code for election machines is simple, maybe a hundred lines. The people buying the election machines in Florida asked him to write code that would respond to an unwanted outcome by flipping the results 51 to 49. He thought he was helping the customer spot fraud so he wrote the code and explained how you should look at the source code for anything that looks like this blah blah blah. But the guys were like, "Oh no, we want to hide the fraud." He was like, "Oh can't help you with that."

    He spotted other fishy business. A Yang programmer added some code that captured stuff NASA vendors were downloading. Later that guy got charged with something espionage related. He had to pay $100 but no time served.

    But, unfortunately, this testimony all by itself is not enough to prove that Bush stole Ohio back in 2000. It merely indicates that machine rigging is a possibility and therefore in any future elections, we need hard copies of votes to double check results in close races.

    To recap: All YouTubes with "proven" in the title do not actually prove anything. Yet surprisingly, some of these videos can be interesting and useful.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. A.O.T.F Member


    • Like Like x 1
  3. DeathHamster Member

    1972, seriously? And this has just come to light now?

    Did President Nixon remark on that?
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Yup. Was at the Trump plank tonight in NH. I just did it for a wicked good time. Anyone who swears while at the podium is good in my play book.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. A.O.T.F Member

    • Like Like x 3
  6. 157

  7. A.O.T.F Member

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Brawl Over His “Insinuation” That She’s Corrupt

    Dan Froomkin

    Feb. 5 2016, 5:21 a.m.

    Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton had a series of momentous exchanges Thursday night over what Clinton called Sanders’ “artful smear” — the suggestion that taking massive amounts of money from corporate special interests had corrupted her.

    Clinton told Sanders during Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate that he would not find a single example of money changing her mind or her vote, and she attacked him for his criticism “by innuendo, by insinuation” that “anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.”

    Sanders responded by citing examples of political and prosecutorial decisions in the recent past that couldn’t really be explained any other way.

    Let’s talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided — spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions?
    Well, some people might think, yeah, that had some influence.


    continued -

    • Like Like x 2
  8. 154

    The Vampire Squid Tells Us How to Vote

    By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
    06 February 16

    Lloyd Blankfein charges for investment advice — but his political wisdom is free

    [IMG]loyd Blankfein, Chief Executive Cephalopod of Goldman Sachs, issued a warning about the Bernie Sanders campaign this week.


    The attitude shared by Lloyd and Geithner and Bill Clinton is that the mindless quality of public discontent means that there's no point in worrying about it, or negotiating with it. This is funny because Blankfein is the one complaining that people like Sanders and his followers don't want to compromise with him.

    Lloyd apparently thinks politicians should naturally reside in a state of more or less constant accommodation with Wall Street. Thomas Jefferson would have compromised with us, he says!

    One can assume that his model of a "compromising" politician is Hillary Clinton, who took $675,000 to give three speeches to his company. "Look, I make speeches to lots of groups," Hillary explained. "I told them what I thought."

    Asked by Anderson Cooper if she needed to take $675,000 to tell Goldman what she "thought," Hillary shrugged. "I don't know," she said. "That's what they were offering."

    Even more significant than the $675,000 Hillary took from Goldman, or the $30 million in speaking income she and her husband received combined in the last 16 months, is the account of what Hillary apparently told Goldman she "thought" during those speeches.

    According to Politico, who spoke to several attendees, Hillary used the opportunity to tell the bankers in attendance that the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."

    She added that the proper attitude should be, "We all got into this mess together, and we're all going to have to work together to get out of it."

    This squares with Geithner's account of what Bill Clinton said. The former president told Geithner that slitting Lloyd's throat would only satisfy "them" for about two days. Them was all those pissed-off regular people, and the we or us were politicians like himself and Geithner.

    In her speech, Hillary's we included the executives in her audience. Her message was basically that It Takes a Village to create a financial crisis. This was the Robin Williams breakthrough scene in Good Will Hunting, with Hillary putting a hand on the Goldmanites' shoulders, telling them, "It's not your fault. It's not your fault."

    But it was their fault. The crash was caused by a tiny handful of people who spent years hogging fortunes through a bluntly criminal scheme in the home lending markets. The FBI warned back in 2004 of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud that could have an "impact as big as the S&L crisis," but those warnings were ignored.

    What the FBI was talking about back then mainly had to do with smaller local lending operations that were systematically creating risky home loans, falsifying credit applications to get unworthy borrowers into mortgages they couldn't afford.

    What they didn't understand back then is that the impetus for that criminal activity was the willingness of massive banking institutions on Wall Street to buy up those bad loans in bulk. They created a market for those fraudulent loans, bought billions' worth of them from local lenders, and then chopped up and resold those bad loans to pension funds, unions and other suckers.

    The "village" didn't do this. Lloyd Blankfein and his buddies did this. (Goldman just a few weeks ago reached a deal to pay a $5.1 billion settlement to cover its history of selling bad loans to unsuspecting investors, joining Bank of America, Citi, JP Morgan Chase and others).

    People aren't pissed just to be pissed. They're mad because a tiny group of crooks on Wall Street built themselves beach houses in the Hamptons through a crude fraud scheme that decimated their retirement funds, caused property values in their neighborhoods to collapse and caused over four million people to be put in foreclosure.

    And they're particularly mad that they got asked to pay for this criminal irresponsibility with bailouts funded with their tax dollars.

    What the Clintons have done by turning their political careers into a vast moneymaking enterprise, it's not a value-neutral activity. The money isn't just about buying influence. The money also physically moves people, from one side of an imaginary line to another.

    You will never catch Bernie Sanders standing in a room as a paid guest of a bank under investigation for ripping billions off pensioners and investors, addressing the audience in the first-person plural. He doesn't spend enough time with that kind of crowd to be so colloquial.

    The Clintons meanwhile have by now taken so much money that when they stand in a room full of millionaires and billionaires, they can use the word "we" and not have it sound odd. The money has irrevocably moved them to that side of the ropeline. On that side of the line, public anger isn't legitimate, but something to be managed and waited out, just as Lloyd suggests.

    When people like Blankfein tell us they don't take criticism personally, what they're saying is that it's too brainless and irrational to be taken any other way. He means to be insulting. And we should all take it that way.
  9. The Internet Member

    I am starting to feel the burn for Bernie.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Lamoon Member

    Money talks, bullshit walks
    Will it make a difference if Bernie Sanders wins? Has the president actually power? Or is it the people above him?
    • Like Like x 1
  11. White Tara Global Moderator

    Not really likely, but possibly. No, not in any real way. Sadly no, and never has been.
    Hope is always the preferred option to no hope IMO.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  13. A.O.T.F Member

    • Like Like x 2
  14. The Internet Member

    Why would you trust people hiding their identities, AOTF? Those people could be Russian mafia, Scientologists, NSA agents, who knows.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. A.O.T.F Member

    LOL :p SRSLY TI. Get some fucking help.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Easy: With the above you have an average chance of 50% they represent your interests. With the lower, the chance is 0%.
  17. The Internet Member

    No really. It's one thing to hide your face when protesting Scientology. It's another thing to create a phantom masked do-gooder for people to believe in. Because that phantom will get used by powerful people who do not want to be held accountable. That is guaranteed due to human nature.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. The Bern dog is getting numbers
    • Like Like x 2
  19. The Internet Member

    New Hampshire primary
    Last updated Feb 9, 2016 at 10:23 PM ET
    Feb 9, 24 delegates
    60% reporting

    Delegates Vote %
    Sanders (won)
    13, 59.4%

    7, 38.8%
    • Like Like x 1
  20. A.O.T.F Member

    You must have the fridge full to overflowing with the Kool Aid! Who the fuck are you? You are most definitely not one of us!
    • Like Like x 1
  21. The Internet Member

    No, I am not a plannerfag. Moonbat juice gives me indigestion.
  22. The Wrong Guy Member

    • Like Like x 1
  23. Donald Trump Member

    Grandpa Bernie made a touching video. I almost teared up watching it.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. Excuse me Donald but I think “grandpa” is cheap. There’s only a five year age difference between us. Plus you’re a bit late if you’re hoping to drive a wedge between myself and younger voters. They’ve been over here a while now impressing me with their “memes."

    socialist revolutionary year.png

    idk not trump tho.jpg
    • Like Like x 4
  25. Quentinanon Member

    I don't think a scientology ally like Hillary Clinton in the White House would be good for the U.S. or the rest of the world.
    I watched her in a debate and she evaded questions about her superPAC with long winded tangents.
    Also watched as she glared at Senator Sanders with contempt while he answered questions or made a point.
    Hillary Clinton is an extremely hateful, narcissistic personality. Downright toxic.
    Bernie Sanders seems to make more sense than anyone else with presidential aspirations.
    • Like Like x 2
  26. Quentinanon Member

    Wrong on all counts. Actually, officers of the Marcabian Fleet.
  27. The Internet Member

    I guess you missed Operation Wall St, whatis-theplan, March against Monsanto, OpNestle, and the Arab Spring. Most of those masked people do not give two fucks for Scientology.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Quentinanon Member

    Sense of humour?
    • Like Like x 1
  29. The Internet Member

    Oh my bad I missed your funny. Probably because Anonymous v Scientology is mostly harmless whereas Anonymous v GMOs, etc., is dangerous. So when AOTF goes all Anonymous fanboi I have to intervene with a little chemo, because I care so very, very much.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. This some old sh*t

    Here is a challenge to anonymus get hold of sone of Hillary's paid speeches and release it to the public.
  31. The Wrong Guy Member

    How the Clintons “Disappeared” a Film that Exposed their Role in US Terror Attacks | The Free Thought Project

    On the anniversary of the first bombing of the World Trade Center, it’s necessary to revisit Hillary Clinton’s role in banning a film which cast her and former President, Bill Clinton, in an accurately unfavorable light.

    Multiple award-winning filmmaker Cyrus Nowrasteh directed the 2006 miniseries, The Path to 9/11, which covered the period of time from the first bombing of the Trade Center on February 26, 1993, to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nowrasteh included a critical examination of the former President’s inexplicable failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden on multiple occasions. Despite the series’ popularity and critical acclaim, the Clintons managed to ‘disappear’ the film — essentially banning it in the United States.

    “The amazing thing was, the Clintons were able to put pressure on Disney/ABC basically to bury their own movie that they spent $40 million on, The Path to 9/11, which did air once, by the way, over two nights, and was number one in the ratings with 20 million viewers,” Nowrasteh told Brian Sussman on the KSFO Morning Show. “But Disney said it was, quote, ‘a business decision’ — essentially they caved to the Clintons, who, as far as censorship in my experience, are in many ways more effective than the ayatollahs in Iran.”

    Continued here:
    • Like Like x 2
  32. From the above article:

    Of course, this suppression of the series occurred as a “direct result of [Hillary’s] run for the Presidency — her initial run” in the 2008 election cycle.
  33. Quentinanon Member

    Not exactly "disappeared" but more accurately coercively marginalized:
    And this is most interesting:
    Clinton responds

    On September 7, Clinton warned ABC through his attorneys that The Path to 9/11 misrepresents his pursuit of Osama bin Laden, and demanded the network "pull the drama" if changes were not made.
    Clinton pointedly refutted [sic] several fictionalized scenes that he claims insinuate he was too distracted by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandalto care about bin Laden and that a top adviser pulled the plug on CIA operatives who were just moments away from bagging the terror master, according to a letter to ABC boss Bob Iger obtained by The Post.
    The former president also disputed the portrayal of then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as having tipped off Pakistani officials that a strike was coming, giving bin Laden a chance to flee.
    "The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has the duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely," the four-page letter said.
    Senate Democrats' letter to ABC

    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senator Debbie Stabenow, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senator Byron Dorgan sent a letter to Robert A. Iger, the President and CEO of the Walt Disney Company. Their letter includes the following statement:
    Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
    "The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events."
    • Like Like x 1
  34. The Internet Member

    If the Clinton documentary had a bunch of bullshit in it, then I'm glad it was pulled from ABC. We do not want fiction portrayed as fact on broadcast TV.

    We have a place for historical fiction, the History Channel, which you can get if you are a cable subscriber.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Thank God the Clintons made that determination for the stupid Americans!
  36. The Internet Member

    Broadcast TV goes over airwaves that belong to all of us. So broadcasters have a duty not to misinform the public. Anybody can file a complaint concerning a broadcast that asserts bad info. The broadcaster reviews the complaint to see if it is legit or not. If legit, they can pull the bs or they can air a correction.

    Cable TV is different because it's a private subscription so cable channels can bs more.

    Everybody is ignorant about many things and must rely upon others for reliable info most of the time. So it is important to have a few forums where people make an effort not to spread bs.
  37. Thank God the Clintons decided not to allow the public to be misinformed and kept it off broadcast TV!

    Pity the fools that watch it on cable or buy it on DVD!...............................never mind.
  38. The Wrong Guy Member

    Hacker Shows DNC Was All-In On Hillary From The Very Beginning

    Published by The Jimmy Dore Show on June 17, 2016

    A hacker named Guccifer 2.0 revealed a DNC memo from May 26, 2015 that detailed goals and strategies for getting Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) elected. It proves that despite many public pronouncements, the DNC never had any interest in treating Bernie Sanders or the voters with respect and fairness.
    • Like Like x 4
  39. JohnnyRUClear Member


    Politics = corruption, and it brings out the worst in people -- in both senses.
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins