Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders is readying a potential 2016 presidential primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, claiming that the “same old same old ... Clinton type of politics” won't solve the problems of the nation.

“I am prepared to run for president of the United States. I don't believe that I am the only person out there who can fight this fight, but I am certainly prepared to look seriously at that race,” he told The Nation's John Nichols.

Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has toyed with a presidential bid before, but this is the furthest he’s gone in announcing his bid. While he hasn’t begun fundraising, Sanders said he is discussing a run with key advisors.

Baldy wrote:

Vermont's Bernie Sanders readies 2016 run, blasts 'Clinton type of politics'

Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders is readying a potential 2016 presidential primary challenge to Hillary Clinton, claiming that the “same old same old ... Clinton type of politics” won't solve the problems of the nation.

“I am prepared to run for president of the United States. I don't believe that I am the only person out there who can fight this fight, but I am certainly prepared to look seriously at that race,” he told The Nation's John Nichols.

Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has toyed with a presidential bid before, but this is the furthest he’s gone in announcing his bid. While he hasn’t begun fundraising, Sanders said he is discussing a run with key advisors.

Obama on steroids, just exactly what we need.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:

Vermont's Bernie Sanders readies 2016 run, blasts 'Clinton type of politics'



Obama on steroids, just exactly what we need.

Praise be to Greenwald! Hail Taibbi, full of grace!

I'm not sure if I could support old Bernie but if he had been elected president instead of Obama he would have, or at least attempted to:

Investigate, reform, or abolish the FED (along with the support of Ron Paul, Citadelgrad, and libertarians everywhere)

Prosecute Wall Street execs.

Not appoint Tim Geithner or Eric Holder.

Bring back Glass-Steagal.

Got our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan quicker (with the support of traditional non-interventionist conservatives)

Provide a much more effective stimulus with serious infrastructure investments.

Not kill a US citizen without due process.

Curtail abuses of the security state.

End the War on Drugs.

Limit the abuses of the for-profit prison and college industrial complexes.

You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

kalm wrote:You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

Baldy wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

Fuck no. He's a Reaganite because Greenwald and Taibbi say so!

Cluck U wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

We should make a book from CID's quotes...the world would be a much better place if that book was required reading for everyone over the age of 14.

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:You, once again, are confused by what Obama is.

So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

Ivytalk wrote:Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul aren't that far apart.

UNI88 wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
So are you

Obama isn't some kind of conservative Manchurian candidate- he isn't that sinister nor is he that complicated

He's a liberal. Slightly less so in practice than Nader, much more so than Clinton

The problem with Obama isn't that he's to the right. The problem with Obama is that he is weak, inexperienced (still), and he has no clue how to govern based on his own professed principles

No mention of him being a Chicago politician who "takes care of his friends"?

Ivytalk wrote:Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul aren't that far apart.

kalm wrote: Healthcare? He took a snippet of a Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's mixed with a bit of made for a state Romneycare and turned it into a 2700+ page behenmoth with tens of thousands of pages of regulations that will ulitimately bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

kalm wrote:Taxes? (90% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent while payroll tax breaks were allowed to sunset)

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Fuck no. He's a Reaganite because Greenwald and Taibbi say so!

He's a Reaganite based on his record. Conk projection notwithstanding.

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote: Healthcare? He took a snippet of a Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's mixed with a bit of made for a state Romneycare and turned it into a 2700+ page behenmoth with tens of thousands of pages of regulations that will ulitimately bankrupt insurance companies and lead to single payer.

FIFY

BDKJMU wrote:

kalm wrote:Taxes? (90% of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent while payroll tax breaks were allowed to sunset)

-Massive 2013 tax increase with the Fiscal Cliff deal 1/1/13.
-Massive tax increases with Obamacare (something like 14 new taxes, many which will hit heavily on the middle class).
-Still calling for more tax increases...

Social security payroll tax breaks were suppose to be for 1 year and were extended for a # of times. Not allowing them to sunset would mean social security would even bankrupt faster..

Tax Rates

Obama was first elected in 2008 on a promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year in family income. That’s a promise he’s fulfilled with only minor exceptions, such as a 10 percent tax on tanning salons included in the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, his 2009 stimulus package delivered temporary tax cuts for most working people, and for all of 2011 and 2012, he secured a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax.

For his entire first term, the federal income tax cuts signed by Bush in 2001 and 2003 remained in effect, with no increase on anyone. As of 2013, a result of the “fiscal cliff” deal struck with House Republicans at the end of last year, the top income tax rate will go up by 4.6 percentage points, to 39.6 percent — the same top rate that applied during Clinton’s administration.

The new top rate only applies to family income over $450,000, or single income over $400,000. Income under those limits will be taxed at the same rates set by the Bush tax legislation, plus a bit more in many cases.

Persons with more than $250,000 in family income (and singles with over $200,000 income) also face some additional taxes under the Affordable Care Act, including an additional 3.8 percent tax on net “investment income” and a 0.9 percent add-on Medicare tax on payroll income exceeding $200,000. Both of those new taxes took effect Jan. 1.

Baldy wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
FIFY

Exactly. Even Obama's Obamacare Czar has said that the ACA was designed to make insurance companies fail and go bankrupt.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Exactly. Even Obama's Obamacare Czar has said that the ACA was designed to make insurance companies fail and go bankrupt.

Yes! They went through a year of debate and had the insurance companies write their own 2700 page epitaph. Dastardly man, dastardly!

(Although I'd be happy if this were true. Unlike Obama, I'm a bit of a liberal on this issue ya see. But I think single payer will come from the states like it did in Canadia.)

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Yes! They went through a year of debate and had the insurance companies write their own 2700 page epitaph. Dastardly man, dastardly!

(Although I'd be happy if this were true. Unlike Obama, I'm a bit of a liberal on this issue ya see. But I think single payer will come from the states like it did in Canadia.)

@ kalm's Donkspeak

Who knew that Max Baucus and Ezekiel Emanuel worked for all those insurance companies?

EDIT:
Good decision to cherry pick and not to respond to my other post.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: @ kalm's Donkspeak

Who knew that Max Baucus and Ezekiel Emanuel worked for all those insurance companies?

EDIT:
Good decision to cherry pick and not to respond to my other post.

Baucus was a corporate whore who did everything he could to end all discussions of single payer.

As for your other post...slow down and keep it to one at a time. There's enough of Kalm to go around.

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Baucus was a corporate whore who did everything he could to end all discussions of single payer.

As for your other post...slow down and keep it to one at a time. There's enough of Kalm to go around.

"corporate whore"

You're certainly well versed in the talking points.
What's next, "obscene profits"?



You know as well as anyone. This country doesn't want a single payer system.
Listen to your leader...the guy you're not a fan of but defend at almost every opportunity. He wants a government run system as bad as you do, but he's smart enough to realize that it's a long slow process. One step at a time. Obamacare is just the beginning.

3. Clashes over health care: To be clear, Baucus helped write the health care reform law that President Obama signed, and played a critical role in getting the measure passed. But along the way to passage and even its aftermath, Baucus has made moves that have bothered Democrats. He shut out liberal advocates of a single-payer system from hearings in 2009, something he later said was a mistake, and he voted against a pair public option amendment proposals. He also extended negotiations for three months, giving Republican opponents more time to ramp up their opposition. And just this month, he said he saw "a huge train wreck coming down" in the implementation of the law.

4. He supported a Republican-led Medicare prescription drug benefit plan: In 2003, Baucus broke ranks with his party to support a prescription drug benefit that Republicans supported. Critics charged that the plan, known as "Medicare Part D," was good for drug manufacturers and insurance companies, but not for the Medicare program. But Baucus may be getting the last laugh on this issue; these days, it is wildly popular among seniors.