Cinema Cult

I'm happy to allow anyone unfortunate enough to come across your posts to judge how many goalpost-moves you've thrown in (and go ahead and point out that Sanders hasn't been in the Senate for "his entire career," something you suggested--and I corrected--earlier).

Never heard of the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, eh? Look it up, then come back and apologize. All dozen times.

So your idea here is... what? To replace the dozen or so efforts by you to move the goalposts whenever I show you to be wrong with a single goalpost-move repeated dozens of times?

bsky.app/profile/jrid...

Edward Isaac Dovere, the author of that piece, despises progressives and Sanders in particular (and was, in fact, exposed for writing fake anti-Sanders pieces). But the fact remains...
bsky.app/profile/jrid...

Sanders can pitch Medicare For All to his colleagues; his colleagues take hundreds or thousands--or millions--of dollars from healthcare interests to oppose such policies. Guess who is going to win that "argument"?

Sanders can pitch Medicare For All to his colleagues; his colleagues take hundreds or thousands--or millions--of dollars from healthcare interests to oppose such policies. Guess who is going to win that "argument"?

Sanders can pitch Medicare For All to his colleagues; his colleagues take hundreds or thousands--or millions--of dollars from healthcare interests to oppose such policies. Guess who is going to win that "argument"?

As a Senator, Clinton saw 3 bills that she sponsored become law. This, rendered as a handy meme, is her complete legislative record, by the standard she and her cult apply to Sanders (with the caveat that this is a TERRIBLE way to measure a legislator).

Only the Clinton cult thinks that the fact that congress is made up of corrupt pols who take fortunes from entrenched interests to oppose the kind of progressive legislation Sanders supports is some kind of knock on Sanders.

Only the Clinton cult thinks that the fact that congress is made up of corrupt pols who take fortunes from entrenched interests to oppose the kind of progressive legislation Sanders supports is some kind of knock on Sanders.

When he went to the Senate, he continued to do so, his 2016 campaign resulting in major growth for support of the policy in the body. Prior to his run, his bill had only one supporter: Sanders. Afterwards, 1/3 of the Senate Dem caucus signed on to support it.

Sanders was 1st elected to the Senate in 2006. He was first elected to the House in 1990 and introduced his 1st single-payer legislation a few months later. Since then, he has both introduced reform legislation and backed the reform efforts of others perhaps dozens of times.

That's an apologist article from a ClintonWorld insider that doesn't address anything we're discussing.

Sanders wasn't a senator then; he was a congressman. His 1st effort to legislate single-payer into existence, introduced a few months into his 1st term, was written by Steffie Woolhandler of Physicians for a National Health Program, who was working on his staff at the time.

"LOL" if you want; you were completely wrong on this. Perhaps you should just concede this, perhaps apologize to anyone you misled and move on.

Correct. The multi-decade dominance of the Clintonite right among federal Dem elected officials and within the national party apparatus has, in fact, been a major factor in the rise of fascism in the U.S., as they block all systemic avenues to progressive reforms.

When Bernie met Hillary Long before challenging Clinton, Sanders reached out to her on health care. He got nowhere.

Shortly after Bill was elected president, Sanders visited the Clintons to lobby them for their support for universal healthcare. They weren't interested.
www.politico.com/story/2015/0...

What are you even talking about? Sanders has been advocating universal healthcare--something Clinton has never supported--since at least the early '70s. He was trying to legislate it into existence when Clinton was nothing more than the nobody wife of an obscure, corrupt Southern governor.

Because, y'know...

Sanders' campaign energized voters who otherwise wouldn't have participated and who then went on to vote for Clinton. There are no estimates on this--it isn't a story certain people wanted told--but it is the case that Clinton gained, not lost, votes by Sanders running.
bsky.app/profile/jrid...

Spoiler alert: The answer is no. Without Sanders' voters, Clinton would have lost to Trump by an absolute majority of 6.6 million to 7.6 million voters, along with losing 3 additional states (and by one estimate a 4th).

That was the Trump regime, terrified at the prospect of having to face Sanders, trying to get rid of him. And that's all it was.

Clintonite-right "Democrats" got the candidate on which they insisted in the last 3 elections, lost 2 and, with Biden as the candidate in 2020, would have lost that one as well, were it not for covid (they almost lost, even with covid). All running against the same reality-show joke opponent.

Decades of just that was, in fact, a major factor in the rise of fascism. The "Democratic leadership" will die on the hill of never changing anything, and it may be too late to course correct anyway.

The superdelegates were all siding with Clinton but if we include those in the count, one has to look into how Clinton was managing to win--something Clinton's supporters want to avoid.

"When Hillary had clearly won the nomination on Super Tuesday 2016"

After Super Tuesday, Clinton had earned 611 delegates to Sanders' 410, with 35 of the 50 states having not yet voted and over 3,000 delegates yet to be earned by anyone. The notion that Clinton had won by then is fantasy.

Nope. Nobody.

All that data--years and years of data--on the question is just fake news, eh? Say it through your best Trump impression.

"It died because of simple misogyny."

If you genuinely believe that, I'm talking to a child who is too ill-informed and entirely uninterested in changing this to justify continuing.

Want to try again?