Citation needed.

If you thought that Obama had a bad record on civil rights I think the next 4 years is going to be a bit of a shock for you.

The democrats need to reform and rebrand. They need to move away from corporatism and not fall into the trap of using identity politics and they need to win back the trust of the working class. Stop using patronizing celebrities in their adverts might help a bit as well.

They need more people like Bernie Sanders and less like Hillary Clinton and less like Sally Boynton Brown who recently said her job was to shut white people up.

I think there is an effort to reform them going on at the minute which is being spearheaded by Kyle Kulinski called justice democrats in which one of their goals was to get money out of politics which was a good start.

They have 4 years to get their **** together , losing to Trump is a massive embarrassment.

Understatement of the year.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/24/w...an-deaths.html

Exactly the same, guys.

Maybe Trump is draining the swamp, and that's a good thing. All I'm saying is that's possible.

13, its the exact same policy as the democrats. The only difference is now the NYT covers it again.

So the NYT is just making up reports from Iraqis that the rules of engagement are being ignored? Seems like a conspiracy, no?

Anyway, just because Obama's policies were bad doesn't mean that Trump's policies can't be worse.

NYT spent 8 years ignoring the same gradual decline into absurdity (the middle east) and crowned Obama each time he made a minor administrative gestures. He 'gave' everyone healthcare, stopped the dapl, ended torture, gay marriage, etc. Some of this isn't his fault, but a lot is. The war most certainly is.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board found that the NSA's domestic surveillance "lacks a viable legal foundation" and that it did nothing to protect us. They wrote a whole report on it.

Another report (maybe you you've heard of?) is almost 7k pages long and details how, as Obama put it, "We tortured some folks". I don't have a link to that quote, but it is burned into my memory. Who says that about torture and proceeds to prosecute no one for it? No, he went after the whistle blowers. The CIA was found to have lied to the media about torture programs, but Obama went after those who told the truth like he was Samuel Jackson in pulp fiction- with great vengeance and furious anger. Then he subserviently promoted James Clapper who boldly lied to congress. Obama always served the power structure, ripping away as many rights as he could with causing too much backlash. He knew people like you would just shrug their shoulders at torture, at big brother, at "signature strike" droning, or whatever other flexes of elite power were on the agenda.

Are you still, a decade later, so enthralled with the carefully vacuous imagery and slogans of the Obama campaign that you can't see evil when it is right in front of your face doing evil?

The NYT doesn't (usually) make things up. It carries out deception mostly though leaving things out or through implying very thinly supported or false ideas. Pointing to violence when it serves elites and ignoring it when it doesn't is a well documented pattern with the NYT, and not at all a subtle one. Since Trump et al are not the particular elite who NYT serves, it will spotlight Trump's violence in spots where it would bury Obama's.

We bombed a hospital in Mosul on purpose last December. The Guardian (and lots of other sites) reported it like that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ke-us-military

https://www.google.com/search?q=iraq...w+york+times&*

Searching "Iraq hospital New York Times" for 11/16-2/17 I don't get any hits.

Just because Trump is at war with the MSM, doesn't mean that the MSM is super great. The NYT has historically left a lot of stuff out would have put US military activities in a bad light.

There's a lot about the NYT in here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Yeah. Trump's will be worse in every case almost for sure. And obviously it was harder to get people on the left to protest Obama than Trump. People should have and there are people from the Obama admin who have said that it was disappointing that they didn't because they needed the support. Nonetheless, trying to avoid a worse fate is a real thing.

So, we don't need to worry about that now. And anyone from the group who were protesting militarism from Obama or who are just now protesting Trump and can't get together on it is a problem. Jacobins or Wiemar liberals; same result.

According to odds checker Elizabeth Waren, michelle obama, bernie sanders, & hillary are in the top 6 as favorites to be the Dem presidential nominee in 2020 w/ Warren being the favorite. If any of these 4 runs goaTRUMP (or any other repub) will steam roll them. I'm talking yuge margin of victory - similar to the one we would have seen if hillary went to jail/died and bernie ran.

Would love to see Bernie have another crack at it but I would be quite worried about his health. He would have killed Trump in the polls.

If he wasn't doing such good work just now touring Trump areas I would suggest freezing him until then.

He is exactly the type of politician that the US needs imo he puts alot of the corporate democrats to shame.

This joke is old, but I still like it.

LOL.

Dems already tried the ol' "we have a really weak candidate but maybe we can find the worst major party primary candidate in the past 50 years and run them against each other so our weak candidate looks better than he/she really is" thing. Voters didn't fall for it the first time. You can't run the same trick twice in a row and if you do you have to at least have to try it with a different whipping boy.

His polling head to head with Trump was superior to Clintons and he didnt have the excess baggage that Clinton had. Trump would have been annihilated by Sanders in the debates and he couldn't have just resorted to attacking Sanders character as he could with Clinton. He would have won the primaries if the democrats hadn't favor shafted him . I think the rustbelt voters would have been able to relate to him more than corporatist Hillary.

The only thing that makes me doubt he could beat Trump in 4 years is he may be too old and frail to run. He looks like he could blow away in the wind.

Welp, we have no reason not to believe the polls so I guess you are right.

The idea that Sanders could beat Trump in a debate is laughable. Last year was likely the best year possible for him to run since so many people were still feeling beat up from the obama economy. 4 years later isn't just another 4 years older bernie will be. It is also 4 years removed from slow economic growth, it will likely be 4 years of strong economic growth and 4 years to think about what pro-growth economic policy did for this country and how liberal economic policies aren't the way forward. He would have a better chance of winning in 2020 had hillary won.

I really don't know why I'm debating this with you. It doesn't matter. He is done and you need to move on.

Your making the assumption that Trumps presidency will be a success and he will be popular in 4 years. Trump got lucky that by the time the election rolled around he was basically up against a wildly untrustworthy unpopular establishment candidate at a time when people were massively fed up with the establishment. And he still manages to lose the popular vote.

Your right about him probably being too old though.

Sanders would have crushed Trump so hard </berniebro>

I think you all are overestimating how many voters really care if a candidate is the "establishment" or not.

I think you are underestimating the effect of a disillusioned base for a party that requires turnout to win.

It's quite possible Bernie would have beaten Trump by fewer votes than HRC but won the electoral vote.

This. Bernie was stronger than Clinton in Michigan/Wisconsin.

It is but in the opposite way. We have transcripts of trumps debates where he could not put together complete sentences or thoughts for that matter. He was lucky he was debating Hillary. And even then she got a bump for a couple of the debates.

Trump a strong debater...that is a good one.