Time for Bernie to stand down?

Written By: - Date published: 7:02 am, June 9th, 2016 - 190 comments
Categories: us politics - Tags: ,

I’m a big fan of Bernie Sanders and all that he has accomplished. But with his loss in California it really is over. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. (Never mind the foolishness of selecting a candidate with potentially huge legal problems, and the fact that Sanders polls much better against Trump.)

Clinton does not inspire me at all. Becoming the first woman nominated by a major party is a historic achievement to be sure, but everything else about her leaves me cold. A Clinton presidency will just be more and more and more of the same. The world needs better.

So – how far will Bernie go? As of last night he was refusing to end his bid:

But on a night when it became clear that Clinton would secure a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders refused to bow out, telling supporters that their fight would continue to the Democratic National Convention in July.

Barack Obama has extended an olive branch to Sanders – see the statement below. Will Sanders take it, and commit his support to Clinton at the convention? Would Sanders supporters buy it if he did, or would they just stay home? Can Sanders actually achieve anything by falling in to line, or is Obama’s offer just words? Would Sanders go so far as to stand in the presidential election as an independent, and would that hand Trump the presidency? What would that mean for the world?

Interesting times.

obama-statement-sanders

190 comments on “Time for Bernie to stand down? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BM 1
    9 June 2016 at 7:37 am

    Sanders is obviously a delusional ego manic.

    • tophat 1.1
      9 June 2016 at 8:07 am

      That’s rich coming from you.
      They all are, it’s requisite for the job.

    • adam 1.2
      9 June 2016 at 8:12 am

      Takes one to know one I surpose

      • Tony Veitch (not the partner-bashing 3rd rate broadcaster) 1.2.1
        9 June 2016 at 8:15 am

        No, IMO Bernie shouldn’t stand down now. The more air time he gets, especially at the convention, the more exposure his message receives, and the more he’ll back Clinton into a corner. He owes it to the millions of young Americans who he has awoken from their lethargy, to keep on shouting the message.

        Ah, we need a Sanders or a Corbyn in this country!

        • The Pink Postman 1.2.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 3:06 pm

          Agree Tony . Our job is make sure our party leaders agree with us.I’m sure we have quite a few and I’m sure Andrew Thinks that way. Beware of Right-Wingers who are terrified the move Left is happening ,just watch their cunning nasty ways to halt any move to the left .They will pull out all the dirty tricks they can to stop any move to return Labour to its natural roots.

          • Akldnut 1.2.1.1.1
            10 June 2016 at 2:08 pm

            +1 TPP, after the last election we were sent a email from HQ asking for our thoughts giving members input on the direction of the party and how we would achieve a better result. Uniting the left, working in harmony with the Greens and then moving left (not in those words) was my input which is the general gist of what sanders is saying.

        • OneTrack 1.2.1.2
          9 June 2016 at 8:04 pm

          You already have a Little, a Turei and a Shaw. What else do you need?

    • KJT 1.3
      9 June 2016 at 8:16 am

      I would think the egomaniacs are Trump and Clinton. Both going for President despite the highest unfavourability ratings of any recent candidate.

    • save nz 1.4
      9 June 2016 at 9:08 am

      @ BM If Sanders is a delusional ego manic, what is Trump and what is Clinton?

      • BM 1.4.1
        9 June 2016 at 9:19 am

        what is Trump and what is Clinton?

        Winners unlike Sanders.

        Sanders has convinced himself he’s the messiah and is on this holy quest to save the world.

        That’s why he won’t stop.

        • KJT 1.4.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 11:47 am

          Pity the USA is not a Democracy. Polls show that Sanders and his policies win hands down.
          Especially with the young.

        • mpledger 1.4.1.2
          9 June 2016 at 2:13 pm

          The longer Sanders stays in, the more Trump’s attacks are split against Clinton and Sanders, diluting them. That’s great for Clinton because the more she can delay Trumps misogynists attacks, until as close to the election as possible, the higher the Democratic turn-out will be.

          Holding on is sensible for Sanders because there is still a chance that the Democrats will balk at having a women President.

          There is nothing good in Sanders staying in for the Republicans. They can’t play their game if they don’t know you they are playing against.

        • Guerilla Surgeon 1.4.1.3
          9 June 2016 at 2:50 pm

          That’s not necessarily why he won’t stop. The more support he garners, the more bargaining power he has over policy. Hopefully Clinton will take notice of this.

          • BM 1.4.1.3.1
            9 June 2016 at 3:48 pm

            So you reckon Sanders won’t back Clinton unless she does what he wants?

            Looks like Trumps going to be Prez then.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.1.3.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 9:35 pm

              🙄

              That’s a desperate strawman, even for you.

        • Stuart Munro 1.4.1.4
          9 June 2016 at 2:57 pm

          Trump isn’t a winner – and he’s useless businessman, who, like Nick Smith, tries to parlay his failures into successes post facto. Trump is better at it than Nick, but still a villain. Students of Trump university, or the locals near Trump’s failed Scottish golf course would cheerfully throttle the crook.

          Sanders is a decent human being BM – your natural enemy.

          Clinton and Trump are weiners not winners.

          • Johan 1.4.1.4.1
            9 June 2016 at 7:59 pm

            “Sanders is a decent human being BM – your natural enemy,” got in one SM. There is a lot of angst in the USA ever since the collapse and bail-out of their financial institutions.

        • Rodel 1.4.1.5
          9 June 2016 at 7:48 pm

          BM on 1 and 1.4.1
          Interesting statements/opinions.. And your evidence for these astute conclusions is?

  2. Policy Parrot 2
    9 June 2016 at 8:19 am

    Sanders has reinvigorated Democratic Party politics for the next generation, he should have be given some kind of ongoing role where he can use his rhetoric and tenacity to continue his battle.

    Perhaps if he can soothe enough ruffled Democrat feathers, Democratic Senate Leader? Harry Reid is resigning – and if the Democrats became the majority after this Senate election, he would have influence over the legislative agenda. And he could inspire US voters to start acting on the legislative gridlock which holds the country back.

    • dukeofurl 2.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:46 am

      Sanders is not even a Democrat- he won election to Senate as an independent.
      There is no way the Senators would vault him over others who have been in their leadership group.

      he will sink back into the obscurity from which he came. Thats how it works. Even Sarah Palin is a nobody now and once she was a bright star on the republican right.

      • Policy Parrot 2.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 12:07 pm

        There is nothing stopping Democrats from nominating Sanders to be Senate Majority Leader in the event they control the Senate. Such a suggestion would enable Sanders to continue campaigning in coordination with the DSCC, and for the DSCC to take advantage of the momentum built up by his campaign, and tie up those who might be otherwise tempted to make mischief.

        • the pigman 2.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 8:14 pm

          Except that the Democrats don’t want a social democratic policy platform.

          Hell, they’ve more than proven they don’t much like democracy at all.

        • dukeofurl 2.1.1.2
          10 June 2016 at 10:23 am

          Hes not a Democrat ! Why should they give him a leadership position

  3. Tautoko Mangƍ Mata 3
    9 June 2016 at 8:23 am

    BM- read the full article (link below) and understand that if people have nothing to lose and feel unrepresented politically, then they will rise up. It is hard if you have never been poor to empathise with others outside your comfort sphere, but please start trying.

    “On July 25, opening day of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Cheri Honkala, leader of the Poor People’s Economic Human Rights Campaign, who was denied a permit to march by city authorities, will rally with thousands of protesters outside City Hall. Defying the police, they will march up Broad Street to the convention.
    …..
    She said that the difference between the march she led in 2000 and the one planned for July is that “things are four times worse.” She spoke about her north Philadelphia neighborhood, Kensington, the poorest district in the state. It has one of the highest homicide rates in the nation. It has a large homeless population. It has a poverty rate of 46.9 percent. The food bank is protected by barbed wire.

    “Back then, someone could work three or even four jobs and barely survive,” she said. “I live in a neighborhood now of the permanently unemployed. There is an underground economy. We have to collectively keep each other alive. There are hundreds of young men who are not just attempting to live on a dollar a day, but go a couple of weeks with nothing. We try to figure out how to find food and housing. We try to figure out how to keep alive.”

    The loss of faith in the political system and neoliberal ideology is widespread. The corporate elites are pouring $5 billion into the carnival of presidential electoral politics in a desperate bid to keep us mesmerized and controlled. Democracy is endlessly invoked on the airwaves to legitimize the corporate and political forces that have destroyed it. Congress has an approval rating of 11 percent. Half of qualified voters are not registered to vote, and half of registered voters do not go to the polls. A little more than half of 25 percent—no more than 15 percent—of the electorate determines who becomes president. And this is the way the elites want it.

    In our system of inverted totalitarianism, the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin pointed out, the object is to demobilize the citizenry, to render it apathetic, to convince the citizen that all political activity that does not take place within the narrow boundaries defined by the corporate state is futile. This is a message hammered into public consciousness by the corporate media, which serve as highly paid courtiers to the corporate elites. It is championed by the two parties that offer up fear of the other as their primary political platform.

    https://www.popularresistance.org/shut-down-the-democratic-national-convention/

    Sanders is the only voice for these people.

    • Ad 3.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:25 am

      They already rose up.
      It wasn’t enough.

      • adam 3.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 9:43 am

        Oh please, your sad capitulation to the elites is tired, almost as boring as your defeatism.

        • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 9:51 am

          Even those who voted for Sanders when asked about specific policies he promotes didnt even support those, as polls have found.

          Hes an egg shell candidate

          • adam 3.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 10:09 am

            What does that even mean – egg shell candidate? A talking point?

            I think most young people are smarter than what you give them credit for.

            I’d just compare voting records dukefurl, then you may get an idea of the differences.

            your comment about him not being a democrat was the clinton campaign talking point for the New York primary – just shows how little you understand the USA political system.

            • dukeofurl 3.1.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 10:28 am

              Easter Egg candidate then.

              This is USA !
              ” that Mr. Sanders’s surprising success in the primary race is because of his liberal policy positions — may be familiar and comforting, but it is greatly exaggerated.”

              “Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, is a sort of anti-Clinton — a political maverick from lily-white Vermont whose main claim to fame has been his insistence on calling himself an independent, a socialist, anything but a Democrat. That history has made him a convenient vessel for antipathy to Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic establishment and some of the party’s key constituencies. But it is a mistake to assume that voters who support Mr. Sanders because he is not Mrs. Clinton necessarily favor his left-leaning policy views.”
              Thats you to a tee!
              http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/opinion/campaign-stops/do-sanders-supporters-favor-his-policies.html
              ”
              Exit polls conducted in two dozen primary and caucus states from early February through the end of April reveal only modest evidence of ideological structure in Democratic voting patterns”

              • adam …
                9 June 2016 at 10:33 am

                Again, with dribble – the New York Times your kidding right. The exit polls and I’ve seen them, are not good.

                The UN when it observes elections call into question the legitimacy of an election when the exit polls are out by 0.05%

                Go on – the exit polls are on line, look for yourself, not a second hand source spinning it for the Candidate they put money into.

                A surprise candidate was Bernie – interesting…

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    9 June 2016 at 8:27 am

    They won’t even offer Sanders VP. Obama has been a pro-establishment choice and remains a pro-establishment chooser.

    • AmaKiwi 4.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:17 am

      Sanders would be unlikely to accept VP. It’s a job that is powerless unless the president wants the VP to have power. In the Senate he could be more influential by trying to pull Senate Democrats more to the left.

    • Phil 4.2
      9 June 2016 at 12:46 pm

      They won’t even offer Sanders VP.

      So what?

      Obama didn’t offer Clinton the VP slot, despite their primary campaign in ’08 being closer fought than Clinton/Sanders in ’16.

    • McFlock 4.3
      9 June 2016 at 1:00 pm

      VP is a bridesmaid position. No power other than to exist.

      A cabinet post, or a senate post, on the other hand, with concessions for some legislative reform (probably in labour relations or debt?)

      Sanders has a lot of leverage to placed somewhere with more clout than VP. He’s the only hope of persuading a whole chunk of his supporters to vote for Clinton.

    • joe90 4.4
      9 June 2016 at 1:11 pm

      They won’t even offer Sanders VP.

      Yeah, given the chance the old white guy could still save us.
      /

    • Michael 4.5
      9 June 2016 at 4:00 pm

      Sanders would be silly to take the VP seat.

      He’d be chairing committees in a likely Democratic-majority senate, including the budget committee.

      He’d have major influence including on cabinet/Clinton administration nominees.

      And his elevated status means he can wield much more power in the Senate by using his huge new movement behind him.

  5. Xanthe 5
    9 June 2016 at 8:28 am

    The superdelegates dont vote until the convention , it is wrong to call this on the basis of media ringing up superdelegates and asking them who they support.
    Bernie is taking this to the convention because thats the proper thing to do!

    • dukeofurl 5.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:08 am

      Its silly of you to think otherwise. Even if super delegates were awarded proportionally by each state like ordinary delegates, Sanders would still lose- because hes behind in the primary votes as well.

    • Grantoc 5.2
      9 June 2016 at 10:30 am

      Xanthe

      The super delegates have stated their preferences publicly already and are committed to their stances – whether it is to Sanders or Clinton. Historically it is very rare for them to change their minds.

      Clinton’s super delegates will not switch to Sanders because:

      i. Clinton has won the most pledged delegates;
      ii. Clinton has won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries.

      She is the clear winner and Sanders is the clear loser. The super delegates will act accordingly.

      • Crashcart 5.2.1
        9 June 2016 at 1:52 pm

        Where do you get “Historically it is very rare for them to change their minds”?.

        As recently as the last primary HRC had a more than 100 SD lead over Obama. However when it became clear that he would win the majority of pledged delegates the majority of SD’s switched to Obama. Historically they have not voted in a way that would result in the person with less pledged delegates winning. This of course goes against Bernie as he clearly will have less of those.

        In this case it would take something extraordinary for them to change I agree. I think HRC will be the nominee even if she were to be indicted for the email scandal.

        However it is the right thing for Bernie to keep pushing up to the convention. Millions of donors have paid for him to do so. Not only this the major reason establishment Democrats want him to drop is so that HRC can pivot to the centre earlier so that she can position for the General. Or as they put it switch focus to Trump. Bernie staying in the race forces her to remain left of where she wants to be much longer and makes it harder for her to make a sudden pivot to the centre for the general.

        Bernie’s whole goal now is to keep the conversation to the left of where it has been for years. He doesn’t achieve that by dropping out.

        • Grantoc 5.2.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 3:47 pm

          Crashcart

          Good point re the 2008 primary.

          I suspect though that there are a couple of crucial differences between then and now.

          Firstly HC announced that she was abandoning her attempt to win the nomination at about this time in the process, at which point her super delegates would have been ‘released’.

          And secondly Obama was in the position that HC is in now – had the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination, along with the most votes. It may be that some of Sander’s super delegates now switch to HC for the same reason..

        • Paul Campbell 5.2.1.2
          9 June 2016 at 7:40 pm

          the Republicans are still crashing about, trying to pin emailgate/benghazi on Clinton, they see it as their October surprise …. if they manage to stick enough dirt to her prior to the convention that she’s seen as damaged goods the superdelagates likely would change their minds.

          On the other hand that would be a dangerous games for Sanders to play for directly, if he damages her but loses and mud he’s thrown would stick during the November election damaging the Democrats as a whole. At the moment I think he should stay the course to the convention, it gives them a backup candidate

          • Colonial Viper 5.2.1.2.1
            9 June 2016 at 7:51 pm

            Clinton is responsible for both “emailgate” and the Benghazi killing of her diplomatic staff. The US should not have been funnelling arms from Gaddaffi’s army’s stashes to Islamic terrorists in Syria via the US embassy. Clinton would have had to have signed off on all of that.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.1.2.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 9:40 pm

              🙄

              The broad Labour ‘church’ would be sometimes better depicted as a river: parts of it are shallow.

            • dukeofurl 5.2.1.2.1.2
              10 June 2016 at 10:31 am

              That Benghazi thing is rubbish. The Republicans have been investigating that for longer than the 911 and Pearl harbour enquires and have got nothing.
              Its good for the GOP to know they have got inside your head and found a home.

    • Phil 5.3
      9 June 2016 at 12:48 pm

      it is wrong to call this on the basis of … superdelegates

      In ’08, Obama’s win was called once he crossed the Pledged- plus Super- delegate threshold.

      Nobody complained then. Why is now different?

      • Crashcart 5.3.1
        9 June 2016 at 1:54 pm

        The minor chance the HRC is indicted over the email scandal is the only reason any Bernie supporter could hold out. In reality she will win the nomination. It is still very different from 08 for that reason as Obama had no major scandal like that on his horizon.

        • Phil 5.3.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 4:50 pm

          The probability of Clinton losing the nomination in ’16 because of her email is basically the same as the probability of Obama losing the nomination in ’08 because of his birth certificate.

          • Colonial Viper 5.3.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 7:54 pm

            She misused and miscommunicated secret and top secret materials. That’s a pretty major Federal crime.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 9:44 pm

              The deep state will be angry with her now!

              • Colonial Viper …
                9 June 2016 at 9:47 pm

                the Deep State only enforces the laws against people it no longer favours or requires.

                • joe90 …
                  9 June 2016 at 10:00 pm

                  I doubt the deep state favours or requires former CIA director Petraeus’s one time squeeze yet here we are.

                  A newly unsealed FBI search warrant reveals that agents found hundreds of classified documents on Paula Broadwell’s computers when they searched her Charlotte home in 2012, part of the agency’s investigation into her relationship with then CIA Director David

                  […]

                  Broadwell, the author of Petraeus’ biography, was never charged.

                  http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article82460877.html#storylink=cpy.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    9 June 2016 at 10:04 pm

                    I do wish that you would use your considerable intelligence to think more than one dimensionally.

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    9 June 2016 at 8:28 am

    Bernie and supporters have done the great service of conclusively showing that the Democrat (and Republican) structures are bent beyond redemption

    in a straighter contest Bernie would have been the nominee, financed by micro donation, as well as winning 22 states he came very close in many others, the movement Bernie encapsulated must continue such is the degeneracy of US politics–arise President Trump


    I was bought up on generally supporting the lesser of two evils in political contests, but not this time, Clinton will not even need to be ‘captured’ by the usual suspects as was Obama, and Trump despite appearing to be ‘peak whacko’ will fall into line too if he wants to last the year out

    Bernie should stand as an independent and call the bluff, a fundamental change in class power that lasts beyond electoral cycles is what is needed in the USA

    • dukeofurl 6.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:16 am

      Sanders is well behind in the primary vote counts
      Clinton 15.8mill
      Sanders 12.1 mill

      How does being that far behind in actual votes cast get to be the nominee??

      Yes in your fairy tale , she is the wicked witch but Sanders is also the Mad hatter.

      • Tiger Mountain 6.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 9:35 am

        the short answer is Bernies vote count was sabotaged by the Democratic Party so he has the moral and political justification to go to the convention as an organising focus and then make a decision of whether to stand as an independent

        “rolling over” is just what reactionary conservatives are calling for, the US people deserve more than subservience to a party machine well past its useby

        • dukeofurl 6.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 10:01 am

          Sabotaged ? How

          Theres a word for people like you who dont have any cogent arguments .

          • adam 6.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 10:13 am

            Vote rigging, strange and odd rules, 100,000 missing voters in New York, and calling elections before they happen. You know the usual shannagins. Are you being obtuse on purpose dukefurl? Or do you really not follow the news? Did Arizona, Kentucky and Puerto Rico just pass you by?

            • dukeofurl 6.1.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 10:31 am

              hes behind millions of votes man !
              Even some states that had caucus and primary, where Bernie won the caucus ( and majority of delegates) he lost the primary!

              • adam …
                9 June 2016 at 10:38 am

                So your attack on Tiger Mountain was unfounded, and disingenuous.

                Now you have changed tack.

                What next, the Police Chief Wiggum defence???

                • dukeofurl …
                  10 June 2016 at 10:37 am

                  The primarys are run by the County like a normal election, has nothing to do with democratic party, but caucuses ARE run by the party.

                  Guess where Bernie has done better , thats right the caucus, its rare for him to win an actual election of the voters.

                  You could say, based on who runs what, that Bernie has been supported by party officials to get more delegates than his chances in an actual election were. ALL of this is true if you were construction a conspiracy.

        • Grantoc 6.1.1.2
          9 June 2016 at 1:37 pm

          TM

          Can you explain exactly how Sander’s vote was ‘sabotaged by the Democratic Party”?

          If it was, what, if anything is Sanders doing about it?

          • Crashcart 6.1.1.2.1
            9 June 2016 at 1:59 pm

            Disenfranchised voters in a number of states. Reduced polling booths in a number of states. Questionable reporting procedures in a number of states.

            Ad on to this counting super delegate in her total from before the first Primary giving an impression that she was already locked in which suppresses Bernie’s vote.

            HRC probably would have won the primary even with out these things. it was stupid of the DNC to allow this sort of stuff to muddy the waters as a clean win would have helped HRC far more than the mess that has been.

            • Tiger Mountain 6.1.1.2.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 2:46 pm

              state by state you can usually find something that indicates the field was tilted, structurally the Democrats are set up to get the result head office wants

              Bernie is not sticking to their script now either, I agree with Crashcart a straight contest would probably have seen Bernie concede

              the msm was the extra player in all of this on Clinton’s team with piling on the Superdelegate votes very early in the Primary contest schedule, I checked a number of US sources and the Bernie Blackout was pretty blatant

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    9 June 2016 at 8:30 am

    Let’s not forget the AP making a ridiculously timed call, based on anonymous sources, just before the Californian primary, on a day that there was no voting, that it was all Clinton’s. Plenty of commentators have said that it looks like collusion.

    • Tiger Mountain 7.1
      9 June 2016 at 8:43 am

      well that media stunt was just depressingly obvious, hello–the day before voting in California

  8. Colonial Viper 8
    9 June 2016 at 8:37 am

    How California denies independent voters ballot forms at the polling booth:

    [Los Angeles] It’s not some grand conspiracy, but it’s grand theft nonetheless. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ voters will lose their ballots, their rights, by the tens of thousands.

    The steal is baked into the way California handles No Party Preference –”NPP” voters –what we know as “independents.”

    There are a mind-blowing 4.2 million voters in California registered NPP – and they share a love for sunshine and Bernie Sanders. According to the reliable Golden State poll, among NPP voters, Sen. Sanders whoops Sec. Hillary Clinton by a stunning 40 percentage points.

    On the other team, registered Democrats prefer Clinton by a YUGE 30 points. NPP’s can vote in the Democratic primary, so, the California primary comes down to a fight between D’s and NPP’s.

    And there’s the rub. In some counties like Los Angeles, it’s not easy for an NPP to claim their right vote in the Democratic primary – and in other counties, nearly impossible.

    Example: In Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary, they are instructed to say that, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-08/how-californias-primary-was-rigged-against-independent-voters

    • dukeofurl 8.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:36 am

      Its a very complicated system, as the statewide primary rules are slightly different from nationwide primary rules.

      You are assuming that NPP turnout in the same proportion as those registered which is not the case. They are mostly the least engaged in party political enthusiasm.

      And if they are NPP and DO VOTE Dem then their registration is changed to Dem for the next vote.

      Its clear they DONT vote in the primaries as much as those of the registered parties

  9. adam 9
    9 June 2016 at 8:40 am

    Bernie will stay, the aim is get people into the senate and house of representatives.

    I also think might be a good idea to have options as the Clinton Foundation is looking more and more like goose who stole all the eggs.

    Rockey is staying in as well, look for some fun at the convention, about the how the DNC has run this campaign and voter fraud.

    Just because vote fixing is a historical part of elections in the USA, does not mean this generation is going to roll over and accept it.

    Ever get the feeling that deception will make lies of the Democratic party, this is how they will lose the general election, by all this mess.

    Oh, and quite a few people see Hilary for what she is – via her voting record.

    Finally, get the feeling that some spine is coming back to the left. No need to roll over to the wet liberals, and the hopelessly defeated.

    • dukeofurl 9.1
      9 June 2016 at 10:35 am

      Really.?Its too late
      The primaries for those positions are OVER now as well.

      Since you have all the answers where did “bernies candidates’ win over the others?

      But of course you were thinking out loud, and doing some cosmic dreaming to boot.

      • adam 9.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 10:44 am

        Again what does cosmic dreaming to boot even mean in what you are trying to say?

        I mean do you even care there is one primary left? Obviously not.

        What is over is the majority of primaries – the convention is a month and a half away.

        There are other election in November as well you know.

        So please, try harder with your hard right diatribes next time.

        • dukeofurl 9.1.1.1
          10 June 2016 at 10:43 am

          Again you have a 10 year olds idea of how it works. The convention is ONLY for the presidential election. primaries have decided who the candidates for Democratic party for local level and national level house and senate.
          Bernie cant get a candidate for any postion in November unless they won their local primary.
          he hasnt been working for local supporters at all.

  10. Ad 10
    9 June 2016 at 8:47 am

    The thing Sanders could have done over a month ago was direct his supporters to form a single new superPAC to assist in contesting Congress and Senate races. But he didn’t.

    Or he could have made a run for Vice President with Hillary. Or other major Cabinet office. But he didn’t.

    Or he could have directed all his campaign capacity over to Hillary, and revived the Democratic Party super-fast. But he didn’t.

    Or thrown his weight behind the Greens Party. But he didn’t.

    Or stood as an independent ……….

    …….. whatever. He did none of those things, and has now delivered his supporters nothing concrete for all their efforts. Their anger is going to be unanswered, because he has shown him to be a one trick pony with no leadership skill in the actual game of politics.

    Sanders is now just coasting on the usual male privilege that we have seen from applications the world over. It’s the male privilege of being assumed to be the more righteous, more virtuous, more competent and more worthy than the female applicant, no matter the process. Even though she has demonstrated her value to the agreed application process against all objective measures. So he gets to demand to see the boss and have a vent of his righteousness. Wanker.

    Sanders’ graceless sexist loser behavior is simply trashing his supporters own latent hard-left movement.

    And in case we haven’t noticed, Hillary’s speech last Thursday listing why Trump was unfit to lead was more accurate and prescient to the election than Sanders’ standard trope about ‘revolution’. It’s now going to be contested on precisely Democratic ground that appreciates Hillary Clinton: pro-Latin, pro-black, pro-women.

    • adam 10.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:31 am

      Did you even read your first sentence back Ad? Did you actually take an interest in what Bernie said? Because what you have said, almost verbatim – is the talking points put out by the Clinton campaign over the last 4 weeks.

      Just an observation.

      • Ad 10.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 11:02 am

        Let Sanders go now.
        Be gentle to yourself.

        • adam 10.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 11:10 am

          I’m a Jill Stein supporter.

          I thought you knew that, as I’ve said it quite a few times.

          Just find it funny when you copy talking points.

          Bernie is not with the Greens, not even close – he is at best a new dealer.

          I found it even funnier that you seem to happy to ignore her voting record, which does not seem to match up with what else you wrote.

          But what is funnier, is you don’t even get the criticism.

          Just an observation.

    • DoublePlusGood 10.2
      9 June 2016 at 10:11 am

      Except Clinton’s right wing economic policies result in women, Hispanics and African Americans all being worse off. So she isn’t pro- any of them, she just says she is.

      • Ad 10.2.1
        9 June 2016 at 11:02 am

        Citation required.

        • DoublePlusGood 10.2.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 11:44 am

          You need a citation to know about the problems in America? The level of poverty and unemployment? The massive transfer of wealth to the very rich? Seriously, just google something.

          • Ad 10.2.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 2:14 pm

            A citation that Hillary Clinton’s policies will cause what you state.

            Seriously, get off your ass.

            • DoublePlusGood 10.2.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 2:45 pm

              What part of the neoliberal economic status quo doesn’t produce that?

            • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1.1.2
              9 June 2016 at 7:57 pm

              Hilary Clinton’s White House economic team will consist almost exclusively of former Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan bankers. That should tell you something Ad.

    • weka 10.3
      9 June 2016 at 11:09 am

      Wow Ad. Specious, disingenous and nasty. That’s an argument worthy of Crosby Textor and some of the more bizarre RWNJs on ts.

      Specious, because in playing the gender card you appear to be relying solely on the fact that Sanders is a man and Clinton is a woman, which is a ridiculously pathetic attempt at gender political analysis. Do you have any evidence that Sanders is being sexist in this situation? There has been a huge amount of feminist critique of Clinton and the problem of having a woman like her running in this race.

      Disingenous because for months you’ve made it obvious that you hold Sanders in contempt, and now you are using bullshit gender politics to further that agenda.

      Nasty speaks for itself.

      • Crashcart 10.3.1
        9 June 2016 at 2:05 pm

        Exactly. you don’t see Sanders accusing her of being an Anti Semite because she hasn’t ceded to allow him to be the first Jewish nominee of a major party.

        There are a lot of reasons people like HRC. Good ones. Same for Sanders. It is really annoying when people try to call Sanders, one of the people with the best voting records in congress, a sexist.

      • Ad 10.3.2
        9 June 2016 at 2:16 pm

        Nope. Hillary has made gender front and Centre.

        The grace needs to come from the loser, Sanders.

        • Crashcart 10.3.2.1
          9 June 2016 at 2:20 pm

          Exactly. HRC made it about Gender, not Bernie. To then label him sexist is ignorant at best and more likely dishonest. Are you an anti Semite for saying he should drop out? no of course not.

          Of course if you can come up with some real statement or vote he has made in the past that would show him to be sexist I am sure a lot of people here would be willing to take your argument a lot more seriously.

          • Ad 10.3.2.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 2:23 pm

            It’s his behaviour, as explained.

            • Colonial Viper 10.3.2.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 2:43 pm

              A black woman explains why it’s Bernie or bust for her. And why she will never vote Clinton.

              • weka …
                9 June 2016 at 3:25 pm

                Very good commentary.

                Lolz the Clinton woman saying that Clinton’s historical lying is Clinton’s biggest vulnerability. More soberly, the Clinton woman sounds exactly like the Crosy Textor bullshit speak we get here.

            • Crashcart 10.3.2.1.1.2
              9 June 2016 at 2:55 pm

              What his behaviour of not conceding? how in the hell is that sexist. His past behaviour and voting would indicate that her sex has absolutely nothing to do with it. It wouldn’t matter if he was up against a Man, Woman, or mildly intelligent goat (see Donald Trump).

              He is staying in the race because:

              a) He has policy he wants to keep at the forefront.
              b) There is an incredibly small chance HRC will be indicted and an even smaller chance this would result in SD’s switching.
              c) He has the money to do so. Money donated to him by millions of supporters that want him to keep going.

              But yea sure it is all because he is a sexist loser.

            • weka 10.3.2.1.1.3
              9 June 2016 at 2:59 pm

              No, you haven’t explained it. You’ve misappropriated gender politics and asserted something without any real reason. In other words, you just made a bunch of shit up. Sanders and Clinton approach gender differently. As I said there is plenty of feminist critique of Clinton, why do you ignore that and assert that because she has pro-women campaigns that Sanders is sexist? It just doesn’t make sense. Worse, it’s pretty fucked up seeing a left wing man arguing this on a political site.

  11. Andre 11
    9 June 2016 at 8:52 am

    IMO Bernie should stay in for the convention vote. Because there remains the very slim possibility that something really really smelly crawls out of the e-mails investigation.

    Hillary has endured more than a quarter century of demonisation and dirty politics from Republicans. Hell, Bill had barely been inaugurated before “Impeach Clinton. And her husband” started appearing on bumper stickers and graffittied onto highway underpasses. I used to drive past one every day, and it never got cleaned off (it was a strongly Republican county). So some of the mud has unfairly stuck, she’s not a natural teflon politician.

    So yes, her foreign policy views are vicious and brutal. Yes, she’s taken a lot of money from Wall Street. Yes, she has supported policies that result in grossly disproportionate incarceration of people of colour. But apart from those stains, she has a good solid progressive record that she is most likely to continue in office. Including a plan to rein in Wall Street that most credible commentators think is better than Bernie’s.

    So while I would much rather it was Bernie, I look forward to Hillary continuing incremental progress rather than the regression we would have under a (hypothetical) moderate Republican. And if by some bad-acid-trip turn of events the stygian homunculus actually gets elected, dear lord help us.

  12. Puckish Rogue 12
    9 June 2016 at 9:10 am

    Whats the time frame for the FBI to lay charges against Clinton?

    • Andre 12.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:11 am

      Whatever they choose.

      • dukeofurl 12.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 9:24 am

        The FBI only investigates, the choice to lay charges is down to the Attorney General appointed by Obama

        • adam 12.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 9:35 am

          Maybe not, if it is in relation to the Clinton foundation – then any Attorney General from any state will do.

          • dukeofurl 12.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 9:38 am

            Wrong again. Its a Federal case so its through the US Attorney General

          • dukeofurl 12.1.1.1.2
            9 June 2016 at 10:06 am

            FBI are not investigating Clinton Foundation. You have been reading too many crazy websites.
            But your idea that FBI investigates for state AGs is nonsensical.

            • adam 12.1.1.1.2.1
              9 June 2016 at 11:02 am

              AH, no the case that was investigated was around her use of email.

              That case has gone in another direction. You might want to look at your blessed New York times.

              Now the problem for the clintons, is that there foundation, is a registered in more than one state. So a federal investigation – yes, but the states still have rights to prosecute.

        • Andre 12.1.1.2
          9 June 2016 at 9:39 am

          That raises the bar on how smelly it would need to be before laying charges. From a timing point of view, I haven’t heard of any statute of limitations deadlines. I’m confident the FBI is being extraordinarily careful to ensure the timing of any announcements is fully justifiable by the progress of the investigation and discovery of evidence.

        • Puckish Rogue 12.1.1.3
          9 June 2016 at 9:45 am

          I’m wondering if Saunders is hanging on long enough until charges are laid maybe?

        • whispering kate 12.1.1.4
          9 June 2016 at 10:26 am

          I have read somewhere where the FBI have stated, if they do not get, on their evidence, to indict Clinton, then they will whistle blow and release their information as there is, in their eyes, sufficient evidence in the emails to indict her (in their opinion). Key in Google and there is plenty on what the FBI think of this indictment.

          • dukeofurl 12.1.1.4.1
            9 June 2016 at 10:41 am

            have you read what the so called secrets are, they were public knowledge!

            One email had the minutes of a secret meeting between the Palestinians and Israel , the person sending the email had got them from an Al Jazerra documentary.
            Another very high level secret- special access is just that US drones are used for strikes in Pakistan.
            Its everyday knowledge yet officially its top secret because it breaks an international treaty and harms relations with Pakistan. The email info was taken from pages of NY Times.

            Not related to this case but US government people have lost their jobs because they have said Israel has nuclear weapons, thats an official secret as well.

            • Crashcart 12.1.1.4.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 2:10 pm

              The content is less relevant than the classification. I don’t get to read a Top Secret document and then decide that I think the info is fine for public release and email it to my home account. The moment it has a classification it has to be handled correctly. Christ if you accidentally stamp a blank document with Secret you have to go through a proper disposal process even though there is no info there.

              • dukeofurl …
                10 June 2016 at 10:49 am

                Thats the absurdity, they got the info from open sources.
                How can you be revealing a ‘special access secret’ when you didnt have the special access to start with.

        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.5
          9 June 2016 at 10:37 am

          The FBI only investigates, the choice to lay charges is down to the Attorney General appointed by Obama

          the FBI lays federal charges on its own initiative all of the time without referring cases to the Attorney General.

          That is, in cases without this kind of high level political interference being run by the White House.

          • dukeofurl 12.1.1.5.1
            10 June 2016 at 10:54 am

            Total nonsense.
            What does the I in FBI stand for. Every case they handle that goes to court has to have a federal prosecutor behind it.
            This is common knowlege, Im surprised you made such a simple error.

            “Does the FBI work through U. S. Attorneys?

            Yes. Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case.”
            FBI FAQ.
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

  13. save nz 13
    9 June 2016 at 9:11 am

    Bernie should stick to his guns till the end. Negotiate the best position for himself to help the US out of their neoliberal nightmare.

    Clinton is not going to do it so the US will continue to decline taking out other countries with their ideology. And Trump – who knows what he will do!

    • Olwyn 13.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:32 am

      I agree. Sanders is on a mission, and should do what he must to advance that mission. Clinton, in comparison, is after the top job within the status quo, and the status quo is horrible. It is horrible to giggle at the death of an opponent, it is horrible to prance about in a $17,000 jacket and bleat about inequality. It is horrible to regard unflinching cruelty as the mark of political maturity. It is horrible to facilitate the destruction of your own country’s real economic base and then turn your guns on countries that haven’t followed suit. Sanders is right. The system has to change, and the longer that is postponed the worse the results will be.

      • Colonial Viper 13.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 10:40 am

        It is horrible to giggle at the death of an opponent

        You mean the crippled, half blind, elderly man who was unarmed and already in captivity by the Pakistan intelligence services.

        • Olwyn 13.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 11:27 am

          That one too – I was talking about the “We came, we saw, he died, titter-titter” moment on TV following the death Gaddafi, whose body was also publicly defiled. I find blindness to the difference between respect and disrespect utterly chilling in a person who occupies a position of power. It sets a low standard, attracts hatred and replaces high standing with brute dominance.

          • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 3:06 pm

            Ahhh OK, I was confused for a moment there, thanks for clarifying.

      • Chooky 13.1.2
        9 June 2016 at 4:44 pm

        +100 Olwyn

    • Chooky 13.2
      9 June 2016 at 9:38 am

      +100 save nz….and who knows Hillary Clinton may yet rule herself out with the FBI investigation, not to mention what ever else Trump has got up his sleeve on her , or what ever else comes out of the woodwork on her from other quarters

      …although If Trump were smart he would hold his fire until the face off with the Democratic nominee because Clinton will be easier for him to beat than Sanders, therefore it is in Trump’s interests that Clinton is nominated

      http://firebrandleft.com/university-100-accuracy-record-predicts-bernie-sanders-will-americas-next-president/

  14. mikesh 14
    9 June 2016 at 9:11 am

    There seems to be a feeling abroad that the US and the West is spoiling for a fight with Russia, and will use the “invasion of Crimea” falsehood as a pretext for some sort of invasion. The election of Clinton as president could well be the trigger for such an event. I think Sanders should fight on and, by splitting the vote, attempt to usher Trump into the White House. While the world is entitled to feel uneasy at a Trump presisidency, I think it should terrified of a Clinton getting elected.

    There is of course still the possibility that the Clinton campaign will be sunk by emailgate.

    • Colonial Viper 14.1
      9 June 2016 at 10:11 am

      The US will continue to provoke Russia by destabilising her borderlands, and by moving more offensive missile systems right to the edge of her territory. (They call it ballistic missile defence systems but a software change can alter those missiles into offensive launch batteries at any time, and the warheads can be changed to nuclear tipped without the Romanians or others even knowing).

      • DoublePlusGood 14.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 11:51 am

        Russia does a pretty good job of destabilising its own borderlands by invading Donbass and Crimea and South Ossetia, wrecking Chechnya, having puppet dictators in former SSRs, meddling in Abkhazia and Transnistria – the US really doesn’t need to do a whole lot of the sort of regime change that it normally uses to destabilise things (the US’s usual MO would have seen a lot more ‘accidental’ regime changes take place than those that have occurred).

        • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 2:59 pm

          Donbass: please tell me what the date of the Russian invasion of Donbass was, and how many troops and armoured vehicles were involved in this “invasion.” There must be photos of tens of thousands of Russian men and thousands of Russian military vehicles crossing the Russian border into Ukraine, right?

          Crimea: Crimea voted overwhelmingly and democratically to join the Russian Federation.

          South Ossetia: you forgot the bit where Georgia, under goading by the USA, decided to initiate an invasion of South Ossetia, killing a group of Russian peacekeepers in the process. Russian forces pushed back all the way through to the Georgian capital to make a point and left shortly thereafter.

          Chechnya: the US supported Islamic extremists in Chechnya and intended Chechnya to turn into another Afghanistan for the Russians. The Russians didn’t play nice.

          And now, the US places offensive missile systems right on Russia’s door step, just a few minutes missile flight to major Russian cities.

          • DoublePlusGood 14.1.1.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 3:11 pm

            “democratically” you can’t have a democratic election when troops are everywhere, with massive ability to rig the vote.

            South Ossetia: is in Georgia. Russian ‘peacekeepers’ should not have been there.

            Donbass: so there’s no Russian troops at all in there?

            Chechnya: that’s one excuse to level the whole place, I guess. Not one that would stand up in the Hague though.

            • Colonial Viper 14.1.1.1.1.1
              9 June 2016 at 3:17 pm

              1) Show me a single report which says that there was widespread fraud in the Crimean referendum. Thing is, the Kiev Government and Kiev Economy has fallen apart so fast now, if another vote was held, the % to go with Russia would be higher than ever before.

              2) You kill Russian soldiers, you will get Russian forces smashing down the gates of your capital. But that was just to make a point. Russian forces left soon thereafter.

              3) Donbass. There have been plenty of Russian soldiers given leave around the time of the Donbass fighting. Russia also provided plenty of arms and supplies to the Donbass fighters. No invasion though.

              4) Chechnya. Yes the Russians obliterated the place. That’s what you have to do with extremist islamist fighters.

              • DoublePlusGood …
                9 June 2016 at 4:47 pm

                Obliterating places just tends to create more extremists.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  9 June 2016 at 6:19 pm

                  That’s the US style. However Russia has completely rebuilt Grozny from the water pipes up and ensured a high degree of social services and employment throughout the city.

                  • joe90 …
                    9 June 2016 at 6:45 pm

                    That’s the US style

                    .

                    As opposed to the Chekist style – Install a corrupt merciless puppet to, when he’s not enriching himself and his family and routinely abducting, torturing and executing his political opponents, maintain control.

                    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/25/putin-nominates-ramzan-kadyrov-to-remain-chechen-leader

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 June 2016 at 7:01 pm

                      How many market places have been taken out by car bombs in Grozny compared to Baghdad over the last 10 years?

                      How many hours a day does Grozny get electricity and water compared to Baghdad?

                      You may not approve joe90, but your approval is not required.

                    • McFlock …
                      9 June 2016 at 7:17 pm

                      No. Torturers rarely seek approval from anyone.

                      I guess bush/obama’s mistake in Iraq was not enough torture? Is that your message, CV?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      9 June 2016 at 7:25 pm

                      Hi McFlock, I’m simply noticing how Russia didn’t walk away from the ruins of Grozny, and from the impoverished Chechens, even though they could have. Instead, Russia rebuilt the nation and rebuilt the city. It didn’t leave its conquest in utter chaos and poverty like the West has done over and over again.

                    • joe90 …
                      9 June 2016 at 7:46 pm

                      How many hours a day does Grozny get electricity and water compared to Baghdad?

                      Yeah, had the US installed any one of a number of murderous arseholes, Muqtada al-Sadr perhaps with Abu Deraa as his number two, things in Baghdad would be just fucking peachy right now.
                      /

                    • McFlock …
                      9 June 2016 at 10:11 pm

                      Agreed. As hegemony imperialists go, the yanks are less competent than Russian, Chinese, Belgian,English, German or French imperialists over the last couple of hundred years or so.

                      That doesn’t excuse or even rank any of them though.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    10 June 2016 at 1:38 am

                    I’d suggest you might want to leaven your RT sourced view of the Russians in Chechnya. It was a particularly brutal and decidedly racist event that probably qualifies as genocide.

                    Zatchistka is what was going on, and few male Chechens over 16 made it out to Ingushetia. Friend of mine was there on the ground. The crimes for which you damn HRC were certainly committed in the Chechen war.

                    This is a taste – but I think you can use Google as well as I can.
                    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/674320.html

  15. Wayne 15
    9 June 2016 at 9:21 am

    Bernie has lost. He and his supporters need to accept that.
    Only the craziest super delegates would go against the will of the electorate in the circumstances presented. So Bernie has no chance with them.
    As some on this site know, I have always supported Hillary, and also did so in 2008. Hopefully her time has now come, not just now but also in November.
    She will be a good friend of New Zesland.

    • vto 15.1
      9 June 2016 at 9:38 am

      Fucking horse shit she will. She will be a good friend of the National Party and its wanker members, who put in place and support policies that have led to the worst housing situation for our people in decades.

      You and your lot are full of it. Wake up and deal with the real issues Wayne. Grow the fuck up.

      • BM 15.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 9:40 am

        Go back and see your doctor and get him to redo your meds.

        Whatever you’re on isn’t working.

    • One Two 15.2
      9 June 2016 at 10:00 am

      Hillary is a great friend of the war criminals who control her

      Fixed it for you, Wayne!

    • Colonial Viper 15.3
      9 June 2016 at 10:48 am

      How many new wars is Clinton going to drag NZ troops into Wayne?

      • Ad 15.3.1
        9 June 2016 at 11:12 am

        Let’s see how long your long-stated support for Trump lasts …

        … with his finger on the Def Con 1 button,
        all non-white judges humiliated,
        all Muslims on a register or sent back home,
        all Spanish-speakers sent over the great big wall,
        all reporters on a register,
        NATO disbanded,
        Climate Change denied and Paris 21 thrown in the air, and
        all international diplomacy suspended.

        • Colonial Viper 15.3.1.1
          9 June 2016 at 12:30 pm

          Mate, most of what you wrote doesn’t even deserve a reply. In terms of NATO being disbanded…why does it even exist post Cold War? That is, apart from solidifying the US occupation of Europe?

          all Spanish-speakers sent over the great big wall,

          Seriously, you are making stuff up now.

          all reporters on a register,

          They already are under Obama.

    • Stuart Munro 15.4
      10 June 2016 at 1:40 am

      It’s a funny thing, but the voting, not the polling, decides who has won and who has lost. It ain’t over – but Hillary is clearly so tainted she may represent the Republican’s only hope.

  16. Byd0nz 16
    9 June 2016 at 9:46 am

    Whoever whatever,Capitalism sucks the life out of the working class, be brave help smash it, read Marx

  17. NoThanks 17
    9 June 2016 at 9:58 am

    Sanders is like any socialist in the world: he can’t quite figure out why he can’t win, but he still demands others’ to pay for his folly.

    Let’s be frank, if you smoke, eat junk food, and take drugs, the state should never cover your health care, you are literally a junk bond, or bond when the interest rate is high, or….. whatever, in short a waste of money not worthy of any investment. Therefore UNIVERSAL health care is not ok, it’s punishing those people who look after themselves to pay for those who are undeserving.

    The deserving ones should still be looked after of course, e.g. children with disabilities etc., but a small segment of society should be let go.

    • dukeofurl 17.1
      9 June 2016 at 10:11 am

      The worlds most prosperous societies are all the mixed private- public system for a reason.
      Your type of countries are normally dirt poor, Cambodia etc.
      Even your friends in ACT only get less votes than Mana-Internet last time , what does that tell you? T

    • Colonial Viper 17.2
      9 June 2016 at 10:45 am

      NoThanks?

      You are against universal healthcare and for the nightmare system of the USA?

      You really have a screw loose.

      The only winners in that system are private insurance companies, whose business model is denial of healthcare to those who need it.

      I mean, what is it with your anti-human sentiments? Are you a sociopath?

      Therefore UNIVERSAL health care is not ok, it’s punishing those people who look after themselves to pay for those who are undeserving.

      What are you, 16 years old? You don’t think the healthiest marathon runners don’t get heart attacks and don’t get knocked over by cars?

      You really need to enter the real world mate and exit your fantasy bullshit neolib one.

      • DoublePlusGood 17.2.1
        9 June 2016 at 11:53 am

        Exactly! And unfortunately we are moving closer toward private companies controlling our health system here.

  18. Lanthanide 18
    9 June 2016 at 10:36 am

    Bernie Sanders is a traitor to the democratic party.

    • Colonial Viper 18.1
      9 June 2016 at 10:48 am

      There was a time when men called Washington, Jefferson and Adams were called traitors as well.

      Bernie should wear your condemnation as a mark of pride.

    • adam 18.2
      9 June 2016 at 10:58 am

      The party that brought you Jim Crow – that Democratic party?

      Or the party that put a million black men in Prison?

      Or how about the one that suspended the Constitution?

      Just wondering what democratic party Lanthanide?

      The one that buckled under the Florida fraud, then blamed Ralph Nader?

      Or the one that rigged elections as not to piss off Wall Street?

      What democratic party are you talking about Lanthanide?

      • Colonial Viper 18.2.1
        9 June 2016 at 12:13 pm

        I just watched Jim Hansen explain on You Tube how behind the scenes the Obama White House has treated climate change with the exact same disdain as the Bush White House.

        In terms of destroying whole countries, or trying to, Obama’s White House is on a par with GW. And Hilary was behind much of that.

      • Lanthanide 18.2.2
        9 June 2016 at 12:27 pm

        You’re right, the Democratic party has such a sordid and horrid history, it’s amazing that Sanders would even want to sully himself by running as that party’s nominee.

        It’s almost like Sanders is being completely craven and a carpet-bagger for a party he doesn’t actually represent. Perhaps he should have stood as an independent, or for the Socialist Party or something else like that. Then he wouldn’t be a traitor to the Democrats, or a carpet bagger besides.

        • Olwyn 18.2.2.1
          9 June 2016 at 12:31 pm

          It is also the party that brought the New Deal, albeit a long time ago now. If you take that as the benchmark, then the usurpers are those responsible for the wrongs Adam has listed, not Bernie.

          • Colonial Viper 18.2.2.1.1
            9 June 2016 at 3:08 pm

            We had a Labour Party which revolutionised the NZ social economy too, a long time ago. Wish that Labour Party was still around.

    • Ad 18.3
      9 June 2016 at 11:00 am

      Bernie Sanders has come from nothing to pretty darn close.
      As an activist and reformer Bernie Sanders is a hero.

  19. Observer Toke 19
    9 June 2016 at 11:16 am

    .
    . “Bernie should wear your condemnation as a mark of pride.”

    . You have said a noble thing Colonial Viper. Well done

    Interesting that so many Tory wealthy trolls on here have been rubbishing Bernie Sanders’.

    Bernie has achieved so much. A good man. The wealthy who lack compassion will one day be put on the spit. Like greasy Pigs.

  20. Adrian 20
    9 June 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Politics isn’t meant to be just about winning. It’s about life long commitment to principals and beliefs, be they Right or Left or Centrist.
    Bernie stands for something completely different than Hilary, so why on earth would he stand behind Hillary?
    This whole ‘lesser of two evils’ argument simply doesn’t mean anything any more..it’s the reason America is in the appalling state it is in.
    And us. The difference here being our young folk, the equivalent of “Bernie supporters’ have left en-mass, leaving the vote to Baby-boomers who are all about a quiet, guilt free existence, with tax free capital gains as the cherry on top.

    • Ad 20.1
      9 June 2016 at 2:21 pm

      If that were the case he should never have been a candidate.

      He and his policy platform contested by the rules, and lost.

      • Colonial Viper 20.1.1
        9 June 2016 at 3:03 pm

        Contested by the rules? And if said rules were designed to be completely undemocratic what then? Still fine as long as its “by the rules”?

  21. joe90 21
    9 June 2016 at 5:06 pm

    He isn’t talking about Bernie.

    ABC News Verified account
    ‏@ABC

    Bernie Sanders’ sole endorser in Senate, Sen. Jeff Merkley, says ‘we have our nominee.’ http://abcn.ws/1swri3I

    https://twitter.com/ABC/status/740765036495392768

  22. Paul 22
    9 June 2016 at 5:42 pm

    Bernie should go to the convention.

  23. joe90 23
    9 June 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Politico on Clinton’s appeal to minority and black voters.

    But it’s also a fault line. Sanders coming from seemingly nowhere to seriously challenge Clinton while drawing historically large and enthusiastic crowds has soaked up much of the attention in the Democratic race, making it feel as though he’s hit a chord that resonates throughout the party. But his brand of idealism has been rejected by the majority of minority voters—Clinton won every contest with at least a 10 percent black population, except Michigan, and each state where Latinos make up at least 10 percent of eligible voters, except Colorado, according to Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com. On top of that, they have been mocked by some Sanders supporters for supposedly “voting against their self-interest” because they refuse to believe a political revolution is at hand. That has been particularly galling to black voters who had to endure claims from conservatives in 2008 that they were voting for Barack Obama only because of race—even though they had spent their entire adult lives voting mostly for white presidential candidates. Now their preference for Clinton’s brand of pragmatism, something they’ve seen result in real progress time and again, is being questioned as well, this time by fellow Democrats.

    […]

    Many Sanders supporters believed his push to regulate Wall Street and solve economic inequality would resonate with minority voters. It didn’t because minority voters know that liberal policies alone won’t reverse decades of racial inequalities. They have been loyal members of liberal unions where white Democrats received plush jobs, even if they were no more qualified than their black colleagues. They’ve seen the same thing in liberal Hollywood and the supposedly liberal world of the media, whose top ranks remain mostly white.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democrats-race-racial-divide-213948#ixzz4B3QS0AmB

  24. Graeme Stanley 24
    9 June 2016 at 6:19 pm

    The Democratic Party have not been shown to operate a Level Playing field with regard to The Two candidates and there appear lots of primary voter irregularities. And Hilary Clinton cannot claim complete victory until all primaries are held and superdelegates formally vote on July 25th The media and corporate world appear behind Hilary hence the blackout they maintained against Bernie but what amazes me is how Bernie Sanders has motivated social media and thousands of young people who have not voted as well as the future of a nation. Bernie deserves to go all the way and to exact changes in The Democratic Party changes to policy too He also needs to be rewarded for his campaign.The Democratic Party need him in the Tent.Many have advocated him going Independent.A Hard Call. Go Bernie The Peoples President He has inspired me an oldie Kiwi.

  25. Liberal Realist 25
    9 June 2016 at 7:21 pm

    A Clinton presidency will just be more and more and more of the same. The world needs better.

    OP, whilst I agree that the work needs better HRC will not be more of the same. The world (and Europe & South East Asia specifically) are about to become very dangerous places to be if HRC is elected POTUS.

    HRC has volumes of blood on her hands, she’s no liberal by any measure. She’s a war hawk that’s determined to confront Russia in Eastern Europe on her borders, invade Syria under the pretense of humanitarian intervention and arm the neo-nazi puppets in Kiev with modern weaponry. All of which could lead to nuclear conflagration. Think of Central Europe as a smoldering sheet of trinitite.

    Beyond the risk of HRCs dangerous hawkishness there’s also the serious AIPAC / BIBI / Israeli asskissing, promising to take the US / Israeli relationship to the “next level”. I’m assuming that means more violence, death, torture and genocide on part of the Israelis with US made and funded weaponry.

    IMO Hillary Clinton is the single biggest risk to life on this planet, should she be elected.

    To quote John Pilger:

    “The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system…”

    Source: (Well worth the read)
    http://johnpilger.com/articles/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable

    Trinitite:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

  26. Halfcrown 26
    9 June 2016 at 7:37 pm

    I agree 200% there Pal.

    • Halfcrown 26.1
      9 June 2016 at 8:43 pm

      I have just noticed that my reply is out of sequence. It should be an answer to Liberal Realist@#25 7.21 pm

  27. joe90 27
    9 June 2016 at 11:01 pm

    meh

    .
    Dana Houle
    ‏@DanaHoule

    WTF? Sanders wants the new DNC chair to be Tulsi Gabbard, who thinks Obama is soft on terrorism & doesn’t say Islamic radicalism enough?

    https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/740575397113303040

    • Colonial Viper 27.1
      9 June 2016 at 11:24 pm

      This is Tulsi Gabbard

    • Colonial Viper 27.2
      9 June 2016 at 11:26 pm

      Also this

    • joe90 27.3
      9 June 2016 at 11:51 pm

      Have squiz at the Christians United for Israel website and check out the featured speakers – Gabbard in all her neocon glory is one of them.

      http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer?pagename=2015Summit_Speakers

      • Colonial Viper 27.3.1
        10 June 2016 at 12:52 am

        Sanders, Gabbard and Grayson are three of the finest politicians in the US. And yes they all have to kowtow to the Israel lobby. That doesnt make them neocons. Gabbard in particular is dead set against the neocon strategy of military intervention and regime change.

    • joe90 27.4
      9 June 2016 at 11:59 pm

      This is Tulsi Gabbard lining up with some of the more hard-core Israel lobby.

      On July 29, the U.S. House of Representatives, with more than 100 co-sponsors from both parties, passed a resolution by unanimous consent insisting that the Israeli attacks were exclusively “focused on terrorist targets” and that Israel “goes to extraordinary lengths to target only terrorist actors.” Co-sponsors included such prominent Democrats as Alan Grayson (FL), Jared Polis (CO), Eric Swalwell (CA), Richard Neal (MA), Joseph Kennedy (MA), Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Brad Sherman (CA), Elliot Engel (NY), and Debbie Wasserman-Schulz (FL). Two days later, Senate majority leader Harry Reid introduced a resolution, also pushed through by unanimous consent, claiming that “the Government of Israel has taken significant steps to protect civilians in Gaza” and that “Israel’s attacks have focused on terrorist targets.”

      http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/

    • joe90 27.5
      10 June 2016 at 12:03 am

      This is Tulsi Gabbard – Bill Maher’s new Islamophobia recruit.

      https://youtu.be/1dWx0Vt9FAA?t=5m2s

  28. joe90 28
    10 June 2016 at 12:18 am

    This is Tulsi Gabbard paling around with an activist from the Islamophobic BJP and adorned with the party’s logo.

    This isn’t simply a case of Indian Americans backing a Hindu congresswoman in order to bolster the representation of their community; after all, Gabbard was the first Hindu elected to Congress, an important civil rights milestone. (Gabbard, who is American Samoan, converted to Hinduism as a teenager.)

    The more important point is that her backers are all ideological backers of the BJP, which represents the right-wing, Hindu nationalist wing of Indian politics.

    http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/curious-islamophobic-politics-dem-congressmember-tulsi-gabbard

    http://parstoday.com/en/news/world-i5038-bjp_extremists_trying_to_strip_indian_muslims_of_their_vote

  29. Jenny 29
    10 June 2016 at 4:33 am

    It is good to see the political establishment calling ‘Uncle’. Enough already, you have made your point. Now “Stand down”.

    Bernie Sanders has made it one of his main campaign planks to get rid of corporate money out of politics, (at least in the Democratic Party). Sanders particularly wants to abolish the role of the SuperPacs which peddle corporate influence and control of politicians.

    This is the rule change that he wants from the democratic convention.

    He won’t stand down till he gets this concession.

    (Who knows, in his private conversation with the president, Sanders may well get Obama, once also an outsider, to back Sanders call to end the role of corporate influence peddling, and the power of money to pervert American democracy).

    It is all very well for HRC to say that she agrees that corporate money and influence needs to be got out of politics and she will look into the matter, But that is not enough when she herself is one of the biggest benefactors of this system of corporate money and influence peddling.

    As the saying goes in the US, “Turkeys never vote for thanksgiving”.

    This may be the only chance in a generation that the Left has a chance of evening the playing field, toward ordinary Americans.

    And strengthen their democracy.

    There will be a contested convention, until the rules are changed.

  30. Matthew Whitehead 30
    10 June 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Sanders should cut a deal in which he agrees to suspend his campaign with the option of re-entering the race and joins Clinton in criticising Donald Trump in return for some policy concessions. (normally the deals offered to candidates to stand down are to pay off their campaign debts and offer them cushy jobs, but Sanders isn’t campaigning for himself, he cares about the movement and his policies) At the moment the only path to the nomination for him is if Hillary Clinton is hit with an inditement over her private email server before the convention and the Democratic Party decides she’s no longer a viable candidate, which is pretty slim hopes, so it’s not actually a huge concession to suspend or terminate his campaign- but it is very savvy of him not to end it early without being offered anything, because technically yes, Hillary hasn’t actually clinched the nomination until the convention, regardless of what the superdelegates say.

  31. Jenny 31
    11 June 2016 at 6:33 am

    Who will be to blame if Trump beats Clinton.

    In this awful eventuality, the front runner who the polls said could have easily beaten Trump, who voluntarily stood down.

    ‘Not my fault, I did my best’, Says Clinton

    ‘Not our fault’, Say the Super Delegates, we were never given a choice we only had one candidate to choose.

  32. Jenny 32
    12 June 2016 at 9:02 am

    “Bernie or Bust?”

    “No, Justice or Bust.”

    While the Washington Post and others say that Hillary’s wins yesterday mean that Bernie has less leverage to demand concessions, I do not believe that will be true unless we allow that to be true. If we give up or give in, this political revolution has really been a cult of personality that will fade even as Bernie sits in the White House chatting with President Obama. We have to intensify our resolve, not wallow in disappointment.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/09/bernie-or-bust-no-its-justice-or-bust

    “We are trying to change a system that resists change”, Hone Harawira, August, 2014

    Last week Ms Turei claimed that KidsCan had said that up to 90 per cent of kids in schools went to school without lunch every day – a statement she later corrected and apologised for.

    Today she visited Windley School in Porirua where 50 children were fed with peanut butter and jam sandwiches and criticized Mr Key for not agreeing to go with her.

    She tabled a KidsCan document showing that KidsCan fed about 15,000 across 448 schools, an average of 33 pupils in each of the participating schools.

    A bill in her name, originally known as Hone Harawira’s “feed the kids” bill was defeated in Parliament this evening, by 59 votes to 61 at its first reading.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11419393

    Meanwhile another food in schools bill in the name of Labour MP David Shearer was defeated tonight at its first reading as well.

    The bill allowed for free food in all primary and intermediate decile one to three schools that wanted.

    However During his research on the bill, Mr Shearer came across several schools including Yendarra School in Otara, and Owairaka District School, which took a community approach to food in schools and changed his thinking.

    “I have become convinced that free food solves nothing,” he has said.

    “I now believe that each school community should be resourced to find and deliver its own long-term food solutions.”

    He still wanted the bill sent to a select committee so it could be reworked.

    The vote on his bill was 60 in favour and 60 against, meaning it could not progress.

    “We’ll feed hungry kids in schools…..” Andrew Little, June, 2016

    http://thestandard.org.nz/livestream-change-the-government/

    “Justice or bust”

    The political words of our time