Sanders Co-Chair Denounces Bloomberg As An “Oligarch . . . Buying His Way Into This Race” [Updated]

We recently discussed how the Democratic establishment seems to be ramping up a campaign to block Sanders (as it did in 2016), including a plan to derail him at the convention. With Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and DNC figures openly organizing against Sanders, the question is whether such a strategy, if successful, would alienate Sanders’ supporters in picking someone like Michael Bloomberg as an establishment choice. A remarkable exchange with Bernie Sanders’ national campaign co-chair Nina Turner last night on MSNBC may give a glimpse at such a future — and there is reason for the DNC and the Democratic establishment to be worried.

Turner was asked by MSNBC host Chris Matthews about Bloomberg and she hit both the former New York mayor and the DNC, calling him an “oligarch.” MSNBC seemed to come immediately to the defense of Bloomberg with Matthews asking incredulously “Do you think Mike Bloomberg is an oligarch?” Turner did not back off and raised candidates of color who were blocked under the rule now lifted for Bloomberg: “He is,” Turner shot back. “He skipped Iowa. Iowans should be insulted. Buying his way into this race, period. The DNC changed the rules. They didn’t change it for Senator Harris. They didn’t change it for Senator Booker. They didn’t change it for Secretary Castro.” Matthews kept pressing and Turner again said that Bloomberg “absolutely did” buy his way into the debates and further called the DNC decision “a stain on democracy.”

After the commercial, anchor Brian Williams called upon MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson to defend Bloomberg. He objected that

“Calling Mike Bloomberg an oligarch has implications in this country are unfair and unreasonable. I disagree with a lot of things Mike Bloomberg has done as a mayor. Oligarchy in our particular term makes you think of a rich person who got their money off of oil in Russia, who is taking advantage of a broken system . . . Mike Bloomberg is a rich guy. Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re an oligarch that abuses power. Mike Bloomberg was given power by the voters of New York… It ain’t the kind of language you should be using. It’s dismissive, unfair and the kind of thing that blows up in your face if you become the nominee and you have to work with Mike Bloomberg three or four months from now. That’s the issue Sanders people never want to remember.”

I agree that Bloomberg is not an oligarch under the common meaning of that term. An oligarchy is a government run by the few and referred to direct such control or role in government. It can be defined as “a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.” That can cover Bloomberg, but most discussion of oligarchs focus on Russian-like business people making profits off their control of government policies or former assets. However, among hard left advocates, “oligarch” has become synonymous with the billionaire class or super-wealthy establishment figures. That was evident in Turner’s response to the effort on MSNBC to get her to withdraw her characterization: “No, he doesn’t tell me what to say or how to change my words. My word stands!”

Turner also noted that it is “ironic [that] somebody would defend the wealthiest people in this country over the working people in this country.”  She then added something that should particularly worry the DNC establishment: “That is the same message Bernie Sanders has to the everyday people of this nation, that I welcome the hatred of the elites because I am standing up for you. So cry me a river for the wealthiest.”

That river could become a tsunami if this rift widens as the two sides careen toward the convention.

71 thoughts on “Sanders Co-Chair Denounces Bloomberg As An “Oligarch . . . Buying His Way Into This Race” [Updated]”

  1. The problem is not who is buying the votes.

    The problem is who is casting the votes.

    A republic is a form of democracy in which “…supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.”

    One man, one vote democracy the road to chaos and dictatorship; it is self-destructive.

    The Greeks, Romans and American Founders restricted the vote in their republics which were forms of democracy. The American Founders established a republic as proved by Ben Franklin when he admonished, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    The American Founders, in 1789, rightly and fully constitutionally, and in concert with their naturalization requirements (Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798,1802) that citizens be “…free white person(s)…,” restricted the vote to: Male, European, Age 21, Net Worth 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.

    Never were the poor, women, slaves, foreign citizens, illegal aliens or fraudulent citizens (under the flawed, improperly ratified and unconstitutional 14th Amendment) intended to vote as their vote is known and knowable; they vote en masse in a nearly 100% block, their votes are cast in a “Quid Pro Quo” for unconstitutional cash benefits and “entitlements” and their votes constitute election fraud and vote rigging.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

    “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

    – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
    _______________________________________

    “the people are nothing but a great beast…

    I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    1. To paraphrase Jefferson, “When idiots, the clueless, the brainwashed, the propagandized and the grifters start to vote the American Experiment is finished.”

  2. Allow Mother Bloomberg into the debates.

    She took away our Big Gulps with her “Soda Ban.”

    Let’s take away her podium.

    Fairness and Truth (which in this case is 5′ 8″ – 150 lbs).

  3. The problem isn’t that Bloomberg is rich. That’s a successful person. The problem is that the DNC told Andrew Yang that they would not change their fundraising goal rules for him, and then they turned around and changed their rules for Bloomberg, who did not meet their fundraising criteria because he contributed to his own campaign.

    I agree with Brian Williams that the word “oligarch” is being misused, perhaps deliberately so.

    These are the wages of class warfare, when the successful are automatically viewed as some sort of evil. Plus, it’s hypocritical as Bernie Sanders is a millionaire.

    I vehemently disagree with Bloomberg’s policies. He’s wrong because of policy and record, not because of his wealthy. Bernie Sanders is taking the tack that wealth equals sin, and hypocritically so.

    I sincerely hope none of these Democrats win. They would all spell ruination for our country. I have a child. I don’t want the US to descend into the deprivation and chaos of Venezuela, where children starve to death. There is a Democrat faction out to deliberately ruin our success. We’ve spent that wealth around the globe in aid and environmental projects. It would all be ruined.

    Stop the envy of wanting a politician to act as your robber baron, targeting anyone successful and seizing their assets to redistribute.

    1. “I have a child. I don’t want the US to descend into the deprivation and chaos of Venezuela, where children starve to death.”

      Karen is being overly dramatic, again.

      1. Anonymous:

        Anyone with the barest rudimentary knowledge of history would understand the threat that socialism poses towards getting enough to eat and warm clothes. Picking a career you find fulfilling is a luxury of capitalist countries. Avoiding a gulag or your neighbors spying on you is the reality of socialism.

        My father used to be part of the DOD and traveled to the USSR. I have several friends from former socialist countries. Plus I’ve got a better grasp of history than the average millennial.

        It is ironic, the projection from the Left. Democrats screamed, cried, cursed, rioted, and burned things when Trump was elected because they said he was a fascist dictator anti-semite racist who would kill Jews and minorities. That’s the garbage that was going around, for those with amnesia. It was absurd, as Trump has supported the Constitution, has a Jewish family, is the strongest supporter of Israel in recent memory and didn’t let any fear of terrorists interfere with that, and minorities have the lowest unemployment figures ever recorded. He was not the threat they pretended that he was for political purposes.

        Meanwhile, Democrats have openly espoused Socialism, an economic system that was responsible for the murder of over a hundred million people. It’s like you guys are saying, what’s the big deal that the Democrats now support Nazism. Why are you being so overly dramatic? Do you even know that the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party? That’s what “Nazi” stands for.

        Democrats want to emulate the policies of Venezuela that took the richest country in South America and reduced it to the point that the average person has lost 20 pounds, and they wonder what the big deal is? This is not like with Trump, where Democrats were simply making up vicious false allegations. They’ve always done this with conservatives. We’ve been called vile names for decades. This is different. This is emulating a murderous philosophy and pretending it will be all fair and wonderful and everyone will be middle class. There will be no more rich or poor. We’ll all be good, thriving citizens, happily giving up our property and cars and businesses for the good of all, and global warming.

        https://www.prageru.com/video/why-isnt-communism-as-hated-as-nazism/

        1. Lenin himself said that Communism is the end goal of Socialism.

          Socialism cannot coexist with robust individual rights. In order to outlaw profit, one must enslave people. The government must force business owners to give up their businesses in order for the government to own the means of production. In other words, profit is illegal, and the government runs business.

          What could go wrong?

          Socialism means the government owns the means of production. When some activist claims that anything the government does is socialist, they are either uninformed or lying. That’s not what socialist means. Socialism makes profit illegal, and one cannot own a business if the government owns the means of production.

          Communism means there is no private property, either, and it’s all owned in common.

          That’s a form of enslavement. You do not own the fruits of your labor or ideas.

          1. “If democratic socialism is so bad, why is Norway so great?”

            https://theweek.com/articles/783700/democratic-socialism-bad-why-norway-great

            The spectacular upset victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her recent New York congressional primary election has catapulted the topic of democratic socialism to the top of America’s political discussion. Conservatives have argued that the leftist politics of Ocasio-Cortez represent a policy program guaranteed to fail, and a sure electoral loser for Democrats. (Plenty of moderate liberals, including my colleague Damon Linker, have cosigned the latter part of that argument, too.)

            Let’s set aside electoral politics for now and focus solely on democratic socialist policies. Helpfully, we have a country that very closely approximates the democratic socialist ideal. It’s a place that is not only very far from a hellish dystopia, but also considerably more successful than the United States on virtually every social metric one can name.

            I’m talking about Norway.

            As I explain here, democratic socialism is a political tradition aiming broadly at democratic control of the economy, achieved through electoral processes. In concrete terms, that generally means a completed cradle-to-grave welfare state plus democratic ownership of big swathes of the economy through mechanisms like a social wealth fund or state-owned enterprises. Importantly, this definition rules out authoritarian systems like the state socialism seen in the Soviet Union. Democracy means at a minimum regular, free, and fair elections, where a conservative party has a real chance of victory.

            On the policy side, American conservatives have one international example in their case against democratic socialism: Venezuela. That country is ostensibly socialist and undergoing a severe economic crisis — so bad they’re running out of toilet paper, says Tucker Carlson — and therefore leftism always causes economic disaster. The initial problem with this argument is that Venezuela is not a real democracy, as President Nicolas Maduro has been blatantly rigging constitutional and electoral processes to cling to power. Venezuela may embrace socialism, but it definitely doesn’t embrace democratic socialism.

            A more important rejoinder to this argument is Norway (and the other Nordic countries to a lesser extent). Norwegian workers are heavily protected, with 70 percent of workers covered by union contracts, and over a third directly employed by the government. The Norwegian state operates a gigantic sovereign wealth fund, and its financial assets total 331 percent of its GDP (as compared to an American figure of 25 percent). Meanwhile, its state-owned enterprises are worth 87 percent of GDP. Of all the domestic wealth in Norway, the government owns 59 percent, and fully three-quarters of the non-home wealth (as most Norwegians own their home).

            Reliable statistics on the Venezuelan economy are hard to come by, but Norway is unquestionably more socialist than Venezuela according to the above definition. Indeed, it is considerably more socialist than supposedly-communist China, where only 31 percent of national wealth is owned by the state.

            Norway is not some destitute hellscape. Indeed, not only are Norwegian stores well-stocked with toilet paper, it is actually considerably more wealthy than the U.S., with a GDP of over $70,000 per person. Even when you correct for the moderately large oil sector (which accounts for a bit less than a quarter of its exports), it still has a cutting-edge, ultra-productive economy — far from some petro-state living off oil rents like Dubai.

            Socially, it routinely ranks as the happiest (2017) or second-happiest (2018) country in the world. The rest of the Nordics are also usually among the top five as well — even more remarkable when you factor in the phenomenon of seasonal affective disorder and the extreme northerly position of the Scandinavian peninsula.

            On a snapshot of other quality-of-life measures, Norway boasts:

            A life expectancy of 81.7 years.
            An infant mortality rate of two per 1,000 live births.
            A murder rate of 0.51 per 100,000.
            An incarceration rate of 74 per 100,000.

            How does all that compare to the United States? Well, our economy is somewhat less wealthy, with per capita GDP of $59,500 — but to be fair, that is about the highest outside of oil-rich or tax haven countries. Socially, however, the picture is much worse: America ranks in the mid-teens for happiest countries, while its life expectancy is two years behind Norway, and actually fell in 2016 and 2017. America’s infant mortality rate is three times higher. Its murder rate is over 10 times higher, as is its incarceration rate. -Ryan Cooper

            1. Norway is not a socialist country. So many have gotten this fact wrong that Scandinavian leaders have had to correct them. Democratic Socialism is socialism with a less threatening sounding name. Social democracy just refers to the nanny state of free market Scandinavia. Scandinavia is also a homogenous community where a strong work ethic is part of the culture. “What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.” Over the years, Scandinavia overspent to the point that it harmed productivity, and had to scale back.

              Comparing Norway to a socialist economy is patently false and uninformed. Let me, and the PM of Denmark, disabuse you of this notion at once. “In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

              I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

              How do Socialist countries get their citizens to give up their rights? They promise the government will take great care of them.

              Capitalist countries sometimes give their citizens lush benefits packages, that are paid for with a capitalist economy. But unless the government owns the means of production, it is not a socialist country.

              You should check out the Democratic Socialists of America webpage, in which they claim that no one works for money, but rather for the good of the community. They claim that business owners will give up their companies to their workers, and that everyone will make astute business decisions. That great idea for a company? It does not belong to the founder. It belongs to the workers he paid all along the way. All those sacrifices he made, all the months without pay, he did it out of the goodness of his heart, and he’s not entitled to the fruits of his labor. No, his workers are. And an MBA is necessary as the janitor can make just as wise of a business and marketing decision as the CEO.

              https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

              1. “Norway is not a socialist country. ”

                And the U.S. won’t become one either.

                1. Anonymous, we do have Bernie Sanders on record praising Soviet Russia as the ideal society…so it’s out there. Not that he’d ever be elected….as was said four years ago about Trump.

                2. Anonymous – first you claimed that I didn’t know what I was talking about because Norway was such a fantastic socialist country. So I gave you the PM of Denmark who explained how Scandinavia was a free market economy. You even claimed Norway was more socialist than Venezuela, which indicates you don’t understand what a free market economy means.

                  Now you’re claiming that the US won’t become socialist.

                  Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Because every time you’re proven wrong you try another point, wrong again. Maybe you should take a break and go learn about socialist economies. Definitely do so before you vote. Please.

                  1. “Now you’re claiming that the US won’t become socialist.”

                    It won’t.

                    Try to focus, honey.

                    1. Nasty Anonymous — has anyone pointed out that you waste our time here by posting vacuous, obnoxious, inane, useless, and frankly, mean comments?

                      Your jealousy of those who have intelligence and wit, and like Karen, kindness on top of it all, is a very unattractive quality. Just sayin….

                    2. Here’s a challenge for you Nasty Anonymous…for you to *try* to rise above your nastiness. Will you choose greatness Anonymous? —->>>>

                      “We must choose between greatness or gridlock, results or resistance, vision or vengeance, incredible progress or pointless destruction. Tonight, I ask you to choose greatness.”

                      President Donald J. Trump
                      2019 State of the Union Address

                    3. “…has anyone pointed out that you waste our time here by posting vacuous, obnoxious, inane, useless, and frankly, mean comments?”

                      You waste your own time.

                      As for Karen, just like Trump, she’s a phony

                    4. And you, Anonymous are no phony…no, you are authentically nasty and stupid. Carry on.

                    5. “Carry on.”

                      Oh, I will.

                      You need to let things roll off your back, sweetie. And check your blood pressure from time to time.

                      There are relatively few comments posted to this blog — ~230 (rounding up) to the three articles that JT posted today.

                      If you find it taxing and a waste of your time to get through this mass of material, maybe try a speed-reading course?

                    6. Nasty Anonymous — you like to hit me and others with your comments about ‘wasting time’ on this blog, but it takes a special kind of time waster to actually know how many comments are posted daily….you say about 230? My god Anonymous, you have a LOT of time to waste, don’t you doll face?

                    7. Anonymous says:February 4, 2020 at 8:42 PM
                      Nasty Anonymous — you like to hit me and others with your comments about ‘wasting time’ on this blog, but it takes a special kind of time waster to actually know how many comments are posted daily….you say about 230? My god Anonymous, you have a LOT of time to waste, don’t you doll face?

                      ——

                      I know that you’re challenged, so I realize that it’s time-consuming and difficult for you to add together the number of comments that are provided by WordPress and appear at the end of each article posted by JT. It’s tough for you, honey. We know. Hang in there.

                    8. Yo Nasty Anonymous, one word for your silly reply: Sad. Hang up your spurs, doll baby.

                1. Are you upset that you got caught claiming that Norway was more socialist than Venezuela?

                  I think it’s funny how the leaders of Scandinavian country have had to correct Bernie supporters and other Democratic Socialists that they have a free market economy and are not socialist at all.

                  1. Settle down, Karen, honey. I didn’t “get caught”… WTF are you talking about.

              2. Norway has FREE college and national healthcare…..and empowers unions…..thats all Sanders wants !

                So you are saying Bernie ISNT a socialist now?

                Make up your mind.

                1. Norway has FREE college and national healthcare…..and empowers unions…..thats all Sanders wants !

                  Emma, dear, you can ration with prices, you can ration with queues, you can ration with coupons, you can ration with administrative edicts. You must always ration. With what do you intend to ration medical services, and why?

                  As for unions, what do you intend they do, and why?

                2. Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare,” deliberately omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, aka redistribution or wealth. Congress may tax for ALL to WELL PROCEED and that ALL only applies to commodities and services that ALL use in similar amounts and frequency such as water, electricity, sewer, trash pick-up, roads, post office (archaic), etc. Food, clothing, transportation and medical care are not used the same way by ALL or general. The Constitution provides maximal freedom to individuals while it severely limits and restricts government. Government exists merely to facilitate the freedom of individuals.

                  Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the flow of commerce and land and naval forces. Congress has no enumerated power to regulate anything else. Self-regulation by individuals and industries precludes catastrophic litigation.

                  The Founders’ philosophy and the Constitution promote education and do not support and preclude job actions or strikes by public workers and other communists. Power is provided to appointed heads of departments. Nowhere is that power provided to communist organizers or other parties. It is unconstitutional usurpation of power that brings communists into governmental positions. “Fundamental transformation” of the United States is treason.

            2. Norwegians are one coherent culture and people. An underclass is very expensive to support and Norway has no underclass. And of course no military industrial complex sucking up $15 billion dollars every week. And Norwegians value the many benefits of a good education.

            3. the reason why norway is so great is that Scandanavians are an intelligent and orderly people.

              they function well under any system

              see the human quality of any community counts

              swap them out with a disorderly, low IQ people prone to violence, and you would see a nightmare unfolding, a Nifleheim, a frozen hell

              take your pick of what kind of people those would be but we all know they are among the refugee contingent in greater numbers than the natives

              Norwegians know it too, just too polite to say it.

        2. “My father used to be part of the DOD and traveled to the USSR. I have several friends from former countries. Plus I’ve got a better grasp of history than the average millennial.”

          Sure you do, Karen.

          We know you grew up in an FBI family, Karen. Daddy this…and daddy that… Grow up.

          1. Rather than spending so much time on this blog, Karen needs to educate herself. And while she’s at it, she needs to get a grip.

            1. Oh, look. A Democrat is insulting a conservative personally instead of addressing a single fact raised.

              How ordinary.

          2. No, not FBI. I’ve never said that. Military family. Although Dad did get to interact with spooks from time to time. We’ve got lots of government stories. Like how when Dad worked at the Pentagon, they would give directions related to the proximity of the Purple Fountain, regardless of whether you were on its floor or not. Hilarity ensued.

            1. Karen S.,
              Anonymous at 2:54 PM might not be able to distinguish between the FBI and the military; maybe he/she thinks that they are both part of DOD.

              1. More than one person thought that Karen’s father was with the FBI:

                https://jonathanturley.org/2019/03/01/i-will-take-him-at-his-word-trump-states-that-he-believes-king-jong-un-had-no-knowledge-of-warmbiers-mistreatment/comment-page-2/#comment-1830474

                Cindy Bragg says:March 2, 2019 at 3:07 PM

                Karen ….I certainly understand about his privacy.. I thought your father had been in the FBI. My brother was an agent during the 60’s.
                Yes, your father should write a book. It would be a great read, I’m sure.

  4. Bloomberg Was Smart To Skip Iowa

    From the column:

    Turner did not back off and raised candidates of color who were blocked under the rule now lifted for Bloomberg: “He is,” Turner shot back. “He skipped Iowa. Iowans should be insulted”.
    ………………………………………………………

    See that, “Iowans should be insulted”. This from a Bernie Bro!

    In light of what happened in Iowa, Bloomberg looks very wise to not have bothered there. It is that foresight, perhaps, that made Bloomberg so rich. Mike knew a bad investment when he saw one and focused on Super Tuesday instead.

  5. I’m for Sanders who has proved he can defeat the DNC Socialist Party and help elect a Constitutional Centrist. and in the process help finish ripping the regressive socialists into nothing.

  6. Votes for sale, Votes for sale to highest payer. Who needs those stinking voters when you can purchase the Democrat Party. Party for sale, party for sale, have another hundred million

  7. Will Sanders’ co-chair rightly give credit for the naming of Bloomie as an Oligarch to Steve Bannon? Doubtful, but Steve said exactly that on Sunday Morning Futures in his excellent interview with Maria Bartiromo.

  8. Turley says that Bloomberg is not an oligarch under any legitimate meaning of that term but then does not deign to offer a definition. Turley might not have given this part of this post any particular attention, because of a larger point he wanted to make, but it reads as the deployment of an oblique rhetorical device, which no one should tolerate, but which attempts to or has the negligent effect of denigrating the intellectual capacities of one’s opponents while evading the merits of their claims.

    Turner’s charge, however, is basically correct. An oligarch is sufficiently defined as a super-rich person who, by virtue of his or her wealth, and in a community of interest and cooperation with others of his or her (unjustifiably) privileged ilk, controls or exerts a material undue influence on the political process and the public discourse to the clear detriment of popular sovereignty. Bloomberg unquestionably personifies this type. Indeed, what would an oligarch look like if not Bloomberg? The man controls $53 billion, with which he essentially bought a third term as mayor of NYC, now he’s buying a shot at the presidency – and the Democratic Party is changing it’s rules to accommodate him (and doing the opposite to Bernie Sanders).

    If today’s super rich are not literal Athenian oligarchs who explicitly or legally control the levers of power, then this seems more a formality or only an indication of their imperfect development as a class penned in by the vestiges of democratic tradition, or perhaps of their being cleverer than the oligarchies of yore in designing less visible mechanisms of domination (although they are less clever of late). But when the fact that, as Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman reported recently, “the top 1 percent captures more than 20 percent of national income and the working class barely 12 percent”, and the top 1% can use this money in unlimited fashion to buy elections at both ends of the stick (as candidates and donors), it is disingenuous to grill someone who uses credible terminology to describe this situation, even if it might not be literally technically accurate to a degree that would satisfy an Aristotelian scholar. In this respect, Chris Matthews is just a burnt out mollusk who reveals who he works for and which side he is on.

  9. “Plutocrat” would be the correct term: “A person whose power derives from their wealth.” That’s how “oligarch” is generally understood.

  10. Myyyy boomerang won’t come back. My boomerang won’t come back.
    I’m the biggest discrace to the aborigine race.
    My boomerang won’t come back.

    I… Can….ride a kangaroo!
    Eat facts too!
    My name is Bernie and I won’t be Curly…
    The Three Stooges are back!

    Moe! Larry! Cheese!

  11. Each candidate buys commercials. Each tries to get on news shows and not have to pay. Bloomberg is not beholden to so called givers. Vote for him over the complainers.

    1. Sanders buys his commercials with money from 1,395,000 individual donors, highest among the Democratic candidates by far. He’s not buying the election, his campaign is being funded mainly by ordinary citizens, which is what you’d expect in a democracy.

  12. I agree with Jonathan Turley for the first time in a long time. That woman was absolutely crazy and played into Trump’s tiny hands.

  13. Note to self.
    Call investment broker and have him pack portfolio with Orville Redenbacher and Pop Secret popcorns.

  14. Why does anything about the caucus and primary process to nominate a partisan candidate, which restricts choice, it does not expand choice, make any sense?

    The Electoral processes of Article 2 Section 1 and the 12th Amendment are meant to reduce the possibility of interference in the choices of one state in the choices of another state to produce the greatest number of choices across the country of the most qualified and most suitable persons available to hold the offices of President and President of the Senate, the two most important government positions, to assure that our government functions properly, not to make the decisions of government, that is for the people to do through their states.

    This process that we are using to select our Presidents is directly opposite of what the Constitution directs and what the framers intended. How can you read the Constitution and not understand what the requirements of selecting the electors on the same day, a date directed by congress, is intended to do, and having the electors gather in their respective State’s, also on a date specified by Congress, to give their votes, or the requirement that Each elector must choose at least one person which does not reside in the same state as themselves, and the requirement that the list must be certified that the choices are actually those of the electors and not the result of interference, quid pro quo, or coercion, these requirements are to make it impossible for there to be any outside interference in the choices of a State preventing a national consolidation of the choice. The list are also sealed, so the results of a sequestered proceedings are not known until they are opened by the President of the Senate, the certifications checked, the list compiled, and the votes tabulated to determine if any person received the votes of a majority of the Electors.

    Are we all so stupid that we can’t see that this only empowers the parties, not the people, to raise persons of their choosing to positions of leadership they created, to make the decisions of our government and control the wealth of our country, transferring wealth from the people to the elite and special interest who control the Parties.

  15. I’d vote for warm excrement in a shoe over our current D-List cameo actor who has done nothing for his country except exploit it for personal gain while dodging service, dodging taxes, and engaging in constant illegality — from his fake university and fake charity to his siphoning of public money into his tacky, debt-ridden properties.

    His widening wake of garbage is endless and his authenticity and intellect are as real as his orange skin, his love and loyalty for his multiple families, and his full head of hair. He’s an empty shell with an 8th-grade brain and shouldn’t be anywhere near public policy or nuclear weapons. He always was, and remains, a swamp-thing, flourishing in the very swamp he pretends to criticize.

    Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg….and everyone else……. while I prefer some over others, ultimately it doesn’t matter at all who secures the nomination.

    1. Wow Dave!

      You need to see a doctor right away * get something to put on your rash before it gets infected.

      1. Yeah sure. Root on your socialist enemies. I love seeing them roll over the cliff. Love a shot of that little poof cloud at the bottom, too.

    1. Always best to sit back, relax, and let your opponents wear themselves out on their own swords. I don’t understand why conservative political analysts keep giving good advice on what Democrats can do to shore up their party. Hush.

  16. You forgot to mention that Bernie is also one of the 1% and that calling people oligarchs might come naturally to a campaign for Bernie given his past close association with Communists!

  17. The far left gets to define the term, so Bloomberg is certainly an oligarch. He is probably the spawn of Satan as well. Still, he is buying his way into the race and the DNC is clearly changing the rules for him. Sanders and his people have a legitimate gripe.

    1. paul c schulte

      You aren’t implying that the far right (and its “not rich, but doing just fine” supporters) would feel better if a “safe” candidate like Amy, Joe, Liz, or Pete pulls ahead are you?

      1. bill mcwilliams – the far right would feel better with Trump who is doing fine.

        1. All of his comments end with changing the subject and demanding the reader answer his “question”…..as if

          LOL

Comments are closed.