Bernie Sanders’ New Hampshire Win Shows How Out Of Touch The Liberal Media Is

LET'S STOP PRETENDING! 

Americans sacrificed their FREEDOM OF THE PRESS long ago. 

US Big Corporate Controlled Media PROPAGANDA MACHINES including Fox News = Fake News = CULT marched us to WAR against Iraq, even when the TRUTH was known. 

Those who spoke against the IRAQ DISASTER were labeled UNPATRIOTIC, their reputations sullied, they were vilified, a CIA Agent was outed, A CRIME THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED. 

Big Corporate Media is CENSORED! 

There is NO independence and NO legitimate reporting from Big Corporate Media!

Massachusetts Elected Officials marched to the losing Democratic Party Command with few exceptions....to campaign for Hillary Clinton. 

Democrats are OUT OF TOUCH! 

In Massachusetts, the Democratic Party supported a candidate, Martha Coakley for Governor even after she had already lost a campaign against a Koch Sock Puppet, Sexy Centerfold, Scooter Brown. We have the Tone Deaf Massachusetts Democratic Party to thank for Tea Bagger Guv Baker,

Congressman Stephen Lynch spoke with Jim Braude earlier today....another OUT OF TOUCH politician making excuses for Hillary Clinton.

This is NOT solely a media bias. 
It is A TONE DEAF DEMOCRATIC PARTY machinery that thinks voters will continue to support the party's corrupt policies.

We need unbiased journalism.

‎Shawn Robert Parker‎ to The Bernie Sanders Social Network

19 hrs · 

Sign this petition please at move on and read msnbc recent hit piece they launched right as NH was going to vote.

http://lm.facebook.com/l.php…

Occupy Democrats

From opposing birth control to gay marriage and sex education, Republicans have repeatedly shown an obsession with controlling others' personal lives.

Image by Occupy Democrats, LIKE our page for more!

Significantly, Sanders also took 49% of the non-white vote in the state compared to Clinton’s 50%, signalling a possibility that he could make inroads with a demographic he has struggled to connect to thus far in his campaign, despite his roots in the civil rights movement.

Sanders also fared better among those with and without college degrees, on both sides of gun rights, and among moderates and liberals, new voters and those returning to the polls. He also triumphed among voters who wanted “honesty” in a candidate, eclipsing Clinton’s 6% support with his own 92%

"The most disturbing factor here is that Hillary Clinton really seems to believe that there is nothing unethical about the situation [speech payments from Goldman Sachs]. How can she ever be trusted to work to get money out of politics if she does not recognize the problem and this is how she thinks?"

Bill and Hillary Escalate Smear Campaign With Dishonest Attacks on Sanders

The Clintons have escalated their dishonest smear campaign against 

Bernie Sanders, including attacks from Bill Clinton which are reminiscent 

of his racist a

LIBERALVALUESBLOG.COM

The Clintons have escalated their dishonest smear campaign against Bernie Sanders, including attacks from Bill Clinton which are reminiscent of his racist attacks on Barack Obama eight years ago. Both Bill and Hillary have raised what Truthout calls The Most Disingenuous Attack on Bernie Yet over the vote for the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. Hillary Clinton raised this at the last Democratic debate.

But here’s the thing: Hillary Clinton isn’t telling a true story about Bernie Sanders and his vote for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, or CFMA.

As Robert Scheer has pointed out over at Truthdig, then-Congressman Sanders voted for the CFMA, not because he wanted to, but because he had to.

The CFMA had been shoved into an omnibus spending bill at the last minute as part of a deal between Republicans and President Bill Clinton, and because this was a time when, you know, Congress actually did its job, Sanders bit the bullet andvoted for the whole package – CFMA included – to keep the government open.

Only four members of Congress ended up opposing the final spending bill that included the CFMA, and one of them was Ron Paul, who opposed pretty much every spending bill. But that’s just of the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how dishonest Clinton was being when she called Bernie out for voting for the CFMA.

Even if Bernie had a good reason to vote for that omnibus spending bill – like preventing a government shutdown – Sanders was angry that he been forced into deregulating Wall Street.

Bill is also attacking Bernie over the data breach with an inaccurate account of the incident, calling it like stealing a car with the keys in the ignition. Bill left out important details such as that it was the Sanders campaign which both reported that the data breach and fired their staff member who was involved. In return, the DNC violated their contract with Sanders, only backing down in response to a lawsuit. Imagine the cover ups which we would be seeing if it was a Clinton staffer involved.

In what was probably his biggest strategic blunder, Bill Clinton jumped on highly exaggerated attacks on Bernie Bros. The attack line, which is reminiscent of the Obama boy attacks of eight years ago, is largely based upon myths spread by the Clinton campaign. While there is no doubt that some Sanders supporters have acted inappropriately on the internet, Sanders has alreadycondemned such acts.

If bad behavior from supporters on the internet was a reason not to vote for a candidate, there are also plenty of cases coming from Clinton supporters, both on line and from more prominent supporters. While hardly a serious argument against Sanders, this resulted in an increase in discussion of Bill Clinton’s predatory behavior towards women. This will haunt the campaign through the general election should Hillary win the nomination. Reuters reports that one of the women who is accusing Clinton of sexual assault is planning to campaign against Clinton.

Meanwhile, Hillary continues to have problems with her speaking fees. At Huffington Post, Les Leopold writes Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees.

Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was “what they offered.”

It was not what they offered — it was what Team Hillary demanded.

A review of her 2014 tax return posted on her website shows that $225,000 was her minimum fee…

Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame and Hillary biographer, commented on CNN that the White House is “horrified that Clinton is blowing up her own campaign.” He said they can’t believe she took the money and didn’t see the ethical problems that would dog her.

It is not credible for her to argue that she took the money because she wasn’t sure she was going to run for president or that she was “dead broke.” She and Bill hauled in $139 million from 2007 to 2014…

The pundits point out that she has created a “perceived” conflict of interest,whether real or imagined. In essence they are saying that there’s nothing inherently wrong with taking the money. It’s not really tainted.

Hillary states that she never changed her vote due to campaign contributions. Butevidence is mounting via previous accounts by Elizabeth Warren, that Hillary may have switched her position on bankruptcy laws to please her Wall Street contributors after becoming the Senator New York.

But these attacks miss the most basic question: Is money tainted? Is it blood-money?

Sanders believes it is by arguing that “the business model of Wall Street is fraud.”

There is considerable data to support him.

The most disturbing factor here is that Hillary Clinton really seems to believe that there is nothing unethical about the situation. How can she ever be trusted to work to get money out of politics if she does not recognize the problem and this is how she thinks?

Clinton makes matters worse by refusing to release the transcripts as she previously refused to release the email until forced to.  McClatchy points out that Clinton did require that transcripts be kept.

With all the chaos surrounding the Clinton campaign, as well as Clinton losing her lead in the latest national polls from Quinnipiac and Reuters/IPSOS (which may or may not be outliers at this point),Politico reported that Clinton is considering a shake up of her staff. Hillary denied this report, but there is no information as to whether her nose grew during the interview. Regardless, the staff is not the problem. As was also the case eight years ago, the problem is the candidate. Democrats are insane if they want to go into a general campaign with her on top of the ticket.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2016/02/08/bill-and-hillary-escalate-smear-campaign-with-dishonest-attacks-on-sanders/

True Progressives Agree: Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has To Go – The Ring of Fire

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, is having a really bad 2016 so far.

In the early days of the year, progressives from all over the country have been raising their collective voices calling for Schultz’s ouster, mainly due to the fact that she is clearly causing harm to the Democratic primary races in an effort to better aid Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination.

If you don’t buy into the idea that Wasserman Schultz is rigging the system for Hillary, there are still plenty of other reasons to think that it’s past time for her to go.

Just last week, Debbie Wasserman Schultz told the New York Times that she opposes the legalization of marijuana. That’s fine, everyone is entitled to have their own opinions on the issues. The problem with her beliefs is that she’s basing them on outdated and incorrect talking points. For example, she told the Times that marijuana is a gateway drug that leads user to harder drugs down the line. Statistics actually tell us that this is not the case, and marijuana users do not have higher drug abuse rates than regular consumers of alcohol or tobacco. She also insisted that we have a huge increase in the amount of drug abuse in this country, particularly marijuana.

Again, none of this is true. In states where full legalization has passed, marijuana usage has actually declined, and in many other areas where it is still illegal usage has gone down. What is rising though is alcohol abuse and alcohol-related deaths, where 10% of Americans between the ages of 20 and 64 die from alcohol-related causes, but Wasserman Schultz has no problem with alcohol being readily available, and a report by The Intercept explains why.

It turns out that the beer, wine, and liquor industries rank as Wasserman Schultz’s fifth largest campaign contributors to her re-election campaign, and she’s received more than $18,000 from these industries. So her objection to legalizing marijuana has nothing to do with those idiotic talking points that she spews out, and everything to do with her donor industries fearing a decline in their revenue if marijuana becomes legalized in more areas.

We’ve always known that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is little more than a corporate Democrat – basically a Republican in Democrat’s clothing – but this latest stunt crosses a line. States that have legalized marijuana are seeing their economies soar, usage decline, and providing a more effective medical treatment for thousands of American citizens. But Wasserman Schultz is willing to put the well-being of both the economy and the lives of cancer and seizure patients on the line in order to pay back an industry that gave her a few thousand dollars. That is absolutely pathetic, and I’m joining the chorus of voices calling for Schultz’s resignation, because this has become beyond absurd.

Her presence is going to destroy the Democratic Party, because she is absolutely no different from the Republicans. She puts the wants of corporations ahead of the needs of the people, and that was one of the only things that separated the two parties. Wasserman Schultz is one of the worst leaders that the Democratic Party has had in my lifetime, and she’s taking the Party down a dark and dangerous path.

The worst part is that there’s absolutely no reason to have a pro-corporate, anti-consumer chairperson at the DNC. There are honest, hard-working, compassionate people within the Democratic Party that could take over that post and put the party back on the right track. Elizabeth Warren, Sheldon Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown, Keith Ellison – just to name a few – but those are people who could steer the Democrats in the right direction. Wasserman Schultz is not the leader that we need right now, especially as we head into a major election, and her leadership is going to cost the Democratic Party dearly this year.

http://trofire.com/2016/01/11/gb-progressives-agree-debbie-wasserman-schultz-has-to-go-the-ring-of-fire/

Wow! How true!

An Inconvenient Truth

Sponsored · 

Refuse what you do not need.
Reduce what you do need.
Reuse by buying secondhand and swapping disposables for reusable alternatives.
Recycle what you cannot refuse, reduce, or reuse.
Rot the rest—with compost.

Here's how to put the ‪#‎ZeroWaste‬ mantra in action!

10 Tips for Busting Clutter and Reducing Your Waste

Clean up your trash-tossing habits—for your own benefit and to improve the environment.

TAKEPART.COM

Occupy Democrats

The Republican party has become an international embarrassment.

Image by Occupy Democrats, LIKE our page for more!

Bernie Sanders’ New Hampshire Win Shows How Out Of Touch The Liberal Media Is

February 9, 2016 Manny Schewitz

Just a few months ago, most people in the media thought Bernie Sanders was a novelty candidate. Even the New York Times dismissed him last year, and was called out by many progressives for what they saw as a media blackout on his campaign.

Chris Matthews stated in this evening’s coverage of the historic New Hampshire win that a real loser was professional pundits. He is completely right, even though he repeatedly dismissed Bernie Sanders as a legitimate contender up until just recently.

I love watching the media eat crow. These are pundits who are handed scripts by professionals who have skimmed the daily headlines and then regurgitate them on camera to their audience. This isn’t just Fox News or the conservative media, MSNBC and other liberal media groups are just as guilty of doing this, as well as the New York Times.

If Chris Matthews and his peers had really paid attention to what is going on, they would have seen that there is a great discontent in this country with the status quo. Yes, younger progressive voters still support President Obama, but we aren’t satisfied with an economy that still favors corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

It was great that marriage equality finally became the law of the land. We are happy with healthcare reform and advances for women’s rights – but we still want more. We want more income equality and a better chance to achieve the American Dream.

We’re working longer hours for less money, struggling to pay back loans for college educations that were promised to be the key to a good job and owning a home like our parents did at our age. It’s a good thing that our gay friends can get married and adopt children, but what good does it do them if the American Dream is still out of reach even as they reach middle age?

Conservatives and even some establishment Democrats have dismissed us as spoiled and wanting free stuff. Universal healthcare, affordable higher education and good careers are not things we want handed to us. We simply want our hard-earned tax dollars to be used on making our lives, and our children’s lives better – instead of funding wars and subsidizing corporate welfare.

The political establishment and the media ignore this at their peril. Bernie Sanders may be old enough to be our grandfather, but he understands what our challenges are. Bernie Sanders doesn’t address our concerns with carefully prepared remarks by professional speech writers, nor does he bring forward has-been diplomats like Madeleine Albright to condemn women who don’t vote for him.

This battle between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton isn’t just about a ideological divide in the Democratic Party, it is a divide pitting more conservative Baby Boomers vs. younger progressive voters like myself. Many of us are independent voters and quite a few were also apathetic to what seems to be establishment politics as usual.

Hillary Clinton’s greatest failure was playing it safe to the center, or to the right of young voters. If she loses this nomination, that is what political strategists will talk about in the autopsy of her campaign. There was no need to run to the middle when the GOP has been so far to the right over the last few election cycles. If she had done this from the beginning, the media wouldn’t be having the conversation they are tonight.

http://modernliberals.com/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-win-shows-how-out-of-touch-the-media-is/