Danny Bateman

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star! The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem. That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf. Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do. I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever. Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people? Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state... There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak. The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something. Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g. http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/ Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector. Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones. I may seem naive. (yes) Just caught wind this a.m. that Billary sets the $ for their speaking engagements. So, I guess there is some negotiation that goes on. Obviously, they could speak for a much more modest price so as to avoid public outrage--how about $7.25/hr? What information is being conveyed in one hour that constitutes 100s of 1000s of $ in bribe money? Sorry, Wall St. owns Billary. As to cybersecurity, well, if you have been following the FBI Director's senate hearings on the subject, he says that they are employing the best cyber freaks from Silicon Valley to help out. But, unfortunately, the gangstas are always 1-2 steps ahead. I guess the best cyber freaks are gangstas. As to your other point, wrong: http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-government-workers-make-78-percent-more-than-private-sector/ Corn, you pull all your sources from right-wing nut job sites? Once again, the Washington Free Beacon is a heavyweight on the conservative media circuit: Clearly, they've got an agenda. But wait, it gets better! The study you mentioned was courtesy of the Cato Institute. Sounds official, but what's the Cato Institute, you ask? Let me provide you with a little bit of context: Ok, now I know I don't have to take it seriously. Here are a couple articles that contradict that. Bloomberg, in 2014, seemed to take issue with the government's pay. Another article by Nextgov suggests that it's not pay differential but rather red tape that makes government jobs undesirable. It's fairly obvious I'm not going to change your mind on the Clintons, Corn, as you're obviously not a fan. Just food for thought for everyone else, and how I see things from where I stand.

I'd much rather just see if she gets elected and let her actions speak for themselves.

Any KOTH gif is always going to get a +1 from this guy.

"Gosh golly gee, Hank, I gotta let you go. Out that door right there. But we're still on for Froyo Night later. I'll see you there."

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star! The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem. That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf. Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do. I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever. Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people? Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state... There's something called, "appropriate payment for appropriate services rendered." Sorry, paying beaucoup bucks for a 45 minute chat is bribery, no other way to slice it. Goldman Sachs, etc, doesn't give up that kind of cash unless they are getting something in return, period. Personally, Id'give Slick Willy and couple bucks and cup of coffee not to speak. The deal with the Billary and foundations in general is that the big $ donor gives the foundation alotta cash for some sort of charitable deal in Haiti or Africa or something, get a tax writeoff, and the Billary's through their corporate connections and/or gov't's in said countries, hook the donor up with sweet $ deals with said gov'ts. corporations. That's how the game works. Of course, there are ridiculous admin costs for foundations. Chelsea Clinton draws like $400K per for her role in daddy and mommy's foundation. Pretty sweet gig for a 20-30 year old something. Billary Foundation had some shady crapola in their "relief" of Haiti, a few years back, well publicized. Just one small e.g. http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/clinton-foundation-fraud-began-with-exploiting-earthquake/ Again, I don't know what Hillary is supposed to do about the fact that the insane amounts these wealthy private institutions pay out. Imagine if you will a parallel with cybersecurity-- public vs. private sector. Most would agree the government is sorely lacking in competent, rock-solid IT and would do well to hire more skilled employees. However, the private sector just WAXES what the gov't is willing to pay, so the best of the best wind up working there. Private companies can almost always afford to pay more than public/governmental ones. Still, we're just operating on an ASSUMPTION here. I may seem naive. And a lot of people may believe your assumption, because it's rather easy to believe. But there's just no tangible proof of that affecting her policies. Regarding the foundation, consider the source, man. For four full years they tried to make this story work. They're a conservative news source, and seem to enjoy propagating conspiracy theories. Nuff said. The story you linked read to me like Bill just managed to pick out a crooked investor that got busted for insider trading with ANOTHER company, and ended up going to jail. Sometimes it's hard to know people are bad people. Not saying you're wrong, but that's just a horrible example.

I think they both have issues. They both come across as pandering and also arrogant. Okla's attorney general came out this morning in a radio interview that he fears a Trump presidency to be one that would trash the constitution. So non-thinking conservatives (Corn that isn't an oxymoron ) fall prey to Trumps populist nationalistic baby formula that he is feeding them. He is all wind and bluster and no substance. Cruz - I don't care how he talks - everything is a scrip - sounds too fake - regardless if you agree wt him or not. I used to hold the climate change denial solely against Trump. But Hillary put it best last night, and pretty bluntly-- that entire GOP field isn't going to acknowledge climate change because it's not in the Koch Bros best interest. They make bookoo bucks off of fossil fuels. Except for Donald, who of course brilliantly deduced it was a clever ruse propagated by the Chinese to sabotage our manufacturing and trade. Cruz is extremely smart and debates well, but obviously has no common sense and seems to have absolutely no moral compass. The tactics he used to win Iowa were repulsive. And that was a dream state for him. His victory speech was so pandering and gloaty it about made me throw up in my mouth. Also, he's universally hated by everyone who's ever worked with him. Nothing like going it alone, eh? As a Dem, I'd much rather face Donald, but I'd take an unlikely nod for Cruz as well. It's pretty clear Trump has no idea whatsoever other than to complain and be contrarian and controversial (3 C's). Cruz can't muster any type of support from non-whack jobs and obviously thinks he's God's gift to everyone. He does indeed seem immune to realizing when he's talking or acting in such a way as to make people despise him. And that is why the Rep primary is in such a mess - the 2 'angry men' lead the way. Koch Brothers were complaining a couple of weeks ago that they were having very little influence on the primary this time around. Not sure that climate change position one way or another would be a defining issue in the primary or the GE - polls have shown that it is far from the top of the issue list by all Americans (not just repubs) regardless of how important it may be to those who care greatly about the topic. Well, the Koch brothers pretty much embody the establishment of the GOP ranks, so I'd imagine they're pulling for Rubio. All of the governors seem flawed in one way or another. I'm more or less convinced that Cruz will fade greatly now that the evangelical Iowa is in the rearview. We'll see if this softened Donald sticks-- he clearly owes his allegiance to no one. I envision it coming down to him or Rubio. Annnnndddd..... Kasich just said Bernie was "floating around Pluto somewhere" when they served together in the Senate. Re: Bernie on SuperPACs "I just don't really listen to him." LOL

Clinton has nothing to do with that. Iowa caucuses are just a joke and logistically a trainwreck to report. They need to get a firm, universal (to every precinct) protocol in place and FOLLOW it, or ditch the caucuses.

Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Bernie has the Billary campaign shaking in it's shoes--very expensive shoes--is my take. Berniementum is on the up and up is what I'm seeing. For one thing, he has ~80% approval rating among the youth < 30 yrs of age. That's yooge. He has legions of young women screaming and swooning, "I love you Bernie", like they're at a Beatles concert from back in the day. And he's 74 yrs old! Bernie is a rock star! The deal with Bernie's "attacks" @ Billary is that they are TRUE. If Wall St. or the Koch Bros wants to give you $650K--which, BTW, is ~1/3 more than Bernie's personal net worth--for a 45 minute chat, guess what, you can decline the $. That would be called "integrity". Of course, The Bern, being the true progressive, would basically tell Wall St. and the Koch Bros to go f#*k themselves. There are also all kinds of problems w the Billary Foundation in terms of conflicts of interest. So, yes, Billary is the Establishment Dem. That being said, if she gets the nomination, I will vote for her because she is light years ahead of El Guapo, Cruz Missile, and Mein Trumpf. Here's the thing. Bernie Is a very unique guy with very unique principles. Most people wouldn't turn down that type of cash down if a bank threw it at them. I know I would not. I performed a task, and they want to pay me. It' not her fault they pay the ridiculous sums they do. I don't consider it dishonest or lacking integrity to be paid for rendering a service. That's actually just the basis for any economy, ever. Further, just saying that his attacks are true doesn't actually make them true. I've yet to see a shred of evidence that that money either went toward nefarious means or that it indebted her to them. Perhaps she gave it to the Clinton Foundation so it could, you know, help people? Lastly, Bernie can get under 30's riled up and young women's panties wet all he wants, but their demographic still votes the least. Those numbers did come from Iowa, only his third most demographically favorable state...

Respectfully disagree. I had reached the same conclusion earlier today before Hillary had a chance to relay it nearly word for word on stage. Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. I personally do not think it's out of the ordinary for a former FL, SoS, and Senator to be invited to give a private address. Nor is it her fault that the speech circuit is so outrageously overpaid, or that there is so much power and wealth concentrated in Wall Street. She does appear very serious with her proposal to regulate it, though. Further-- again, just my opinion-- she obliterated him when she addressed him on the subject of progressivism, or rather Sanders' criteria for such. Seems rather hypocritical of him to act as a bastion of progressivism with his extensive pro-gun voting history. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Obviously Bernie is just trying to differentiate himself ala Cruz, but it's all predisposed upon the notion that establishment carries a negative connotation because they're just puppets for the controlling hand of big money in politics. I just don't believe that, but even if it were true, at least I feel that the hand has the correct interests at heart, as opposed to the Koch brothers. She's got a legitimate beef, though. No one is questioning Bernie's integrity, and he hasn't run a,negative ad. But when you consistently use various forms of media to espouse criticisms of Clinton, it's just the same in my book. She keeps her criticism of him to his policy. He insinuates there are flaws in her character. I don't like that. I about choked with laughter when I read the bolded part. Big money is OK as long as you agree with where it is going right? As to the last paragraph. So, Bernie isn't allowed to criticize her at all? Hmmmm......I find it pretty interesting that someone running a campaign can't criticize their competitor. No, but when he consistently pooh-poohs negative ads, it's far to call him out when he starts questioning Clinton's character using other outlets. And no, I also don't like money in politics, but hell yes I'd rather have Soros funding my side than the Koch brothers. Unapologetically.

Respectfully disagree. I had reached the same conclusion earlier today before Hillary had a chance to relay it nearly word for word on stage. Bernie's claim that he has never run a negative attack ad is true, from what I gather. But his propensity to take veiled shots at Clinton and suggest that she is in Wall Street's pocket because she was paid to give a speech is quite finally a lazy assumption. An assumption that a lot of people make, and obviously Bernie supporters believe, but none of them can actually verify. I personally do not think it's out of the ordinary for a former FL, SoS, and Senator to be invited to give a private address. Nor is it her fault that the speech circuit is so outrageously overpaid, or that there is so much power and wealth concentrated in Wall Street. She does appear very serious with her proposal to regulate it, though. Further-- again, just my opinion-- she obliterated him when she addressed him on the subject of progressivism, or rather Sanders' criteria for such. Seems rather hypocritical of him to act as a bastion of progressivism with his extensive pro-gun voting history. Finally, the claims she's establishment are largely accurate. The Clintons are the definition of establishment liberals. Obviously Bernie is just trying to differentiate himself ala Cruz, but it's all predisposed upon the notion that establishment carries a negative connotation because they're just puppets for the controlling hand of big money in politics. I just don't believe that, but even if it were true, at least I feel that the hand has the correct interests at heart, as opposed to the Koch brothers. She's got a legitimate beef, though. No one is questioning Bernie's integrity, and he hasn't run a,negative ad. But when you consistently use various forms of media to espouse criticisms of Clinton, it's just the same in my book. She keeps her criticism of him to his policy. He insinuates there are flaws in her character. I don't like that.

Last I knew we colled on him due to academics.

Did anyone catch the debate? It was the first 1 on 1... interesting dynamics shift. I may be biased, but I thought that Hillary murdered Bernie tonight. She came out swinging, hard, and he is woefully inept in foreign policy. There were a couple really cool moments of agreement and mutual respect between the two of them. Proud to be a liberal.

Hmmm. As a liberal who's followed nearly every minute of the primary for our party, mass incarceration has barely come up at all. I didn't even know that Bernie had a plan to abolish privatized prisons. Nor Hillary, for that matter. What has been a huge talking point is the need for systemic criminal justice reform, given the amount that race inequality is hugely important for Dems. I'm also personally very much in favor of shifting from an incarceration model to a rehabilitation model for non-violent, first-time drug offenders, specifically with marijuana. I think it's ridiculous that anybody goes to prison for having a small amount of weed on them.

What are you calling a coin toss caucus? We should just put this rumor to bed. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders/index.html?sr=twCNN020316hillary-clinton-coin-flip-iowa-bernie-sanders0319AMVODtopLink&linkId=20919049

I think they both have issues. They both come across as pandering and also arrogant. Okla's attorney general came out this morning in a radio interview that he fears a Trump presidency to be one that would trash the constitution. So non-thinking conservatives (Corn that isn't an oxymoron ) fall prey to Trumps populist nationalistic baby formula that he is feeding them. He is all wind and bluster and no substance. Cruz - I don't care how he talks - everything is a scrip - sounds too fake - regardless if you agree wt him or not. I used to hold the climate change denial solely against Trump. But Hillary put it best last night, and pretty bluntly-- that entire GOP field isn't going to acknowledge climate change because it's not in the Koch Bros best interest. They make bookoo bucks off of fossil fuels. Except for Donald, who of course brilliantly deduced it was a clever ruse propagated by the Chinese to sabotage our manufacturing and trade. Cruz is extremely smart and debates well, but obviously has no common sense and seems to have absolutely no moral compass. The tactics he used to win Iowa were repulsive. And that was a dream state for him. His victory speech was so pandering and gloaty it about made me throw up in my mouth. Also, he's universally hated by everyone who's ever worked with him. Nothing like going it alone, eh? As a Dem, I'd much rather face Donald, but I'd take an unlikely nod for Cruz as well. It's pretty clear Trump has no idea whatsoever other than to complain and be contrarian and controversial (3 C's). Cruz can't muster any type of support from non-whack jobs and obviously thinks he's God's gift to everyone. He does indeed seem immune to realizing when he's talking or acting in such a way as to make people despise him.

I'm watching this interview by Anderson Coop with Trump on CNN. Asked about respecting women. Starts talking about Mexico and banning Muslims. Lol

Ted Cruz is unbelievably irritating to listen to speak. I am listening to him addressing the media right now on CNN. He has an outstanding knack for coming off as condescending and projecting the image that he knows everything better than you because he is more intelligent than you. His own hubris will be his downfall (some of those wackjob policies, of course). And NOW... Brooke Baldwin is tearing into him. She visibly lost her composure when Cruz blamed his gaffe telling voters Carson was dropping out of the race on a CNN report. She literally used the phrase "I'm going to call out BS when I see BS, and that's BS." She's arguing with Cruz representative endorser now. She was PISSED that Cruz translated "Carson returning to Florida" into "Carson dropping out of the race" and blamed the latter on CNN.

StPaul is playing chess while the rest of us play checkers.

Im guessing hes got a signing ceremony at school with other signees. Just a guess. Bingo.

That's just kids being kids, man.

Dang, on signing day? I'd swing the hell out of this guy, if we could.

Meh, I look at Jackson and just see Farniok. And the way Fant's recruitment played out, I don't have so much as a tinge of regret we didn't sway him. GBR!

Rubio does piss me off when he starts to go into lash out mode at the Dems and Obama. He just makes me laugh every time he declares Hillary disqualified for the presidency. It does bother me when he brings up Obama though. I wouldn't expect him to say anything differently, but he goes so hyperpartisan and tries to take potshots at the President whenever he can. I think he's convinced he is landing haymakers, but from my perspective, it makes him come off as a disrespectful douche. You may not agree with the man's policy, but have some damn respect for the position, son.

Damn man. That got dark. Who's down to start an "Improve C N Red's mental health" fun?