Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Says He Has a 'Real Problem' With New York Times Coverage, Calls Democratic Primaries a 'Dumb Process'

He's the one with "integrity," or something.

|

CBS

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders appeared on Meet the Press and Face the Nation this morning, insisting that there was still "just a possibility" his campaign could win more delegates than Hillary Clinton, but rejecting the idea that Clinton's e-mail scandal could sink her. Earlier on ABC's This Week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who defended Clinton in the wake of the inspector general's report, said she didn't "think we should make a federal case out of this" e-mail scandal. The federal investigation continues.

Asked on Meet the Press about supporters who were quoted by The New York Times as "rooting" for a federal indictment of Clinton, Sanders complained that he had "a real problem with the New York Times," which he said was "dismissive" of and negative toward his campaign "from the beginning." He insisted he wanted to focus on "the issues" (a common refrain) but then just rattled off the promises that have littered his campaign.

Sanders also rejected Trump's characterization of the Democratic primary process as "rigged," one shared by his far-left supporters. "I've been very touched by Donald Trump's love for me, but with all due respect, maybe some aspect of this he thinks will advantage himself," Sanders said.

Instead, Sanders insisted the primary process was "really dumb" because of closed primaries, "like in New York State, where three million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate."

In other word, the long-time Independent who coalitioned with Democrats but didn't join them until seeking their nomination, dismissed the notion that Democrats should vote in the Democratic primaries and Republicans should vote in the Republican primaries as "dumb." Basic freedom of association. Libertarian delegates will select a presidential and vice presidential candidate in Orlando today. The delegates are party members, and it would be "really dumb" to invite Republicans (who chose Trump) or Democrats (who are still choosing between a crook and a communist) to have a say in the Libertarian nomination.

Sanders insisted he was a better candidate than Clinton not because unlike her he wasn't involved in a federal investigation, but because he could get a higher voter turnout, an argument that mirrors Donald Trump's. He said he would continue to try to convince superdelegates in states that he won to vote for him, while also acknowledging superdelegates that have pledged to vote for him but come from states won by Clinton shouldn't vote for him, specifically mentioning Mississippi, which Clinton won and from where two of his pledged superdelegates are from. About a third of his superdelegates come from states Clinton won, which tend to be more densely populated.

NEXT: 6 Reasons Libertarian Party Delegates Are Wary of William Weld

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. GayJay didn’t make it on the first ballot.

    1. What’s that mean?

      1. First round results: Johnson 458 Petersen 197 McAfee 131 Perry 63 Feldman 58 McCormack 9 NOTA 5

        It means that Johnson will win later today.

        1. Not unexpected

    2. He made it on the second. It’s Johnson.

    3. GayJay wins. Fuck the LP.

      #NeverJohnson

      1. I have never voted. I’m skeptical of Johnson/Weld. That said, if they show in polls they can pull a significant amount or actually get into the debates, I will definitely cast one for him.

        1. Be careful what you wish for.

          1. It’s a promise without consequences: he won’t win the election but why not use him as a protest candidate and encourage others to do the same?

            The famed libertarian circular firing squad at it again!

            1. If they are not with us, they are against us! There are only two options!

              Obey, consume, conform, yes, yes, I get it.

            2. If they are not with us, they are against us! There are only two options!

              Obey, consume, conform, yes, yes, I get it.

              1. The Sqvirrelz agree!

        2. News coverage: “X has X%, and Y has X%, and oh yeah, gary johnson, we forgot about him, he has negligible %.”

    4. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
      ?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  2. ..Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who defended Clinton in the wake of the inspector general’s report, said she didn’t “think we should make a federal case out of this” e-mail scandal.

    If this is accurate, once again the Senate’s resident sixth grader doesn’t understand that words have meanings and laws are meant to apply to all.

    1. That’s being a little unfair to sixth graders….

    2. If this had been either Clinton speaking (i.e. parsing), then you would reasonably expect that he/she planned to use state law to prosecute.

    3. words have meanings and laws are meant to apply to all.

      Do they? Are they?

    4. Previously in Feinstein’s Greatest Deflections

      “The questions are whether she received emails with classified information in them, and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place,” Feinstein said. “Those questions have yet to be answered. However, it is clear that Secretary Clinton did not write emails containing classified information.”

      Noted= this is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      The obvious question no journo ever asks is, “Would it be legal for you to run an unprotected email server in your home? and who is responsible for ensuring the security of communications you receive?”

      1. and if so, whether information in those emails should have been classified in the first place.

        Hillary Clinton doesn’t get to unilaterally decide that regardless. There’s a law, and everyone is accountable to that law (don’t laugh!).

        She committed other felonies regardless.

      2. It is literally impossible for Sec. of State to do his/her job without writing classified emails. Literally.

        1. Given that even parts of her daily itinerary are probably classified to some level, or at least OUO if nothing else.

    5. We need to vote for bilary so we can see what we get from billary.

  3. I wonder how Bernie would feel about his media coverage if he were a conservative? Watching the leftists complain about bias against their guy is always good for a laugh.

    1. In fairness to Bernie and other pols, I think they assume everything is biased……..it’s just that the ones on the wrong end of it are the only ones with incentive to complain.

      1. If you tied bernie’s right arm down would he still be able to talk?

    2. Actually, Bernie is correct about the primary system being way too complicated.

      Why, in socialist countries Our Leader simply calls an election, gives everyone time off to vote for him, then sends them back to work.

      Much more efficient! You don’t need all those candidates.

  4. “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who defended Clinton in the wake of the inspector general’s report, said she didn’t “think we should make a federal case out of this” e-mail scandal. The federal investigation continues.”

    While not surprising, still shocking in its stupidity.

    1. Not shocking when it’s Feinstein who is one of the dumbest people in America.

      1. Boxer is dumb- box of rocks, as it were. Feinstein is anything but dumb, which is the problem. If she were dumb, she’d be doing less damage. Instead, she’s extremely smart, extremely capable, and extremely evil.

        1. Dianne Feinstein:

          “All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms”

          “Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose, and in my view that’s a military purpose, to hold at the hip, possibly, to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.”

            1. Phew.

              1. She really did say this one, though:

                “We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines,”

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn5h5rumzNw

                1. Yes, evil and manipulative, that’s our DiFi!

    2. Which is more shocking and idiotic, feinstein or those who keep electing her?

  5. The mental contortions that the Democrats put themselves through to excuse Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business continues to astound me.

    She wasn’t just using a private email account occasionally, she was using her own personal server, and she was using it exclusively. This is not like Colin Powell having a hotmail account. She went to extraordinary lengths to set up her own personal server, and she did it because according to her own account, she found the state department’s security restrictions “inconvenient”. She wanted to use her personal Blackberry to carry on text-message conversations about classified activities, and when she couldn’t get State to agree with that, she did an end run around them and set it up herself, without telling anyone in State what she was doing.

    There is just no fucking way that isn’t illegal, or that she didn’t know what she was doing. She specifically did it because State told her “no”, so OBVIOUSLY she knew it wasn’t allowed.

    1. she was using it exclusively.

      And that’s the point Herself’s dogwashers either completely ignore or don’t know. So they’re either dishonest or stupid, perhaps both, but neither is particularly flattering. They also pretend that the same technological conditions in place under Powell or Rice are those of today, as though nothing has changed in the realm. And never mind people repeatedly telling Herself to with the homebrewed device.

    2. The mental contortions that the Democrats put themselves through to excuse Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct government business continues to astound me.

      No real contortions, just the classics. “Bush did it” leads the charge. In second place is the hangout road.

      And then wait for it to fade away. Which it largely has in the popular media. The headlines today are about dead gorillas.

    3. Why would anyone want to bypass security like that? Could it be to have exclusive access to secrets, so as to be able to sell them? Nah, a Clinton would never think of converting the nation’s or anybody else’s assets to their own benefit. Must be he just likes technology.

      1. Could it be to have exclusive access to secrets, so as to be able to sell them?

        That’s much less likely than covering the money laundering scheme disguised as a “charitable foundation” that they run. The double-and-triple-dipping of the employees from State as well.

    4. Don’t forget that she deleted thousands of e-mails off of her server. If the server were legal and perfectly alright, that means she destroyed thousands of pieces of official government correspondence, which is a felony as well.

      Of course we all know that they’ll respond to this by indicting a Republican for sending an e-mail to his girlfriend, claiming that they need to make an example out of someone for e-mail abuse.

  6. Care to guess what Slate thinks caused Trump’s success? Go on, guess:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..obama.html

    1. Racism?

      1. Of course. How original.

        1. I’m always amazed how many blacks support the party of slavery, the party that violently opposed civil rights legislation of the 60s, enacted the jim crow laws and now continue to do what it can to keep people on the plantation, including doing what they can to those who leave.

    2. I enjoyed the subtlety in their selection of photographs.

      It’s almost as though the hate-whitey fringe is lacking in self-awareness.

    3. Obama didn’t herald a post-racial America as much as he did a racialized one, where many whites were made hyperaware of their racial status.

      FTFH

      At least he more or less admits, in between the pictures of white-trash America, that Obama has set back race relations.

    4. “Jamelle Bouie is Slate’s chief political correspondent”

      Oh, really. I have a shocked face right now.

    5. there are clearly racist trump supporters out there, but the narrative that it’s only racist idiots behind him is about as stupid and close minded as the position that “people would vote democrat (or bernie) if they only knew what was best for themselves”, or any variation thereof. literally the most active people in politics -at least in democratic and gop circles- seriously think everyone who agrees with them can do no wrong and any who does disagree has to have some sort of psychological or emotional damage. it makes you wonder how the government still functions at all.

    6. On my mac, I can put the curser to jamelle’s nose in such way way that it looks like he’s picking his nose. That’s the only thing I got that was worth while from that article.

  7. Let’s be realistic people.

    No one will indict Hillary Clinton before they know whether she will be the next President.

    If she loses, whether she’s indicted will be up to Donald Trump. He’ll almost certainly want her to disappear quietly into the night rather keep her in the headlines and make himself look like even more of a vindictive jackass.

    If she wins, the people who work for her will almost certainly sweep it under the rug.

    That isn’t justice. That isn’t the way things should be, but that’s the way they are.

    We should be more focused on the things she did in broad daylight anyway. For God’s sake, the woman accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State. That makes whatever she did in her emails look like a selling Girl Scout cookies.

    1. Clintons are truely teflon.

      1. Interesting how many characters “teflon” and “felon” have in common.

        1. When you have lived half your life in positions of unassailable authority, you tend to look at “laws” as things for little people.

          1. No wonder Bill pulled his pants down in front of Juanita was it?

      2. Yet she still apparently thought her dealings were so bad that she needed to hide them from even the people who she can normally count on to cover for her. That scares me.

    2. Ken,
      We have no idea what she did in her emails, because she had her fucking staff comb through them and delete the incriminating stuff before she handed them over.

      We should be focusing on it, because it is the smoking gun. The most obvious explanation for why she wanted her own private email server is so she could shield her dirty laundry from public scrutiny.

      I mean the LEAST incriminating explanation she can come up with is that she’s an incompetent nitwit who found handling classified data too inconvenient to deal with. Seriously. That’s her DEFENSE.

      If we accept her explanation at face value she’s an arrogant idiot. If we don’t she’s a criminal who should be in prison.

      1. We already have the smoking gun.

        She accepted donations from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State.

        End of story!

        That action by itself is indefensible.

        The political fallout may be managed by screaming that Donald Trump hates Mexican babies, but that’s just political posturing.

        1. Ken, you’re right about her never being prosecuted.

          But you’re wrong about the ‘smoking gun’.

          Its not her receiving foreign payments – because *she* never did that, the *Clinton Foundation* did. That thing that, legally, is a completely separate, arms length org. The defense will be (in fact already is) that someone there made a mistake (mistake – no criminal intent of course) and its not important anyway as nobody ever got ‘access’ because of their donations to the CF. That’s the spin, that’s what has been approved for release.

          Its not even that Clinton is teflon either – its just SOP for senior government officials. They all know that it serves *none* of their interests if they go around putting each other in jail for the very things that everyone is doing or trying to get into position to be able to do. The only way Clinton see ‘justice’ is through a lynch mob and the sad reality is that those with access to the evidence simply don’t care enough to put themselves on the line and the rest, acting out of nothing but ‘gut feelings’ would be no justice at all.

          1. “Its not her receiving foreign payments – because *she* never did that, the *Clinton Foundation* did.”

            That isn’t even a dodge. She, her husband, and her daughter all get paid by the foundation.

            That’s the way her publicist might spin it, but it has no basis in reality.

            1. Doesn’t have to have any ‘basis in reality’ it just needs to wedge open a tiny little crack that she can get a finger in to hang on to power. And that’s exactly what its done.

            2. It is the fig leaf that protects her. The point is that she used the private email server to conduct business so that she could illegally solicit donations (bribes) to the Clinton Foundation as SOS .

              that is what the server is hiding. The illegal connection between her official business as SOS and her fundraising on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.

              1. I hope you appreciate what I’m trying to say here.

                If she’d murdered her cleaning lady, it wouldn’t matter whether there was an email on a secret server that told us why. Stabbing your cleaning lady to death is bad enough–no matter whether there’s an email to explain why she did it.

                Everyone agrees–she stabbed the cleaning lady. She doesn’t even deny it herself!

                Now, insert [accepted donations from foreign governments] instead of “stabbed the cleaning lady”. It’s the same thing. When you’re the Secretary of State, you do not accept donations from foreign governments. It’s evil, it’s treasonous, and it’s wrong–and it’s been that way since the dawn of history. There isn’t a government in the history of the world that thought it was appropriate for their Secretary of State to accept donations from foreign governments. Historically, that’s been a hanging offense!

                And it’s an easy thing to avoid doing, too.

                1. I’m sure Hillary Clinton finds it hard to believe, but some Americans go their whole lives without accepting $10 million donations from foreign governments. And she knows to avoid it–because the Clintons were forced to give back donations to her husband’s campaign and legal defense funds that were donated by the People’s Republic of China. It was national news!

                  Take this stroll down memory lane:

                  http://tinyurl.com/hfezphp

                  Hillary Clinton is a crook, and she’s on the payroll of a number of foreign governments. She’s still accepting donations from foreign governments while she’s running for President!!!

                  She’s the fucking Manchurian candidate.

                  And whether there’s an email that says so is beside the point.

          2. No Secretary of State should have an interest in something that accepts donations directly from foreign governments.

            What she did is so obviously awful, no one may have thought to make it illegal.

            They probably just thought, “Oh, no Secretary of State will ever accept donations from a foreign government, because if they ever did, that would be so awful 1) the President would be impeached if he didn’t force her to resign over it and 2) it would make her the most hated traitor in American history since Benedict Arnold.

            1. Its so godawful that senior government officials are *required* to divest themselves of business interests in order to hold office. Those interests, during that time, are managed – at arms length with no input from the official – separately.

              And of course, no government official would ever allow the eventual return of control of the assets to influence his decision making while in office.

              *I’m* a libertarian, if I don’t think immigration or buying and selling across national borders should be restricted, I’m not going to get excessively bothered by Clinton getting donations from *foreign* sources. American donors want to screw me over to their advantage just as hard as the Chinese and have an easier time getting away with it.

              The problem is not that she’s (or anyone else) is taking ‘donations’ or that these donations are foreign (or domestic) its that the government is powerful enough that its profitable to court these people. And that’s *not* going to be solved by ever more arcane rules on who can give money to who or hoping that the ‘right, selfless’ people (who don’t exist) take power.

              1. “And of course, no government official would ever allow the eventual return of control of the assets to influence his decision making while in office.”

                we can’t make them divest themselves of any conflict, because we’ll lose out on the best and brightest!

            2. What she did is so obviously awful, no one may have thought to make it illegal.

              Accepting bribes is illegal.

              1. Regardless, it’s awful.

                No one should be able to win the nomination for President after accepting donations from foreign governments while Secretary of State.

                If she wins the Presidency, her first act should be to give Benedict Arnold a posthumous pardon.

          3. Blagoevich went to jail for a deal that was less direct than this, and much less potentially harmful. In fact what he was convicted of, I don’t even think should be illegal.

          4. hillary clinton is a prime example of why i’m not sure “intent” needs to be a necessary element in all criminal prosecutions.

        2. Its not the donations or the content of emails that is any “Smoking Gun”. its the mere existence of the server in the first place.

          Joe DeGenova breaks it down here in very compelling detail.

          The fact is that there’s no need to resort to any ‘unknowns’ to prove a federal crime. Its all out in the open, documented, known, established.

          The fact that her server was set up *at the very outset of her tenure as Sec State* shows she had planned and intending from the very beginning of never complying with any sort of federal records-keeping laws. She ensured zero of her communications fell under ‘searchable’ resources by any FOIA requests.

          The fact that she was never “first on the government system” and then “migrated off of it” shows her intent to evade. How can she claim that .Gov resources were too constraining when she never used them?

          Even so – intent is not even required to provide criminal act here (see @3:00) She could be convicted on “Gross Negligence” even failing any established intent. But the fact that the FBI gave Pagliano immunity suggests they can probably use his testimony to establish intent as well.

          1. One of the emails sure looks to me like a smoking gun: it’s Hillary ordering someone to remove the classified markings from a document and send it via unsecured means.

            1. yes. But as this article notes – she could be prosecuted for at least 3 crimes without ever even requiring that specific instance as evidence. That example provides ‘conspiracy to commit felony’ by itself, but that is a charge that would be harder to prosecute – the fact is that there’s plenty even without it.

          2. Today, the freaking “Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence”, Adam Schiff (aka the DA on Law & Order back when it was good), was on Fox News defending Herself. In summary, BUT BUSH!!!!111!!! …… Colin Powell not only did the same thing, but what Powell did was worse because of Iraq and anyway Herself released 55000 pages of emails and so went above and beyond what was required.

            The fact that she’s being defended by the people who are supposed to care about this stuff means that there is no doubt nothing will come of this, and we are officially a banana republic.

            At least Chris Wallace tore the guy a new one.

    3. and this is how a society begins to unravel. I’ve always believed that the rule of law depends on two things: first, laws have to make sense and serve some viable purpose. They can’t appear to be arbitrary “because we said so” moves because if they are, people will start to ignore them. Second, laws derive their moral authority from those who pass and implement them. “Laws for thee but not for me” may not be a recipe for anarchy, but it sure as hell does not promote social order.

      Increasingly, it’s the second that becomes more evident by the day. People are well aware of the things those in high places get away with that would land the rest of us in prison. And so, the law begins to have less validity. Oh, sure; there are people who follow many laws out of the fear of being caught but they begin to ignore lesser ones and the more that happens, the greater the likelihood of ignoring laws that pertain to weightier matters.

      1. The main way it starts is when legislators start believing that ‘legislation’ is ‘law’ – that rather than codifying existing relationships they can transform them by fiat.

      2. If people were losing faith in our public officials, that might be a good thing.

        The disturbing thing to me is that a public official like Hillary Clinton can blatantly do things that are so profoundly awful–and half the country still might line up to support her anyway!

        Almost all modern Presidents–before Obama–used blind trusts to prevent exactly this kind of thing. So that your decisions as a public official can’t seem to have a big impact on your estate or your financial interests. The only reason Obama didn’t use a blind trust was because he didn’t own any stocks! All of his savings were in government bonds (which, by itself, should have told us he wasn’t smart enough to be President).

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

        1. “The disturbing thing to me is that a public official like Hillary Clinton can blatantly do things that are so profoundly awful–and half the country still might line up to support her anyway!”

          True, true, and true.

        2. That’s the part I don’t get. Fine she broke the law and if the systems fails to prosecute and the very least the people can punish her by not voting for her.

        3. The disturbing thing to me is that a public official like Hillary Clinton can blatantly do things that are so profoundly awful–and half the country still might line up to support her anyway!

          I’ve been saying about a yr. that the reason Hillary has support is that people will think Bill will be calling all the shots, & they remember how good the economy was with him in the White House. They don’t care that the Clintons are crooks as long as they, the voters, stand to gain w them in office. It’s like how people like having Mafiosi live in their neighborhoods.

          But what wareagle wrote is true. People will no longer be able to tell their children that they’ll never be prez if they do whatever crooked thing they’re contemplating. Instead people will see criminality as the path to respect, success, and wealth.

      3. Wareagle, it seems to me that it is no coincidence that all these things are happening: less rule of law (just like Latin America), mass immigration from Latin America, and the Democratic Party (and GOPe) push for mass immigration from Latin America. Rich/elite people in Latin America do just fine, and I think the rich/elite people here know that.

    4. Unless what was in the e-mails were the quid pro quo for the Clinton found’n donations.

  8. By the time Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was championing the largest arm sale in American history to the Saudis, which required State Department approval, she had already accepted $10 million in donations from the Saudi Arabian government plus millions more from a string of defense contractors including Boeing, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, and others.

    This sort of disgusting double dealing is quite consistent with Hillary’s “fundraising” for her husband in the ’90s.

    Why are we talking about her emails?

    She’s a goddamn crook, she did it all in the open, she used her position as Secretary of State to sell American interests down the river, and we’re talking about her parking tickets?!

    1. Right, not to mention the dealings with the Chinese

      1. “The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries . . . . The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.”

        —-Mother Jones

        http://tinyurl.com/o6x639e

        The link has a list of defense contractors and foreign governments that gave money to Hillary Clinton.

        You’ll see what may look like weird anomalies in there–why does Australia want favors from Hillary Clinton?

        Australia was actually hot to buy high end submarines to counter the Chinese.

        1. was there also a part where the Mother Jones folks called her a crook who had no business in the White House and demanded her withdrawal?

          1. I wouldn’t be surprised if they support Bernie.

            1. The truth is the same no matter who tells it or why.

        2. Federal employees that have anything to do with “acquisition” have a disclosure statement that they complete annually. I assume the SoS, by the fact that she’s the head of a department, had to fill out this statement every year. I would love to see a copy of it.

        3. When I looked at the MJ article, there was a big Hillary banner ad at the top of the page. How ironic…

    2. We’re talking about her parking tickets because the parking tickets are the one’s she got while parked in front of the Saudi Embassy on the day she deposited a mysterious check from the Saudi government.
      The parking tickets are proof she was there.

      The emails are mens rea. She knew what she was doing was illegal and that’s why she kept a private email server to do it.

      1. Mens rea is implied here.

        When someone points a gun at a bank teller and tells him to empty the register, it is implied that the robber intends to rob the bank.

        When the Secretary of State accepts donations from foreign governments, that’s pretty much all you need to know–she accepted donations from foreign governments.

        I think it’s more of a cognitive bias we’re dealing with here. People imagine that if it’s hidden in a private email server, then it must be criminal–but if you do it out in the open where everyone can see it, that somehow means it’s okay.

        1. Clinton Derangement Syndrome. If you’re running a scam you don’t hide in the shadows, hiding in the shadows looks suspicious. You go big, bold and brazen with your scam because people aren’t expecting it, they doubt their own judgement on what they’re seeing because they figure nobody’s going to be doing something like that right out in the open. Sure, it looks like he’s screwing a goat right in the middle of town on a Saturday afternoon, but, c’mon, if you’re screwing a goat you’re not doing it right in the middle of town on a Saturday afternoon. Are you? Is he? Nah, can’t be – must be just this angle or the shadows or something that creates an optical illusion that he’s screwing a goat.

          But no, he really is screwing a goat – and nobody’s saying a word because each one thinks if they say something, everybody else will think they’re crazy. I mean, if the guy really were screwing a goat, wouldn’t everybody else be saying something? Nobody else is saying anything, so I must be the only one that thinks it looks like he’s screwing a goat.

          Then you realize he really is screwing a goat, and you start pointing it out – but everybody else has convinced themselves he’s not really screwing a goat so they all start pointing and laughing at you for being the crazy guy who thinks he sees somebody screwing a goat. And then you go crazy because nobody but you will admit to seeing what’s right in front of their faces.

          Trump Derangement Syndrome works the exact same way.

          1. something something emperors something clothing.

          2. Oh my.

            That may be the best comment in the history of comments.

            Bravo.

            I’m going to steal the hell out of this.

  9. Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

    – H.L. Mencken

    1. “H.L. Mencken supported Kaiser Wilhelm, therefore is wrong about everything”

      – Winston

      1. What does Winston’s mom have to say about it?

  10. I think Bernie has more ‘real problems’ than the NYT. Let’s list a few.

  11. I think Bernie has more ‘real problems’ than the NYT. Let’s list a few.

    1. That just made my day. Thanks.

  12. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://WWW.ReportMax90.Com

  13. NYT coverage is the least of the problems this commie fucker has. I wish pancreatic cancer was one of them.

  14. clinton was a brilliant political pick for secretary of state, but it should’ve been obvious that any supposed agreement that was made to keep the clinton foundation, etc. out of state department business was bound to disintegrate once she was in office. in other words, politically, it was great, but practically she should’ve never been appointed.

    1. Brilliant in terms of making Obama look like a nice guy or brilliant, as in, she actually did a good job? Because the latter certainly was not the case, e.g. smoking blood-soaked jihadist ruin that is/was Libya, for starters.

      1. Well, the former is usually implied by “political pick”.

  15. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    ?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  16. @Loise, you make $27h thats great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online, seriously I couldn’t be happier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in $35h and sometimes even as much as $85h?heres a good example of what i’m doing,

    ?????????? http://youtube.nypost55.com

  17. Bernie sander’s time at the commune he was eventually booted out of.

    “…And the behaviour of (bernie) was somewhat peculiar. It was soon noticed that when there was work to be done (bernie) could never be found. (He) would vanish for hours on end, and then reappear at meal-times, or in the evening after work was over, as though nothing had happened. But (he) always made such excellent excuses , and (talked) so affectionately , that it was impossible not to believe in (his) good intentions.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.