Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The media is gonna rape him with this..

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-rand-paul-punching-bag-2016-lead.cnn

By all appearances it was a ridiculous article back in 1972, I doubt it will hurt him much now, 40+ years later.

His pro-woman record in the senate counts for more than an old article.

edit: So I would have labeled the thread "Bernie Sanders in hot but tolerable water", myself.

Originally posted by Robtard
By all appearances it was a ridiculous article back in 1972, I doubt it will hurt him much now, 40+ years later.

His pro-woman record in the senate counts for more than an old article.

edit: So I would have labeled the thread "Bernie Sanders in hot but tolerable water", myself.

What you and Bernie do in luke warm hot tub water is nuna my biz.

Bernie Sanders has no hope of winning and no intention of winning, so I dunno how much it really matters.

This article doesn't really matter. He has no hope of winning.

There are more Republicans expected to run for candidacy, like Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, and Donald Trump.

Considering the time spent on the Hilary email nonsense, expect this story to last half a decade. At least, it would if anybody really cared about Bernie Sanders.

Originally posted by Surtur
Considering the time spent on the Hilary email nonsense, expect this story to last half a decade. At least, it would if anybody really cared about Bernie Sanders.


Yea, pretty much.

If everyone's not distracted by ridiculousness in the Republican primaries, at least.

Originally posted by Q99
Yea, pretty much.

If everyone's not distracted by ridiculousness in the Republican primaries, at least.

What ridiculousness? More then Hilary's blunders that come out daily?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What ridiculousness? More then Hilary's blunders that come out daily?
"Hilary's blunders that come out daily" seem to be old news dug up by conservatives with too much time on their hands.

You can't possibly think that with a field of ten or more candidates the Republicans won't be collectively saying/doing more embarrassing things than Hilary on her own. That would be a terrible bet for anyone to make. Even if you subbed someone like Italy's Silvio Berlusconi for Hilary (a man who calls another politician "handsome" or "sexy" every five days) there's just too many Republican candidates opening their mouths and opening themselves to ridicule at the same time for one person to match.

Who cares what the republican's are doing, there are plenty of good democratic candidates.

No, its the truth, every day more stuff is coming out about her.

Benghazi
Email's
Book's
FIFA
The Foundation problems
Foreign Donations
Bills Orgy Island
Friends with a convicted Child Molestor.

But all of the above doesn't matter?

Add in:

The new Racketeering lawsuit against them.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Who cares what the republican's are doing, there are plenty of good democratic candidates.

No, its the truth, every day more stuff is coming out about her.

Benghazi
Email's
Book's
FIFA
The Foundation problems
Foreign Donations
Bills Orgy Island
Friends with a convicted Child Molestor.

But all of the above doesn't matter?


Note how you just listed a ton of things people accuse them of.

Multiple Republican investigations cleared Hilary on Benghazi. You still believe it. Why? Gullibility.

The Fifa thing, bribes passed between two other parties, stiffing Bill out of what he wanted (a US world cup). One of those parties then gave a donation in exchange for nothing.

The 'child molester' one, they apparently knew someone who was in the past (and this individual invited large numbers of people, so not close friends, just 'part of a very large number of people from both parties who went to events he was at but uninvolved with anything'), but didn't know he was one and never defended him.


To put it another way, you're accusing Hilary of being *near* scandals but without evidence of her actually being involved by most standards.

And some of the stuff (Island orgy, really?) is almost certainly entirely fictitious.


I've made the point about you gullible, and this is why: Whenever anyone says something bad about Hilary, you assume it's true, even if there is nothing actually tying her to them, even if there's been multiple investigations- Republican ones even!- finding no wrongdoing.

You're crying wolf. Every time you see one of these, you cry out about it, we look, and you know what? There's no wolf, not in any of them. The fact that you and others keep on talking about the-times-you-cried-wolf as if there was a wolf there even though everyone checked and there's not, just reinforces that you're really, really gullible, and that you cannot be trusted to provide accurate information on the subject.

I don't care about the republicans, if you can't understand simple things why even bother talking to you.

If you're not a Republican supporter, your hatred of democrats becomes hard to account for, ergo people assume you're a Republican.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you're not a Republican supporter, your hatred of democrats becomes hard to account for, ergo people assume you're a Republican.

Hatred

Typical, move from stereotype to another.

Yes because I don't agree with someone, ergo "Must hate them"

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Hatred

Typical, move from stereotype to another.

Yes because I don't agree with someone, ergo "Must hate them"
I don't think you know what a stereotype actually means. You can't stereotype a single person based on their own behavior. That's not stereotyping, that's making an assessment. I think you're trying to say that I lack a sense for nuance, but I don't agree at all. Your beef with democrats is obvious. The fact that you call me a "dumbocrat" even though I'm actually a registered independent (and was a Republican when I first got my driver's license) shows you know a thing or two about painting with a broad brush.

If you really object to me saying that you "hate" democrats, would you at least agree that you "vitriolically disagree" with them?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think you know what a stereotype actually means. You can't stereotype a single person based on their own behavior. That's not stereotyping, that's making an assessment. I think you're trying to say that I lack a sense for nuance, but I don't agree at all. Your beef with democrats is obvious. The fact that you call me a "dumbocrat" even though I'm actually a registered independent (and was a Republican when I first got my driver's license) shows you know a thing or two about painting with a broad brush.

If you really object to me saying that you "hate" democrats, would you at least agree that you "vitriolically disagree" with them?

I never called you a dumbocrat, so either quote me saying that, or retract the false accusation.

Your clueless to the rest, I will be voting for Martin O'Malley, so I don't hate democrats.

Again another false accusation.

So wait I want to know about Orgy Island and how can I get there?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The media is gonna rape him with this..

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/05/28/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-rand-paul-punching-bag-2016-lead.cnn He has my vote.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I never called you a dumbocrat, so either quote me saying that, or retract the false accusation.

Your clueless to the rest, I will be voting for Martin O'Malley, so I don't hate democrats.

Again another false accusation.
That's my mistake, it was Star who said that.

You found a democrat you like (a "good un", that doesn't ameliorate all your other posts attacking democrats and liberals for sometimes petty reasons.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That's my mistake, it was Star who said that.

You found a democrat you like (a "good un", that doesn't ameliorate all your other posts attacking democrats and liberals for sometimes petty reasons.

I don't call what the Clintons do..Petty..

Its sad you do.

Do you have a moral compass, because its clearly way off coarse.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't call what the Clintons do..Petty..

Its sad you do.

Do you have a moral compass, because its clearly way off coarse.
If I'd been referring to the Clintons' supposed acts and had been trying to downplay their gravity, I'd have used the word "trivial." When I say petty, I'm referring to your tabloid attempts at mudslinging.

Well, gee I didn't know you were into defending the Clintons so much.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Well, gee I didn't know you were into defending the Clintons so much.
You probably didn't know because I wasn't.

Every time I bring something up, your right there to obfuscate the facts.

Originally posted by Surtur
So wait I want to know about Orgy Island and how can I get there?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Every time I bring something up, your right there to obfuscate the facts. "Stalin was the most evil woman in human history."

"Stalin wasn't a woman."

"Stop defending Stalin!"

Say what you want, but Stalin had a mustache that would make any 70's porn star jealous.

Originally posted by Surtur
Say what you want, but Stalin had a mustache that would make any 70's porn star jealous.
He used a lot of handsome creme when he was young:

https://40.media.tumblr.com/43b749dfac342c3d635f7373fc6af56b/tumblr_nomjsjUVqY1s8lqx1o1_400.jpg

Then Republicans.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyjcvfobK11qzofaho1_500.jpg