Chuck Todd: ‘I Don’t Understand How Bernie’s Considered a Frontrunner’

[CFM]

This is what I mean by you can't tell anything about ideology if it bit you on the ass. I'm an open Bernie supporter and you think I give a damn about Clinton and Obama? I'm the only person that's mentioned Obama's anti-immigration policy that got him nicknamed the deporter in cheif.

You're projecting so hard right now.

It was the GOP that set the standard for impeachment when they did it to Clinton. One of those 2 articles was Obstruction of Congress. What Clinton did was lie about a sexual relation and try to cover it up. What Trump did was try to effect the election by withholding military aid to a country at war with a nation hostile to US interest. And then he tried to cover it up and obstructed congress by telling witnesses not to testify.

Are you saying you didn't vote for Clinton in 2016? If not, you must be another one of those whiners that when you don't get what you want, you quit the game.

The Constitution sets the standard for impeachment. It says high crimes and misdemeanors. Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury, actual crimes.

When it comes to perjury, what you lie about is irrelevant. That you lie is.

Trump committed no crime. The only thing he did was kick Democrat ass in 2016 and they aren't adult enough to accept they lost.

 

[Truth Detector]

This is what I mean by you can't tell anything about ideology if it bit you on the ass. I'm an open Bernie supporter and you think I give a damn about Clinton and Obama? I'm the only person that's mentioned Obama's anti-immigration policy that got him nicknamed the deporter in cheif.

So if Bernie is shut out of the nomination, you will be staying home? STFU; you're nothing but another left wing hack who is full of shit.

You're projecting so hard right now.

You're projecting hard stupid right now.

It was the GOP that set the standard for impeachment when they did it to Clinton. One of those 2 articles was Obstruction of Congress.

Wrong; it was the Party of the Jackass who did that. They wouldn't convict Clinton even with TWO felony counts. No, it wasn't obstruction of Congress dumbass, it was obstructing Justice and witness tampering. NO wonder you get EVERYTHING wrong.

What Clinton did was lie about a sexual relation and try to cover it up.

Wrong again as usual. What he did was lie under oath, tamper with witnesses and obstruct justice. All of which he admitted to.

I get why you are a low information leftist now. You stumble around with your eyes closed.

What Trump did was try to effect the election by withholding military aid to a country at war with a nation hostile to US interest.

Nothing could be further from the truth or more moronic. You must like that kool-aid Schiff feeds you. That lie filled narrative PRESUMES that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. How ironic if Joe continues to come in last place.

And then he tried to cover it up and obstructed congress by telling witnesses not to testify.

He released the telephone call transcripts shit-for-brains. Good lord you lefties are stupid. News flash; obstruction of congress is not a criminal complaint.

Calling anyone a witness in an investigation where there is no crime is laughably silly and borderline lunatic.

Tell me snowflake, what crime were the Democrats investigating?

 

[Truth Detector]

Are you saying you didn't vote for Clinton in 2016? If not, you must be another one of those whiners that when you don't get what you want, you quit the game.

The Constitution sets the standard for impeachment. It says high crimes and misdemeanors. Clinton was charged with obstruction of justice and perjury, actual crimes.

When it comes to perjury, what you lie about is irrelevant. That you lie is.

Trump committed no crime. The only thing he did was kick Democrat ass in 2016 and they aren't adult enough to accept they lost.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Casual Leftist,

Well then, I think we can agree, given what you've just said Bernie represents the best incremental change to larger transformation as President. So all this talk about how what he's pushing is too far can be less relevant in appreciation of the tempering effect of Congress.



That last part makes me think you're being disingenuous. Brinkmanship is the name of the game, both the establishment and progressives know it. And progressives are finally tired of being suppressed. If Bernie loses it will be just a reinvestment in the anger and resentment that is being felt by populists - on both the left and right.

And letting Trump get reelected will burn four years the planet doesn't have. Fortunately there are other choices between the two extremes. It is only natural to seek the best, but if that is unattainable we certainly want to avoid the worst.

 

[Earl]

Yes, we want to avoid the worst...the old fanatical, Socialist Bernie.

Many Democrats are worried about him too, Snowflake.

 

[Casual Leftist]

And letting Trump get reelected will burn four years the planet doesn't have. Fortunately there are other choices between the two extremes. It is only natural to seek the best, but if that is unattainable we certainly want to avoid the worst.

But Bernie isn't an extreme. The capitalists are in control. Let the socialist have a seat to even things out.

 

[tinfoil]

Don't worry, the racist right will make sure bernie doesn't get the nomination with the help of moderate dems.

What a victim mentality you have. Even when your own party wants some faggot from a city of 100K, you look to blame mean old right wingers. My god, you should take a look at yourself and see how pathetic you are. You side with the freaks and now you wonder why they don't want a normal guy.
>Low IQ muthafugga

 

[Cinnabar]

But Bernie isn't an extreme. The capitalists are in control. Let the socialist have a seat to even things out.

I am still waiting for someone to explain what is EXTREME about Senator Sander's policies. They would only sound EXTREME to those who have been brainwashed to accept less than social justice, fairness, equal rights for all, a chance at achieving upward mobility, affordable healthcare, affordable education, democratic untainted elections, addressing the science of climate change, ending government corruption, getting rid of Citizens United, etc. Sorry, but I see nothing radical here and in fact, the opposites of these things and not doing anything about them is actually radical.

 

[tinfoil]

I am still waiting for someone to explain what is EXTREME about Senator Sander's policies. They would only sound EXTREME to those who have been brainwashed to accept less than social justice, fairness, equal rights for all, a chance at achieving upward mobility, affordable healthcare, affordable education, Democratic untainted elections, addressing the science of climate change, ending corruption etc. Sorry but I see nothing radical here. In fact, the opposites are radical.

They are extremely vague and reek of stale rhetoric from the 60s

 

[Phantasmal]

A recent Gallup poll says 53% of the country would not vote for a socialist.

Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist. Big difference between a Socialist and a Democratic Socialist.

 

[Casual Leftist]

So if Bernie is shut out of the nomination, you will be staying home?

I never said that. It doesn't matter what I do, it matters what the trend of Bernie supporters do if he doesn't win the primary. If you were paying attention I pointed out 88% of Bernie voters went to Hillary in the general. And the 12% that went to Trump were partially not 'Bernie supporters' in the sense they agreed with his platform, they were anti-hillary/anti-estblishment. They were voting against Hillary in the primary and the general. The vast majority of Bernie supporters will support the Dem nominee, at least vote for them.

You're projecting hard stupid right now.

I like that you've copied my insults. Rent free huh?

Wrong; it was the Party of the Jackass who did that. They wouldn't convict Clinton even with TWO felony counts. No, it wasn't obstruction of Congress dumbass, it was obstructing Justice and witness tampering. NO wonder you get EVERYTHING wrong.

The impeachment began because Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. He then tried to obstruct the investigation of that blowjob. What triggered Trump's impeachment was trying to extort a country at war with a nation hostile to US interest. Trump also was impeached for trying to obstruct Congress's investigation. A blowjob is not a threat to national security nor the integrity of elections.

That lie filled narrative PRESUMES that Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. How ironic if Joe continues to come in last place.

No, it presumes Trump presumes Joe Biden will be the Democratic nominee. Which given the time frame Biden was the front runner.

He released the telephone call transcripts shit-for-brains. Good lord you lefties are stupid.

That wasn't a word for word transcript is was a recitation of a conversation. But even then it shows Trump asked for a favor. Combined with Rudy being in Ukraine for months talking to Ukrainians about the Bidens it obvious what the favor was suppose to be.

News flash; obstruction of congress is not a criminal complaint.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

Calling anyone a witness in an investigation where there is no crime is laughably silly and borderline lunatic.

Uhh what? Do you know what an investigation is? If there's reason to think there's a crime you call upon witnesses to confirm it. How can you say the is no crime with no witnesses? John Bolton is a witness. And it wasn't just wittness, it was government documents that Trump told agencies to withhold from congressional committees.

Tell me snowflake, what crime were the Democrats investigating?

Abuse of Power via the Ukraine extortion scheme, and Obstruction of Congress when Trump refused to hand over documents and barred witnesses from the investigation.

For Clinton, it was lying under oath - about a blowjob. What he did to cover up the scandal got him another article. But the fact is this all started - the bar for beginning an impeachment - starts with lying about a sex act.

 

[StoneByStone]

Even when your own party wants some faggot from a city of 100K, you look to blame mean old right wingers.

Did you type this with a straight face?

 

[Earl]

Bernie identifies as a Democratic Socialist. Big difference between a Socialist and a Democratic Socialist.

No, there is no Socialism light.

Bernie is a stone Socialist.

No incrementalism, Super Moderator.

 

[Taichiliberal]

It's only been two state's too and mostly white too?!! Maybe if Bernie can sweep super Tuesday, then he will be considered the frontrunner?!!

[FONT=&]If MSNBC wanted to tamp down criticism that its coverage has been skewed against Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), anchor Chuck Todd’s comments on Wednesday aren’t going to help.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Discussing the results of Tuesday night’s New Hampshire primary on MTP Daily, Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher argued that the early presidential primaries and caucuses don’t mean what they did a decade ago, prompting Todd to contend this year’s Iowa results had “an impact on Pete Buttigieg.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“Well, did it?” Belcher wondered aloud. “Who is the frontrunner? Is he the frontrunner? He should not get the press of the frontrunner.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]With Belcher implying that Sanders—who won the popular vote in Iowa and finished first in the New Hampshire primary—was the leader of the Democratic field, Todd immediately jumped in.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“I don’t understand how Bernie is considered a frontrunner,” Todd exclaimed while shaking his head. “This is a guy that—more people showed up to the polls, highest turnout ever—and his percentage went down, not up. His total number went down, not up.”
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“The new voters actually voted for Buttigieg and [Amy] Klobuchar,” former Hillary Clinton adviser Neera Tanden added, name-checking the second- and third-place finishers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chuck-todd-don-t-understand-235130777.html

[/FONT]

[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

Because Todd is just following the narrative of his bosses....anybody but Bernie.

The IOWA caucus changes the rules at the 11th hour, so that we have some BS version of "electoral votes" in a state primary that will supersede the popular vote. Let's clear the air here:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elec...tes-may-be-too-divided-to-stop-him/ar-BBZULMB

 

[cancel2 2022]

No, there is no Socialism light.

Bernie is a stone Socialist.

No incrementalism, Super Moderator.

Dori Duz is a tad simpleminded, these imbeciles don't know the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.

The difference between the two is that social democrats support practical, progressive reforms to capitalism and are more concerned to administrate and humanize it whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond mere social democratic reforms and advocate systematic transformation of the mode of production.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

 

[TTQ64]

I am still waiting for someone to explain what is EXTREME about Senator Sander's policies. They would only sound EXTREME to those who have been brainwashed to accept less than social justice, fairness, equal rights for all, a chance at achieving upward mobility, affordable healthcare, affordable education, democratic untainted elections, addressing the science of climate change, ending government corruption, getting rid of Citizens United, etc. Sorry, but I see nothing radical here and in fact, the opposites of these things and not doing anything about them is actually radical.

I'v been asking the same question.

All I get is the accusation of wanting free shit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Earl
No, there is no Socialism light.

Bernie is a stone Socialist.

No incrementalism, Super Moderator.

Dori Duz is a tad simpleminded, these imbeciles don't know the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy.

The difference between the two is that social democrats support practical, progressive reforms to capitalism and are more concerned to administrate and humanize it whereas democratic socialists ultimately want to go beyond mere social democratic reforms and advocate systematic transformation of the mode of production.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Here's a more objective analysis of the current situation: https://www.businessinsider.com/difference-between-socialist-and-democratic-socialist-2018-6

 

[Taichiliberal]

But Bernie isn't an extreme. The capitalists are in control. Let the socialist have a seat to even things out.

But we're not dealing with rational minds....these are the folks who equate any form of socialism with the regimes of communist China and the old Soviet Union (they ignore socialism in our allied European countries), yet they have NO problem with the "two big to fail" attitudes of our "capitalist, free market" government.

 

[Cinnabar]

But we're not dealing with rational minds....these are the folks who equate any form of socialism with the regimes of communist China and the old Soviet Union (they ignore socialism in our allied European countries), yet they have NO problem with the "two big to fail" attitudes of our "capitalist, free market" government.

These folks pretend to be living off the grid and not partaking in the SOCIALISM of public infrastructure, services and programs so they are full of crap. And why don't they acknowledge the reality of our REVERSE SOCIALISM in the form of bailouts for Wall Street and the enormous corporate tax breaks? Privatize The Profits/Socialize The Losses.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Casual Leftist,

But Bernie isn't an extreme. The capitalists are in control. Let the socialist have a seat to even things out.

The best case would be if Bernie had a significant following in Congress. These movements take time. Bernie is too old. And he doesn't have a pretty face made for TV. His ideas are great and he has done a great job of forwarding the message. That was his mission and it is accomplished. A coalition needs to be built. Bernie has paved the way for others to follow. The movement grows. It is a young movement. It has to be nurtured and grown more. It's not time yet. AOC will be old enough to run for President beginning in 2024. Even if it's not time for her, there will be others, more AOC's. Good things are worth waiting for. Right now we have to vote blue no matter who so we can make sure there is fair representation in how the districts are redrawn. If we let Republicans sweep in the down ticket election, we are going to be even more hopelessly gerrymandered for ANOTHER TEN YEARS.

Redistricting only happens once a decade. We progressives lost out on the last one. Progressives have not drawn the districts for 50 years. We can't lose out again. We have a chance this time. Democrats must maintain a majority in the House. We cannot let IMPOTUS sweep the down ticket on coat tails to repeat this redistricting stranglehold yet again.

We need Bernie to stay right where he is in the US Senate. He has built a powerful Senate position. Only he can hold that office and represent those needs the way he does.

If Bernie was polling at 70% it would be no issue. Even 60%. But to be down in the 20's and teen's is not a movement that is ready to sweep the nation. There is too much resistance and Bernie would lose the mushy middle.

Even if he got elected he would be only a one term president, unable to get anything done because he has no strong support in Congress. He would cause Republicans to want to reelect IMPOTUS in 2024. They would call Bernie a do-nothing and claim IMPOTUS got things done.

We have to vote blue no matter who. If it's Bernie we all get behind him, fine, but if it's somebody else we all have to get behind that person. The main thing is to get rid of IMPOTUS the Impeached POTUS.

Most of the country thought the Impeachment trial was a sham. Republicans voted in fear of being tweet-shamed, not based on evidence or determination of guilt. The real impeachment vote comes on November 3rd.

That will be when the nation will cast the ultimate impeachment ballot on conviction or acquittal.