The Crimson Cyclone wrote:wonder if Ted Cruz is rooting for Moore since that could take away his status of most hated man in the senate

Gimpy wrote:I googled "Bernie Sanders deodorant" and got the story and an explanation if anyone's curious

http://www.demos.org/blog/5/27/15/berni ... ign-so-far

JUburton wrote:lol haberman is PISS at nate silver

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I googled "Bernie Sanders deodorant" and got the story and an explanation if anyone's curious

http://www.demos.org/blog/5/27/15/berni ... ign-so-far

Right. I agree with the Washington Post guy.

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I googled "Bernie Sanders deodorant" and got the story and an explanation if anyone's curious

http://www.demos.org/blog/5/27/15/berni ... ign-so-far

Right. I agree with the Washington Post guy.

interesting considering his argument is different than yours, and it requires a literal bi-directional relationship between the vibrancy of choice in the market and the health of our citizens. that's not the argument, and I don't see how you could fixate on that as the messaging. the main point is the same point that he always makes, which is there is a growing consolidation of wealth in this country, and despite GOP stooges beliefs, that is bad for a lot of Americans. Quarter over quarter growth for companies that are already doing well should not be the driving motivation for how our country is run. This is not hard to grasp, if he had led with, "NOW, I believe, that there arah too many deodorants!" then run with it.

thephan wrote:They might actually have the health care vote. It is to put people on the record for their stance. Crazy.

thephan wrote:They might actually have the health care vote. It is to put people on the record for their stance. Crazy.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Gimpy wrote:I googled "Bernie Sanders deodorant" and got the story and an explanation if anyone's curious

http://www.demos.org/blog/5/27/15/berni ... ign-so-far

Right. I agree with the Washington Post guy.

interesting considering his argument is different than yours, and it requires a literal bi-directional relationship between the vibrancy of choice in the market and the health of our citizens. that's not the argument, and I don't see how you could fixate on that as the messaging. the main point is the same point that he always makes, which is there is a growing consolidation of wealth in this country, and despite GOP stooges beliefs, that is bad for a lot of Americans. Quarter over quarter growth for companies that are already doing well should not be the driving motivation for how our country is run. This is not hard to grasp, if he had led with, "NOW, I believe, that there arah too many deodorants!" then run with it.

I mean, it's the article - Sorry Bernie Sanders, Deodorant Isn't Starving America's Children - I linked to (approvingly) in my post two and a half years ago that you randomly brought up this morning.

I don't think his argument is different than mine. As I said two and a half years ago "(Bernie) seems to be suggesting that there's a relationship of some sort between this proliferation of choice in a segment of products he deems less important and the availability of food for young people. If he doesn't think they're related, why mention them together? Just let the planners plan, and everything will be sorted out, I suppose." The author ably points out that more choices and competition has led to the product being more affordable, not less, the opposite of what would happen if the government was allocating resources.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

thephan wrote:They might actually have the health care vote. It is to put people on the record for their stance. Crazy.

so that'll leave at least three votes on record for use in the midterms on Health care (if you don't count all of the silly ones in the vote-a-thon) Two in the senate and one in the house

Gimpy wrote:The first half of his quote:

"If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn't matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty."

The point, to me, seems to be that a couple of companies rolling out dozens of brands of the same product might spur "economic growth" and improve the GDP, but it's not actually having a positive impact on the poor and middle class.

Eli Stokols‏ @EliStokols
Trump asks @MajorCBS: "Do you have a question for the president?"

Major: "Mr. Prime Minister..."