Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Green Party’s Stein Seeks Collaboration with Sanders, Calls Clinton ‘Warmonger’

Mar 29, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

Physician and 2016 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said that her party has been trying unsuccessfully to make inroads with Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.

“Many of my supporters are also his supporters. I’m asked all the time if there could be a Bernie Sanders collaboration and my answer to that has always been yes. The Green Party has long sought to establish a collaboration with Bernie Sanders,” she said.

However, she told NBC News in an interview published Saturday, “That phone call has not been returned, and I don’t expect that this will happen.”

Speaking on the Democratic Party’s presidential frontrunner, former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, Stein said, “I think we’re polar opposites. Hillary talks the talk, but in my view she is as big a corporatist, as big a warmonger, as big an imperialist as any of the Republican presidential candidates. Her rhetoric is less offensive.”

In a mid-March interview with The Huffington Post, Stein expressed worries that Sen. Sanders’ campaign would ultimately end in his supporters being co-opted by Hillary Clinton.

“There are many things about Sanders that are great. We agree on a lot domestically. But to allow yourself to be lulled into compliance with the Democratic Party means you’re allowing yourself to be reined in from establishing a real progressive message,” she said.

“Sanders has taken the right domestic positions in the wrong party. They will seek to destroy his campaign if he gets close to securing the nomination. … The DNC installed a kill switch to prevent a true progressive nominee after McGovern got the nomination in 1972,” added Stein.

Stein claimed that the Democratic primary “is over” and that “the party machinery is behind [Clinton].”

Stein said that she entered politics as a Green Party candidate “when the Democratic Party killed campaign finance reform in my state.”

“The Democrats won’t do it for us. We have to establish a political vehicle [for progressives],” added Stein.

She acknowledged that her presidential candidacy is a long shot, but suggested that a Green Party victory is within the realm of possibility.

“We have far more recognition than we did four years ago. And we are in the age of unpredictable events, this presidential election being one of them,” she argued.

Commenting on the unexpected political rise of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, Stein said, “People have been savaged by a predatory economic and political system, and some are turning to Trump. Unfortunately, Trump is just more of the same.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Election, Featured, Interviews

TIM’s Joshua Cook Talks Trump and Sanders on RT’s ‘In The Now’

Video Mar 7, 2016 Joshua Cook Leave a comment

Truth in Media’s Joshua Cook discussed with RT’s Anissa Naouai his thoughts on the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. “It’s not who they are voting for, it’s who they are voting against,” said Cook.

Cook added, “They are voting against the establishment elite, the ruling class, and they rejected, in Trump’s case, what the Republican Party actually represents. Voters are rejecting America’s foreign policy, the big banks, corporations and unfair trade deals. Trump has tapped into that anger.”

Cook believes there is a major paradigm shift happening in American politics right now. Watch the entire interview above, which starts at the 2:30 mark.

Election, Featured, Hot, Politics

Jesse Ventura Says He May Run for President If Clinton Is Nominated Over Sanders

Mar 1, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

Former independent Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, who says he is leaning towards supporting U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders for president in 2016, indicated that he is considering getting into the presidential race if Sanders fails to win the Democratic primary.

In a Monday interview with The Daily Beast, Ventura said that he will likely launch a run for president by June if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defeats Sanders.

“They’re setting the groundwork for me because if Bernie loses, by the time we get to June, how sick are the people going to be of all these people,” he said.

Ventura has claimed in the past that he might seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president and said that he considers former Republican New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s best-known currently-announced candidate, a personal friend. The Libertarian Party’s nominating convention is set to take place in May of this year.

Last year, Gary Johnson said in an interview with The Daily Caller that he would welcome a head-to-head matchup against Ventura for the Libertarian Party’s nomination “because that potentially could be a televised-kind-of-a-debate situation.”

In a Monday interview with The Associated Press, Ventura described the conditions under which he would be most likely to run for president, “If it’s Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, the chances are better. I don’t want the revolution to die if Bernie gets beat.”

Incidentally, while Ventura has stopped short of fully endorsing any particular candidate during the primary season, he says he is somewhat torn between Trump and Sanders when trying to identify a favorite.

“People give them no PAC money, no special interest money. To me, that’s the most important thing,” said Ventura.

“See, I’m an independent and I despise the two parties. I love what Trump’s doing to the Republicans. He’s got them in complete disarray. In fact, it looks like the WWE when you watch their debates,” the former pro wrestler added.

However, Ventura said that he leans more towards Sanders than Trump due to the Senator from Vermont’s positions on campaign finance reform, foreign policy, and ending the War on Drugs. Ventura said that he has concerns with the hawkish tone Trump uses when describing his approach for dealing with ISIS.

For more 2016 election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Election, Featured, Politics

Green Party’s Stein Predicts DNC Will Sabotage Sanders, Try to Reabsorb Supporters

Feb 29, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

Physician Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party’s nomination for president in 2016, has called Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Democratic presidential campaign “wonderful” and stated that the Green Party “will not attack that campaign.”

However, she told RT on Saturday, “But unfortunately he is in a party that has a track record for basically sabotaging its rebels. It has done a good job of doing that in the past from Dennis Kucinich to Jesse Jackson to Howard Dean, whether they use a PR campaign like the ‘Dean’s scream’ to bring down the Dean candidacy. Also Jesse Jackson was sabotaged by a PR by the DNC. The Democratic Party has its ways of reigning people in if they try to rebel. The bottom line is that we are in political system in the U.S., which is funded by predatory banks and fossil fueled giants and war profiteers. So, we really need to reject that system, we say to reject the lesser evil so we can stand up and really fight for the greater good.”

In a Monday interview on New England Public Radio, Stein said, “What’s been happening in the Democratic Party is you’ll have a good candidate who will run, but then the candidate gets reabsorbed and the campaign becomes reabsorbed back into the Democratic Party. So it’s kind of a fake left while the party becomes more corporatist, more militarist, and continues to march to the right.”

She called the grassroots movement that Sanders has tapped into a “rebellion” that “can’t simply be passed on to Hillary Clinton.”

Speaking on the current leaders in the Democratic and Republican presidential contests, Stein said that Trump and Clinton have “an awful lot in common” and are “representatives of oligarchy.”

She pointed to their advocacy of a muscular foreign policy as a specific example of a commonality between the candidates.

“We can’t afford to keep doing what’s not working. In my view, we need transformational change under a political party that is of, by, and for the people that’s not controlled by the big money,” said Stein.

In the below-embedded CBS 46 Reality Check video, Ben Swann points out how DNC technicalities enabled Clinton to obtain the same number of New Hampshire delegates as Sanders in spite of the Senator from Vermont’s overwhelming victory in the primary election.

Reality Check: After Being Trounced By Sanders in NH, Clinton…

Hillary Clinton was trounced in the New Hampshire Primary and yet thanks to the way the DNC rules work, she actually won the most delegates. Is the primary system a huge scam?

Posted by Ben Swann on Thursday, February 11, 2016

For more 2016 election coverage, click here.

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Election, Featured, Foreign Policy, Hot

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Quits DNC to Endorse Bernie Sanders

Feb 29, 2016 Rachel Blevins Leave a comment

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) announced Sunday that she is stepping down from her position as a vice chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee and endorsing presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Gabbard appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press Sunday morning, where host Chuck Todd noted that she “has been at odds with her boss, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for months over the Democratic presidential debate schedule.”

Gabbard replied and said she is resigning from the DNC altogether in order to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over Hillary Clinton. She listed her experience as an Iraq War veteran as one of the main reasons, and said she has seen firsthand “the true cost of war.”

[pull_quote_center]Well first of all, I am resigning from the DNC so that I can support Bernie Sanders for president, and I’d like to tell you why. As a veteran and as a soldier I’ve seen firsthand the true cost of war. I served in a medical unit during my first deployment where every single day I saw firsthand the very high human cost of that war. I see it in my friends who now a decade after we’ve come home are still struggling to get out of a black hole.[/pull_quote_center]

Gabbard said she wants to support a president who “exercises good judgment,” and who “looks beyond the consequences” in order to end the chaos in the Middle East.

[pull_quote_center]I think it’s most important for us as we look at our choices as to who our next commander-in-chief will be is to recognize the necessity to have a commander-in-chief who has foresight, who exercises good judgment, who looks beyond the consequences. Who looks at the consequences of the actions they are willing to take before they take those actions so that we don’t continue to find ourselves in these failures that have resulted in chaos in the Middle East and so much loss of life.[/pull_quote_center]

Sanders condemned the U.S. overthrowing Saddam Hussein and creating a political vacuum that led to the rise of “groups like ISIS” during a presidential Democratic debate in January. He also said that while our first priority is destroying ISIS, our second priority “must be getting rid of Assad.”

Todd said that Gabbard has said that the next president needs to have a “military mindset,” and he questioned whether she thinks Sanders has that mindset.

Gabbard said she believes Sanders, who has been critical of the Iraq War, does have a “military mindset” in the sense that he would “go through an analysis process” when choosing to use or not to use “military power.”

[pull_quote_center]That military mindset says you have foresight. You look at what are the results? What are the consequences of these actions? How will other actors in the area react to those actions? What will we then do? And you look and continue down the line so you know exactly what you’re potentially getting yourself into before you make that decision that ends up costing us lives and treasure.[/pull_quote_center]

Gabbard has also been critical of the debate schedule set up by the DNC, and in October she claimed she was disinvited from a Democratic presidential debate for openly criticizing the limited schedule during an appearance on MSNBC.

“More and more people on the ground from states across the country are calling for more debates, are wanting to have this transparency and this greater engagement in our democratic process,” Gabbard said during the interview. “We’ve gotta have more opportunity for people to present their vision for our country, their plans and to be held accountable for the positions that they’re taking and the path they’d like to take our country on.”

On Monday, Gabbard appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and said that her resignation “had nothing to do with the DNC or DNC politics.”

“This had everything to do with my decision that I could no longer stand on the sidelines as elections are taking place to determine who our potential next commander in chief could be,” Gabbard said.

She added, “There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates and who will exercise good judgment, who will stop us from continuing these interventionist regime change wars that we’ve seen in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria that have cost our country so much in terms of American lives, trillions and trillions of dollars, what to speak of the hundreds of thousands of lives in the Middle East that have been lost to this and the impact on our economy here at home. Bernie Sanders is that candidate who will not take us, service members and our country, into these interventionist wars.”

In a January Reality Check following the Jan. 17 Democratic presidential debate, Ben Swann discussed comments made by both Sanders and Clinton regarding America’s Middle East policy, noting that it was “surprising” that Sanders expressed support for removing Bashar al-Assad.

Reality Check: Sanders and Clinton Would Make Same Mistake On …

Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton debated Sunday about policy for moving forward in the middle east. But did BOTH candidates advocate a policy that is really just a step backward into the same policies of Presidents Bush and Obama?Learn more here: http://bit.ly/sanders-clinton-middle-east

Posted by Ben Swann on Tuesday, January 19, 2016

For more election coverage, click here.

Follow Rachel Blevins on Facebook and Twitter.

Election, Featured, US

Economists Weigh In On Sanders’ Social Security Tax

Feb 20, 2016 TIMP Staff Leave a comment

By Juliegrace Brufke – Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed lifting the cap on the Social Security payroll tax on those making over $250,000 a year, but economists argue the move won’t do much to extend the solvency of the program and may cause some negative repercussions on the economy.

Under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), just the first $118,500 of income is taxed at 6.2 percent, with employers paying the other 6.2 percent. Sanders claims eliminating the taxable maximum would solve the program’s solvency issues for the next 50 years, but according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, lifting the cap would solve less than 50 percent of the long-term imbalance.

“There are plenty of reasons why removing the cap on FICA taxes is not the cure-all that campaign-trail rhetoric from Sen. Sanders claims it would be. For one, Bernie (and Hillary for that matter) is proposing to expand Social Security and other social programs in a number of ways,” Pete Sepp, president of taxpayer advocacy group the National Taxpayers Union, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “According to our tracking project at www.candidatecost.org, in just one of the Democratic candidate debates alone, Sanders offered Social Security expansion proposals that would increase annual federal spending by more than $10.5 billion.”

The Democratic candidate said he plans on expanding the program, which is expected to run out of money in 2033, and the legislation he proposed would bring in enough revenue to, on average, provide seniors with an addition $65 a month.

“What this means is that raising the FICA cap under a Sanders presidency is not necessarily about preserving the solvency of the existing Social Security system, it’s also about making government bigger,” Sepp continued. “But even if there was not an additional cent of government spending on the table, busting the FICA cap would not suddenly ‘fix’ Social Security’s finances.”

Sanders argues from a “moral perspective,” increasing the tax burden on high-income earners is the right thing to do, saying it will help reduce income inequality.

“While liberals complain that the payroll tax is ‘regressive,’ our extremely ‘progressive’ income tax tilts the overall federal tax system hugely in favor of low earners,” Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told TheDCNF. “CBO data, for example, shows that the highest one-fifth of households pay an average overall federal tax rate of 23 percent, while the bottom one-fifth of households pays an average rate of just 2 percent.”

According to Curtis Dubay, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, the move would indirectly hurt low- and middle-class Americans due to the negative impact it would have on economic growth.

“Lifting the cap would raise marginal tax rates on those effected by 15.2 percentage points. This would greatly curtail the incentive to work and slow the economy,” Dubay said. “Middle and low-income families would experience less opportunity because there would be fewer jobs and lowers wages for all Americans as a result.”

The cap was initially put in place to ensure no one was contributing more “than the protecting they received,” according to the Social Security Administration.

“Raising payroll taxes on higher earners will induce them to reduce work and avoid the tax man more, and that will cut both payroll and income tax revenues,” Edwards said.

Sanders’s overall economic plan has received strong criticisms from both political parties, with four former Democratic White House advisers coming out against his policies Wednesday, saying they are unrealistic and not supported by economic evidence.

Follow Juliegrace Brufke on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Election, Featured, Foreign Policy

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Claims Russia Has ‘Not Gone After ISIS’

Feb 12, 2016 Rachel Blevins Leave a comment

During the latest Democratic Debate Thursday, Hillary Clinton defended her reservations towards Russia by claiming that the Russians “have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

Clinton’s statement was in response to comments made by rival Bernie Sanders when he was asked if he was prepared to “move militarily” against Russia, or to “institute further economic sanctions.”

Sanders called the United States’ relationship with Russia “complicated,” and said that although he believes the U.S. should “do our best in developing positive relations with Russia,” he also stands by President Obama in believing that Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to be shown that his “aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched.”

Clinton replied that she believes an agreement on a cease-fire is “something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the Russians agreed to.”

[pull_quote_center]You know, the Russians wanted to buy time. Are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the Assad regime to further decimate what’s left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire?[/pull_quote_center]

Clinton also said she is worried that the Russians are doing “everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition,” and she claimed that “the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.”

[pull_quote_center]So let’s support what Secretary Kerry and the president are doing, but let’s hope that we can accelerate the cease-fire, because I fear that the Russians will continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what’s left of the opposition. And remember, the Russians have not gone after ISIS or any of the other terrorist groups.[/pull_quote_center]

Russia began launching airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria in Sept. 2015. Syrian State media claimed the airstrikes began after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad requested help, and that the move was criticized by the U.S.

A report from Reuters on Jan. 20 claimed that Russian airstrikes in Syria are gradually weakening both ISIS militants and the Free Syrian Army, allowing Assad to gain more power and to make “one of its most significant gains since the start of the Russian intervention,” by capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.

The report noted that out of the “3,000 people killed by Russian air strikes in Syria since they began in September, nearly 900 were members” of ISIS. The group lost control of the city of Ramadi in December, and has cut fighters’ pay since its “oil-smuggling operations are hit by plunging prices.”

However, the report also noted that Russia’s operation has harmed rebel groups in the area, who are “reporting intensified air strikes and ground assaults in areas of western Syria that are of greatest importance to Assad.”

Investigative journalist Ben Swann reported on the origin of ISIS in March 2015, and he noted that ISIS grew out of a group of U.S.-backed rebels who were attempting to defeat Assad.

However, Swann said that even when the U.S. government became aware that ISIS was capturing U.S. equipment, it did nothing, “because ISIS fighters were taking the equipment back into Syria to continue fighting Assad, which was what the U.S. government wanted.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6kdi1UXxhY

For more election coverage, click here.

Featured, Interviews, Politics, Videos

Jeffrey Tucker on American History, Trump, Sanders, and Liberty

Video Feb 10, 2016 Joshua Cook Leave a comment

Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook interviewed Fee.org’s Jeffrey Tucker about a variety of issues including presidential candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, economics, and more.

“What you’ve got going on here in this election season is people are really digging deep into this sort of muck of our history to find some of the worst that the 20th century offered,” said Tucker. Tucker noted that following the Great Depression, “everyone was convinced that freedom had failed.”

Cook asked Tucker where liberty activists can be the most effective.

“The first thing I would say is get rid of your illusions about politics. Anybody who thinks that politics is going to save the world will be disappointed. We will not get our rights when the government gives them to us,” said Tucker.

“The way is to start focusing on finding ways in your own life to live a freer life,” Tucker added.

Watch and listen to the interview in the video above.

Jeffrey Tucker is a distinguished fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education.

Election, Featured, Politics

NH Primary: Sanders Beats Clinton in Nearly Every Demographic

Feb 10, 2016 Rachel Blevins Leave a comment

The results from the New Hampshire primary Tuesday showed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders beating former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in nearly every demographic.

Sanders received 60% of the vote with over 142,000 votes comprising 13 delegates, while Clinton received 38.3% of the vote with over 90,500 votes comprising nine delegates.

The New York Times noted that Sanders carried support in the majority of nearly every demographic, including men and women, moderates and liberals, voters with and without college degrees, seasoned and first-time primary voters, and gun owners and non-gun owners.

Clinton received the majority of the support from voters aged 65 and older, and those with an income of over $200,000. She also carried support from voters who aren’t worried about the economy, and who want to see a continuation of President Obama’s policies.

Sanders was projected to win early on after the polls closed in New Hampshire Tuesday night, along with his counterpart in the Republican party, Donald Trump.

In his victory speech, Sanders praised the “huge” voter turnout, and said that his win sends a message “from Wall Street to Washington” that the U.S. government “belongs to all of the people and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors, and their Super PACs.”

[pull_quote_center]What happened here in New Hampshire in terms of an enthusiastic, and aroused electorate, people who came out in large numbers. That is what will happen all over this country. Let us never forget, Democrats and progressives win when voter turnout is high. Republicans win when people are demoralized, and voter turnout is low.[/pull_quote_center]

In her concession speech, Clinton said she will continue to fight to win “every vote in every state,” and she promised that when she says “no bank could be too big to fail and no executive too powerful to jail, you can count on it.”

[pull_quote_center]In this campaign, you’ve heard a lot about Washington and about Wall Street. Now, Senator Sanders and I both want to get secret, unaccountable money out of politics, and let’s remember, let’s remember, Citizens United, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in our country’s history, was actually a case about a right-wing attack on me and my campaign.[/pull_quote_center]

For more election coverage, click here.

Editor’s Pick, Election, Featured

Despite Sanders Win in New Hampshire, Clinton Still Has More Delegates

Feb 10, 2016 TIMP Staff Leave a comment

Following presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s first-place finish in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary on Tuesday, rival Hillary Clinton, who finished a distant second, is set to gain the same amount of delegates in the state.

Sanders, who won the state’s primary with 151,584 votes over Clinton’s 95,252 votes, gained 13 delegates and The Hill reported that Sanders is expected to officially receive 15 when the total results are in.

CNN and Yahoo Politics reported that Sanders and Clinton each currently have 15 delegates in New Hampshire.

While Clinton won 9 delegates, Clinton also reportedly has the support of 6 superdelegates.

“New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.,” the Daily Caller reported.

The Hill reported that “superdelegate support is fluid, though, so some of those delegates now backing Clinton could switch to Sanders” ahead of the Democratic National Convention, “but as it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates.”

CNN’s most recent estimate claims that Clinton has 431 delegates total and Sanders has 52 delegates. An estimate from the Associated Press has provided different numbers, claiming that Clinton has 394 delegates and Sanders has 42.

Election, Featured, Politics

Fox News Mistakenly Publishes Fake New Hampshire Election Results Prior to Vote

Feb 9, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

Tuesday morning, several hours before the polls close in New Hampshire, Fox News reportedly published fake, finalized New Hampshire primary election returns on its website.

Mashable captured screenshots of Fox News’ erroneously published false election results, which can be seen below.

The inaccurate report mistakenly stated that 100 percent of voting precincts had already reported their outcomes, despite the fact that the majority of New Hampshire polls do not close until 7 p.m. EST.

Fox News also included fabricated vote tallies and estimates as to how many delegates each candidate had obtained.

Mashable’s Jason Abbruzzese wrote, “Who, in Fox’s fantasy world, takes home the winning title? With 100% of the ‘vote’ in, Donald Trump took home 28% of the delegates, a solid plurality over his closest rivals: Marco Rubio (15%) and Ted Cruz (12%).”

On the Democratic side, Fox News’ false returns gave the Democratic New Hampshire primary to U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders with 53 percent support over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 43 percent.

Voting began at a few New Hampshire precincts shortly after midnight early Tuesday morning, meaning some real results were already in at the time at which Fox News published its false results.

According to USA Today’s Paul Singer, “In Dixville Notch, residents did their traditional first voting just after midnight, bringing smiles to the faces of Bernie Sanders and John Kasich. Sanders swept Hillary Clinton in Dixville Notch, 4-0, while Kasich topped Donald Trump, 3 votes to 2. In nearby Millsfield, Ted Cruz won the Republican vote over Trump, 9-3. Several other candidates got one vote apiece. Clinton beat Sanders, 2 votes to 1.”

He added, “In Hart’s Location, population 43, Kasich bested Trump again, 5 votes to 4, with Chris Christie gathering 2 votes. Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, and Marco Rubio got one vote each. Sanders edged Clinton, 12 votes to 7. Mark Stewart Greenstein, who calls himself a ‘liberty-leaning Democrat,’ got 2 votes, the Union Leader reported.”

Later on Tuesday morning, Fox News updated its website and removed the false election results.

For more election coverage, click here.

Featured, International, Opinion, US

COOK: Trump and Sanders Vow to Kill ObamaTrade, But for the Wrong Reasons

Feb 8, 2016 Joshua Cook Leave a comment

While the mainstream media focused on “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli’s smirk last week, trade ministers signed the final agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also known as ObamaTrade.

During a congressional hearing, hedge fund manager-turned-pharmaceutical company CEO Martin Shkreli was asked by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) if he “did anything wrong” by increasing a life saving drug by 5,000 percent. Shkreli’s behavior sparked a national debate on capitalism and whether “greed is good” in America.

Ironically, while congressmen Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Chaffetz criticized Shkreli’s business decision to increase the price for one drug, they both voted to give President Obama ‘fast-track’ authority to approve ObamaTrade, which will likely increase drug costs for all Americans.

Supportive ObamaTrade groups are now admitting that thousands of Americans could lose their jobs from this agreement. ObamaTrade would also allow Big Pharma to increase drug prices and limit access for consumers— a gift for crony capitalists like Shkreli.

This month, both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are speaking out against the controversial trade deal.

Trump recently told CNN’s Jake Tapper that he and Sanders have common ground on trade.

“The one thing we very much agree on is trade. We both agree that we are getting ripped off by China, by Japan, by Mexico, everyone we do business with,” said Trump.

“At a time when prescription drug prices are skyrocketing, the TPP would make a bad situation even worse by granting new monopoly rights to big pharmaceutical companies to deny access to lower cost generic drugs to millions of people,” Sanders said in a press conference on February 3.

Both presidential candidates oppose ObamaTrade, but for different reasons— the wrong reasons. They both advocate a protectionist trade policy.

“We need fair trade. Not free trade,” Donald Trump told Breitbart in September 2015. “We need fair trade. It’s got to be fair.”

I've got a message for corporate America: if you want us to buy your products, you better start producing them here in the United States.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 15, 2015

It’s important to note that ObamaTrade is not “free trade.” America does not have “free trade;” it’s managed trade.

Economist Dr. Tom DiLorenzo told Truth In Media’s Joshua Cook that the reason Americans fought the British was because of this type of crony capitalism (mercantilism). This is not free market enterprise; this is just giving favors to the politically connected at the expense of tax payers and the middle class, the working people, the American people.

While Trump and Sanders should be praised for speaking out against ObamaTrade, they both miss the opportunity to show people how to “make America great again” by implementing economic principles of real free trade.

Election, Featured, Politics

Steinem Apologizes for ‘Misinterpreted’ Comment About Young Female Sanders Supporters

Video Feb 8, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

On last Friday’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, journalist and feminist activist Gloria Steinem controversially suggested that young women who support U.S. Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary do so in an effort to meet male Bernie Sanders supporters.

When host Bill Maher pointed out that progressive-leaning Sen. Sanders is leading Clinton among young female voters, Steinem said, “First of all, women get more radical as we get older… I don’t mean to over-generalize … but men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age, and women get more radical because they lose power as they age. So it’s kind of not fair to measure most women by the standard of most men, because they’re going to get more activist as they grow older.”

“And when you’re young, you’re thinking, you know, ‘Where are the boys?’ The boys are with Bernie,” added Steinem.

Maher replied, “Now if I said that, ‘Yeah, they’re for Bernie because that’s where the boys are,’ you’d swat me, come on.”

According to The Hill, Sanders won 84 percent of the 18-29 demographic in the Iowa Caucuses. Clinton only garnered 14 percent of that segment of the vote.

After experiencing significant backlash, Steinem authored a Facebook post on Sunday apologizing for her “misinterpreted” remarks on the show.

“In a case of talk-show Interruptus, I misspoke on the Bill Maher show recently, and apologize for what’s been misinterpreted as implying young women aren’t serious in their politics. What I had just said on the same show was the opposite: young women are active, mad as hell about what’s happening to them, graduating in debt, but averaging a million dollars less over their lifetimes to pay it back. Whether they gravitate to Bernie or Hillary, young women are activist and feminist in greater numbers than ever before,” said Steinem.

For more election coverage, click here.

Election, Featured

Sanders Is Crushing Clinton In The Polls Ahead Of New Hampshire Primary Read

Feb 8, 2016 TIMP Staff Leave a comment

By Juliegrace Brufke – A new survey shows Sen. Bernie Sanders crushing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by a whopping 16 percent in the Granite State just one day before the New Hampshire primaries.

The University of Massachusetts Lowell/7News poll, released Monday, has Clinton coming at 40 percent, Sanders at 56 percent and 4 percent undecided among likely voters.

Sanders still holds a commanding lead over Clinton, but he saw a slip from where he was in the Feb. 2 survey when he held a 63 to 30 percent advantage.

When voters were asked if it’s possible they could have a last-minute change of heart, 21 percent of Clinton supporters and 18 percent of Sanders supporters said yes.

Women in the state seem to be unfazed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s recent call for females to back Clinton, having told “Meet the Press” anchor Chuck Todd “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Sanders holds a 5-point lead over the former first lady among women in the state.

When put against Republican front-runner Donald Trump, Clinton held a 5-percent lead over the billionaire at 45 percent and 40 percent respectively. Sanders held a much larger margin over Trump – beating the outspoken businessman 55 percent to 34 percent.

Clinton – once considered a shoo-in for the nomination – managed to edge out Sanders in Iowa by less than 1 percent.

The poll was conducted from Feb. 5-7 using phone interviews of 1,411 registered voters and leaves a margin of error of +/- 2.99 percent.

Follow Juliegrace Brufke on Twitter

Election, Featured, Politics

Iowa Democratic Party Asserts Private Right Not to Disclose Vote Counts

Feb 5, 2016 IVN News Leave a comment

By Shawn M. Griffiths – The Des Moines Register is calling for an audit of the Democratic caucus results after several reports of precincts being decided by coin flips and missing caucus-goers. The newspaper wants the Iowa Democratic Party to swiftly act to ensure that the results are accurate.

“What happened Monday night at the Democratic caucuses was a debacle, period. Democracy, particularly at the local party level, can be slow, messy and obscure. But the refusal to undergo scrutiny or allow for an appeal reeks of autocracy,” the Register’s editorial board writes.

[pull_quote_center]“Too many accounts have arisen of inconsistent counts, untrained and overwhelmed volunteers, confused voters, cramped precinct locations, a lack of voter registration forms and other problems. Too many of us, including members of the Register editorial board who were observing caucuses, saw opportunities for error amid Monday night’s chaos.”[/pull_quote_center]

However, such an audit is unlikely to come. The Sanders campaign has done its own investigation, rechecking the results precinct by precinct. According to the campaign, it has found some irregularities, but the Iowa Democratic Party won’t allow the campaign to compare the math sheets and other paper work filed by precinct chairs.

“The answer is that we had all three camps in the tabulation room last night to address any grievances brought forward, and we went over any discrepancies. These are the final results,” Dr. Andy McGuire, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said in an interview for the Register.

The party has never released head counts, and it won’t this time as Democratic leaders claim a private right to keep that information from the public. McGuire said that the winner of the Iowa caucus is determined by state-delegate equivalent, rather than the final head count for each candidate.

In other words, garnering the most votes in the Iowa caucus may not guarantee a candidate a win. There are no paper ballots and precinct results can apparently come down to coin tosses, in accordance with party rules, to determine the allocation of local delegates.

This article was republished with permission from IVN.

Election, Featured, Opinion

DONEGAN: Media Should Report on Presidential Elections, Not Manipulate Them

Jan 26, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

The 2016 presidential election, crowded with candidates in a circus-like atmosphere, is serving as a type of stress test for the U.S. news media. Can journalists, often viewed as members of the U.S. government’s fourth unofficial branch, manage the task of accurately and neutrally informing American voters of the positions of the many candidates that are running for president this time?

However, in order to achieve this simple-sounding feat, journalists must resist two major innate urges: giving in to the greedy lust for easy clicks and bending coverage to fit their own personal political biases or financial interests.

Billionaire Donald Trump’s celebrity campaign exposes media outlets who favor ratings and clicks over reporting the news, as Trump’s reality TV popularity has given the stiff and stodgy world of electoral politics an Access Hollywood-style makeover and a new audience hungry for gossip about the billionaire real estate investor’s latest controversies. Unfortunately, the U.S. media appears to be failing that aspect of the 2016 stress test, as Trump’s out-sized popularity has led to him obtaining “the overwhelming majority of [the 2016 presidential election’s] news coverage,” as University of Texas at Arlington political science professor Rebecca Deen told BBC News.

Journalists will obviously seek out content that attracts readers and viewers, as that is the nature of the news marketplace, but there is a difference between making sure to cover the hottest stories and choosing only to cover candidates that are already bringing in big ratings prior to even receiving coverage on their positions.

On the other hand, the vast array of different candidates in the 2016 race has placed a spotlight on the various biases that appear to burden different networks.

Fox News was criticized by conservatives, who likely believe that the news organization has cozy ties with the Republican National Committee, for posing what they saw as left wing attacks as questions at the network’s Aug. 6, 2015 Republican presidential debate in what was seen as an effort to disrupt outsider candidates like Carson and Trump and to put conservative candidates on the defensive. Fox has also drawn criticism for repeatedly leaving Sen. Rand Paul’s name off of on-screen graphics ranking candidates by their poll numbers, an issue that also plagued former Congressman Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign.

CNN has drawn criticism from Bernie Sanders supporters for pointlessly declaring Hillary Clinton the winner of Democratic presidential debates immediately upon their conclusion based often on arbitrary metrics, leading some observers to conclude that the network seems to unofficially favor the candidacy of Clinton over Sanders. Sen. Jim Webb accused the cable news channel of rigging the Democratic debates for Clinton and Sanders. CNN, which many perceive as left-leaning, also openly admitted to planning more divisive and combative debate questions for Republicans than it did for Democrats.

Biases exist and always will because all journalists are human and have them. However, good journalists should admit their biases and work hard not to let them poison their coverage of facts and ruin their credibility in the eyes of neutral observers.

Also, media outlets are sometimes guilty of manipulating the playing field in the presidential race for their own convenience. As an example, news networks drew criticism from Republican activists for trying to winnow down the large field of GOP candidates prior to presidential debates based on early poll numbers, thus denying some lesser-known but serious candidates a platform to ever promote their candidacy in the first place.

It is not the media’s job to choose which candidates get to outline their policies to voters. It is the media’s job to neutrally publicize the views of all of those candidates and to let voters in the fifty states winnow the field down in the voting booth.

When Fox Business cut Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina from the main stage of its Jan. 14 debate to the undercard, some accused the network of reducing the number of candidates on the main stage in an effort to prevent the undercard stage from being cut from the program due to a lack of available candidates, potentially putting advertising dollars at risk.

Ultimately, the U.S. news media as a whole should be judged on its coverage of the presidential race based on whether voters have been equipped with the information necessary to look at all of the candidates on the ballot on election day and choose the one whose positions line up best with their own personal views. It should not be a press release service for journalists’ favorite campaigns’ talking points, a public relations firm selling the viewpoints of the political establishment, or a ratings-and-clicks-obsessed tabloid detailing the latest celebrity gossip.

For more election coverage, click here.

Editor’s Pick, Election, Featured, Politics

Hillary Clinton Responds to Critics Questioning High-Paying ‘Big Bank’ Speeches

Jan 25, 2016 Rachel Blevins Leave a comment

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended the millions of dollars she has received in speaking fees and campaign contributions from Wall Street banks on Sunday, and asserted that they have not led to a conflict of interest.

During NBC’s “Meet the Press,” moderator Chuck Todd noted that the money Clinton has received has been used by her opponent Bernie Sanders to criticize her ties to Wall Street, and he asked, “Why do you think one of these big banks paid you over $200,000 for a speech?”

Clinton insisted that she “gave speeches to a wide array of groups,” including healthcare groups and auto dealers. She said Americans wanted to hear about her expertise on the world, and that there was “a lot of interest in the bin Laden raid.”

[pull_quote_center]Coming off of four years as secretary of State, in a complicated world, people were interested in what I saw, what I thought, they asked questions about the matters that were on their mind, a lot of interest in the bin Laden raid, how such a tough decision was made and what I advised the president. You know, I think Americans who are doing business in every aspect of the economy want to know more about the world. I actually think it’s a good conversation to be having.[/pull_quote_center]

Todd asked Clinton if she thinks the banks “expect anything in return?”

“Absolutely not,” Clinton replied. “You know, first of all, I was a senator from New York. I took them on when I was senator. I took on the carried-interest loophole. I took on what was happening in the mortgage markets. I was talking about that in 2006. They know exactly where I stand.”

On the campaign trail in Iowa, Sanders criticized Clinton for taking in over $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, saying “You got to be really, really, really good to get $250,000 for a speech.”

According to The Intercept, Clinton earned over $2.9 million off of twelve speeches to various banks between 2013 and 2015. The Intercept noted that “Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.”

When Sanders said that the banks “expect to get something, everybody knows that” during a Democratic presidential debate in November 2015, Clinton responded that she has “hundreds of thousands of donors— most of them small,” and she went on to talk about her involvement in New York on 9/11.

[pull_quote_center]I represented New York, and I represented New York on 9/11 when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy, and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.[/pull_quote_center]

For more election coverage, click here.

Election, Politics

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Trump, Cruz Have ‘Tried to Co-Opt’ Parts of Ron Paul’s Message

Jan 21, 2016 Barry Donegan Leave a comment

On last Thursday’s episode of Meet the Press Daily on MSNBC, host Chuck Todd, who also serves as a moderator for Meet the Press on NBC, asked libertarian icon and former Republican Congressman Ron Paul if he could support the presidential ambitions of either Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Now, there’s some parts of your message though that I think Donald Trump’s tried to co-opt. I think there’s some part of your message that Ted Cruz has tried to co-opt. Do believe that and have they— are either one of them speaking to you enough that you could envision supporting them?” asked Todd.

“Impossible,” replied Paul, who then suggested that Trump and Cruz are “authoritarians” and said that “libertarians are non-authoritarians.”

He continued, “So especially [their] foreign policy [positions] and then when it comes to the drug war. How many are out there talking about the evils of the drug war and how we throw people in jail? Rand was the only one that talked about that. But no, they’re pushed aside— they can’t stand to have that in a debate so they put him aside and he doesn’t get to present that case.”

Todd also pointed out to Paul that Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders “most often voted for some of your bills than anybody else running in this race.”

“Yes,” Paul replied. “It could be because we did work together and people would say, ‘Why are you and Bernie you know, agreeing on this issue?’ But we would both attack subsidies of corporations, but he is an outright authoritarian because on economic matters he would be totally authoritarian for the re-distribution of wealth and just soak it to the rich, even if the rich didn’t make it off special contracts for the government.”

Speaking on Sanders’ foreign policy positions, Paul said, “He’s not a non-interventionist, but he certainly is a lot better than the other Democrats.”

Paul then argued that President Obama had enacted some policies appreciated by libertarians and pointed to his opening of trade relations with Cuba and his lifting of sanctions on Iran.

Despite the fact that a libertarian candidate has not yet surged in the polls in the 2016 presidential race, Paul struck an optimistic tone in his assessment of the recent victories of the U.S. libertarian movement.

“I think there are great strides to emphasize the benefits of non-intervention in foreign policy, and, right now even, we’re winning in the [repeal of the] drug war. Most states are now nullifying federal laws. They’re saying, ‘To heck with ya’. Those laws are stupid.’ So I think libertarianism is making great progress in many ways, but don’t look to the people in Washington and the national debate, especially if they regulate the debates to the point where the libertarian message is excluded.”

For more election coverage, click here.

Election, Opinion

IVN Prediction: Sanders, Trump Will Win Iowa – But Party Insiders Will Take the Delegates

Jan 21, 2016 IVN News Leave a comment

Looking ahead to the Iowa Caucuses on Tuesday, February 1, IVN predicts that Republican candidate Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders will win their respective caucuses. However, IVN further predicts that the parties will find a way to take these wins away from them.

Every election year, IVN makes at least one prediction about the outcome of a major race. In 2012, IVN called Florida for Barack Obama before any other news outlet. In 2014, IVN projected that U.S. Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) was going to keep his seat in a hotly contested race against Republican Carl DeMaio.

This year, though the media reports a tight race going into the Republican and Democratic caucuses, IVN predicts that Trump and Sanders will take the popular vote and win their respective contests.

Both Trump and Sanders have strong support, not only from members of the Republican and Democratic parties, but from voters who are fed up with the status quo and feel disenchanted or disenfranchised by the current political system or cannot find a home in any political party.

The Republican leadership has frequently rebuked the candidacy of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is often at odds with the Democratic National Committee, which briefly denied him access to the party’s voter database in December and scheduled a limited number of debates on the weekend, an inconvenient time for a presidential primary debate.

This is why IVN further predicts that the parties will manipulate the private party rules that determine the allocation of delegates, including changing convention rules or going against the will of caucus voters, to make sure Sanders and Trump don’t get to eat the fruits of their victories.

It wouldn’t be the first time the parties have stepped in to alter the outcome in the nomination process.

In the 2012 Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus, Ron Paul officially came in third. However, Paul — who had a very similar appeal with voters as Trump and Sanders — had a different strategy than just winning votes. Paul’s grassroots-driven campaign encouraged supporters to remain at their polling location after the vote in order to become county delegates — the first step toward becoming a delegate at the national level.

[quote_right]IVN predicts that the parties will manipulate the private party rules that determine the allocation of delegates … to make sure Sanders and Trump don’t get to eat the fruits of their victories.[/quote_right]

Unlike his primary opponents, Ron Paul played the delegate game, aimed at caucus states, and he played it well. However, reports suggest that various state Republican parties and the Republican National Committee blocked several Ron Paul delegates, either by unseating them or replacing them at the Republican National Convention.

Party leaders argued that Paul hadn’t secured a majority of the popular vote in any of the primary states, and therefore didn’t deserve the nomination. The party leadership also changed the rules during the 2012 convention to allow the RNC to change convention rules between conventions without the say of party delegates.

Fast forward to the present. Donald Trump is leading in Iowa and several states. While many did not treat him seriously in the beginning of his campaign, it is beginning to sink in that Trump could very well win the nomination if he is able to mobilize his support on the ground.

It is indeed possible that the race for the Republican nomination could last until the Republican National Convention, and there have been reports that elected officials and party leaders within the Republican Party have met to discuss forcing a brokered convention, which happens when no single candidate has secured a majority of party delegates headed into the convention.

Since the party has already shown that they can unseat and replace delegates at will — regardless of how voters cast their ballot — an argument can be made that an unsatisfied Republican establishment may insist that such tactics be used to prevent Trump from winning the party’s presidential nomination.

In short, the argument from the parties will be flipped this year from their respect for the popular vote in 2012. Delegate rules will matter and the popular vote will be underplayed, away from the public discussion in the media.

Just like the Republican Party, for Bernie Sanders and the Democrats, it will all come down to the delegate count at the Democratic National Convention. However, unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party has superdelegates, chosen from elected officials and party leaders in each state, who can commit to any candidate they want, regardless of how primary and caucus voters vote.

According to a report on IVN, more than half of the party’s 712 superdelegates have already decided who they plan to support at the national convention — 359 of whom said they plan to vote for Clinton.

“With more than half of the superdelegates already intending to vote for her, Clinton is beginning the contest with a 15 percent head start in the effort to win the 2,382 delegates needed to have majority support at the July convention — and not a single primary vote has been cast yet,” writes IVN independent author Andrew Gripp.

In total, 30 percent of the conventions delegates can commit to a candidate with or without the support of their state’s voters, meaning Democratic leaders have significant control over who ends up winning the nomination. By using convention rules and these superdelegates, the Democratic Party could easily ensure Bernie Sanders does not get the nomination.

For any dissenting voice or candidate who challenges the will of the Republican and Democratic parties, the deck is already heavily stacked against them. In the end, the parties may decide that it doesn’t matter what primary and caucus voters think because the system currently places the interests of two private organizations ahead of the will of voters.

And as the courts have decided over and over again, the party nomination proceedings are private. So the will of the public, nor the courts, can stop the party from changing the rules to protect their preferred candidates.

This article was republished with permission from IVN.

Election

Clinton Attacks Backfire; Lead to Huge Money Bomb for Sanders

Jan 20, 2016 TIMP Staff Leave a comment

By Gabriel Saint Cyr – It seems that supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders have given their response to Hillary Clinton’s newest line of attack. The Sanders team reports that his campaign pulled in about $1.4 million in just 24 hours, nearly quadrupling their daily average.

“Thanks, Team Clinton,” says Michael Briggs, spokesman for the Sanders campaign.

The surge in contributions comes in the wake of interviews and speeches by Mrs. Clinton in which she questioned his electability in a general election against a Republican opponent and called attention to his vote for a 2005 bill that shielded gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits.

Even her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, has stepped into the fray, charging that Sanders wants to “dismantle” Obamacare and Medicare. For the record, Sanders proposes a single-payer health care plan, but has yet to offer details on how he would fund it.

Mrs. Clinton likely stepped up her attacks after seeing the latest poll numbers coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire. A Monmouth University Poll has Clinton trailing Sanders in New Hampshire by 14 points, with 39 percent to his 53, while the Des Moines Register shows the double-digit lead she had in Iowa a month ago shrinking to just two points.

On the national level, the latest polls paint a race that is tightening by the day.

It is hard to imagine that eight years ago a candidate as far removed from the party establishment as Bernie Sanders would have broken out of the single digits in national polling, much less offered a serious challenge to the party’s front-runner. Sanders’ clashes with the Democratic National Committee — from the inconvenient weekend scheduling of the debates to temporarily cutting off access to the DNC’s voter database — have done little to blunt his support.

In fact, they may be helping him.

Though their policy proposals couldn’t be more different, Sanders’ rise mirrors Donald Trump’s unexpected success in courting the Republican base. Both candidates have found their voices by pitting themselves as the underdogs battling the elites in their respective parties in addition to the other side — an ironic twist on the “triangulation” strategy that Bill Clinton used in his re-election campaign in 1996.

Even if November ends with a President-elect Clinton or Rubio, 2016 is already looking to be the year of the outsider.

This article was republished with permission from IVN.

Ben Swann's Truth In Media

Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Green Party’s Stein Seeks Collaboration with Sanders, Calls Clinton ‘Warmonger’

TIM’s Joshua Cook Talks Trump and Sanders on RT’s ‘In The Now’

Jesse Ventura Says He May Run for President If Clinton Is Nominated Over Sanders

Green Party’s Stein Predicts DNC Will Sabotage Sanders, Try to Reabsorb Supporters

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Quits DNC to Endorse Bernie Sanders

Fact Check: Hillary Clinton Claims Russia Has ‘Not Gone After ISIS’

Jeffrey Tucker on American History, Trump, Sanders, and Liberty

NH Primary: Sanders Beats Clinton in Nearly Every Demographic

Despite Sanders Win in New Hampshire, Clinton Still Has More Delegates

Fox News Mistakenly Publishes Fake New Hampshire Election Results Prior to Vote

COOK: Trump and Sanders Vow to Kill ObamaTrade, But for the Wrong Reasons

Steinem Apologizes for ‘Misinterpreted’ Comment About Young Female Sanders Supporters

Sanders Is Crushing Clinton In The Polls Ahead Of New Hampshire Primary Read

Iowa Democratic Party Asserts Private Right Not to Disclose Vote Counts

DONEGAN: Media Should Report on Presidential Elections, Not Manipulate Them

Hillary Clinton Responds to Critics Questioning High-Paying ‘Big Bank’ Speeches

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Trump, Cruz Have ‘Tried to Co-Opt’ Parts of Ron Paul’s Message

IVN Prediction: Sanders, Trump Will Win Iowa – But Party Insiders Will Take the Delegates

Clinton Attacks Backfire; Lead to Huge Money Bomb for Sanders

Shattering the left, right paradigm