Goodman strikes with a level of brilliance you expect from a Paul supporter!!!!

[NCTraveler]

On January 20, 2017 Bernie Sanders Will Be Sworn In as America's 45th President

On Friday, January 20, 2017, Bernie Sanders will be sworn in as our nation's 45th president. I explain why Sanders wins the Democratic nomination and presidency in my recent appearance on The Thom Hartmann Program. If you've disagreed with my thought process in the past, just watch the segment and you'll understand why Bernie Sanders is the true Democratic front-runner. American politicians don't set records with 2.3 million contributions (breaking Obama's record), draw crowds of over 100,000 people several months after announcing, and raise more money than every GOP candidate without massive political momentum. Furthermore, nobody in American politics goes from 5.3% support in the Democratic Primary race on March 9, 2015 to over 30% support in December, without media attention (Sanders gets 1/23th the television coverage of Trump) and with pundits giving the candidate little chance of success. The underlying data (money raised, attendance at events, social media popularity) undermines the polling data showing Clinton leading by a wide margin. Remember, Clinton was up by a similar margin over Obama in 2007.

His ascent is genuine, and when Bernie wins Iowa and New Hampshire, the Clinton machine will run into a powerful force called the American people.

The likelihood of a Sanders presidency should increase exponentially in your mind when considering the following scenarios. If you can imagine Hillary Clinton becoming Commander in Chief, after labeling her Iraq War vote as merely a "mistake," and with tens of thousands of her emails the subject of an expanded FBI investigation, then you trust the former Secretary of State with the future of our nation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-will-be-sworn-in-as-americas-45th-president_b_8909356.html

[leftofcool]

1. Goodman=Loser!

[Armstead]

2. Is there something known as Goodman Obsessive Disorder?

I've never seen such obsessive scrutiny over one blogger.

[NCTraveler]

3. No joke. I have never seen a Paul supporter touted here so much.

Is your question for me or the poster who has posted over ten of his articles as ops? Since this is my first one I will assume you are talking about the poster who has posted over ten Goodman articles as ops as the one who is "obsessive."

[Armstead]

4. I am just referring to him in general on all sides

Personally I think he (I assume it's a he) is just a minor writer and someone who likes to stir the pot to get attention.

It's not the best source for Sanders supporters to use. His predictions of inevitable victory are just more of that stirring.

But I also don't like to see him consistently used to advance the phony meme that Sanders equals Paul, and that his supporters are all libertarian right wingers.

[NCTraveler]

7. I simpily think he has found a niche with a few more readers.

"It's not the best source for Sanders supporters to use." True.

[CoffeeCat]

10. I'm a very ardent Sanders supporter and I've never

read Goodman. He's an in-the-tank cheerleader. Both sides have them.

Some people like to read it. Some don't.

Who cares.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Whether you like him or not, Goodman makes a good argument

for Bernie winning.

Thanks for the thread, NCTraveler.

[NCTraveler]

8. You are very welcome. nt.

[Uncle Joe]

16. I believe Bernie will be competitive in Iowa, possibly winning and probably

winning in New Hampshire if Bernie wins in Iowa, it will increase his chances of winning in New Hampshire even more.

Having said that it's too bad that Schultz didn't have enough integrity to schedule both final debates before a slew of states vote, she has certainly done her best to grease the skids for Hillary.

[NurseJackie]

6. What a clown.

That so many here admire him is very revealing.

[Fawke Em]

9. Except he's not a Paul supporter and has said so many times.

Why can't you guys understand this?

Look, I think Goodman's a bit of a Bernie sycophant, but he's disavowed that article he wrote on Paul several times.

For the one millionth time, I certainly am not a supporter of Rand Paul and believe he’s on the wrong side of history on almost every issue. I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life and won’t because of one headline.

In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have written the article, but at least I never voted for the Iraq War, opposed gay marriage until 2013, supported an environmental disaster in the waiting named Keystone XL, opposed the decriminalization of marijuana, or had the FBI investigate my emails. Imagine somebody doing all those things and expecting to win the Democratic nomination? At least I hope the FBI isn’t investigating my emails, but if they are, I’d have no need to plead the Fifth like some people.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/19/no_im_not_voting_for_rand_paul_dont_believe_the_conspiracy_theories_ill_only_vote_for_bernie/

This is embarrassing on Hillary supporters' parts that I keep having to post this to show you what he wrote and why. SMH

[Fawke Em]

20. Well, in the same amount of time, Hillary went from calling the TPP the gold standard

to not supporting it.

If you can believe her, why can't you believe him?

[Vattel]

12. ad hominem

[OilemFirchen]

15. ... is sometimes quite appropriate.

Should one automatically disregard the writings of Ann Coulter, Jim Hoft, Jerome Corsi and the like strictly on an ad hominem basis?

Absolutely.

[Vattel]

17. "X once supported Paul. Therefore all criticisms of Clinton by X are stupid" is a fallacious.

[Vattel]

22. fair enough

[OilemFirchen]

19. That's just weird.

What does Clinton have to do with this?