Thursday, December 22, 2016
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Saturday, September 3, 2016
Monday, August 8, 2016
Off-Market 5b 2.5ba - Classified Ad
Off-Market 5b 2.5ba - Classified Ad
ACT NOW...
I have an Off Market property...at a Real Deal! We have a 2002 home with 2173sqft. on nearly a 4400sqft lot. It has 5bd 2.5ba, that's a fresh rehab having been completed recently. Located in the highly desirable McKinley Hills area of Lake Hills, we're offering at 420k. It's located on the Riverside/Corona hills border and is a hillside home!. This home won't last. If you or anyone you know is or has a buyer, please contact me...There's definitely chips for you in the deal. If you send your email address, I will forward the sales flyer
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Friday, July 22, 2016
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
Thursday, July 7, 2016
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
Sunday, July 3, 2016
Saturday, July 2, 2016
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Just a note: I will be on Jimmy Church's Fade to Black radio program on Tuesday night, June 28. The program starts at 7 pm Pacific time (10 pm Eastern time), tomorrow night. Greetings, Fadernauts!
Just a note: I will be on Jimmy Church's Fade to Black radio program on Tuesday night, June 28. The program starts at 7 pm Pacific time (10 pm Eastern time), tomorrow night. Greetings, Fadernauts!
Just a note: I will be on Jimmy Church's Fade to Black radio program on Tuesday night, June 28. The program starts at 7 pm Pacific time (10 pm Eastern time), tomorrow night. Greetings, Fadernauts!
Monday, June 27, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Friday, June 3, 2016
Sunday, May 29, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
ACT NOW...An Off Market Property...Before it's Listed!
Good Morning,
This is a off market property....act now before its listed on MLS
We have a 2001 home with 2173sqft. on nearly a 4400sqft lot. It has 5bd 2.5ba, that's a fresh rehab being completed this weekend. As we are establishing the comps in the highly desirable Mckinley Hills, we're offering at 489k. It's located on the Riverside/Corona hills border and is a hillside home!. This home won't last. We sold the last home is San Bernardino to the first person on our first day of open house. If you or anyone you know is or has a buyer, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Off Market Listing...Wont Last!
Good Morning Team Members,
We now have a 2001 home with 2173sqft. on nearly a 4400sqft lot. It has 5bd 2.5ba, that's a fresh rehab being completed this weekend. As we are establishing the comps in the highly desirable Mckinley Hills, we're offering at 489k. It's located on the Riverside/Corona hills border and is a hillside home!. This home won't last. We sold the last home is San Bernardino to the first person on our first day of open house. If you or anyone you know is or has a buyer, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Attention: Need A Response...2 Wholesale SFR's Needed!
Good Morning Team and and All,
I really need some input...
I'm writing you as i have an immediate need for 2 "true" wholesale sfr's in the Southern California area. We are primarily looking in the LA co, OC co, inland empire and SD co areas. Im looking specifically for a 1 -200K and 1 -400k. If this is something you can accommodate, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Little Help...2 Wholesale SFR's Needed!!
Good Afternoon Team Members,
I'm writing you as i have an immediate need for 2 "true" wholesale sfr's in the Southern California area. We are primarily looking in the LA co, OC co, inland empire and SD co areas. Im looking specifically for a 1 200K and 1 400k. If this is something you can accommodate, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Sunday, February 28, 2016
The Bottom Line needs 2 Wholesale SFR's!
Good Afternoon Team Members,
I'm writing you as i have an immediate need for 2 "true" wholesale sfr's in the Southern California area. We are primarily looking in the LA co, OC co, inland empire and SD co areas. Im looking specifically for a 1 200K and 1 400k. If this is something you can accommodate, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
tblpics4u@gmail.com
I'm writing you as i have an immediate need for 2 "true" wholesale sfr's in the Southern California area. We are primarily looking in the LA co, OC co, inland empire and SD co areas. Im looking specifically for a 1 200K and 1 400k. If this is something you can accommodate, please contact me.
Thank You,
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
tblpics4u@gmail.com
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Trust Deed Opportunity
Good Afternoon,
We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Thursday, February 18, 2016
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders' Poll Numbers
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Sanders' Poll Numbers: Bernie Sanders Cuts Into Hillary Clinton's National Lead: Poll Bernie Sanders has cut Hillary Clinton's national polling lead i...
The Bottom Line on Sanders' Poll Numbers
Bernie Sanders Cuts Into Hillary Clinton's National Lead: Poll
Bernie Sanders has cut Hillary Clinton's national polling lead in half after the results of the first two Democratic nominating contests, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Still, Clinton holds a double-digit advantage over Sanders, with the next race taking place in Nevada on Saturday and with the two candidates participating in a town hall in Las Vegas on Thursday night beginning at 9:00 pm ET on MSNBC.
Fifty-three percent of Democratic primary voters say they back the former secretary of state, while 42 percent of them support the Vermont senator.
But Clinton's 11-point lead over Sanders is down from her 25-point edge a month ago -- before Sanders' blowout victory in New Hampshire and narrow loss in Iowa.
In the new poll, Clinton leads Sanders among minorities (62 percent to 33 percent), women (58 percent to 39 percent), primary voters ages 50 and older (62 percent to 31 percent) and self-identified Democrats (58 percent to 37 percent).
Sanders, meanwhile, holds the edge among white men (54 percent to 41 percent), independents (61 percent to 33 percent) and primary voters under the age of 50 (57 percent to 40 percent).
In the poll, 73 percent of Democratic primary voters consider themselves "progressives," and 68 percent say that label applies to Sanders and 65 percent say it applies to Clinton.
View full poll results here.
Asked what concerns them the most about Clinton, 22 percent of Democratic primary voters cite her ties to Wall Street and speaking fees, while just 7 percent believe it's the controversy over her private email server; 66 percent say neither issue is a major concern.
Asked what concerns them the most about Sanders, 26 percent say it's his lack of foreign-policy experience, 23 percent say it's his policy proposals that are out of the mainstream (and that make it difficult for him to beat the Republican nominee) and 47 percent say neither is a major concern.
When the same question was asked to GOP primary voters of the major Republican presidential candidates, 41 percent cited Donald Trump's temperament and another 11 percent said it was his lack of Republican/conservative credentials; 22 percent said they were concerned about Ted Cruz's inability to work with colleagues and another 12 percent said his ideas are out of the mainstream; and 29 percent said Marco Rubio is too weak on immigration and another 22 percent said he's too scripted and hasn't accomplished enough.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Trust Deed Opportunity
Good Afternoon,
We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
We have a trust deed investor opportunity. The property is a 1999 home with 2850sqft. on nearly a 4600sqft lot. It has 5bd 3ba that will have a very light rehab. Comps are near 1.1m and will command full value when completed. It's located in Aliso Viejo in South Orange County in a highly desirable community. The 3-6 mo short term investment is 750K returning 10% per-annum or 6250/mo If you or anyone you know has an investment interest, please contact me.
Thank You,
Michael Brown
714 587 0486
The Bottom Line
Saturday, February 6, 2016
TheBottomLine: A Note left in my Inbox!
TheBottomLine: A Note left in my Inbox!: Hey Guys... I'm addressing all my colleagues here on linkedin as I received this as a piece of advice from one of my contacts. If what h...
A Note left in my Inbox!
Hey Guys...
I'm addressing all my colleagues here on linkedin as I received this as a piece of advice from one of my contacts. If what he's suggesting has any basis in fact, I'm suggesting to all what I find as opportunities be ignored as you don't have the time, inclination or the means to benefit from the offers. As with all opportunities that present themselves, time is the most elementary concern. The deals, if not acted upon, disappear.
With that, here's what I got in my inbox...
Michael, Before you ask a chick out for a date, doesn't it make sense to have a conversation first. If you want people to engage more, trying getting into a conversation first about them before you promote your stuff. Just a thought to help you have better success in the future, so don't take it personally. ~ John
This was my response to his note!
John,
This is something that is presently available...in the way of opportunity. If I wait to have conversation with everyone the opportunity has past. As a sales doctor...advising me to take my time...then its best NOT to duplicate me...because I wont want you to enjoy more sales than I! I started out in the last 2 years as a building inspector working the business side and building a brand. I currently have more than 13000 here, showed a senior executive of an international real estate investment firm how to increase and close all...yes, all short sale negotiations with the banks he dealt with utilizing the first all data captured inspection report that I developed the app for. The last 5 deals he was involved with for the firm enjoyed 155k in savings. He since has resigned from the company and myself along with the co-founder of The Bottom Line, has partnered with him and we've set up a unique partnership. We are the point men to more off market properties than most in the most competitive market in the country. My real estate contacts range from Santa Maria to the Border and east to Vegas. I guess if I'm presumptive having the expectation of insulting or insinuating myself on the masses here then they're not ready to make money! Their competitor next door will! I'm only interested in the most motivated individuals on this platform and I take no prisoners!
But Thank You for the insight,
Michael Brown
If any of you find that I'm too aggressive in my contacts or just annoying...I apologize...but it's the difference in being the next warren buffet...or fill in the blank...and the common man trying to get by...I'm building a team, the strength and success lies it its numbers...if your a winner, please contact me to be part of the team...if not, you know what side your on!...we're interested in all NOD'S and true wholesale deals in southern California
Thanks for your understanding
Michael
Friday, February 5, 2016
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Being Progressive!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Being Progressive!: The Clinton-Sanders fight: What does it mean to be progressive? Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is trying to redefine progressive politics in ...
The Bottom Line on Being Progressive!
The Clinton-Sanders fight: What does it mean to be progressive?
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is trying to redefine progressive politics in a way that would in effect create a new wing of the Democratic Party. And Hillary Clinton is fighting Sanders over what it means to be a progressive, wary of being labeled a centrist or a moderate in an increasingly liberal party.
“I am a progressive who gets things done,” she said in Thursday night’s MSNBC debate in New Hampshire.
“The root of that word, progressive,” she explained, “is progress.”
Democratic activists, worried about the perceived centrism of Clinton, spent much of 2014 urging liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president. So when Clinton started her White House campaign last April, her first moves were to take unabashedly liberal stands on gun control, immigration and racial policy in hopes of appeasing her party’s left.
The surprising rise of Sanders has come in part because of the same problem that dogged Clinton in 2008: many liberal voters prefer another candidate.
But Barack Obama had a lot of other advantages against Clinton. He was a young and fresh face, a tremendous political speaker and a historic candidate who became the first black president.
The energy of the Sanders’ candidacy is entirely about his left-leaning political pitch. And the Sanders’ movement is one in direct contrast to the one the Clintons have built over the last three decades, a movement they consider to be avowedly progressive.
Back in 1990, Bill Clinton chaired the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of centrist Democrats. The DLC created a policy arm called the Progressive Policy Institute.
The use of the term progressive was intentional. It was in contrast to “liberal,” which conservatives had turned into an epithet describing people who supported so-called big government.
Clinton borrowed some of PPI’s ideas and themes during his presidential campaign and later his administration. After the Clintons left the White House, Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in the creation of another Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress.
PPI (which still exists but has diminished influence) is more centrist, while CAP, which is a powerful force in Democratic politics, is more liberal. But both organizations have looked to accomplish liberal goals with a focus on what is possible, ” to “get things done,” as Hillary Clinton says often.
This view of progressivism and the term progressive spread from the Clintons to other Democrats. In the period after the Iraq War, more and more Democrats were wary of been described as centrists, blaming the moderate wing of the party for being too eager to work with George W. Bush. Many Democrats dubbed themselves progressives in favor of being labeled under the banner of “liberalism.”
Enter Sanders. He says his political views are those of a democratic socialist. But there is no defined socialist wing of the Democratic Party for Sanders to lead. And Clinton and other Democratic Party leaders have spent years defining themselves as progressives, a term they are unlikely to cede to Sanders’ wing of the party.
“I’ve heard Senator Sanders’ comments, and it’s really caused me to wonder who’s left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party,” Clinton said on Thursday night. “Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from Wall Street; Vice President Biden is not progressive because he supported Keystone; Senator Shaheen is not progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA.”
She added, slamming Sanders, “in your definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gatekeeper for progressivism, I don’t know anyone else who fits that definition, but I know a lot of really hard fighting progressives in the Democratic party who have stood up time and time again against special interests, against the powerful on behalf of those who are left behind and left out.”
Clinton argues correctly that both she and Sanders have advocated for tighter regulation on Wall Street. But Sanders has been much more strident in decrying what he calls the inherent corruption of the banking system as a whole.
“In my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud,” Sanders said during the debate, illustrating his dark view of the financial industry.
During the debate, Sanders laid out a series of proposals that described his view of progressive politics, most of which would make America more like Europe. But those views, as Clinton pointed out, contrast with Obama’s style of governance.
“What we need to do is to stand up to the big money interests, and the campaign contributors. When we do that, we can, in fact, transform America,” he added.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is trying to redefine progressive politics in a way that would in effect create a new wing of the Democratic Party. And Hillary Clinton is fighting Sanders over what it means to be a progressive, wary of being labeled a centrist or a moderate in an increasingly liberal party.
“I am a progressive who gets things done,” she said in Thursday night’s MSNBC debate in New Hampshire.
“The root of that word, progressive,” she explained, “is progress.”
Democratic activists, worried about the perceived centrism of Clinton, spent much of 2014 urging liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for president. So when Clinton started her White House campaign last April, her first moves were to take unabashedly liberal stands on gun control, immigration and racial policy in hopes of appeasing her party’s left.
It’s not clear that the strategy has worked. Sanders drubbed Clinton among self-described “very liberal” voters in Iowa (58 percent to 39 percent) on Monday, helping him effectively tie Clinton there. He is expected to win next week’s New Hampshire primary on the strength of his appeals to liberals as well as independents in the Granite State.
But Barack Obama had a lot of other advantages against Clinton. He was a young and fresh face, a tremendous political speaker and a historic candidate who became the first black president.
The energy of the Sanders’ candidacy is entirely about his left-leaning political pitch. And the Sanders’ movement is one in direct contrast to the one the Clintons have built over the last three decades, a movement they consider to be avowedly progressive.
Back in 1990, Bill Clinton chaired the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of centrist Democrats. The DLC created a policy arm called the Progressive Policy Institute.
The use of the term progressive was intentional. It was in contrast to “liberal,” which conservatives had turned into an epithet describing people who supported so-called big government.
Clinton borrowed some of PPI’s ideas and themes during his presidential campaign and later his administration. After the Clintons left the White House, Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in the creation of another Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress.
PPI (which still exists but has diminished influence) is more centrist, while CAP, which is a powerful force in Democratic politics, is more liberal. But both organizations have looked to accomplish liberal goals with a focus on what is possible, ” to “get things done,” as Hillary Clinton says often.
This view of progressivism and the term progressive spread from the Clintons to other Democrats. In the period after the Iraq War, more and more Democrats were wary of been described as centrists, blaming the moderate wing of the party for being too eager to work with George W. Bush. Many Democrats dubbed themselves progressives in favor of being labeled under the banner of “liberalism.”
Gradually, in the 2000’s, the centrist wing of the Democratic Party shrunk in size and influence. In the 2008 campaign, Clinton and Obama both cast themselves as progressives.
“I’ve heard Senator Sanders’ comments, and it’s really caused me to wonder who’s left in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party,” Clinton said on Thursday night. “Under his definition, President Obama is not progressive because he took donations from Wall Street; Vice President Biden is not progressive because he supported Keystone; Senator Shaheen is not progressive because she supports the trade pact. Even the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone would not fit this definition because he voted for DOMA.”
She added, slamming Sanders, “in your definition, as you being the self-proclaimed gatekeeper for progressivism, I don’t know anyone else who fits that definition, but I know a lot of really hard fighting progressives in the Democratic party who have stood up time and time again against special interests, against the powerful on behalf of those who are left behind and left out.”
Clinton argues correctly that both she and Sanders have advocated for tighter regulation on Wall Street. But Sanders has been much more strident in decrying what he calls the inherent corruption of the banking system as a whole.
“In my view, the business model of Wall Street is fraud,” Sanders said during the debate, illustrating his dark view of the financial industry.
During the debate, Sanders laid out a series of proposals that described his view of progressive politics, most of which would make America more like Europe. But those views, as Clinton pointed out, contrast with Obama’s style of governance.
“Making public colleges and universities tuition free, that exists in countries all over the world, used to exist in the United States. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and creating 13 million jobs by doing away with tax loopholes that large corporations now enjoy by putting their money into the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. That is not a radical idea,” he said.
RICHARD DOLAN on EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE and the SECRET GOVERNMENT COVER U...
RICHARD DOLAN on EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE and the SECRET GOVERNMENT COVER U...
Thursday, February 4, 2016
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on the First One-One Debate!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on the First One-One Debate!: Clinton, Sanders take new combative tone into first one-on-one debate Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sande...
The Bottom Line on the First One-One Debate!
Clinton, Sanders take new combative tone into first one-on-one debate
Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take an increasingly combative tone into their first one-on-one debate on Thursday, cranking up a fight over who is best suited to lead the party's liberal agenda on the economy and healthcare.
Five days before New Hampshire voters render a judgment in the second of the state-by-state presidential nominating contests, Clinton and Sanders will square off on MSNBC at 9 p.m. EST (0200 Friday GMT) in Durham, New Hampshire.
Polls show Sanders, a U.S. senator from neighboring Vermont, has a comfortable lead over Clinton in New Hampshire after surprising the front-runner by managing a virtual tie with her in the kickoff contest in Iowa on Monday.
In the two days since, the Democrats have clashed sharply over who is more capable of carrying out the party's liberal proposals to battle income inequality, bolster healthcare coverage and rein in Wall Street.
The exchanges intensified ahead of the debate, which will be the first since former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley dropped out on Monday night. It also is one of four debates Clinton and Sanders agreed to add to the schedule.
Sanders, a democratic socialist who has galvanized the party's liberal wing, accused Clinton on Wednesday of being a progressive on some days and a moderate on others. He cited her shifts on trade and energy policies and her 2003 Senate vote to back the Iraq war, which she has called a mistake.
Clinton said she was amused to see Sanders setting himself up as the "gatekeeper" for who was a progressive and that President Barack Obama would not qualify under his definitions.
"I know where I stand, I know who stands with me, I know what I’ve done," Clinton, a former secretary of state and U.S. senator, said at a town hall on Wednesday night where she and Sanders spoke separately.
Clinton has tried to play down expectations for her performance in New Hampshire, where she came from behind for an upset victory in the 2008 campaign just days after losing badly to Obama in Iowa.
The surprisingly strong performance by Sanders in Iowa is likely to prolong a race that Clinton entered as the prohibitive favorite.
In addition to previously scheduled debates in Wisconsin and Florida, the candidates added one in March in Flint, Michigan, to draw attention to the city's contaminated water crisis ahead of the Michigan primary. They also will debate in April and May.
Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take an increasingly combative tone into their first one-on-one debate on Thursday, cranking up a fight over who is best suited to lead the party's liberal agenda on the economy and healthcare.
Five days before New Hampshire voters render a judgment in the second of the state-by-state presidential nominating contests, Clinton and Sanders will square off on MSNBC at 9 p.m. EST (0200 Friday GMT) in Durham, New Hampshire.
Polls show Sanders, a U.S. senator from neighboring Vermont, has a comfortable lead over Clinton in New Hampshire after surprising the front-runner by managing a virtual tie with her in the kickoff contest in Iowa on Monday.
In the two days since, the Democrats have clashed sharply over who is more capable of carrying out the party's liberal proposals to battle income inequality, bolster healthcare coverage and rein in Wall Street.
The exchanges intensified ahead of the debate, which will be the first since former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley dropped out on Monday night. It also is one of four debates Clinton and Sanders agreed to add to the schedule.
Sanders, a democratic socialist who has galvanized the party's liberal wing, accused Clinton on Wednesday of being a progressive on some days and a moderate on others. He cited her shifts on trade and energy policies and her 2003 Senate vote to back the Iraq war, which she has called a mistake.
Clinton said she was amused to see Sanders setting himself up as the "gatekeeper" for who was a progressive and that President Barack Obama would not qualify under his definitions.
"I know where I stand, I know who stands with me, I know what I’ve done," Clinton, a former secretary of state and U.S. senator, said at a town hall on Wednesday night where she and Sanders spoke separately.
Clinton has tried to play down expectations for her performance in New Hampshire, where she came from behind for an upset victory in the 2008 campaign just days after losing badly to Obama in Iowa.
The surprisingly strong performance by Sanders in Iowa is likely to prolong a race that Clinton entered as the prohibitive favorite.
In addition to previously scheduled debates in Wisconsin and Florida, the candidates added one in March in Flint, Michigan, to draw attention to the city's contaminated water crisis ahead of the Michigan primary. They also will debate in April and May.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
RICHARD DOLAN on EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE and the SECRET GOVERNMENT COVER U...
RICHARD DOLAN on EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE and the SECRET GOVERNMENT COVER U...
Monday, February 1, 2016
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Bernie over Hillary!
TheBottomLine: The Bottom Line on Bernie over Hillary!: 9 Reasons I Choose Bernie Over Hillary It's taken me awhile to write this for a number of reasons. Don't bash Hillary, they say....
The Bottom Line on Bernie over Hillary!
9 Reasons I Choose Bernie Over Hillary
It's taken me awhile to write this for a number of reasons. Don't bash Hillary, they say. You're only fueling the right. If Bernie wins, he'll need her supporters. She's the most qualified. Don't be such an idealist. But in all sincerity it's been a challenge for me to get behind Clinton, especially next to Bernie Sanders. I've listened. And I've tried. But do just a little bit of investigating beyond the hype, the headlines and the parroted soundbites, and there are many important contrasts that I believe are worthy of deep reflection.
Let me be clear: I will vote for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. One can be both pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary. So why write this? For me, this is a selection of records that anyone following along can observe for themselves. And given the recent mudslinging at Sanders, spinning with Chelsey, and establishment backlash, we know that the race is heating up. Most importantly, I'm feeling the Bern. This primary race is pivotal and will determine the future of the Democratic party and our country. As voters hit the polls in just a few days, here are 9 matters that I believe should be considered when voting in the upcoming primaries:
1) Clinton's campaign is funded by corporate money: pharmaceuticals, Wall St., media conglomerates, corporations, and Super PACs. Sanders' is funded by everyday citizens.
Together, the Clinton's have created a massive $3 billion dollar fundraising network of donors to their political campaigns as well as The Clinton Foundation. A report from Princeton University has shown that we're currently living in an oligarchy, that power is concentrated in the hands of a few elites who exercise pay-to-play politics, and that our politicians no longer represent the average working, middle class American. To say that Clinton's interests are independent of these powerful donors is naive to the way the world works. When Clinton told Wall St. to "cut it out" did anything happen? The Boston Globe recently reported on her very hands-off approach. Our too-big-to-fail banks are now bigger than they were before the TARP bailout. And when Bernie Sanders questioned her ties to Wall St. in the second debate, how did Clinton respond? By playing the 9/11 card.
Clinton has played the political game and worked the mechanisms of our political system masterfully. She's brilliant and I respect her for her work. But, for once in a very long time, we have an Independent candidate with a spotless record, who reaches across the political spectrum to find common ground, and who is almost entirely funded by individual donations averaging $30. We have a candidate who has set a record for 2.5 million individual contributions entirely without any super PAC money, and who, for his entire Congressional career, has spoken out against Wall St.'s reckless practices. Corporate control of our politics is the very real battle we are fighting. When Bernie Sanders speaks of political revolution, he wants to bring back power to the people - and the outcome of this primary election can sever the ties that bind the billionaire class to Washington. Who is better suited to tackle campaign finance reform: the candidate who's benefitted from it or the outsider who's free from it?
2) Clinton once accepted money from the Private Prison Complex.
It is contradictory to claim one supports social justice and Black Lives Matter when receiving donations from for-profit prisons in an industry that disproportionately incarcerates minorities for low-level crimes up until October 2015. Clinton has since addressed this issue, refusing to continue accepting those donations. And while I understand that candidates can evolve--with Sanders, we have the opportunity to nominate a candidate who has stood up for civil and racial justice as early as the 1960s and who has consistently spoken up for underrepresented people. Clinton only took action to reverse and redistribute the donated money to charity after Sanders had released legislation to end the private prison complex.
3) Their responses to Rahm Emmanuel.
Pressure for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign has continued to mount as allegations of his office failing to release footage of LaQuan McDonald's shooting amid a reelection year continue. A majority of Chicagoans believe he should resign.
Here is how Sanders and Clinton initially responded:
Sanders said that "any official who helped suppress the videotape of Laquan McDonald's murder should be held accountable."
When asked whether she still had confidence in Emmanuel, Clinton said: "I do. He loves Chicago and I'm confident that he's going to do everything he can to get to the bottom of these issues and take whatever measures are necessary to remedy them."
Clinton has since softened her support for Emmanuel. But their first responses are telling: does one stand up for what's right or who they know?
4) Clinton's evolution on Marriage Equality/LGBT Rights.
Gays seem to be singing "Yaaas, Hillary!", but prior to 2013 Clinton was like "No, kweens." That's not a direct quote. But she's on record as speaking out against gay marriage. This is another recent evolution. Clinton then tried to spin it and claim that it was in defense of a constitutional amendment, which didn't mesh well with other historical accounts. How an LGBT voter can support a candidate who flip flops on what I see as a human rights issue - among other questionable judgments - is beyond me. I can't. Clinton is now proposing a bill for LGBT rights, but when she says "As President, I will continue to fight so that LGBT Americans and families can live, work, and pray free of discrimination," I give the Sanders side eye. Many others were forced to take a centrist position in the 2000s, including Obama. But we can also opt for the leader who has understood and fought for what's right even when it's been unpopular. We can opt for the trailblazer who backed the first Gay Pride Day in Burlington, VT in 1985, who publicly defended gays and voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA. No evolution necessary.
The Human Rights Campaign also recently endorsed Clinton for president, which caught many by surprise. But looking at HRC's own questionable internal reputation as a non-inclusive space, I would take this with a grain of salt. As many have observed, endorsements that are determined by its members rather than its leaders tend to back Sanders over Clinton.
5) Clinton voted for the Iraq War as well as the Patriot Act and its reauthorization in 2006.
Remember when we got into one of the largest quagmires of the 21st Century, Iraq? A devastating, costly war that was sold to us under false pretenses that largely led to the rise of ISIS? The number of human lives lost is staggering. The financial cost is in the trillions. Clinton voted for it then later admitted it was a mistake.
Clinton also voted in favor of The Patriot Act and its reauthorization in 2006, which was seen by many as a gross invasion of privacy on Americans. The FBI later admitted that it didn't really do all that much. And as Wikileaks and Edward Snowden showed us, the FBI has used that authority in unintended ways to track Americans illegally.
I can appreciate when someone admits a mistake. It demonstrates courage and humility. But when presented with identical evidence, Sanders voted against both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, and correctly predicted the turmoil and instability it would cause. Sanders often gets critiqued for having little foreign policy experience (as did Obama), but what this indicates to me is someone who possesses sound judgment and foresight to move this country in the right direction.
It is also worth mentioning that Sanders has received recent criticisms for his foreign positions. The Intercept has also drawn the connection of half of these experts to military contractors. On the other hand, journalists without ties to the military-industrial complex have called Sanders' policy "refreshingly sane".
6) The DNC has stacked the odds in Clinton's favor.
This year's DNC debate schedule brought fewer party debates than in 2007. Compare the DNC's 6 to the RNC's 12. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC, has been called out by many for stacking the odds in Clinton's favor and trying to protect the inevitable candidate. And though Wasserman-Schultz claims the schedule maximized "opportunity for voters to see our candidates," the last four have suspiciously been on weekends, including the Saturday before Christmas, the Saturday night of a New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys NFL game, and the Sunday night of Martin Luther King Jr. weekend. Very early on, Martin O'Malley, Sanders, citizens, as well as many within the Democratic party called for more debates but were met with a stiff arm from Wasserman-Schultz. Yet, when polls cite Sanders gaining momentum in the days leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, a new CNN town hall date suddenly appears. There's now a push to add another MSNBC debate on February 4th. Sanders is proposing three more.
The American public does not appreciate having our "choice" made for us. If you want to make a case for your party, you allow your candidates to present their ideas before the public, not hidden on weekends when no one will be watching. This is the establishment politics that many Americans are tired of.
7) The email delay.
I've avoided reading into Clinton's email server debacle, giving her the benefit of the doubt that this is another takedown from the right. But on the Friday before the Jonas Blizzard, the State Department sought to delay the release of the final batch by a month citing "overlooked" emails as well as heavy snow. Lawyers for Vice News journalist Jason Leopold have since filed a motion to stop the department from granting the extension citing "irrevocable harm" for voters who must decide on a candidate in the four early primary states before the release. If there's nothing in them, release them and be done.
8) Polls show Sanders outperforms Clinton against the GOP in the general election.
To beat the Republicans, we must put forth the candidate we believe will have the best chances to do so. Recent polls have shown that Sanders beats his Republican opponents with greater margins than Clinton, including Trump. Polls also reveal that 61% of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. Yet we're supposed to believe the narrative that she is somehow more electable than the Socialist Jew. It's also worth mentioning that if there's one thing Republicans can unite behind, it's their disdain for Clinton.
What the mainstream media has been mum on is the thousands of supporters Sanders has had at his rallies, numbers that by far exceed Trump's: 20,000 in Minneapolis, a record breaking 20,000 in Boston, the Marches for Bernie across the country. Additionally, Millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders. As the largest demographic, who have now surpassed Baby Boomers in size, if half of them showed up to the polls and voted for Sanders he would win. Social media has altered the political landscape: more people are better informed as politicians can no longer count on the mass media to spread misinformation. Why? Because there's a wealth of online documentation to point out otherwise. Millennials are no longer consuming traditional media. Sanders is winning the Internet and is mobilizing an incredible grassroots movement.
9) The dynasty and money ties must end.
This primary election is more than just Sanders vs Clinton, idealism vs. pragmatism. This election is about tackling an unjust system that favors corporate interest over the people's. It's about reclaiming our democracy. So while organizations and corporate media propaganda have unleashed a fury of editorials and fear-mongering articles pushing the public toward Clinton, it's because Sanders has struck a chord; the establishment is afraid of a political revolution that will restore power to us. That is the battle we are fighting. And in true fashion, the revolution has not been televised.
Both factions of the Democrats, left and center, want progress. But why settle for watered down progress? We shouldn't. Why should we strive for a $12 minimum wage when we want $15? Why just change the classification of marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 when we want to end the federal prohibition and end the failing war on drugs, which has costed over trillions of dollars and ruined countless lives? In 2008 we were at a similar crossroads: the grandiose, idealistic vision for the future vs. the pragmatic know-how. Where we've arrived at this moment in time, despite a Republican-controlled Congress, is quite admirable: gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, withdrawing from Afghanistan. America is moving left. We have before us a leader who is inspiring a generation to take action, who is working to unite both sides of the political spectrum, and who has a record of doing so. Those who feel the Bern know what the traditional media has largely ignored: that he rallies people with a refreshing honesty, truth, and passion. Something we've been sorely missing from our public servants. As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show, "The problem isn't that Bernie Sanders is a crazy-pants cuckoo bird. It's that we've all become accustomed to stage-managed, focus-group-driven candidates that authenticity comes across as lunacy."
To the cynics who agree with Sanders' principles but say, "America could never vote for a Democratic Socialist," I'd invite you to focus that energy into action. Get involved. Sanders has spoken time after time that change will not come through him alone, but that change will come when millions of Americans stand together to say "Enough is enough." When your conviction leads you, solutions will always be found. 2016 will be the year to #FeeltheBern - and I invite everyone to join the movement. It's time to return the people's power. And the leader who will get us there is Senator Bernie Sanders.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
10) BONUS: Perceptions of pandering.
Submitted without comment, here are a few ways the Clinton campaign has chosen to connect with her base: My Abuela, a Kwanzaa logo change, celebrities, and May the Force Be With You.
It's taken me awhile to write this for a number of reasons. Don't bash Hillary, they say. You're only fueling the right. If Bernie wins, he'll need her supporters. She's the most qualified. Don't be such an idealist. But in all sincerity it's been a challenge for me to get behind Clinton, especially next to Bernie Sanders. I've listened. And I've tried. But do just a little bit of investigating beyond the hype, the headlines and the parroted soundbites, and there are many important contrasts that I believe are worthy of deep reflection.
Let me be clear: I will vote for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee. One can be both pro-Bernie and pro-Hillary. So why write this? For me, this is a selection of records that anyone following along can observe for themselves. And given the recent mudslinging at Sanders, spinning with Chelsey, and establishment backlash, we know that the race is heating up. Most importantly, I'm feeling the Bern. This primary race is pivotal and will determine the future of the Democratic party and our country. As voters hit the polls in just a few days, here are 9 matters that I believe should be considered when voting in the upcoming primaries:
1) Clinton's campaign is funded by corporate money: pharmaceuticals, Wall St., media conglomerates, corporations, and Super PACs. Sanders' is funded by everyday citizens.
Together, the Clinton's have created a massive $3 billion dollar fundraising network of donors to their political campaigns as well as The Clinton Foundation. A report from Princeton University has shown that we're currently living in an oligarchy, that power is concentrated in the hands of a few elites who exercise pay-to-play politics, and that our politicians no longer represent the average working, middle class American. To say that Clinton's interests are independent of these powerful donors is naive to the way the world works. When Clinton told Wall St. to "cut it out" did anything happen? The Boston Globe recently reported on her very hands-off approach. Our too-big-to-fail banks are now bigger than they were before the TARP bailout. And when Bernie Sanders questioned her ties to Wall St. in the second debate, how did Clinton respond? By playing the 9/11 card.
Clinton has played the political game and worked the mechanisms of our political system masterfully. She's brilliant and I respect her for her work. But, for once in a very long time, we have an Independent candidate with a spotless record, who reaches across the political spectrum to find common ground, and who is almost entirely funded by individual donations averaging $30. We have a candidate who has set a record for 2.5 million individual contributions entirely without any super PAC money, and who, for his entire Congressional career, has spoken out against Wall St.'s reckless practices. Corporate control of our politics is the very real battle we are fighting. When Bernie Sanders speaks of political revolution, he wants to bring back power to the people - and the outcome of this primary election can sever the ties that bind the billionaire class to Washington. Who is better suited to tackle campaign finance reform: the candidate who's benefitted from it or the outsider who's free from it?
2) Clinton once accepted money from the Private Prison Complex.
It is contradictory to claim one supports social justice and Black Lives Matter when receiving donations from for-profit prisons in an industry that disproportionately incarcerates minorities for low-level crimes up until October 2015. Clinton has since addressed this issue, refusing to continue accepting those donations. And while I understand that candidates can evolve--with Sanders, we have the opportunity to nominate a candidate who has stood up for civil and racial justice as early as the 1960s and who has consistently spoken up for underrepresented people. Clinton only took action to reverse and redistribute the donated money to charity after Sanders had released legislation to end the private prison complex.
3) Their responses to Rahm Emmanuel.
Pressure for Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to resign has continued to mount as allegations of his office failing to release footage of LaQuan McDonald's shooting amid a reelection year continue. A majority of Chicagoans believe he should resign.
Here is how Sanders and Clinton initially responded:
Sanders said that "any official who helped suppress the videotape of Laquan McDonald's murder should be held accountable."
When asked whether she still had confidence in Emmanuel, Clinton said: "I do. He loves Chicago and I'm confident that he's going to do everything he can to get to the bottom of these issues and take whatever measures are necessary to remedy them."
Clinton has since softened her support for Emmanuel. But their first responses are telling: does one stand up for what's right or who they know?
4) Clinton's evolution on Marriage Equality/LGBT Rights.
Gays seem to be singing "Yaaas, Hillary!", but prior to 2013 Clinton was like "No, kweens." That's not a direct quote. But she's on record as speaking out against gay marriage. This is another recent evolution. Clinton then tried to spin it and claim that it was in defense of a constitutional amendment, which didn't mesh well with other historical accounts. How an LGBT voter can support a candidate who flip flops on what I see as a human rights issue - among other questionable judgments - is beyond me. I can't. Clinton is now proposing a bill for LGBT rights, but when she says "As President, I will continue to fight so that LGBT Americans and families can live, work, and pray free of discrimination," I give the Sanders side eye. Many others were forced to take a centrist position in the 2000s, including Obama. But we can also opt for the leader who has understood and fought for what's right even when it's been unpopular. We can opt for the trailblazer who backed the first Gay Pride Day in Burlington, VT in 1985, who publicly defended gays and voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA. No evolution necessary.
The Human Rights Campaign also recently endorsed Clinton for president, which caught many by surprise. But looking at HRC's own questionable internal reputation as a non-inclusive space, I would take this with a grain of salt. As many have observed, endorsements that are determined by its members rather than its leaders tend to back Sanders over Clinton.
5) Clinton voted for the Iraq War as well as the Patriot Act and its reauthorization in 2006.
Remember when we got into one of the largest quagmires of the 21st Century, Iraq? A devastating, costly war that was sold to us under false pretenses that largely led to the rise of ISIS? The number of human lives lost is staggering. The financial cost is in the trillions. Clinton voted for it then later admitted it was a mistake.
Clinton also voted in favor of The Patriot Act and its reauthorization in 2006, which was seen by many as a gross invasion of privacy on Americans. The FBI later admitted that it didn't really do all that much. And as Wikileaks and Edward Snowden showed us, the FBI has used that authority in unintended ways to track Americans illegally.
I can appreciate when someone admits a mistake. It demonstrates courage and humility. But when presented with identical evidence, Sanders voted against both the Patriot Act and the Iraq War, and correctly predicted the turmoil and instability it would cause. Sanders often gets critiqued for having little foreign policy experience (as did Obama), but what this indicates to me is someone who possesses sound judgment and foresight to move this country in the right direction.
It is also worth mentioning that Sanders has received recent criticisms for his foreign positions. The Intercept has also drawn the connection of half of these experts to military contractors. On the other hand, journalists without ties to the military-industrial complex have called Sanders' policy "refreshingly sane".
6) The DNC has stacked the odds in Clinton's favor.
This year's DNC debate schedule brought fewer party debates than in 2007. Compare the DNC's 6 to the RNC's 12. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, head of the DNC, has been called out by many for stacking the odds in Clinton's favor and trying to protect the inevitable candidate. And though Wasserman-Schultz claims the schedule maximized "opportunity for voters to see our candidates," the last four have suspiciously been on weekends, including the Saturday before Christmas, the Saturday night of a New York Giants vs. Dallas Cowboys NFL game, and the Sunday night of Martin Luther King Jr. weekend. Very early on, Martin O'Malley, Sanders, citizens, as well as many within the Democratic party called for more debates but were met with a stiff arm from Wasserman-Schultz. Yet, when polls cite Sanders gaining momentum in the days leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire, a new CNN town hall date suddenly appears. There's now a push to add another MSNBC debate on February 4th. Sanders is proposing three more.
The American public does not appreciate having our "choice" made for us. If you want to make a case for your party, you allow your candidates to present their ideas before the public, not hidden on weekends when no one will be watching. This is the establishment politics that many Americans are tired of.
7) The email delay.
I've avoided reading into Clinton's email server debacle, giving her the benefit of the doubt that this is another takedown from the right. But on the Friday before the Jonas Blizzard, the State Department sought to delay the release of the final batch by a month citing "overlooked" emails as well as heavy snow. Lawyers for Vice News journalist Jason Leopold have since filed a motion to stop the department from granting the extension citing "irrevocable harm" for voters who must decide on a candidate in the four early primary states before the release. If there's nothing in them, release them and be done.
8) Polls show Sanders outperforms Clinton against the GOP in the general election.
To beat the Republicans, we must put forth the candidate we believe will have the best chances to do so. Recent polls have shown that Sanders beats his Republican opponents with greater margins than Clinton, including Trump. Polls also reveal that 61% of voters believe Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. Yet we're supposed to believe the narrative that she is somehow more electable than the Socialist Jew. It's also worth mentioning that if there's one thing Republicans can unite behind, it's their disdain for Clinton.
What the mainstream media has been mum on is the thousands of supporters Sanders has had at his rallies, numbers that by far exceed Trump's: 20,000 in Minneapolis, a record breaking 20,000 in Boston, the Marches for Bernie across the country. Additionally, Millennials overwhelmingly support Sanders. As the largest demographic, who have now surpassed Baby Boomers in size, if half of them showed up to the polls and voted for Sanders he would win. Social media has altered the political landscape: more people are better informed as politicians can no longer count on the mass media to spread misinformation. Why? Because there's a wealth of online documentation to point out otherwise. Millennials are no longer consuming traditional media. Sanders is winning the Internet and is mobilizing an incredible grassroots movement.
9) The dynasty and money ties must end.
This primary election is more than just Sanders vs Clinton, idealism vs. pragmatism. This election is about tackling an unjust system that favors corporate interest over the people's. It's about reclaiming our democracy. So while organizations and corporate media propaganda have unleashed a fury of editorials and fear-mongering articles pushing the public toward Clinton, it's because Sanders has struck a chord; the establishment is afraid of a political revolution that will restore power to us. That is the battle we are fighting. And in true fashion, the revolution has not been televised.
Both factions of the Democrats, left and center, want progress. But why settle for watered down progress? We shouldn't. Why should we strive for a $12 minimum wage when we want $15? Why just change the classification of marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 when we want to end the federal prohibition and end the failing war on drugs, which has costed over trillions of dollars and ruined countless lives? In 2008 we were at a similar crossroads: the grandiose, idealistic vision for the future vs. the pragmatic know-how. Where we've arrived at this moment in time, despite a Republican-controlled Congress, is quite admirable: gay marriage, the Affordable Care Act, withdrawing from Afghanistan. America is moving left. We have before us a leader who is inspiring a generation to take action, who is working to unite both sides of the political spectrum, and who has a record of doing so. Those who feel the Bern know what the traditional media has largely ignored: that he rallies people with a refreshing honesty, truth, and passion. Something we've been sorely missing from our public servants. As Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show, "The problem isn't that Bernie Sanders is a crazy-pants cuckoo bird. It's that we've all become accustomed to stage-managed, focus-group-driven candidates that authenticity comes across as lunacy."
To the cynics who agree with Sanders' principles but say, "America could never vote for a Democratic Socialist," I'd invite you to focus that energy into action. Get involved. Sanders has spoken time after time that change will not come through him alone, but that change will come when millions of Americans stand together to say "Enough is enough." When your conviction leads you, solutions will always be found. 2016 will be the year to #FeeltheBern - and I invite everyone to join the movement. It's time to return the people's power. And the leader who will get us there is Senator Bernie Sanders.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
10) BONUS: Perceptions of pandering.
Submitted without comment, here are a few ways the Clinton campaign has chosen to connect with her base: My Abuela, a Kwanzaa logo change, celebrities, and May the Force Be With You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)