Samantha Bee Irks Bernie 'Bros' With Sanders/Obama Comparison — Watch

Samantha Bee could have easily dismissed Bernie Sanders fans as “naive kids who believe in wizards and unicorns.”Instead, the Full Frontal host sat down with a diverse group of “Bernie Bros” on Monday to discuss why they support the self-proclaimed democratic socialist.

Despite her best efforts, Bee couldn’t quite curb the enthusiasm of Sanders supporters. She specifically struck a nerve with the group when she compared the current optimism fueling Sanders’ run to that of the optimism that drove Barack Obama’s hope-and-change campaign in 2008.

Watch the discussion above, then sound off below.

Comments are monitored, so don’t go off topic, don’t frakkin’ curse and don’t bore us with how much your coworker’s sister-in-law makes per hour. Talk smart about TV!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

29 Comments
  1. Preacher Book says:

    Bernie’s Bros just didn’t rise to the bait.

  2. Phoenix5634 says:

    My biggest issue with the bias opinion of people thinking Bernie doesn’t have what it takes to break up the banks, is those people don’t think he can do it because he hasn’t laid out a very specific plan to accomplish it. But that could actually be a good thing, he’s flexible and knows that it’s going to be challenge, but he is solid on his opinion of getting done what is right for the people, the common people. If you asked a General of the army his battle plan, he wouldn’t have an exact answer, becuz he knows nothing ever goes as planned in war. And that’s basically what this is, a war on wealth, and power, within our own economy, the common person vs the 0.1 of the 1% of the wealthy. It’s not going to be easy, and he knows he’s going to have to adapt, and counter whatever they do in response.

    • Joey says:

      He actually has laid out a plan on how he wants to go about breaking up the banks. If you’re thinking about the New York Daily News piece, the editorial board specifically phrased questions that weren’t about breaking up the banks as being about breaking them up, hence why he sounded confused, because it had nothing to do with his plan. Even several journalists for the publication have come out and said that it was unfair to Sanders.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        Thank you, yes, and not even to mention that interview was taken out of context to fool the viewers… They cut out the entire following paragraph he said after that happened, and many other pieces of that interview.

  3. Phoenix5634 says:

    This is the opinion I’ve collected from people about the candidates…( in brief as form a possible )
    – Trump or Hillary : we’re in some serious trouble, possibly major international trouble
    – Cruz : tough times, civil unrest
    – Kaisch : Bush 2.5, and R.I.P Republican Party
    – Bernie : last hope?

    • JScout says:

      Hillary – international trouble? Where in the world do you get that? She was Sec of State and knows everyone internationally, and is respected by them. I’ve heard several reports that both Hillary and John Kerry have received lots of calls from other countries about how worried and incredulous they are about Trump winning the Republicans, and that is understandable. But no one is worried about how Hillary will work with other countries.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        I don’t even believe you understand the current international issues, if your first and only point is that a few other countries leaders aren’t happy about Trump. Of course they’re not, a lot of our own people aren’t happy about it. But the more pressing issues are the Saudi coalition, North Koreas ambitious nuclear program and their arrogant insane leader, or Russia and their military growth and desire to be recognized through bold actions. Just to list a few of the main ones..

        • JScout says:

          And Hillary, if you have listened to her at all, knows these issues backwards and forwards. She can talk about them in great detail, unlike any other candidate either Democrat or Republican. She is extremely smart and well read. That is one of the things she is best know for.

          • Phoenix5634 says:

            Yeah she knows about them, she’s arguably in-part responsible for the bills that have caused these problems. And when she talks about them, she doesn’t go into detail, she just says she knows what she’s doing basically, and then takes a quote, or some numbers, out of context, to discredit the the other candidate, and distracts/fools like half of us watching… Smh. And she should be terrified of Trump, if he wins he’s going to expose her email scandal, and she’ll be lucky if she doesn’t end up in prison, let alone the next president of the United States. If you actually listen to her, and watch her, and know yours facts, pretty much everything she says is misleading truths. She uses truths, but takes them out of context to benefit herself, and she can do that cuz most of us havnt taken the time to research things to see the full picture.

          • David Welch says:

            When first appointed sec. of state, Clinton said she was going over to Georgia and straighten out Putin about the Supposed Problem with the break away region and the following Russia georgia war.. Anyone can identify a problem, It’s fixing the problem that is the problem.
            Clinton has never fixed a problem as sec. of state. Clinton is longed on rap, but short on act

  4. Phoenix5634 says:

    The super delegates are beyond being BS by the way. It’s like a legal way, to corrupt our system of “democracy”. They talk about political momentum all the time… Well how much momentum do you think it gave Hillary giving her like a 450 head start…Imagine this as an actual race, who are people initially going to bet on if one person has like almost a 20% head start? … And she is beyond arrogant thinking she should focus on the general election, when if Bernie won the NY primary majority today, he would nearly pass her in the general vote ( meaning with common people they would be nearly tied ) Bernie is closer to Clinton, than Cruz is to Trump, but yet it’s been said repeatedly in the media that Bernie should drop out, but at the same time promoting Cruz later on. I’d honestly love to see Clintons campaigns response if Bernie won NY today, and he nearly passed her in the general vote. Becuz then it would just be her super delegates putting her in the lead. And to quote a line she tried to use on Bernie, she be trying to “over turn the will of the voters” if she played the super delegate card to win at that point.

    • JScout says:

      You do not understand super delegates. They are in place to prevent a disaster like Trump winning the Republican nomination (absolutely disastrous for the Republican party). Clinton was winning the super delegates in 2008, too, but they switched to Obama when it became clear that he was winning the popular vote and the regular delegate count in 2008. The same would happen if Sanders overcame Clinton in the popular vote and regular delegate count. The super delegates would switch to Bernie. The super delegates are in place only avoid a disaster like Trump happening to the Democrats, and no one thinks Sanders would be a disaster. With Clinton’s big win yesterday in New York, this is probably not much of a question any more.

      The Republicans wish they had super delegates right about now.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        You’ve really drank the cool aid, haven’t you.

        • JScout says:

          Not really showing that you understand at all, Phoenix. A poor response.

          • Phoenix5634 says:

            I’m not sure you understand super delegates, and it’s hard to explain it to the people who refuse to even consider the corruption starring you straight in the face. I’m not sure why they can’t, either they can’t connect all the dots, cuz it is a pretty broad issue when you really get down to it, broad but precise, or they don’t know/ understand the math, or maybe they just really think these people would really never do anything wrong. You say super delegates are only in place to save the party from a disastrous candidate, yes that’s how they managed to legalize that process, but it can be easily corrupted. If it were really fair and only used for just that, they wouldn’t jump in until they recognized a disastrous candidate, but they use them to give their candidate a boost from the start basically, and giving the public the false impression that one candidate is doing significantly better than others. When in reality, in the popular vote, they are very close. Like if Bernie were to have won NY, he would have nearly passed Hillary, but all we’ve basically heard is that she thinks he should drop out cuz he’s losing so badly… But He’s not really… Without her super delegates you could apply a lot of the reasons she wants him to drop out, to her. And yes if Bernie passed her in the popular vote, she could lose some super delegates, but only if the public pressures them to change their minds, by voting. And to your comment above, how much do you know about what is going on internationally?

          • JScout says:

            You still have not addressed the history. The super delegates, without any pressure except for the voters, switched in 2008 from Clinton to Obama when it became clear he was winning the popular and delegate vote. Because they knew Obama was a good candidate. Democrats also know that Sanders is a good candidate. They’ve worked with him in the House and Senate for years, they like him. They just like Hillary better. But, Sanders lost big in New York, and it may too late for him to rally now. Though, if he does, I will not only vote for him, but I’ll volunteer, too. Just like I will for Clinton.

        • K says:

          According to Real Clear Politics, Clinton actually has a fairly sizable lead in the popular vote (somewhere north or 2.6 million), but I do not think Sanders should drop out. He should definitely continue to push his platform. It’s worth discussion. I do wish the rhetoric would tone down though. I also think all their surrogates should stop talking because it seems like they put their candidates in hot water with every soundbite.

  5. Phoenix5634 says:

    The funniest thing about Trumps campaign right now is that he has Fox News by the balls lol., let me explain… He has dirty secrets on a legal matter that involves the president of Fox, so he’s been taking advantage of that and using them to advertise himself with interviews lately. But then the moment he’s off air, it’s all or mostly Cruz stuff, or the other candidates/ Obama trashing Trump. Lol it’s kind of funny when you know the backstory.

  6. Jake says:

    To quote Seinfeld, Bernie Sanders is an angry old man trying to send back soup in a deli.

    • Phoenix5634 says:

      And Hillary is the type to piss on your face, and tell you it’s raining, with a smile, cuz that makes every alright…

    • Phoenix5634 says:

      Lets analyze Seinfields quote… So Bernie’s the angry man, America must be the deli in it, and the soup is democracy, the thing he expected to get. But instead of soup he got given a load of crap. Likely from Hillary standing behind the deli counter. I think he has a right to be angry…

  7. Phoenix5634 says:

    Just had a thought about global perception, how is the world, specifically our enemies, going to really think of Hillary. Most these countries Still actively suppress women in their societies… Like it wouldn’t be good for us if our enemies didn’t take our president seriously. And she really doesn’t speak about the international problems very much. She says she knows what she’s doing, but does she? She doesn’t elaborate on that subject. Or any subject really. And when she does, it’s misleading truths.

    • K says:

      Wait. Are you now not only saying Bernie is better because Bernie, but that Hillary is a terrible choice because woman? Really? So no one takes Angela Merkel seriously? No one took Indira Ghandi seriously?

      I will vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November because I cannot take a repeat of the 2000 election when there were (insane) people who thought eh, Bush/Gore, what the difference?

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        It’s just something think about. If you think the minority of America who are sexist is bad, just think about these cultures in countries who haven’t even started down the road to equality, and already don’t like us very much. Just becuz American is ready, doesn’t mean the world is, and now might not be the best time to test it. The thing I find sad is that people really think the worst thing that could happen here, is some tough times or some bs new taxes or laws, probably becuz basically the entire public has never seen for themselves what is happening in the world, and are oblivious to the seriousness of the problems.

      • JScout says:

        Yes, K, I agree with you completely. To me, Phoenix is sounding more and more misogynist with each post.

    • JScout says:

      Phoenix, you have completely lost me and many others with your suggestion that we shouldn’t elect a woman because others countries might not want to deal with it. You really have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to international relations – as your other comments have made clear. There are over 70 countries that have elected women as Prime Minister or President, including Muslim countries. We are far behind on this. And it’s not for other countries to like or dislike our choice – unless it’s someone completely insane like Donald Trump.

      The more you post on this subject, the more you reveal your lack of knowledge about politics and policy.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        Honestly responses like yours are what’s wrong with us now a days, like most of us are so obliviously arrogant, and more concerned over who right and politically proper, that we honestly deserve what’s coming, maybe it’ll open our eyes finally….Your doing basically what Hillary does, picking the few examples that work for you, and ignoring the other 90% lol smh. Your lack of facts and inability to challenge without bringing in your emotional opinion, which is the equalivant of sticking our thumbs up our arse and doing barely anything usually, is sickening. And it’s eventually going to be our downfall if we aren’t careful.

      • Phoenix5634 says:

        And I never specifically said we shouldn’t elect a woman based on that, I think that would be a great step forward, possibly even a motivation for the rest of the world, but it has to be the right woman, same on the flip side, it has to be the right man. But we should definitely be aware of global perception, if we do.