If you are one of the 1%, love the idea of waging war on other countries, and robbing the people of this country blind literally, morally and humanitarily through the use of big banks, Citizens United, and rigged elections. She's your woman!
Not to be too contrary, but I can't imagine anyone other than Hillary Clinton who'd like to get rid of Citizen's United, since the whole reason it exists is anti-Hillary ads.
I haven't seen any credible evidence of "rigged elections" benefitting her or even Democrats, the only glaring example would be Al Gore winning the 2000 election and George W Bush being made president anyway. (which, thanks to Republican Supreme Court Justices, we'll get again if we don't vote in a Democrat and get the Court to be more liberal)/
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Hypocrisy: 1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination 2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month 3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.
See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.
Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.
Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.
Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.
Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.
Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.
Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.
Again, you prove my point. One-sidedness cannot debate. And "thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds? This, from the person who believes in "liberal media". Uh ok
See Russell, this is your problem and why I won't or rather can't debate you. Because you are always on the attack. You refuse to acknowledge Hillary's weaknesses. Instead you just go for attacking the other person. Read those articles. public integrity. Learn something. My comment was not directed to you but to Price of Dorkness.
Really? I'm on the attack? I don't say a word until you start quoting thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds. And then I either refute it or counter it with the same arguments against Bernie. Plus, you quote an opinion piece from teh National Review. Do you know anything about them? There is so much irony with you referencing the biggest neo-con publication out there when you rail against Hillary the War-monger.
Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.
Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.
Again, you prove my point. One-sidedness cannot debate. And "thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds? This, from the person who believes in "liberal media". Uh ok
Have a nice weekend.
I don't even know what in the world you are talking about. But go ahead, take your ball and go home rather than engaging in a debate.
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Hypocrisy: 1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination 2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month 3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
He has criticized the system of superdelegates, yes, but what's wrong with that? Had he said he didn't need them one day and then count on them the next, that would be hypocrisy.
Tad Devine's salary is not 800k/month. The firm Devine works for was paid $438,000 by the Sanders campaign in February and $800,000 again in March. It is misleading to say that is Devine's monthly salary.
A quite thorough video on Hillary, including that she was a young republican. For all to see, it includes factual info on her donors and her history. KNOW who you support, do not vote blindly!
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Hypocrisy: 1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination 2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month 3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
He has criticized the system of superdelegates, yes, but what's wrong with that? Had he said he didn't need them one day and then count on them the next, that would be hypocrisy.
Tad Devine's salary is not 800k/month. The firm Devine works for was paid $438,000 by the Sanders campaign in February and $800,000 again in March. It is misleading to say that is Devine's monthly salary.
Okay, so he criticized them and thinks the super delegates should be reformed, but he realizes that is necessary for him to win and advance his agenda. Okay, I got that. So now let's apply the same logic to super pacs and HRC... She voted for McCain-Feingold, was the target of the attack ad that created CU, and has consistently said she wants it overturned. But recognizes it's necessary to win a general today for the top of the ticket and down ballot.
Basically we substitute the word 'pac' for 'delegate' and voila, Bernie is playing the same game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Now let's talk about old Tad. Okay, he went to his LLC or LLP or whatever 'dark money' hole that he set up. Right? Consultant, strategist, media extraordinaire. How much does that go to employees of his firm vs. him? We don't know, do we. Never will because that doesn't have to be declared. Doesn't seem very transparent. But I guess we can trust Tad. I mean he worked on Yanukovych's campaign. How'd that turn out? What about Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada? Monsanto? Phillip Morris? Jon Corzine?
Okay, so he criticized them and thinks the super delegates should be reformed, but he realizes that is necessary for him to win and advance his agenda. Okay, I got that. So now let's apply the same logic to super pacs and HRC... She voted for McCain-Feingold, was the target of the attack ad that created CU, and has consistently said she wants it overturned. But recognizes it's necessary to win a general today for the top of the ticket and down ballot.
Basically we substitute the word 'pac' for 'delegate' and voila, Bernie is playing the same game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Now let's talk about old Tad. Okay, he went to his LLC or LLP or whatever 'dark money' hole that he set up. Right? Consultant, strategist, media extraordinaire. How much does that go to employees of his firm vs. him? We don't know, do we. Never will because that doesn't have to be declared. Doesn't seem very transparent. But I guess we can trust Tad. I mean he worked on Yanukovych's campaign. How'd that turn out? What about Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada? Monsanto? Phillip Morris? Jon Corzine?
Wait Russ, that's not a fare comparison. The DNC and Hillary overturned Obama's changes on Super PAC within the party. I think you're missing the point here- Hillary has a proven record of pandering and changing positions to suit her. She could have taken the higher road and turn her back to Super PAC's, but she didn't, had she she would have been more respected by more progressives. If you compare the two candidates on paper, and you vote/support based on your liberal/progressive principles I think you would find that the true progressive here is in fact Sanders.
He has these big bold ideas that aren't going to get passed in his first term, but what he will do is expose the shit out of politicians who are corrupt and who aren't doing their elected job. I think he is the perfect candidate for that. Ultimately this will leave our children a better place to live in.
He has been right on the wars, on trade, on social issues, on surveillance, climate, veterans affairs, etc..etc.. Assuming you're a progressive
Hillary has changed positions so many times, and it's difficult to trust someone like that- For example Is she going to support fracking one day and give in to corporate money? Or she going to truly protect the environment without any loopholes? It's hard to say when you don't know what those transcripts say and you're basing things off of her general record.
Sanders is the outsider here- he is the candidate who was suppose to fail. No Super Pacs, that's a guarantee to fail, right? That's why Hillary chose the BIG MONEY, right? Because you're guaranteed to fail. If you look at the big picture of things- Sanders has always appeared to be WAAAAAY Behind on the delegates because of the Super D numbers - The media has made it seem as if he was toast since day one. That whole perception is a tactic that affects general voters- NOt everyone is as interested in politics or are they aware of all the corruption that exist within their country- They get behind people who share similar values and trust that they will do what's right. Kind of blindly.
Now in regards to the down ballots, I certainly don't want the current DNC choosing my candidates anymore. If that's going to be the case, then I want a real leader like Sanders who will challenge the DNC.
What I don't understand is why, as progressives/liberals, we aren't supporting the candidate who shares those same values and has actually been fighting for the values his entire life, with no flip flops or traces of corruption. I want my children to inherit a better country then the one I was born into. We need someone who we can truly trust, who will do the right thing when the cameras aren't around, and I firmly believe that candidate is Sanders.
What I don't understand is why, as progressives/liberals, we aren't supporting the candidate who shares those same values and has actually been fighting for the values his entire life, with no flip flops or traces of corruption.
^^Because the progressive/liberal movement is a big movement with lots of different people. I don't vote for the most liberal candidate nor do I have a litmus or purity test. I don't like lots of Bernie's ideas. They go too far. The problem with both far left and far right people is they mistakenly believe they speak for the majority of people in their party and the country. The electorate has shown time and again that it's fairly moderate. Sometimes it's center left, sometimes it's center right. When a party veers to far to the extreme, the electorate has smacked it down in the general.
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Hypocrisy: 1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination 2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month 3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
He has criticized the system of superdelegates, yes, but what's wrong with that? Had he said he didn't need them one day and then count on them the next, that would be hypocrisy.
Tad Devine's salary is not 800k/month. The firm Devine works for was paid $438,000 by the Sanders campaign in February and $800,000 again in March. It is misleading to say that is Devine's monthly salary.
Okay, so he criticized them and thinks the super delegates should be reformed, but he realizes that is necessary for him to win and advance his agenda. Okay, I got that. So now let's apply the same logic to super pacs and HRC... She voted for McCain-Feingold, was the target of the attack ad that created CU, and has consistently said she wants it overturned. But recognizes it's necessary to win a general today for the top of the ticket and down ballot.
Basically we substitute the word 'pac' for 'delegate' and voila, Bernie is playing the same game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Now let's talk about old Tad. Okay, he went to his LLC or LLP or whatever 'dark money' hole that he set up. Right? Consultant, strategist, media extraordinaire. How much does that go to employees of his firm vs. him? We don't know, do we. Never will because that doesn't have to be declared. Doesn't seem very transparent. But I guess we can trust Tad. I mean he worked on Yanukovych's campaign. How'd that turn out? What about Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada? Monsanto? Phillip Morris? Jon Corzine?
My point about Tad is that we don't know that he's making that much per month off of bernie's campaign fund (unless you've seen that somewhere?). We know what his firm, or him...whatever, made during two months. Do you have proof that he is being paid that every month?
Oh, and regarding the superdelegates, tonifig8 said it. You can't compare the support of superdelegates (obviously needed in this current system) to super PACs (not needed, as Sanders' campaign has proven).
What I don't understand is why, as progressives/liberals, we aren't supporting the candidate who shares those same values and has actually been fighting for the values his entire life, with no flip flops or traces of corruption.
^^Because the progressive/liberal movement is a big movement with lots of different people. I don't vote for the most liberal candidate nor do I have a litmus or purity test. I don't like lots of Bernie's ideas. They go too far. The problem with both far left and far right people is they mistakenly believe they speak for the majority of people in their party and the country. The electorate has shown time and again that it's fairly moderate. Sometimes it's center left, sometimes it's center right. When a party veers to far to the extreme, the electorate has smacked it down in the general.
I agree, but what is to far left in regards to Sanders? The education part? The heath care portion? Those are his values, yes, but the main focal point here is the revolution against the corruption. What is there to argue or debate there? You're essentially accepting it and allowing it to continue, so long as it doesn't affect your daily life. At least that's how I'm taking your point. At some point things will tip, and this status quo will continue to chip away at your liberties until one day we wake up and it to late. Look at all the surveillance programs, look at how much of our liberties are slowly being intruded on. Yet most of us aren't even aware of it, why? because things seem to be ok.
This is more then just BIG IDEAS on healthcare/education.
What I don't understand is why, as progressives/liberals, we aren't supporting the candidate who shares those same values and has actually been fighting for the values his entire life, with no flip flops or traces of corruption.
^^Because the progressive/liberal movement is a big movement with lots of different people. I don't vote for the most liberal candidate nor do I have a litmus or purity test. I don't like lots of Bernie's ideas. They go too far. The problem with both far left and far right people is they mistakenly believe they speak for the majority of people in their party and the country. The electorate has shown time and again that it's fairly moderate. Sometimes it's center left, sometimes it's center right. When a party veers to far to the extreme, the electorate has smacked it down in the general.
I agree, but what is to far left in regards to Sanders? The education part? The heath care portion? Those are his values, yes, but the main focal point here is the revolution against the corruption. What is there to argue or debate there? You're essentially accepting it and allowing it to continue, so long as it doesn't affect your daily life. At least that's how I'm taking your point. At some point things will tip, and this status quo will continue to chip away at your liberties until one day we wake up and it to late. Look at all the surveillance programs, look at how much of our liberties are slowly being intruded on. Yet most of us aren't even aware of it, why? because things seem to be ok.
This is more then just BIG IDEAS on healthcare/education.
Bernie nor the congress can just overturn CU. It's been ruled that corps are people and they cannot have their speech limited. And money was defined as speech. So it doesn't matter how much Bernie rails against it, or the DNC or Hillary. He can NOTHING about it until there is another case, different than CU on the merits, that gets litigated up to the SCOTUS. At that point, we better be damn sure we have the numbers on the bench. But there isn't even a case today making its way through the system that has a chance to be heard. If there is, I'd love to know about it.
So it's irrelevant what any of us think of CU right now. And you can't go into the general and cede that territory. It's impractical and could cost us the election.
Sounds like you new to do some of your own homework. Because Hillery is saying one thing and doing another - it's called watchdog journalism. If Clinton uses Super PACs and accepts dark money, that, frankly, makes her no different from most other politicians. But she loudly condemns the practice in others while doing the same. This is known as hypocrisy and casts legitimate doubt on her claims that she will reform the system she herself is using to win the White House.
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
Hypocrisy: 1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination 2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month 3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
He has criticized the system of superdelegates, yes, but what's wrong with that? Had he said he didn't need them one day and then count on them the next, that would be hypocrisy.
Tad Devine's salary is not 800k/month. The firm Devine works for was paid $438,000 by the Sanders campaign in February and $800,000 again in March. It is misleading to say that is Devine's monthly salary.
Okay, so he criticized them and thinks the super delegates should be reformed, but he realizes that is necessary for him to win and advance his agenda. Okay, I got that. So now let's apply the same logic to super pacs and HRC... She voted for McCain-Feingold, was the target of the attack ad that created CU, and has consistently said she wants it overturned. But recognizes it's necessary to win a general today for the top of the ticket and down ballot.
Basically we substitute the word 'pac' for 'delegate' and voila, Bernie is playing the same game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Now let's talk about old Tad. Okay, he went to his LLC or LLP or whatever 'dark money' hole that he set up. Right? Consultant, strategist, media extraordinaire. How much does that go to employees of his firm vs. him? We don't know, do we. Never will because that doesn't have to be declared. Doesn't seem very transparent. But I guess we can trust Tad. I mean he worked on Yanukovych's campaign. How'd that turn out? What about Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada? Monsanto? Phillip Morris? Jon Corzine?
My point about Tad is that we don't know that he's making that much per month off of bernie's campaign fund (unless you've seen that somewhere?). We know what his firm, or him...whatever, made during two months. Do you have proof that he is being paid that every month?
Oh, and regarding the superdelegates, tonifig8 said it. You can't compare the support of superdelegates (obviously needed in this current system) to super PACs (not needed, as Sanders' campaign has proven).
You're right, we don't know. And I made that point too. We don't know because he hasn't disclosed it. And he isn't required to disclose it. I'm surprised you think that's okay.
You can compare the two. You are drawing a distinction based on what Bernie needs or doesn't need, not the principle of it. That seems like an odd argument. Second, you don't know what he would need in the general. And if he used it in the general, what would you say then? Well he needs it. We can't have Trump!!
Well, it's not just what Bernie needs or doesn't need. Super PACs are NOT a necessity to run for president or to win the presidency, they've simply become the norm for campaigns. The support of superdelegates is needed to gain the nomination. So it's not such an odd argument.
But okay, then let's draw a distinction based on the principle of it. Super PACs making donations to presidential candidates could result in said candidate being influenced by any special interests those Super PACs may have. This is a given, right? The result could often be immoral.
Where the superdelegate system goes wrong is when they promise their support to a candidate before the race begins or in direct opposition to the overwhelming vote of their constituents.
I don't think Sanders would need PAC money to successfully run against Trump. If he did accept that money, then to me he would be a hypocrite and would lose my support. The way I see it, he is not one for any reason you have given.
Well, it's not just what Bernie needs or doesn't need. Super PACs are NOT a necessity to run for president or to win the presidency, they've simply become the norm for campaigns. The support of superdelegates is needed to gain the nomination. So it's not such an odd argument.
But okay, then let's draw a distinction based on the principle of it. Super PACs making donations to presidential candidates could result in said candidate being influenced by any special interests those Super PACs may have. This is a given, right? The result could often be immoral.
Where the superdelegate system goes wrong is when they promise their support to a candidate before the race begins or in direct opposition to the overwhelming vote of their constituents.
I don't think Sanders would need PAC money to successfully run against Trump. If he did accept that money, then to me he would be a hypocrite and would lose my support. The way I see it, he is not one for any reason you have given.
To me this is distinction without a difference. Could super pacs unduly influence HRC? Sure, even if there is no evidence that has happened. But it could happen of course. Could Bernie unduly influence super delegates with promises of extra campaign money, audience at the WH, or other corrupt bargains? Of course.
I'm sure you understand that the superdelegate system was created to expressly protect AGAINST the voters in the primaries. They aren't there to reinforce the voters. Fortunately in this case, Hillary is clobbering Bernie in pledged, total votes and super delegates so the supers look like they won't make a difference. The Dems just wish they had them in 1972 and the GOP wishes they had them today.
And it really doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. You are in NY, I'm in VA. We voted already and the voters made their choice absolutely crystal clear in both states.
I quickly caught a broadcast of a Hillary Clinton speaking at some sort of town hall event. She was speaking against CEO's and Trade....As she was talking all I could think was, how can this lady take 250k for speeches, take massive amounts of donations, support trade, oh wait she's against trade now, from these people that she's speaking out against... She must think the American people are idiots and aren't aware of her history. I guess it's just me, but how the hell can people on the left support this kind of shit.
Yawn.. for the 1% of the general population who gives a shit... I'm sure this is why Bernie lost NY by 18 points..
Lots more than one percent care. Read the news! No more Casey of Champagne for you, Russel. Wake up and smell the coffee!
99% of the population has better things to do than worry that some hack that supports HRC has the marginal skills necessary to take down a social media website for a few hours. In the grand scheme of things, it means less than zero. What's the net effect? A bunch of users for either camp don't get to preach to the choir for a few hours?
Yawn.. for the 1% of the general population who gives a shit... I'm sure this is why Bernie lost NY by 18 points..
Lots more than one percent care. Read the news! No more Casey of Champagne for you, Russel. Wake up and smell the coffee!
99% of the population has better things to do than worry that some hack that supports HRC has the marginal skills necessary to take down a social media website for a few hours. In the grand scheme of things, it means less than zero. What's the net effect? A bunch of users for either camp don't get to preach to the choir for a few hours?
I certainly hope more than 1% care that Bernie Sanders is under attack on FB and by the media but you're probably absolutely right that 99% don't give a damn. It says a lot about us, doesn't it?
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yawn.. for the 1% of the general population who gives a shit... I'm sure this is why Bernie lost NY by 18 points..
Lots more than one percent care. Read the news! No more Casey of Champagne for you, Russel. Wake up and smell the coffee!
99% of the population has better things to do than worry that some hack that supports HRC has the marginal skills necessary to take down a social media website for a few hours. In the grand scheme of things, it means less than zero. What's the net effect? A bunch of users for either camp don't get to preach to the choir for a few hours?
I certainly hope more than 1% care that Bernie Sanders is under attack on FB and by the media but you're probably absolutely right that 99% don't give a damn. It says a lot about us, doesn't it?
It's not his website that was under attack, nor was it attacked by the Clinton campaign. So no, it doesn't say much about us other than we (the royal we) have other things to do than monitor reddit sites and such. And btw, this thread doesn't say much for us since we are both monitoring it.
In other words Brian Russell doesn't care what the facts are.
- The Fact that Hillary's super PACs paid $1 million for social media trolls. - The Fact that they gathered names of those who are guilty of pulling down social media. - The Fact that they pulled these groups down because they posted pornographic pedophilia and then reported it.
Comments
I haven't seen any credible evidence of "rigged elections" benefitting her or even Democrats, the only glaring example would be Al Gore winning the 2000 election and George W Bush being made president anyway. (which, thanks to Republican Supreme Court Justices, we'll get again if we don't vote in a Democrat and get the Court to be more liberal)/
Don't just listen to her and actually research and see what's really going on, the facts.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431009/hillary-clintons-citizens-united-opposition-hypocrisy-illogic
1. lambasting super delegates for months, now counting on them to win the nomination
2. Paying your senior advisor 800k per month
3. Voting against the Cheeseburger bill (immunity for obesity against fast food restaurants) and then voting for immunity for gun manufacturers the very next day
Don't just listen to Bernie...research and see how he is in the same game as everyone else.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/01/21/14140/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-candidate
Second, you are unbelievably naive if you think that Bernie could win a general election based on small donor donations. He will get pummeled on TV and would not have nearly enough cash on hand to compete for the advertising space. And if he did somehow raise enough (which he would not), it would leave ZERO available for the down ballot candidates who desperately need 'top of the ticket' cash.
Until CU is eventually overturned, if it ever is (remember, you need justices AND a case with standing that is materially different than CU), it's the field you must play on to win a general.
Go McCready!
Go Bernie!
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
One-sidedness cannot debate.
And "thinly sourced anti-Hillary screeds? This, from the person who believes in "liberal media". Uh ok
Have a nice weekend.
Tad Devine's salary is not 800k/month. The firm Devine works for was paid $438,000 by the Sanders campaign in February and $800,000 again in March. It is misleading to say that is Devine's monthly salary.
http://theantimedia.org/video-could-bring-down-hillary-campaign/
Basically we substitute the word 'pac' for 'delegate' and voila, Bernie is playing the same game. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Now let's talk about old Tad. Okay, he went to his LLC or LLP or whatever 'dark money' hole that he set up. Right? Consultant, strategist, media extraordinaire. How much does that go to employees of his firm vs. him? We don't know, do we. Never will because that doesn't have to be declared. Doesn't seem very transparent. But I guess we can trust Tad. I mean he worked on Yanukovych's campaign. How'd that turn out? What about Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada? Monsanto? Phillip Morris? Jon Corzine?
He has these big bold ideas that aren't going to get passed in his first term, but what he will do is expose the shit out of politicians who are corrupt and who aren't doing their elected job. I think he is the perfect candidate for that. Ultimately this will leave our children a better place to live in.
He has been right on the wars, on trade, on social issues, on surveillance, climate, veterans affairs, etc..etc.. Assuming you're a progressive
Hillary has changed positions so many times, and it's difficult to trust someone like that- For example Is she going to support fracking one day and give in to corporate money? Or she going to truly protect the environment without any loopholes? It's hard to say when you don't know what those transcripts say and you're basing things off of her general record.
Sanders is the outsider here- he is the candidate who was suppose to fail. No Super Pacs, that's a guarantee to fail, right? That's why Hillary chose the BIG MONEY, right? Because you're guaranteed to fail. If you look at the big picture of things- Sanders has always appeared to be WAAAAAY Behind on the delegates because of the Super D numbers - The media has made it seem as if he was toast since day one. That whole perception is a tactic that affects general voters- NOt everyone is as interested in politics or are they aware of all the corruption that exist within their country- They get behind people who share similar values and trust that they will do what's right. Kind of blindly.
Now in regards to the down ballots, I certainly don't want the current DNC choosing my candidates anymore. If that's going to be the case, then I want a real leader like Sanders who will challenge the DNC.
What I don't understand is why, as progressives/liberals, we aren't supporting the candidate who shares those same values and has actually been fighting for the values his entire life, with no flip flops or traces of corruption. I want my children to inherit a better country then the one I was born into. We need someone who we can truly trust, who will do the right thing when the cameras aren't around, and I firmly believe that candidate is Sanders.
^^Because the progressive/liberal movement is a big movement with lots of different people. I don't vote for the most liberal candidate nor do I have a litmus or purity test. I don't like lots of Bernie's ideas. They go too far. The problem with both far left and far right people is they mistakenly believe they speak for the majority of people in their party and the country. The electorate has shown time and again that it's fairly moderate. Sometimes it's center left, sometimes it's center right. When a party veers to far to the extreme, the electorate has smacked it down in the general.
Oh, and regarding the superdelegates, tonifig8 said it. You can't compare the support of superdelegates (obviously needed in this current system) to super PACs (not needed, as Sanders' campaign has proven).
This is more then just BIG IDEAS on healthcare/education.
So it's irrelevant what any of us think of CU right now. And you can't go into the general and cede that territory. It's impractical and could cost us the election.
You can compare the two. You are drawing a distinction based on what Bernie needs or doesn't need, not the principle of it. That seems like an odd argument. Second, you don't know what he would need in the general. And if he used it in the general, what would you say then? Well he needs it. We can't have Trump!!
But okay, then let's draw a distinction based on the principle of it. Super PACs making donations to presidential candidates could result in said candidate being influenced by any special interests those Super PACs may have. This is a given, right? The result could often be immoral.
Where the superdelegate system goes wrong is when they promise their support to a candidate before the race begins or in direct opposition to the overwhelming vote of their constituents.
I don't think Sanders would need PAC money to successfully run against Trump. If he did accept that money, then to me he would be a hypocrite and would lose my support. The way I see it, he is not one for any reason you have given.
I'm sure you understand that the superdelegate system was created to expressly protect AGAINST the voters in the primaries. They aren't there to reinforce the voters. Fortunately in this case, Hillary is clobbering Bernie in pledged, total votes and super delegates so the supers look like they won't make a difference. The Dems just wish they had them in 1972 and the GOP wishes they had them today.
And it really doesn't matter if you agree with me or not. You are in NY, I'm in VA. We voted already and the voters made their choice absolutely crystal clear in both states.
http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-facebook-groups-trolled/
- The Fact that Hillary's super PACs paid $1 million for social media trolls.
- The Fact that they gathered names of those who are guilty of pulling down social media.
- The Fact that they pulled these groups down because they posted pornographic pedophilia and then reported it.
I wonder what tomorrow will bring.