But they failed to understand the reason why Sanders got so much small donor cash. The reason is trust.
If Democrats want small donors to join up en masse (let alone vote or volunteer for campaigns), they must earn their trust. The Democratic leadership is among the all-time greatest political failures in American history, and the Democratic Party brand remains in the toilet. Recognizing that toxic association with the despised status quo, and giving American citizens the dignity of an honest argument about how they will fix it — instead of treating them like sheep to be sheared — is a good place to begin. http://theweek.com/articles/720424/democrats-unexpected-money-problem
What's the Republican party brand and isn't it in the toilet, too?
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Assumes? Fucking assumes? Like you I assume you were a regular connoisseur of Comet Pizza. Assumes, but I know the Bro feels the Bern.
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Assumes? Fucking assumes? Like you I assume you were a regular connoisseur of Comet Pizza. Assumes, but I know the Bro feels the Bern.
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Assumes? Fucking assumes? Like you I assume you were a regular connoisseur of Comet Pizza. Assumes, but I know the Bro feels the Bern.
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Thank you for quoting Captain Obvious. Does this make you Colonel Superfluous?
It was also kind of you to post the paragraph best fitting your agenda (which, best as I can understand, is simply one of setting such a high bar of acceptable political ethical behaviors as to be completely ungrounded in reality). Strangely absent was the actual reason for that article - that the class-action lawsuit claiming that the favoritism was unlawful, was dismissed as it is unprovable that the DNC's Charter is legally binding.
Finally, you mentioned Sanders' small donor cash, and trust being the fundamental factor. That's all well and good, if money raised had direct causality with electability. The fact that Trump won with just over 50% of Clinton's money raised disproves that notion. Once again - if the DNC were to look at what wins elections today, they would see that it's simpler to understand lies, akin to what the Republican Party delivers, rather than treating the issues seriously and a Party's base of supporters seriously, which would represent an untested direction likely to alienate a good subset of the DNC's supporters and politicians.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Thank you for quoting Captain Obvious. Does this make you Colonel Superfluous?
It was also kind of you to post the paragraph best fitting your agenda (which, best as I can understand, is simply one of setting such a high bar of acceptable political ethical behaviors as to be completely ungrounded in reality). Strangely absent was the actual reason for that article - that the class-action lawsuit claiming that the favoritism was unlawful, was dismissed as it is unprovable that the DNC's Charter is legally binding.
Finally, you mentioned Sanders' small donor cash, and trust being the fundamental factor. That's all well and good, if money raised had direct causality with electability. The fact that Trump won with just over 50% of Clinton's money raised disproves that notion. Once again - if the DNC were to look at what wins elections today, they would see that it's simpler to understand lies, akin to what the Republican Party delivers, rather than treating the issues seriously and a Party's base of supporters seriously, which would represent an untested direction likely to alienate a good subset of the DNC's supporters and politicians.
This case was brought to the courts (2 attorney Sanders supportors) to further expose the DNC as frauds, something everybody already knew last summer. Any suspicions were were put to rest by discovery and the responding motions.
Remember when Sanders supportors made claim after claim that the primary was rigged, only to be called a conspiracy theorist? They knew they were being cheated, I knew they were being cheated, and you knew they were cheated. DNC, DWS Hilliary and you apparently are okay with cheating, others, not so much. Talk about alienating supportors, cheat them and paint them conspiracy theorists!
Anyway, I think your looking too deeply into things, it's much simpler. A judge can make whatever ruling he or she wishes in interpreting the expressed or implied warranties in the DNC charter. You're correct the case was about donations to the DNC by Sanders supportors and whether or not a contract was entered into, was legally binding, whether the DNC acted fair and impartial, who suffered and damages etc etc. Unfortunately the essence of the case (did the DNC cheat the voters in the primary) was on trial on election day, the court of public opinion rendered their verdict. At some point democrats and their supportors need to accept the results of that election/verdict and be accountable for "what really happened". "you cheated, were caught, you lost...hahaha hahaha"
one more thing....small donations and trust, not money raised and electability
Debate over identity politics elides the truth about what really brought us to this precipice.
And too many of us who know this are clueless about how to stop him, at least partly because we’re obsessed with secondary, almost irrelevant developments. Sometimes it seems as if we’d do anything but confront the most important challenge. Let me try, starting with how liberals have been dodging the full truth.
what would compel Pelosi to make this statement???
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
what would compel Pelosi to make this statement???
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
what would compel Pelosi to make this statement???
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
what would compel Pelosi to make this statement???
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
Wow, I never thought I would agree with Nancy Pelosi on anything! If the eclipse and hurricane weren't signs of the apocalypse, this totally is! Lol
Kamala Harris announces she will co-sponsor single-payer healthcare
single payer and Medicare for all are not synonymous!
What is antifa's stance on trumpcare?
3D can't Trumpet Trump so he builds him/herself up by tearing down women and minorities. Sound familiar? Angry white person scared of the change swirling about them. Willing to bet khakis in the closet and tikis in the shed.
Senator Kamala Harris said on Wednesday that she will co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders’ anticipated single-payer health care bill. This makes Harris the first Senator to publicly announce support for the Medicare-for-all bill, which Sanders has said he’ll introduce in September.
fyi single payer is not the same as Medicare for all
Senator Kamala Harris said on Wednesday that she will co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders’ anticipated single-payer health care bill. This makes Harris the first Senator to publicly announce support for the Medicare-for-all bill, which Sanders has said he’ll introduce in September.
fyi single payer is not the same as Medicare for all
California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon shelved for the year SB562, which intends to establish a state single payer health care system, he’s been subject to massprotests and even death threats. The bill’s chief backers, including the California Nurses Association and the Bernie Sanders-affiliated Our Revolution, angrily point to Rendon as the main roadblock to truly universal health care.
They’re completely wrong. What’s more, they know they’re wrong. They’re perfectly aware that SB562 is a shell bill that cannot become law without a ballot measure approved by voters. Rather than committing to raising the millions of dollars that would be needed to overcome special interests and pass that initiative, they would, apparently, rather deceive their supporters, hiding the realities of California’s woeful political structure in favor of a morality play designed to advance careers and aggrandize power.
Bernie tried this in 2013, no co-sponsors then. It may have had a better chance at passing when Democrats had control over house and Senate for that short four month period under Obama.
Comments
Judge Zloch = Captain Obvious
“The Court thus assumes that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate for president over Bernie Sanders or any other Democratic candidate. It assumes that they stockpiled information useful to the Clinton campaign. It assumes that they devoted their resources to assist Clinton in securing the party’s nomination and opposing other Democratic candidates. And it assumes that they engaged in these surreptitious acts while publically proclaiming they were completely neutral, fair, and impartial. This Order therefore concerns only technical matters of pleading and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It was also kind of you to post the paragraph best fitting your agenda (which, best as I can understand, is simply one of setting such a high bar of acceptable political ethical behaviors as to be completely ungrounded in reality). Strangely absent was the actual reason for that article - that the class-action lawsuit claiming that the favoritism was unlawful, was dismissed as it is unprovable that the DNC's Charter is legally binding.
Finally, you mentioned Sanders' small donor cash, and trust being the fundamental factor. That's all well and good, if money raised had direct causality with electability. The fact that Trump won with just over 50% of Clinton's money raised disproves that notion. Once again - if the DNC were to look at what wins elections today, they would see that it's simpler to understand lies, akin to what the Republican Party delivers, rather than treating the issues seriously and a Party's base of supporters seriously, which would represent an untested direction likely to alienate a good subset of the DNC's supporters and politicians.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Remember when Sanders supportors made claim after claim that the primary was rigged, only to be called a conspiracy theorist? They knew they were being cheated, I knew they were being cheated, and you knew they were cheated. DNC, DWS Hilliary and you apparently are okay with cheating, others, not so much.
Talk about alienating supportors, cheat them and paint them conspiracy theorists!
Anyway, I think your looking too deeply into things, it's much simpler. A judge can make whatever ruling he or she wishes in interpreting the expressed or implied warranties in the DNC charter. You're correct the case was about donations to the DNC by Sanders supportors and whether or not a contract was entered into, was legally binding, whether the DNC acted fair and impartial, who suffered and damages etc etc. Unfortunately the essence of the case (did the DNC cheat the voters in the primary) was on trial on election day, the court of public opinion rendered their verdict.
At some point democrats and their supportors need to accept the results of that election/verdict and be accountable for "what really happened".
"you cheated, were caught, you lost...hahaha hahaha"
one more thing....small donations and trust, not money raised and electability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Menendez
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Debate over identity politics elides the truth about what really brought us to this precipice.
And too many of us who know this are clueless about how to stop him, at least partly because we’re obsessed with secondary, almost irrelevant developments. Sometimes it seems as if we’d do anything but confront the most important challenge. Let me try, starting with how liberals have been dodging the full truth.
San Francisco — Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:
“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts. The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.
“In California, as across all of our great nation, we have deep reverence for the Constitutional right to peaceful dissent and free speech. Non-violence is fundamental to that right. Let us use this sad event to reaffirm that we must never fight hate with hate, and to remember the values of peace, openness and justice that represent the best of America.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/348651-kamala-harris-announces-she-will-co-sponsor-single-payer-health-insurance
Kamala Harris announces she will co-sponsor single-payer healthcare
single payer and Medicare for all are not synonymous!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Senator Kamala Harris said on Wednesday that she will co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders’ anticipated single-payer health care bill. This makes Harris the first Senator to publicly announce support for the Medicare-for-all bill, which Sanders has said he’ll introduce in September.
fyi single payer is not the same as Medicare for all
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/senator-kamala-harris-says-shell-support-a-single-payer-health-care-bill/
anyone remember how progressive democrats in Cali called for single payer when they knew it wouldn't pass under GOP control?
What Killed Single-Payer In California?
If single-payer can't pass with Democratic super-majorities in the Golden State, that raises serious questions about any national effort.
California goes National
Bernie Sanders Knows His Medicare-For-All Bill Won't Pass. That's Not The Point
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/11/542676994/bernie-sanders-knows-his-medicare-for-all-bill-wont-pass-thats-not-the-pointhttp://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/325814-sanders-says-he-will-introduce-medicare-for-all-bill
"Well, you know, it's a goal. In this Congress, we won't pass it," Welch said after the town hall. "But I think we have to do keep the goal out there, because we need in this country, like any industrialized country, a healthcare system that's affordable, accessible and universal."
Sound familiar?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1782
"co-sponsors, there are no fu(king co-sponsors"