Bernie Sanders for President

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

Free said:

I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.

P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.

My point was that if you don't vote for Hilary if she gets the nom (by sticking with Bernie) you are effectively voting for the GOP non.

If it comes down to this I am going to hang myself. Please check with my wife before clearing my shelves of my books and records and stuff. Thanks!

It is pretty dismal, but think of it this way; in the 60s you had a cultural revolution but progress wasn't obtained in government until the landmark years of the very end of the 60s into the early 70s...civil rights, clean air and water, workplace discrimination, end of the war...
So now we have had 8 years of slow but steady political progress...same sex marriage, "no" war, climate change acceptance...that progress is preceding the cultural revolution that is occuring now in our youth, so it is easy to believe that we could still make great strides under Hilary.

They are already super rich, Bill's legacy is cemented, what Hilary stands most to gain is glour and legacy. Obama is a good President because he cares more about how his tenure will be measured by history than he cares about current, temporary power gains.
If Hilary follows that track, she could be a great, very liberal president.
It sounds weird, but wanting to be thought well of is one of the best motivations a president can have lol

We've made some progress but at a snails pace. Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer and the earth is getting the shaft from us humans. Progress? Yes, but not nearly enough.

This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.
While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783#ixzz44abAkUJd
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Jason P said:

Free said:

Sanders raises $44 million in March

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-march-fundraising-totals-221447

The hacky-sack industry is going to take a financial hit this quarter with all those diverted funds ...

Ha! Well done.

mrussel1 said:

This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.
While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783#ixzz44abAkUJd
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.
While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783#ixzz44abAkUJd
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.

Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.

Well, actually I'd have to look into this further to make sure this article is legit (I'm not that familiar with the source and I don't believe half of what I read these days) but if it is true, yeah, what I said would make sense to me. And besides, until we have leaders who's main focus is true sustainability and peace we're screwed anyway. Bernie is the closest we've got- far better than any other candidates in my opinion. Hillary is far more tied to corporations and is more likely to support wars. Bernie is far less tied to corporations, wants to help the average person, and shows greater commitment to work to lessen global warming. So no brainer, I'm backing Bernie for those reason. None of your arguments have come close to changing my mind that way.

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

This is a fascinating article and analysis. Now don't misread anything here, it's not a pro-Hillary, anti-Hillary, anti-Bernie post. It's a "Pro-Reality" post regarding Defense contractor contributions. What the evidence shows is that contributions funnel towards likely winners. Hillary has the most, Bernie second of ALL candidates. And Trump is way....way at the bottom. Why? Because the employees are putting their money on the winners. And this is ordered by the people most likely to win.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton has collected more money than any other candidate in the 2016 race from employees tied to the 50 largest contractors with the Department of Defense — at least $454,994 in campaign funds over a 14-month period ending in February.
While Clinton’s haul is substantial, it is only one-third higher than the amount defense contractors gave to the campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Despite advocating steep cuts in defense spending, Sanders’ campaign has accepted at least $310,055 in defense-related donations — more than any Republican presidential candidate — since the start of the 2016 campaign cycle.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/2016-election-defense-military-industry-contractors-donations-money-contributions-presidential-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-republican-ted-cruz-213783#ixzz44abAkUJd
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

What better way to defeat your opponent or enemy than to have them give you their resources. Sounds like Bernie's people may be well versed in Sun Tzu.

Really? That's what you took from this? Hillary and Bernie do the same thing... one is evil, the other is brilliant. C'mon.

Well, actually I'd have to look into this further to make sure this article is legit (I'm not that familiar with the source and I don't believe half of what I read these days) but if it is true, yeah, what I said would make sense to me. And besides, until we have leaders who's main focus is true sustainability and peace we're screwed anyway. Bernie is the closest we've got- far better than any other candidates in my opinion. Hillary is far more tied to corporations and is more likely to support wars. Bernie is far less tied to corporations, wants to help the average person, and shows greater commitment to work to lessen global warming. So no brainer, I'm backing Bernie for those reason. None of your arguments have come close to changing my mind that way.

Politico is a pretty reliable source. Everyone calls them unfair, which assuredly means they are probably fair. For the record, I'm not trying to convince people to vote for Hillary over Bernie. If you prefer his policy prescriptions, then he should be your candidate (if your primary hasn't happened). If it's happened, that's where my interest lies. For some (not all) Sanders supporters, there is a purity associated with him. My point on Ted Devine, Monsanto, Brady Bill, NRA and now Defense Contracting is that he is a politician like the others. So in the end, vote D in November. That's my point.

DM282158 said:

I find this thread one of the most politically mature at the moment. And that is not a knock at any candidate's discussion. Coming from an independent voter who has voted for both Repub's and Dem's.

Just my two cents (a bit off topic). I find the Dem nomination process to be far more worth the time thus far - actually debating policy sometimes, versus not at all (aside from Kasich).

Specifically, the one area that worries me a bit about Sander's proposals is free college tuition. I believe the student debt issue is the #1 economic issue facing this country in the present and MOST CERTAINLY in the future. But I feel there could be a better way.

I guess my stance comes from the notion of "not wanting my tax dollars going towards someone's tuition whom I don't know".

Not sure if I'm alone.

1 week until the tour. Cheers and safe travels to you all!

Why not? Your tax dollars already to go to tuition for children in elementary and high school who you don't know. Why do you draw the line right when school actually becomes most specific and useful to society?