Sanders: "Obviously, we are taking on the entire Democratic establishment.”

Darla said:
The main problem with what? As far as I can tell there is no problem. The candidate with 3 million more votes is winning. Now, if the candidate with 3 million less votes was winning, like Bernie is demanding the Super Delegates make happen, then I'd agree there was a problem.

But your post gives me a great opportunity to follow up on my previous statement "Hillary is winning by every measure and by every hypothetical measure".

If the Democratic primaries were winner take all, Hillary would be winning now by a more massive lead. She would have over double the number of pledged delegates that Sanders would have.

So keep em coming. Try and find a way Bernie would be winning this.
Click to expand...

the main problem is that if bernie were a threat you could just run a third candidate to outflank him on the left.
 
anatta said:
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.

After POLITICO revealed that the victory fund was asking for couples to donate or raise a whopping $353,400 in order to sit at a table with Clinton, Clooney and his wife, attorney Amal Clooney, at a fundraiser last month in San Francisco, Clooney admitted that was "an obscene amount of money." But he justified it by saying "the overwhelming amount of the money that we're raising is not going to Hillary to run for president, it's going to the down-ticket."

According to the agreements signed by the participating committees, which were obtained by POLITICO, the money is required to be distributed, at least initially, based on a formula set forth in joint fundraising agreements signed by the participants. The first $2,700 goes to the Clinton campaign, the next $33,400 goes to the DNC, and any remaining funds are to be distributed among the state parties.

But what happens to the cash after that initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign. Its chief operating officer, Beth Jones, is the treasurer of the victory fund. And FEC filings show that within a day of most transfers from the victory fund to the state parties, identical sums were transferred from the state party accounts to the DNC, which Sanders’ supporters have accused of functioning as an adjunct of the Clinton campaign.
Click to expand...

Again, there are a lot of implied smears in this piece and very few facts. Of course SOME state parties aren't going to get the money they want, and they are all in this hit piece whining about it. If they don't have competitive races, they're not getting the money. These are political realities. You put your money where you have your best chance at picking up seats. The goal is to take back the Senate and make inroads in the House, not to make people feel good. And what went where isn't know yet and won't be until FEC filings are completed.

Now let's look at Bernie's FEC record up till now.

Sanders has been flagged by the FEC every month. They have been flagged for undocumented foreign donations that may illegally have come from foreign nationals, but because they have offered no explanation, the FEC doesn't know. And the FEC wants to know. They have been flagged for numbers that don't add up:

“Line 17(a)(i) of the Detailed Summary Page of your report discloses a total of $3,279,505.25 in contributions from individuals. The sum of the entries itemized on Schedule A-P, however, indicates the total to be $13,745,417.64. These amounts should be the same."

That's ten million dollars in unexplained campaign donations. In February, the Sanders filing was flagged by the FEC for 23 million dollars in violation of campaign finance law. They were flagged for $10 million worth of individual $35 donations, all with the same date and all originating from Washington, D.C. This would require 299,026 separate donors, which equals roughly half the population of the capital to have all donated 35.00 on the same day. (Most likely this is Republican rat fucking money, and not individual contributions at all. Or, it's Super PAC money).

The FEC is threatening the Sanders campaign with audits.

It takes a long time for all of this to come out in the wash. Locally, we are first seeing the ramifications of illegal campaign contributions two years after the state election.

So let's wait and see what the FEC has to say about the final filings. Sanders is in a lot of trouble, but people have ignored it. Let's see who gets audited. Let's see who had foreign nationals illegally contributing. Let's see who has more donors who are over their limit (another thing Sanders has repeatedly been flagged for by the FEC). Let's see who illegally accepted bundled money and claimed they were individual 35 dollar donations.

But by the Hillary will be President and you won't be posting about what the Sanders campaign in on the hook with the FEC for. I'll post it though. Don't worry, I'll make sure you don't miss it.
 
tsuke said:
the main problem is that if bernie were a threat you could just run a third candidate to outflank him on the left.
Click to expand...

Yes we could split the pitchfork left vote by doing that. But "we" don't do anything. Individuals decide to run, or not. Martin O'Malley ran and he lost. He couldn't even stay in long enough to split the anti-Hillary vote with Bernie. If O'Malley could have raised the money he needed, Sanders would be dead and buried. So it cuts both ways. That's called "an election".
 
Rune said:
He routinely tries to justify his sexist misogynistic and racist sentiments by reference to Shakespeare.
Yesterday he published a tribute to Andrew Jackson that jusified the Trail of Tears massecre as well as slave owning in general because it "delayed the civil war by several decades".

The fucking idiot is too stupid to keep it's mouth shut.
Click to expand...
it was by Jim Webb. No it didn't "justify" anything - it was an extensive piece about Jackson, and it raised the question if it was motivated by genocide.
Jackson became the very face of the New America, focusing on intense patriotism and the dignity of the common man.

On the battlefield he was unbeatable, not only in the Indian Wars, which were brutally fought with heavy casualties on both sides, but also in his classic defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812. His defense of the city (in which he welcomed free blacks as soldiers in his army) dealt the British army its most lopsided defeat until the fall of Singapore in 1942.
Click to expand...
As president, Jackson ordered the removal of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. This approach, supported by a string of presidents, including Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, was a disaster, resulting in the Trail of Tears where thousands died. But was its motivation genocidal? Robert Remini, Jackson’s most prominent biographer, wrote that his intent was to end the increasingly bloody Indian Wars and to protect the Indians from certain annihilation at the hands of an ever-expanding frontier population. Indeed, it would be difficult to call someone genocidal when years before, after one bloody fight, he brought an orphaned Native American baby from the battlefield to his home in Tennessee and raised him as his son.
Mark Twain once commented that “to arrive at a just estimate of a renowned man’s character one must judge it by the standards of his time, not ours.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story

I published it as a counter to the inability/lack of desire to look at the whole man - which the article does.
I didn't support or disagree with it -it was for information..
No Shakespeare hasn't come up since Darla went batchit crazy about my use of the term "harpies" to describe
the women of the WHNSC's deliberations on Libya..
++
Please sit quietly while the adults have a discussion. Play with your game boy or something.
Ponder how I supported Clinton yet am I am a " mysogynist " . I was labeled a racist for supporting Hillary over Obama
It's lazy minds like yourself that throw out meaningless terms, that have coarsened public discourse.
I pay them no mind, but unfortunately this is what passes for serious debate by the PC crowd.
Screw that noise.

If you had bothered to read the entire piece on Jackson, you would have seen that too.
Your posts are groans and epic fails.
 
Darla said:
Again, there are a lot of implied smears in this piece and very few facts. Of course SOME state parties aren't going to get the money they want, and they are all in this hit piece whining about it. If they don't have competitive races, they're not getting the money. These are political realities. You put your money where you have your best chance at picking up seats. The goal is to take back the Senate and make inroads in the House, not to make people feel good. And what went where isn't know yet and won't be until FEC filings are completed.

Now let's look at Bernie's FEC record up till now.

Sanders has been flagged by the FEC every month. They have been flagged for undocumented foreign donations that may illegally have come from foreign nationals, but because they have offered no explanation, the FEC doesn't know. And the FEC wants to know. They have been flagged for numbers that don't add up:

“Line 17(a)(i) of the Detailed Summary Page of your report discloses a total of $3,279,505.25 in contributions from individuals. The sum of the entries itemized on Schedule A-P, however, indicates the total to be $13,745,417.64. These amounts should be the same."

That's ten million dollars in unexplained campaign donations. In February, the Sanders filing was flagged by the FEC for 23 million dollars in violation of campaign finance law. They were flagged for $10 million worth of individual $35 donations, all with the same date and all originating from Washington, D.C. This would require 299,026 separate donors, which equals roughly half the population of the capital to have all donated 35.00 on the same day. (Most likely this is Republican rat fucking money, and not individual contributions at all. Or, it's Super PAC money).

The FEC is threatening the Sanders campaign with audits.

It takes a long time for all of this to come out in the wash. Locally, we are first seeing the ramifications of illegal campaign contributions two years after the state election.

So let's wait and see what the FEC has to say about the final filings. Sanders is in a lot of trouble, but people have ignored it. Let's see who gets audited. Let's see who had foreign nationals illegally contributing. Let's see who has more donors who are over their limit (another thing Sanders has repeatedly been flagged for by the FEC). Let's see who illegally accepted bundled money and claimed they were individual 35 dollar donations.

But by the Hillary will be President and you won't be posting about what the Sanders campaign in on the hook with the FEC for. I'll post it though. Don't worry, I'll make sure you don't miss it.
Click to expand...
you didn't supply a link, and you are smearing sanders with innuendo.. At least you didn't walk it back like Clinton does the next day.
Even if this is true -this is still small donors ( and from what I know foreign money is untraceable -but I'm not an expert on campaign finance).

Compare sanders donors to Clinton donors. here is one random googlesearch
All of the Top 10 Corporate Tax Dodgers Have Donated to Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is raking in donations from Wall Street, and her attempts to downplay it are under fire.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/21/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-donations/
 
anatta said:
you didn't supply a link, and you are smearing sanders with innuendo.. At least you didn't walk it back like Clinton does the next day.
Even if this is true -this is still small donors ( and from what I know foreign money is untraceable -but I'm not an expert on campaign finance).

[/url]
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight - you are up Hillary's ass with a microscope but when it comes to Sanders being flagged numerous times by the FEC and threatened with an FEC audit, you don't know nothing, didn't hear anything, haven't seen anything, is that about right?

Reporting on what the FEC has flagged in the Sanders' campaign isn't innuendo. It's what the FEC flagged. That's called a fact. I understand you wouldn't know what one of those is.
 
anatta said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story

I published it as a counter to the inability/lack of desire to look at the whole man - which the article does.
I didn't support or disagree with it -it was for information..
No Shakespeare hasn't come up since Darla went batchit crazy about my use of the term "harpies" to describe
the women of the WHNSC's deliberations on Libya..
++
Please sit quietly while the adults have a discussion. Play with your game boy or something.
Ponder how I supported Clinton yet am I am a " mysogynist " . I was labeled a racist for supporting Hillary over Obama
It's lazy minds like yourself that throw out meaningless terms, that have coarsened public discourse.
I pay them no mind, but unfortunately this is what passes for serious debate by the PC crowd.
Screw that noise.

If you had bothered to read the entire piece on Jackson, you would have seen that too.
Your posts are groans and epic fails.
Click to expand...

What a bunch of horseshit. Every woman on that board called you out on that classification and they all said you're a misogynist. Every single one. Rune has it exactly right.
 
Darla said:
Yes we could split the pitchfork left vote by doing that. But "we" don't do anything. Individuals decide to run, or not. Martin O'Malley ran and he lost. He couldn't even stay in long enough to split the anti-Hillary vote with Bernie. If O'Malley could have raised the money he needed, Sanders would be dead and buried. So it cuts both ways. That's called "an election".
Click to expand...

its called a structural defect :)
 
Darla said:
So let me get this straight - you are up Hillary's ass with a microscope but when it comes to Sanders being flagged numerous times by the FEC and threatened with an FEC audit, you don't know nothing, didn't hear anything, haven't seen anything, is that about right?

Reporting on what the FEC has flagged in the Sanders' campaign isn't innuendo. It's what the FEC flagged. That's called a fact. I understand you wouldn't know what one of those is.
Click to expand...
no your innuendo was where the money came from -the FEC only knows the discrepancy, not the source.
we are still talking$10 million at most, while Clinton has a superpac, while Clinton's foundation is full of foreign gov't money ( which can be considered influence peddling, but not a clear qid pro quo),and we are still talking about her WallSt speeches where she dissembled about releasing them
and we are still. talking about her tax evading companies campaign contributions.

To try to equate the 2 is desperately defending Hillary's reliance on big donors -compared to Bernie's individual contributions
They are no where near the same. I linked them for you because the articles are as extensive as Clinton's corporate donors.
 
Darla said:
What a bunch of horseshit. Every woman on that board called you out on that classification and they all said you're a misogynist. Every single one. Rune has it exactly right.
Click to expand...
bullshit > Bijou certainly did not. Only you were butthurt.
TTQ might have, but she's a nut case who accuses all white people of being racist.

It's fucking hilarious you grasp at such straws calling me woman hater when I SUPPORTED HILLARY BEFORE SHE BECAME A FULL TME NEO-CON.
I bet you were against the Iraq war?
I doubt you have much of a clue about Libya, though I've sourced it for you -
nor do you really comprehend how disastrous arming the Syrian rebels would have been ( hint the CIA arms wound up in al-Nusra's hands)
She would be Commander - in Chief, do you trust her given her war record? Why would you?

So I have real reasons to despise her - unlike your PC based support which is lameness manifest.
Or do you think her incrementalism (below) is superior to Bernie's demand politics? it's not.
++
Bernie Sanders' critics now say he's a 'con man.' That reveals a lot — about them.
 http://theweek.com/articles/621601/...s-now-say-hes-con-man-that-reveals-lot--about

...His real problem with Sanders is that his ambitious ideas are teaching a generation to think that quick, sweeping change is possible,
which is bad because the way politics works is Abandon Hope, All Ye You Enter Here:

f you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves — all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, [do his] impressionable young followers...give up? I don't know, but my fear is [they will]. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. [Mother Jones]

Let's look past the deliberately offensive language here portraying Sanders' young voters as naive rubes. This model of how good policy is obtained — "work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed," as Drum puts it — is simply not correct....
 
anatta said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b:homepage/story

I published it as a counter to the inability/lack of desire to look at the whole man - which the article does.
I didn't support or disagree with it -it was for information..
No Shakespeare hasn't come up since Darla went batchit crazy about my use of the term "harpies" to describe
the women of the WHNSC's deliberations on Libya..
++
Please sit quietly while the adults have a discussion. Play with your game boy or something.
Ponder how I supported Clinton yet am I am a " mysogynist " . I was labeled a racist for supporting Hillary over Obama
It's lazy minds like yourself that throw out meaningless terms, that have coarsened public discourse.
I pay them no mind, but unfortunately this is what passes for serious debate by the PC crowd.
Screw that noise.

If you had bothered to read the entire piece on Jackson, you would have seen that too.
Your posts are groans and epic fails.
Click to expand...

Supporting Hil in '08 disproves nothing and no Adamas did not support it, he was fiercely opposed.

You printed an apologistt piece by a racist about a slave owner/trader who commited one of the largest acts of genocide ever, in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling.
Fuck your whole man bullshit and especially fuck you and your self justified racism and sexism.

Look at it at face value instead of through your web of justification.
By the way loser I resd the entire piece and then some.
I would suggest you research more thoroughly next time.
 
anatta said:
bullshit > Bijou certainly did not. Only you were butthurt.
TTQ might have, but she's a nut case who accuses all white people of being racist.

It's fucking hilarious you grasp at such straws calling me woman hater when I SUPPORTED HILLARY BEFORE SHE BECAME A FULL TME NEO-CON.
I bet you were against the Iraq war?
I doubt you have much of a clue about Libya, though I've sourced it for you -
nor do you really comprehend how disastrous arming the Syrian rebels would have been ( hint the CIA arms wound up in al-Nusra's hands)
She would be Commander - in Chief, do you trust her given her war record? Why would you?

So I have real reasons to despise her - unlike your PC based support which is lameness manifest.
Or do you think her incrementalism (below) is superior to Bernie's demand politics? it's not.
++
Bernie Sanders' critics now say he's a 'con man.' That reveals a lot — about them.
 http://theweek.com/articles/621601/...s-now-say-hes-con-man-that-reveals-lot--about

...His real problem with Sanders is that his ambitious ideas are teaching a generation to think that quick, sweeping change is possible,
which is bad because the way politics works is Abandon Hope, All Ye You Enter Here:

f you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves — all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, [do his] impressionable young followers...give up? I don't know, but my fear is [they will]. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. [Mother Jones]

Let's look past the deliberately offensive language here portraying Sanders' young voters as naive rubes. This model of how good policy is obtained — "work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed," as Drum puts it — is simply not correct....
Click to expand...

Bjiou certainly did you lying sack of shit. Note she no longer posts there...ever wonder why?
TTQ has you nailed.
 
Rune said:
Supporting Hil in '08 disproves nothing and no Adamas did not support it, he was fiercely opposed.

You printed an apologistt piece by a racist about a slave owner/trader who commited one of the largest acts of genocide ever, in direct violation of a Supreme Court ruling.
Fuck your whole man bullshit and especially fuck you and your self justified racism and sexism.

Look at it at face value instead of through your web of justification.
By the way loser I resd the entire piece and then some.
I would suggest you research more thoroughly next time.
Click to expand...
where is this incorrect?
As president, Jackson ordered the removal of Indian tribes east of the Mississippi to lands west of the river. This approach, supported by a string of presidents, including Jefferson and John Quincy Adams, was a disaster, resulting in the Trail of Tears where thousands died
Click to expand...
If you refute it fine..that's the kind of posting you should do instead of lame ass "racists/sexists" worthless mantras
tossed around as "proof"

How could I support HRClinton and be a misogynist ???
that's where dumb ass reactive thought gets you - looking stupid clinging to logical fallacies.
You aren't stupid, but your PC thought process short-circuits itself.
 
Rune said:
By the by, TTQ has never ever called me racist and my ass is as white as a bar of Ivory soap.
Click to expand...
because you are a left wing standard issued Democrat.
She'll call anyone "racist" that doesn't fit her LA black militant perspective.

Originally Posted by Rune
Bjiou certainly did you lying sack of shit. Note she no longer posts there...ever wonder why?
TTQ has you nailed
Click to expand...
Incorrect again - she wasn't happy the board was run as a democratic exercise.
Specifically she though VoZ got away with murder, but JDUBYA's vile comments weren't racist.

You make the charge so YOU PROVE she called me a liar, you horse thief.
 
anatta said:
because you are a left wing standard issued Democrat.
She'll call anyone "racist" that doesn't fit her LA black militant perspective.

Incorrect again - she wasn't happy the board was run as a democratic exercise.
Specifically she though VoZ got away with murder, but JDUBYA's vile comments weren't racist.

You make the charge so YOU PROVE she called me a liar, you horse thief.
Click to expand...

Oops. You said she calls everyone a racist. Maybe she just calls it as she sees it, racist. Tell us what a great guy Martin O'Mally is again cracker.

I am on other boards with Bjiou so you can give up the lies about her. Like most posters who left she left because you suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top