We've known all along the GOP was corrupt. Now we know the DNC is, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DNC and HRC keep doping up, doping up, doping up. HRC said in an opening speech at the last dem debate that she wanted to get the influence of big money out of politics, but here she is again.... She and the DNC are so goddamn high, they don't understand that millions of American voters are calling for an intervention. "But I can take it. It doesn't influence me!" insists Clinton.

America shakes its head. We'll just have to kick you out of the house, then, until you hit rock bottom. Or die of an overdose.

Ok, let's let the republicans use super pacs in the general and have the dems abstain. You are going to be really happy with the results!

Ah, unfortunately fighting Heroin with Meth is not the answer. The Republican party in in shambles. They will not win. Period.[/quote

You are fully delusional. Participation in their primaries exceeds that of the democrats. They control both houses and most state governments. You need to break out of your echo chamber and realize most of the country does not lean left, let alone far left. And I say this as a democrat. Your refusal to see things as they are, rather than as how you wish them to be, just contributes to the likelihood of a clean sweep for them in 2016.

I'm not afraid. Either we step up and claim our rights as citizens to be represented by our government, or we allow two parties to be run by Corporate interests. People of color understand that for the past 40 years, all the pandering has not led to documented improvements in these communities. They're fed up. And as more and more white people slide into the gutter, they're fed up too. What's the saying, "First they came for them, then they come for me?" People who are angry and fed up are dangerous.

For the Republicans, many in the white underclass are angry at other poor people for taking their jobs, dragging them down. A manufactured explanation that feeds the rhetoric of the nasty GOP candidates, and boy, are Cruz and Trump surfing this wave. For the Dems, people are, I hope, more likely to come together to fight for common interests. Many of us are finding ourselves in solidarity with communities (and the children! holy, crap, the data on child poverty is abominable!) that have been feeling the burden of a government that gives them short shrift. This is where the "Enough is enough" mantra rings true to many people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bernie is running on overturning the establishment. You wouldn't expect the establishment to endorse him. Sanders can use every establishment endorsement of Clinton as additional evidence that Clinton is part of the establishment and that he isn't. Congress has the lowest approval rating of just about any group on earth. Sanders probably can't believe his luck that a group held in such poor regard is lockstep behind Clinton (and least the Democratic members). The next thing you know, Clinton will hold fundraisers in Mexico hosts by Walmart lobbyists. Oh, she's already doing that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Maybe they can discuss the factories that Carrier is moving down there from Indiana?

She is digging her own grave. Well, at least her crypt will be draped in gold and jewels...

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Bernie is running on overturning the establishment. You wouldn't expect the establishment to endorse him. Sanders can use every establishment endorsement of Clinton as additional evidence that Clinton is part of the establishment and that he isn't. Congress has the lowest approval rating of just about any group on earth. Sanders probably can't believe his luck that a group held in such poor regard is lockstep behind Clinton (and least the Democratic members). The next thing you know, Clinton will hold fundraisers in Mexico hosts by Walmart lobbyists. Oh, she's already doing that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Maybe they can discuss the factories that Carrier is moving down there from Indiana?

Well, you can argue that. Or he is just not liked by his peers. I don't understand then why he needed to be on the Democratic ballot. He could've run as an independent if he despises them all so much

The link you posted indicates that overseas fundraisers are not uncommon.

[Anonymous]

I have considered the democrats the good guys ever since I have been old enough to vote.

No more. they're shitbags just like the GOP. This election has drived that point home.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bernie is running on overturning the establishment. You wouldn't expect the establishment to endorse him. Sanders can use every establishment endorsement of Clinton as additional evidence that Clinton is part of the establishment and that he isn't. Congress has the lowest approval rating of just about any group on earth. Sanders probably can't believe his luck that a group held in such poor regard is lockstep behind Clinton (and least the Democratic members). The next thing you know, Clinton will hold fundraisers in Mexico hosts by Walmart lobbyists. Oh, she's already doing that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Maybe they can discuss the factories that Carrier is moving down there from Indiana?

Well, you can argue that. Or he is just not liked by his peers. I don't understand then why he needed to be on the Democratic ballot. He could've run as an independent if he despises them all so much

The link you posted indicates that overseas fundraisers are not uncommon.

Our system is very biased in favor of two parties. You can't ignore reality. John B. Anderson was my Congressional Representative for years and I supported his independent candidacy. So, I've paid attention to independents for a long time. It is not a credible path for someone who isn't independently wealthy and even then it is really not realistic.

"Everyone does it" eventually gets old as an excuse, particularly when it comes to taking corporate money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bernie is running on overturning the establishment. You wouldn't expect the establishment to endorse him. Sanders can use every establishment endorsement of Clinton as additional evidence that Clinton is part of the establishment and that he isn't. Congress has the lowest approval rating of just about any group on earth. Sanders probably can't believe his luck that a group held in such poor regard is lockstep behind Clinton (and least the Democratic members). The next thing you know, Clinton will hold fundraisers in Mexico hosts by Walmart lobbyists. Oh, she's already doing that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Maybe they can discuss the factories that Carrier is moving down there from Indiana?

Well, you can argue that. Or he is just not liked by his peers. I don't understand then why he needed to be on the Democratic ballot. He could've run as an independent if he despises them all so much

The link you posted indicates that overseas fundraisers are not uncommon.

Thank you, Sanders, for cleaning up our party. It's easier to rehab your wayward child than to make a brand new baby. (How sad for the DNC that they are fighting every single step of the way.... If they don't succumb, then, yes, the electorate is likely to turn the other cheek and make a brand new baby. Dem leadership is staring a very serious cleavage in the face and they're in total denial.)

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Bernie is running on overturning the establishment. You wouldn't expect the establishment to endorse him. Sanders can use every establishment endorsement of Clinton as additional evidence that Clinton is part of the establishment and that he isn't. Congress has the lowest approval rating of just about any group on earth. Sanders probably can't believe his luck that a group held in such poor regard is lockstep behind Clinton (and least the Democratic members). The next thing you know, Clinton will hold fundraisers in Mexico hosts by Walmart lobbyists. Oh, she's already doing that:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/268782-clinton-campaign-hosting-fundraisers-in-mexico

Maybe they can discuss the factories that Carrier is moving down there from Indiana?

Well, you can argue that. Or he is just not liked by his peers. I don't understand then why he needed to be on the Democratic ballot. He could've run as an independent if he despises them all so much

The link you posted indicates that overseas fundraisers are not uncommon.

Our system is very biased in favor of two parties. You can't ignore reality. John B. Anderson was my Congressional Representative for years and I supported his independent candidacy. So, I've paid attention to independents for a long time. It is not a credible path for someone who isn't independently wealthy and even then it is really not realistic.

"Everyone does it" eventually gets old as an excuse, particularly when it comes to taking corporate money.

Fine, you can have your integrity and a big loss in November, congratulation for four or eight more years of Republican control. You can claim victory.

There is actually agreement among the democrats, including Hillary, for the need for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United (part of her platform, feel free to check). Obama tried to get the process going through the Senate and failed because it was opposed by all the Republicans.

In order to make it happen, we need democrats to control both houses of Congress. Down ballot candidates are indicating with their endorsements that they have more confidence in clinton than Sanders.

[Anonymous]

The FEC filings are interesting. Looking forward to stories on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders was highly effective with getting legislation passed via amendments. Which is truly amazing when you consider he was an Independent for pretty much all of his legislative career.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

Alternet thinks so, but why don't his colleagues?

They do, for example McCain praised his work on overhauling the Veterans Administration and Reed said the bill would have never passed without Sanders' ability to bring the parties together.

You seem to be basing your negative assessment of Sanders solely due to his lack of democratic endorsements. Which is a poor means to measure him by especially considering most democratic endorsements were given before Sanders even announced his candidacy for president.

Most of them? No.

I wonder what you will say about Elizabeth Warren if she endorses Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Bernie Sanders, who has served in Congress for more than 25 years, is not the establishment. The two congressmen who have endorsed him are not establishment. Everyone else? The establishment. Everyone who has endorsed Hillary? The establishment at best, corrupt at worst.

Black-and-white thinking at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders was highly effective with getting legislation passed via amendments. Which is truly amazing when you consider he was an Independent for pretty much all of his legislative career.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you

Alternet thinks so, but why don't his colleagues?

They do, for example McCain praised his work on overhauling the Veterans Administration and Reed said the bill would have never passed without Sanders' ability to bring the parties together.

You seem to be basing your negative assessment of Sanders solely due to his lack of democratic endorsements. Which is a poor means to measure him by especially considering most democratic endorsements were given before Sanders even announced his candidacy for president.

Most of them? No.

I wonder what you will say about Elizabeth Warren if she endorses Hillary.

Sanders announced his candidacy on April 30 2015. On April 15 2015 The Hill reported: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list

"One-hundred fifty of the 192 Democrats in the House, as well as 39 of the Senate's 46 Democrats, are in the former secretary of State’s camp."

So Yes, most of them indeed.