Your evolution on Sanders

[Anonymous]

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is pushing reform that threatens beltway insiders whose livelihood depends on the gravy train staying open so don't expect sympathy around these parts.

Hm. My livelihood doesn't depend on any gravy train. And yet I still have no faith in Sanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is pushing reform that threatens beltway insiders whose livelihood depends on the gravy train staying open so don't expect sympathy around these parts.

Sanders has spent far more on his campaign than any other candidate and spends millions of dollars each month on political consultants, the ultimate Beltway insiders. Unlike Clinton, he set no limits on commissions for those consultants. Talk about a gravy train:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-biggest-spender-of-2016-so-far--generating-millions-for-consultants/2016/04/28/600170ce-0cf2-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html

So he's pushing for reforms to end the gravy train but didn't set any limits on his own consultants? Those Beltway insiders are making millions of dollars every month while Bernie lays off hundreds of low-level staff. Do you see the contradiction here?

sources?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanders is pushing reform that threatens beltway insiders whose livelihood depends on the gravy train staying open so don't expect sympathy around these parts.

Sanders has spent far more on his campaign than any other candidate and spends millions of dollars each month on political consultants, the ultimate Beltway insiders. Unlike Clinton, he set no limits on commissions for those consultants. Talk about a gravy train:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-biggest-spender-of-2016-so-far--generating-millions-for-consultants/2016/04/28/600170ce-0cf2-11e6-a6b6-2e6de3695b0e_story.html

So he's pushing for reforms to end the gravy train but didn't set any limits on his own consultants? Those Beltway insiders are making millions of dollars every month while Bernie lays off hundreds of low-level staff. Do you see the contradiction here?

sources?

Not the PP, but tehre's a link in the posting itself!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

And if Sanders is the nominee, he will surely appoint someone to fill the vacancy who will be looking to overturn it. Last time we lost on Citizens United 5-4. This time, with Scalia replaced, the odds will be reversed.

Sanders also demonstrates in real life that it is indeed possible to run a viable campaign without corporate megadonors, PACs, SuperPACs and dark money. This is useful ammunition to have in the coming battles. Those need to be shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

Since we don't know the source of Bernie's murky funding, it's fair to wonder to whom he is beholden. Besides his ego.

[Anonymous]

I've always thought he looked and sounded insane. I haven't changed my opinion. I always turn off the sound when he's on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

Since we don't know the source of Bernie's murky funding, it's fair to wonder to whom he is beholden. Besides his ego.

You have absolutely nothing to base that on besides the fact that you do not like him. The facts and basic logic point to Sanders making consistent policy decisions for his entire career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought he looked and sounded insane. I haven't changed my opinion. I always turn off the sound when he's on.

Gotta love the political commentary from the super geniuses of the forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

Since we don't know the source of Bernie's murky funding, it's fair to wonder to whom he is beholden. Besides his ego.

I sent him $27 a couple times. Hope this helps clear things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

Fact checks have repeatedly demonstrated that Clinton has not taken "a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry." See:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/clintons-fossil-fuel-money-revisited/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

Sorry for the confusion. That's exactly my point! One of the PPs said Sanders was getting us closer to overturning CU. That's not up to him, and no failed presidential bid is going to affect SCOTUS on this.

It is not about being closer to overturning Citizens United. It is about the novel idea that a politician should be free to act on the interests of the people and on her or his own ethical standards rather than being beholden to one's contributors. For example, it is naive to think that a president who has taken a great deal of money from the fossil fuel industry, will then work to protect the environment from the fossil fuel industry.

Since we don't know the source of Bernie's murky funding, it's fair to wonder to whom he is beholden. Besides his ego.

I sent him $27 a couple times. Hope this helps clear things up.

+1 Several times.

Unless we find out it was all an elaborate hoax and his money came from selling the organs of third world babies, I am going to continue to assume he is acting in the interests of the people to the best of his ability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

...raising money from small donors doesn't get us any closer to overturning Citizens United. You made a concrete claim about how he was getting us closer. How?

You're confusing me with another poster. Overturning Citizen's United is a matter for the court.

And if Sanders is the nominee, he will surely appoint someone to fill the vacancy who will be looking to overturn it. Last time we lost on Citizens United 5-4. This time, with Scalia replaced, the odds will be reversed.

Sanders also demonstrates in real life that it is indeed possible to run a viable campaign without corporate megadonors, PACs, SuperPACs and dark money. This is useful ammunition to have in the coming battles. Those need to be shut down.

Sanders has indeed said any person he considers for SCOTUS would need to want to overturn Citizens United. So has Clinton.

Sanders himself has a PAC. The Nurses United superPAC supports him. Some of their funds may be dark money; they don't disclose that. Corporate megadonors - what does that even mean? Like the ones who will fund the convention? So I guess Bernie won't be attending it, then, since he opposes "corporate megadonors"?