Your evolution on Sanders

[Anonymous]

His campaign financing is a mess

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/11/1525428/-FEC-releases-damning-639-pages-of-violations-by-Bernie-Sanders-campaign

The article contains the links to FEC, so feel free to check the accuracy yourself

[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.

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.

Consistent decisions on some issues.

On guns? No. On immigration? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Consistent decisions on some issues.

On guns? No. On immigration? No.

Those decisions were consistent though we might disagree with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Consistent decisions on some issues.

On guns? No. On immigration? No.

Those decisions were consistent though we might disagree with them.

No they weren't. He opposed some gun-control measures but supported others. He opposed some product-liability measures (guns) but favored others (fast food). He voted against CIR and then voted for it. He opposed guest worker programs but then supported them when Vermont dairy farmers wanted them.

[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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

[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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

Yes, I notice the PP also failed to note that coal miners vociferously protested Hillary and accused her of trying to kill their industry.

[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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

So... is your point that a politician who takes money from a certain industry is NOT any more likely to support the interests of that industry? If that is the case, then why would an industry give large sums of money to politicians? I am sorry but, whether or not Obama is trying to "kill the coal industry" is not evidence of anything at all. Your theory (whatever it is) does not seem to hold water.

[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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

Yes, I notice the PP also failed to note that coal miners vociferously protested Hillary and accused her of trying to kill their industry.

The point is that when a politician takes large sums of money from a bank or an industry, that politician is somewhat beholden to that industry. You can choose to disbelieve the fossil fuel connection if you like ( though there is ample evidence of a very different story) but you really can't take apart her ties to big banks and corporate interests. I used fossil fuel as an example of a larger issue. You are harping on that one statement when the issue is much bigger than that. The point is, she has to answer to those who give her money. Sanders takes money from labor unions and from the people and that tells us who he would answer to if given the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What would the posts of two anonymous, admittedly partisan internet posters clear up?

Had a chance to browse the FEC links the other PP posted? His funding is murky, like it or not, his voting is inconsistent, and his rhetoric getting sloppy.

[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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

So... is your point that a politician who takes money from a certain industry is NOT any more likely to support the interests of that industry? If that is the case, then why would an industry give large sums of money to politicians? I am sorry but, whether or not Obama is trying to "kill the coal industry" is not evidence of anything at all. Your theory (whatever it is) does not seem to hold water.

You're being obtuse. The point is that Obama (and others) *do* act contra the interests of their donors. All the time. Obama has. Clinton has. Clinton agrees that we need to get the money out of politics, just as Sanders does, but you are wrong when you say that they are all beholden to their donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And yet Obama did receive funding from the fossil fuel industry and is constantly being accused of trying to kill the coal industry, so your theory kind of doesn't hold water.

Yes, I notice the PP also failed to note that coal miners vociferously protested Hillary and accused her of trying to kill their industry.

The point is that when a politician takes large sums of money from a bank or an industry, that politician is somewhat beholden to that industry. You can choose to disbelieve the fossil fuel connection if you like ( though there is ample evidence of a very different story) but you really can't take apart her ties to big banks and corporate interests. I used fossil fuel as an example of a larger issue. You are harping on that one statement when the issue is much bigger than that. The point is, she has to answer to those who give her money. Sanders takes money from labor unions and from the people and that tells us who he would answer to if given the chance.

The NRA from what I can tell.

[Anonymous]

I'm certain my IQ is higher than yours. I actually work in politics as opposed to you being a Fox News junkie or the likes.

Anonymous wrote:

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:I'm certain my IQ is higher than yours. I actually work in politics as opposed to you being a Fox News junkie or the likes.

Anonymous wrote:

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

I find it hilarious when people on an anonymous forum say something ridiculous and then try to claim that they have the higher IQ.