10:54, I'm sorry - you feel bullied by Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem? That seems kind of dramatic. Have you not encountered much adversity in life or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is the basic flaw in logic I see with many of Sanders' supporters. If the problem is money in politics, a near-oligarchy of big money and special interests, which was caused in large part (or at least greatly facilitated) by the Citizens United decision, then why don't Sanders' supporters think through how that decision came about. That decision is due to Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. Republican presidents can do a lot of damage-- especially the lunatics leading the pack in this election. If you're so concerned about maintaining our democracy and protecting the social safety-net, why is defeating the Republican candidate not THE most important thing? The Supreme Court is almost evenly divided now, what would happen with another conservative justice? What would happen with a Republican-controlled Congress and president? If you think things are bad now, just wait and see. Democrats need to be much more pragmatic and strategic or else we are truly going to hell in a hand-basket.

Who said defeating Republicans wasn't a priority?

Don't you think Democrats mobilizing on GOTV and pushing like hell to get Democrats elected is somehow inconsistent or incompatible or mutually exclusive to what Sanders supporters want? Don't you think that's something that grassroots Democrats need to be doing REGARDLESS of who gets the nomination? Don't you think Democrats ought to be fighting like hell to get Republicans thrown out of Congress and for Democrats to retake it?

So why this armchair-sitting-back and tongue-clicking at Sanders supporters? You are doing yourself and Democrats a disservice.

Not PP, but I personally know BS supporters who have said they would vote for any Republican rather than HRC. I also know several who say they will abstain. I see this also on random comments sections. I don't see the same from HRC supporters. I started this as an independent, but the crop of R candidates pushed me to the left. If Sanders is the nominee, I will vote for him. If Bloomberg runs, I will consider him, but only if it's apparent he has a chance of winning the presidency rather than help a Republican along.

This is exactly what I am referring to -- Sanders' supporters who say they won't support ANYONE else, regardless of who is the nominee. They are all over Facebook and this board. I don't get it.

Which is what people say during primary season. People keep quoting this but its like, are you high? What human being that was supporting Bernie is turning around to vote for Ted Cruz? What is that person's brain chemistry? Because that is just impractical.

It doesn't really sound like you believe in your candidate to go 'well I really would prefer BS but of course of course I'll vote for whoever you guys decide on of course'. That is not very compelling. I mean, really. I am a super passionate Bernie supporter but obviously if you pick HRC I'm going to vote for crazy prochoice Rubiobot. That is so illogical. And a weird guilt trip HRC supporters are using on BS supporters.

WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. Having options is what its all about. Shaming people for being politically active, regardless of what their opinions are is, IMO, inherently un-american and its doing HRC NO favors.

I am a woman who is pretty swept up in Bernie but who has always thought I'd be voting HRC. But between people like you acting like entertaining an alternative is equivilant of handing the R's the white house and all these hardcore feminists telling me I'm turning my back on my own gender by considering Bernie I'm feeling VERY bullied and VERY resentful and the idea of voting for HRC is consequently getting more and more disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is the basic flaw in logic I see with many of Sanders' supporters. If the problem is money in politics, a near-oligarchy of big money and special interests, which was caused in large part (or at least greatly facilitated) by the Citizens United decision, then why don't Sanders' supporters think through how that decision came about. That decision is due to Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. Republican presidents can do a lot of damage-- especially the lunatics leading the pack in this election. If you're so concerned about maintaining our democracy and protecting the social safety-net, why is defeating the Republican candidate not THE most important thing? The Supreme Court is almost evenly divided now, what would happen with another conservative justice? What would happen with a Republican-controlled Congress and president? If you think things are bad now, just wait and see. Democrats need to be much more pragmatic and strategic or else we are truly going to hell in a hand-basket.

Who said defeating Republicans wasn't a priority?

Don't you think Democrats mobilizing on GOTV and pushing like hell to get Democrats elected is somehow inconsistent or incompatible or mutually exclusive to what Sanders supporters want? Don't you think that's something that grassroots Democrats need to be doing REGARDLESS of who gets the nomination? Don't you think Democrats ought to be fighting like hell to get Republicans thrown out of Congress and for Democrats to retake it?

So why this armchair-sitting-back and tongue-clicking at Sanders supporters? You are doing yourself and Democrats a disservice.

Not PP, but I personally know BS supporters who have said they would vote for any Republican rather than HRC. I also know several who say they will abstain. I see this also on random comments sections. I don't see the same from HRC supporters. I started this as an independent, but the crop of R candidates pushed me to the left. If Sanders is the nominee, I will vote for him. If Bloomberg runs, I will consider him, but only if it's apparent he has a chance of winning the presidency rather than help a Republican along.

This is exactly what I am referring to -- Sanders' supporters who say they won't support ANYONE else, regardless of who is the nominee. They are all over Facebook and this board. I don't get it.

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand when people say Sanders is their first choice and Bloomberg is second. So if Bernie doesn't make it, you'll vote for a billionaire Wall Street guy?

I personally would vote for Bloomberg before either Sanders or Clinton, but I believe he already said he wouldn't try to compete against the latter, so you raise a moot point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Citizens United has had minimal impact on anything. Does anyone really believe there was less big money in politics before the decision or that you could possibly "take the money out" of politics?

The only thing that changed is that instead of corporate donors spreading the money around in all the indirect work-arounds, soft money to state parties, creating and contributing to advocacy groups, funding Grover Norquist and similar political money launders and surrogates, they get to be more up-front about who they are and what they want. It's the same money that was always there.

Keep telling yourself that. And feel free to ignore the dark money. By the way, how much will the Koch's alone pour into this election cycle?

The same amount they would put in without the Citizens United decision.

Anonymous wrote:Citizens United has had minimal impact on anything. Does anyone really believe there was less big money in politics before the decision or that you could possibly "take the money out" of politics?

The only thing that changed is that instead of corporate donors spreading the money around in all the indirect work-arounds, soft money to state parties, creating and contributing to advocacy groups, funding Grover Norquist and similar political money launders and surrogates, they get to be more up-front about who they are and what they want. It's the same money that was always there.

Keep telling yourself that. And feel free to ignore the dark money. By the way, how much will the Koch's alone pour into this election cycle?

Citizens United has had minimal impact on anything. Does anyone really believe there was less big money in politics before the decision or that you could possibly "take the money out" of politics?

The only thing that changed is that instead of corporate donors spreading the money around in all the indirect work-arounds, soft money to state parties, creating and contributing to advocacy groups, funding Grover Norquist and similar political money launders and surrogates, they get to be more up-front about who they are and what they want. It's the same money that was always there.

Leave the old grumpy man alone. Our country needs a charming leader to start the job in 2017: Hillary is the one!

I don't understand when people say Sanders is their first choice and Bloomberg is second. So if Bernie doesn't make it, you'll vote for a billionaire Wall Street guy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is the basic flaw in logic I see with many of Sanders' supporters. If the problem is money in politics, a near-oligarchy of big money and special interests, which was caused in large part (or at least greatly facilitated) by the Citizens United decision, then why don't Sanders' supporters think through how that decision came about. That decision is due to Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. Republican presidents can do a lot of damage-- especially the lunatics leading the pack in this election. If you're so concerned about maintaining our democracy and protecting the social safety-net, why is defeating the Republican candidate not THE most important thing? The Supreme Court is almost evenly divided now, what would happen with another conservative justice? What would happen with a Republican-controlled Congress and president? If you think things are bad now, just wait and see. Democrats need to be much more pragmatic and strategic or else we are truly going to hell in a hand-basket.

Who said defeating Republicans wasn't a priority?

Don't you think Democrats mobilizing on GOTV and pushing like hell to get Democrats elected is somehow inconsistent or incompatible or mutually exclusive to what Sanders supporters want? Don't you think that's something that grassroots Democrats need to be doing REGARDLESS of who gets the nomination? Don't you think Democrats ought to be fighting like hell to get Republicans thrown out of Congress and for Democrats to retake it?

So why this armchair-sitting-back and tongue-clicking at Sanders supporters? You are doing yourself and Democrats a disservice.

Not PP, but I personally know BS supporters who have said they would vote for any Republican rather than HRC. I also know several who say they will abstain. I see this also on random comments sections. I don't see the same from HRC supporters. I started this as an independent, but the crop of R candidates pushed me to the left. If Sanders is the nominee, I will vote for him. If Bloomberg runs, I will consider him, but only if it's apparent he has a chance of winning the presidency rather than help a Republican along.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. This is the basic flaw in logic I see with many of Sanders' supporters. If the problem is money in politics, a near-oligarchy of big money and special interests, which was caused in large part (or at least greatly facilitated) by the Citizens United decision, then why don't Sanders' supporters think through how that decision came about. That decision is due to Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. Republican presidents can do a lot of damage-- especially the lunatics leading the pack in this election. If you're so concerned about maintaining our democracy and protecting the social safety-net, why is defeating the Republican candidate not THE most important thing? The Supreme Court is almost evenly divided now, what would happen with another conservative justice? What would happen with a Republican-controlled Congress and president? If you think things are bad now, just wait and see. Democrats need to be much more pragmatic and strategic or else we are truly going to hell in a hand-basket.

Who said defeating Republicans wasn't a priority?

Don't you think Democrats mobilizing on GOTV and pushing like hell to get Democrats elected is somehow inconsistent or incompatible or mutually exclusive to what Sanders supporters want? Don't you think that's something that grassroots Democrats need to be doing REGARDLESS of who gets the nomination? Don't you think Democrats ought to be fighting like hell to get Republicans thrown out of Congress and for Democrats to retake it?

So why this armchair-sitting-back and tongue-clicking at Sanders supporters? You are doing yourself and Democrats a disservice.

Pp, because without knowing who the republican candidate will be, and with clouds swirling around HR , supporting sanders is not whistling past the graveyard.

OP here. This is the basic flaw in logic I see with many of Sanders' supporters. If the problem is money in politics, a near-oligarchy of big money and special interests, which was caused in large part (or at least greatly facilitated) by the Citizens United decision, then why don't Sanders' supporters think through how that decision came about. That decision is due to Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court. Republican presidents can do a lot of damage-- especially the lunatics leading the pack in this election. If you're so concerned about maintaining our democracy and protecting the social safety-net, why is defeating the Republican candidate not THE most important thing? The Supreme Court is almost evenly divided now, what would happen with another conservative justice? What would happen with a Republican-controlled Congress and president? If you think things are bad now, just wait and see. Democrats need to be much more pragmatic and strategic or else we are truly going to hell in a hand-basket.

Anonymous wrote:"An Amendment is needed" only because Congress and the Supreme Court are on the wrong side and intransigent on it and thus people want to put language reining in campaign spending in the Constitution outright. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's not actually any legal limitation in the Constitution itself currently that would technically prevent Citizens United from being overturned.

It's not a free speech issue - money is not speech and if anything, Citizens United stifles free speech since those with less money are outgunned, drowned out, shut out and denied their opportunities for free spech.

The bottom line is, a newly appointed justice to SCOTUS cannot make overturning Citizen United one of their first decisions, as Bernie said in his tweet. That is what is worrisome about his promises. It shows that he does not understand how things work and why can't actually deliver on his promises. And I will paste that tweet in here again, so we don't go around in circles that he did not say that

Bernie Sanders ?@BernieSanders
Any Supreme Court nominee of mine will make overturning Citizens United one of their first decisions.
7:57 PM - 21 Jan 2016
828 828 Retweets 2,074 2,074 likes

"An Amendment is needed" only because Congress and the Supreme Court are on the wrong side and intransigent on it and thus people want to put language reining in campaign spending in the Constitution outright. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's not actually any legal limitation in the Constitution itself currently that would technically prevent Citizens United from being overturned.

It's not a free speech issue - money is not speech and if anything, Citizens United stifles free speech since those with less money are outgunned, drowned out, shut out and denied their opportunities for free spech.