Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,493
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 36,493
- 2016 (42)
- 2015 (64)
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (143)
Sanders' campaign has accepted over $23 million in ILLEGAL campaign contributions. The FEC cited the campaign for those violations in February, in two separate letters sent to his campaign treasurer, Shelia Jackson. At least one of Jackson's responses has been made public and can be read via links in the final article listed below.
The law prohibits candidates from accepting donations that total over $2700 in a single campaign cycle. The letters from the FEC show infractions such as single checks of $5,000 or $12,000, substantially over the legal limit. It also shows multiple donations of $27 on a single day, which isn't illegal if they don't exceed $2700 but in a number of cases they do.
Claims that Clinton is corrupt or more dishonest than Sanders are not supported by evidence. Bernie's announcing something over and over again doesn't make it true. Informed voters--human beings who think critically--do not accept a politician's slogans as fact without examining them. The evidence does not support Bernie's claims that is is better than Clinton on campaign finance because he does not even follow the existing law, meager as it is.
At the very least, the FEC violations, more than any candidate in history, show a stunning level of incompetence. How is it possible to appoint a campaign treasurer who is so lax on following federal law that she would submit listings for single checks that exceed federal limits? How is it possible not to have software that tracks donation limits by individual contributors, particularly when the candidate has a war chest well over a $100 million dollars in size? How can someone who can't run a campaign according to the law be trusted with the federal budget?
The infractions above can be explained as the result of incompetence rather than dishonesty. Yet that doesn't hold for all of his claims. For months now he has been announcing he doesn't have super pacs and doesn't take money from Wall Street. Only that too turns out to be false. http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881
Bernie does not have more integrity than Hillary Clinton, not even close. He has a lower scale of truth telling on Politifact http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
While key claims about his relationship to super pacs and funders has been proven false, as the links in the paragraphs above demonstrate.
Rather than asking their own candidate about his the revelations concerning his super pac or FEC violations, they post about "Hillary's scream," demonstrating they think she has no right to challenge false character assassination directed against her. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/01/why-hillary-clinton-is-justifiably-annoyed-by-critiques-of-her-big-oil-fundraising/?postshare=8651459544364948&tid=ss_fb
They denounce the majority of Democratic voters as "uninformed" for failing to take Bernie's campaign slogans as fact, while they pointedly refuse to as much as examine any independent or documentary evidence because ultimately is it they who willfully seek to remain misinformed.
Now, I know for a fact very few Sanders supporters will examine the FEC evidence or articles about Bernie's super pac because the sad fact is too many simply don't care. I think that says a great deal about the support for Bernie's candidacy and how little of it has to do with evidence, policy, or actual differences on issues.
A jury can hide this post, fully supported with evidence and sources--including links to primary documents--but that won't make the truth go away. Facts are what they are, and Bernie does not live up to billing.
Posted by BainsBane | Sat Apr 2, 2016, 12:18 AM (172 replies)
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:25 AM (1 replies)
Those aren't questionable. They are violations of the law. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
Some of the sources above provide links to the FEC sites where you can see the letters set by the FEC and the response by the Sanders Campaign Treasurer, Susan Jackson. The response to the second round of violations is due to the FEC today. They are, in all likelihood, going to have to refund even more of the illegal donations they accepted.
You can post videos about "questionable" donations to Clinton all day long, and they don't come close to actual documented violations of federal election law by the Sanders campaign.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 07:15 AM (2 replies)
It's not like Sanders message is particularly complex. He's repeated it ad nauseum. I dare say there are few people in this country who couldn't recite it by now.
I've done a lot of get out the vote activities and made phone calls to multiple states, and I have yet to encounter one person who doesn't know who Bernie Sanders is. On the other hand, I have yet to encounter a high-profile Sanders supporter on this site who has bothered to inform themselves about Clinton's policy positions. In fact, many pointedly refuse to look at her issues page. Instead, they habitually make up crap they project onto her.
Clinton is exponentially more qualified than Sanders. For you to attribute her success to her "husband's coat tails" is more of the gender-based condescension that is typical in this election. Considering her opponent has only one major legislative accomplishment in 25 years in federal office, the dismissal of her qualifications is absurd. It's not everyone who can boast the single lowest rating in bipartisanship of anyone in the Senate. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
But your claim is Americans voters are just too stupid to know how much better he is than Clinton.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:19 AM (1 replies)
When I post something negative about Sanders, I provide evidence, something Clinton's detractors rarely if ever do (internet memes and opinion pieces are not evidence), principally because they haven't shown enough interest in policy to even bother informing themselves on what she actually proposes. Sanders supporters use juries to hide that evidence, whether it is links to Sanders voting record, articles about his support for Lockheed Martin and big sugar, or they call people Nazis (as was done to me) for daring to post about his record on guns.
We haven't seen any concern from Sanders supporters about the disclosures that he has not been truthful about not having Super pacs http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
About the FEC citation of $23 million in excess campaign contributions http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
(whether you like the above source is irrelevant. It links to the actual letters from the FEC and from Sanders Campaign Treasurer in response).
Or his campaign manager's announcement of a strategy for him to seize control of the nomination against the popular will of the electorate. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452
Yesterday someone actually got a hide for criticizing Tad Devine. Apparently a political operative making huge amounts of money off campaign contributions is sacrosanct and that a lowly citizen has no right to criticize him without facing censure. The rich are to be protected at all costs, as long as they are affiliated with Bernie. The poor and working Americans must be punished if they fail to prostrate themselves before Bernie and the "progressives" convinced of their inherent superiority.
There aren't scores of articles about Clinton supporters bullying civil rights activists, super delegates, ordinary voters or progressive politicians. That is the reputation of another candidate whose run is coming to a close.
That said, this OP isn't about the awful reputation of Clinton supporters. It's about a rich person talking about putting a horrendous right-wing billionaire in office in order to spawn a "revolution." The responses in defense of Sarandon demonstrate that the rhetoric about the 99-1 percent we have heard for months and months now isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that rich people who support Bernie's career are just too important to be criticized. In other words, they expose hypocrisy of epic dimensions.
You choose to condemn Democratic voters, those who support the candidate will be the nominee. Not the neonazis, Islamophobes and homohobes who support Trump, but Democrats. That is who you despise, that is who some responding to this thread resent. Strip away the rights of the majority, no problem. Stump for a billionaire, no problem. But vote for a a Democrat, that is unforgivable.
I finally read a post in this thread that was actually persuasive in advocating for Sanders. Rather than insulting Democrats for disagreeing with him, he talked about his own life experiences and why Bernie's campaign meant so much to him. If more people had been doing that since the beginning of his campaign, they might have succeeded in attracting supporters. Instead, too many have spent the entire time insulting other Democrats, insisting they were inferior for caring about issues like equal rights, reproductive rights and voting rights. They have assailed one progressive public figure, advocacy organization, union, and civil rights activist after another for daring to endorse or speak favorably of Clinton. None of that has worked, yet they've continued to engage in it relentlessly, now taking their efforts to superdelegates to try to intimidate them into supporting someone who trails by 2.5 million in the popular vote. Yet never have they tried anything approaching positive persuasion. That is why they, and not Clinton supporters, have been the subject of scores of articles expressing alarm at their tactics. The reputation is theirs, and your post is oddly detached from that reality.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:04 AM (2 replies)
Susan Sarandon says Donald Trump would be better for America then Clinton because Trump will make it more likely for a revolution to occur. It would seem Sarandon doesn't believe the poor currently suffer enough to suit her, and that she wants to make their lives as miserable as possible to shock them into putting her guy into power. (Because revolutions really work that way. I suppose you've spent your life reading movie scripts you might think they do).
Why wait? I say we start the revolution right now. Not the revolution of campaign slogans that are about installing one man as head of the capitalist state. No, a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. I can think of no better place to start than one of Sarandon's many multi-million dollar homes.
Now, I'm not sure exactly how many she has. She has three apartments in New York City. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/open-house/Susan-Sarandon-Snatches-Up-Third-NYC-Property--138832289.html This sprawling $1.75 million estate in Pound Ridge, NY. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/susan-sarandon-tim-robbins-house/view/bing/
She has another home in Los Angeles. http://www.elledecor.com/celebrity-style/celebrity-homes/news/a6310/eva-amurri-martino-home/
There may be more, but I say the revolution should start at her $11.9 million California home here:
12 bathrooms. I think that is about the number of bathrooms on this side of my entire block. My entire lot would fit in her kitchen.
So what is a revolutionary doing with five plus homes, you might ask? Good question. How do you suppose someone in that position wishes for life to become more arduous for the most vulnerable Americans so that they do her political bidding?
Well, Susan. You say you want a revolution. I say we start at your $11.9 million dollar home and move on to the others. There is space to house hundreds of families there. That's what happens to estates in real socialist revolutions. People like you lose their wealth and are put to work doing honest labor.
So why wait for your guy Trump to start the revolution? Now is the time.
For the irony impaired, this is parody. I am not actually advocating violence. However revolution is in fact violent upheaval. The super rich like Sarandon ought to be careful what they wish for.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 30, 2016, 12:36 AM (259 replies)
It is not illegal and it is not corrupt. If people actually gave a shit about corporate influence, they wouldn't defend Bernie's on again, off again support of blanket immunity for gun corporations, or the $1 trillion plus to Lockheed Martin.
They wouldn't ignore his fundraising from Wall Street investment banks or his claims to not have super pacs when he has them.
That people argue that Clinton is corrupt for earning money is in fact part of an atmosphere of vilification that is sexist. That they insist women who support her of voting "for the vagina," when Clinton is in fact an extremely well qualified candidate and her competitor has the second worst record in congress in terms of legislative accomplishments most certainly is sexist. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
Her detractors refuse to as much as look at her policy positions. That is how little they care about actual issues.
That Clinton is vilified more than Republicans and murderous dictators show that the vitriol against her has nothing to do with her actual record or policy proposals and everything to do with what she represents: a woman who seeks to be president, following on the heels of an African American president. A number of Democratic voters see what is going on, which may be why people of color and especially African American women are resounding supporting Clinton with their votes.
Then when we see people who claim to care about progressive principles argue that Trump would be better, it exposes precisely what their goals truly are.
Posted by BainsBane | Tue Mar 29, 2016, 05:49 PM (0 replies)
The American left appears to believe democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders would be winning the race for the Democratic party’s nomination if not for the sinister machinations of the elite. The party is more liberal than former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the thinking goes, and she represents an era in US politics no longer recognizable today. . . .
All this might be convincing if not for the fact that Clinton is winning the popular vote.
I’m aware this is blindingly obvious, but you wouldn’t know it by listening to leftist voices on social media. But it’s true. Clinton is winning more votes than Sanders. The difference is not attributable to her institutional advantage among “superdelegates”, who are elite party members free to support any candidate they wish – it’s down to her popular appeal.
Clinton earned her delegates with a coalition representative of the demographic changes taking place in the United States. While it is true that Sanders attracted more young voters, and people who normally don’t vote, this alone cannot substantiate the claim that his coalition is the future of the Democratic party. Indeed, if that were the case, then the party’s future is whiter, more affluent and upwardly-mobile than the multiracial coalition it seeks to serve.
Clinton has overwhelmingly won more votes than Sanders among racial minorities and low-income voters. Not only is Clinton winning the popular vote, she is doing so in the fairest way possible: with a coalition of voters that’s as diverse as the United States.
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:25 PM (34 replies)
sum +303 for HRC
+744 for HRC
2383 needed for nomination
653 for HRC to win nomination. 1437 for BS to win nomination
2129 remaining delegates. HRC needs 30.6% of the remaining delegates for nomination. BS needs 67.4%
Posted by BainsBane | Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:08 PM (26 replies)
Voter disenfranchisement through lines and voting irregularities is indeed a concern, and I believe strongly in championing access to the voting whenever and wherever possible in all states. Yet democracy also includes respecting the will of the people especially when their vote differs from one's own choice. Democracy is not served by overturning elections that didn't turn out how we might like or by finding ways to discount those votes.
Much attention has been paid to the controversial superdelegates. Earlier in this primary season, the Sanders campaign argued they were antithetical to democracy. They imagined being in a position where they would win the popular vote and earned delegates but then might lose due to the superdelegates. Many of us doubted that would happen.
Fast forward to March, and Sanders is seeking to woo superdelegates. Suddenly they aren't so antidemocratic. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-surprises-controversial-superdelegate-strategy
Yet it doesn't stop there. Tad Devine has indicated that pledged delegates can also be flipped.
Despite being trounced by Clinton in five states Tuesday, the Sanders campaign told reporters this week that not only do they expect the second half of the primary to add to their delegate count, they also believe Clinton’s pledged delegate lead might start to erode if pledged delegates see Sanders doing well and decide to support him instead of Clinton. . .
Sanders senior strategist Tad Devine made the case Wednesday on a call with reporters that, despite pledged delegates getting their spots based on Democratic votes in primaries and caucuses, they are free to switch which candidate they represent based on personal preference. He pointed to the Jimmy Carter campaign in 1980 and said that before Carter won the Democratic nomination, the campaign was “deeply concerned about the defection of pledged delegates.”
“We don’t have a plan at the moment to be calling all the Clinton delegates, you know, once they get selected and try to persuade them individually to be for Bernie Sanders,” Devine said when pressed by a reporter. “But we do believe that if we can succeed in the second half of the process as much as Hillary did or even more so, that there will be enormous pressure on people who are going to be delegates at this convention to do the right, responsible thing.”
Pledged delegates, as we all know, are pledged as a result of elections and caucuses where voters cast their presidential preferences. Flipping pledged delegates means overturning the results of popular elections; it would require handing the nomination to someone who received fewer votes and fewer earned delegates.
Given the concern about infringement of voting rights through long lines and irregularities, I'm sure we can all agree that any effort to deliver the nomination to a candidate that receives a minority of the vote and with it the pledged delegate count would be antithetical to the will of the people and therefore antidemocratic. Sanders supporters will no doubt want to voice their concern to Tad Devine and tell him they do not support such a strategy because the priority must be on the democratic will of the people.
You can do that here at email@example.com Many of you may have better contact information for the campaign. I only have the email through which I received unsolicited and unwanted requests for donations, even after I subscribed. They do answer it, however. That much I know.
Join me in standing up for democracy. Tell Tad Devine you will not support efforts to overturn popular elections by flipping pledged delegates.
Posted by BainsBane | Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:20 PM (9 replies)