Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2016 23:34:50 GMT
Mollycoddle, that is about Bernie's supporters though. Did she interview Bernie himself and have him answer those same questions? I wouldn't expect any candidate's supporters to know all the ins and outs of what their candidate proposes. I have read his platform and his plans to get them done, and I understand most of it. But not all of it. I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why? About the transcripts. Just exactly why should she release the transcripts? Because Bernie wants it? On Febuary 18 at a Town Hall Meeting she was asked why didn't she just release the transcripts. Her answer " I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate on this race has given speeches to private groups." I think that is a reasonable answer considering she is being asked to do something no other candidate has been asked. I believe that is called a double standard. And so she is declining to release her transcripts. Besides if there was anything "damning" in those speeches don't you think it would have been leaked by now? I checked no leaks. There are a couple of supposed transcripts floating around but they have been found to be fakes. What I have see over the years is if anybody has what they think "smoking gun" type of information they will blab. It's a given that not all those folks at her speeches are Hillary supporters so if they had something by now it would be out there. I mean ask Mitt about 47%.
|
|
|
Post by maureen on Apr 19, 2016 23:54:19 GMT
Republicans need not respond. I'm looking to hear opinions from Democrats. Thanks. That's unfortunate, I'm a republican who voted in the democratic primary.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 20, 2016 0:01:34 GMT
maureen, interesting. Who did you vote for?
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Apr 20, 2016 0:13:40 GMT
I agree with Lucy and Molly. While I like some of the ideas that Sanders has, I a) don't think he has a chance of achieving them with the current Congress and b) am fiscally conservative enough to not want to take the tax hit if we were. I am also ready for a female president. That's exactly how I feel!
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 20, 2016 0:17:10 GMT
Mollycoddle, that is about Bernie's supporters though. Did she interview Bernie himself and have him answer those same questions? I wouldn't expect any candidate's supporters to know all the ins and outs of what their candidate proposes. I have read his platform and his plans to get them done, and I understand most of it. But not all of it. I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why? About the transcripts. Just exactly why should she release the transcripts? Because Bernie wants it? Because it's not just Bernie that wants it, for starters. I've said this in another thread but I'll put it here too: "Does this really have to be said? It's the fact that she is hiding the contents of her speeches that is the problem. What is she hiding is the question, but that she is hiding anything is the problem. Could be completely innocent but we would never know because she isn't being forthcoming about any of it." If she's trying to prove she's trustworthy, hiding the contents of her PAID speeches to Wall Street and others of the billionaire class is really not the way to do it. On Febuary 18 at a Town Hall Meeting she was asked why didn't she just release the transcripts. Her answer " I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate on this race has given speeches to private groups." I think that is a reasonable answer considering she is being asked to do something no other candidate has been asked. I believe that is called a double standard. And so she is declining to release her transcripts. Smokescreen. Bernie already agreed to release all his speech transcripts. She knows Republicans will never agree to something like that...this is her method of dismissal. Besides if there was anything "damning" in those speeches don't you think it would have been leaked by now? I checked no leaks. There are a couple of supposed transcripts floating around but they have been found to be fakes. What I have see over the years is if anybody has what they think "smoking gun" type of information they will blab. It's a given that not all those folks at her speeches are Hillary supporters so if they had something by now it would be out there. I mean ask Mitt about 47%. Nope, I don't think the leak will come unless she is the nominee and the Republicans need to leak it to discredit her (if there is anything there, that is...which we don't know because she's got a death grip on those transcripts). The Republicans WANT to run against Hillary because she polls more poorly against them all and they would have a better chance to win against her than if Bernie is in the General.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 0:21:01 GMT
Mollycoddle, that is about Bernie's supporters though. Did she interview Bernie himself and have him answer those same questions? I wouldn't expect any candidate's supporters to know all the ins and outs of what their candidate proposes. I have read his platform and his plans to get them done, and I understand most of it. But not all of it. I would challenge Ms Bee to question Hillary on why she refuses to release the transcripts to her paid speeches. She is just so secretive. Why? About the transcripts. Just exactly why should she release the transcripts? Because Bernie wants it? On Febuary 18 at a Town Hall Meeting she was asked why didn't she just release the transcripts. Her answer " I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate on this race has given speeches to private groups." I think that is a reasonable answer considering she is being asked to do something no other candidate has been asked. I believe that is called a double standard. And so she is declining to release her transcripts. Besides if there was anything "damning" in those speeches don't you think it would have been leaked by now? I checked no leaks. There are a couple of supposed transcripts floating around but they have been found to be fakes. What I have see over the years is if anybody has what they think "smoking gun" type of information they will blab. It's a given that not all those folks at her speeches are Hillary supporters so if they had something by now it would be out there. I mean ask Mitt about 47%. Well, for starters, because if it is such "a nothing thing," why is she being so private about them? She has been paid over $200,000 for those words. If they are worth that much, why wouldn't she share them with everyone? Refusing to release the transcripts just tells me that she is hiding something.
As for the whole "I'll do it if everyone else does it," that is such a pitiful excuse. Bernie said he'll release any transcripts of any speeches he gave. Except he didn't give any. She was secretive about the emails. She is secretive about the speeches. She will do things behind closed doors if the price is right and damned the citizens of this country. She is running for the President of the United States for goodness sakes! It's called transparency. If she wanted to be private, then she should have stuck with being an ex-first lady. I don't trust her at all. And her being all secretive does nothing to bolster trust in most of us.
|
|
|
Post by maureen on Apr 20, 2016 0:41:23 GMT
maureen, interesting. Who did you vote for? Sanders. I think the Republican Party is a damn disaster. Trump and Cruz will damage this country far beyond my lifetime if elected. I figured the country is better off with a democrat at this point and I trust Sanders more than I trust Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by compeateropeator on Apr 20, 2016 1:22:43 GMT
I agree with Lucy and Molly. While I like some of the ideas that Sanders has, I a) don't think he has a chance of achieving them with the current Congress and b) am fiscally conservative enough to not want to take the tax hit if we were. I am also ready for a female president. That's exactly how I feel! The unfortunate problem IMO is that no one really has a chance of achieving much with the current Congress. Where we need to clean house and overhaul is Congress. I truly don't believe anyone will able to deliver on most of their platform. I believe that Bermie's appeal is much the same as Trumps...people want and feel we need something different as a Nation. Do I think that everything the Bernie proposes will work? No! But I do believe that he has a sincere interest in making things better for all of us and believes what he says. There is a difference between flip-flopping and changing your view. I think that Hillary is a flip-flopper for votes. Bernie may change his stance on some issues but it is because he really has changed his view. I have been listening to Bernie since the early 80s and I can tell you that, for the most part, he has not changed his message. I lived in Burlington when he became mayor. Did everything he do work? Again no. But he did try to make it a better city for all and did a lot for many. i do not trust Hillary. I believe she is power hungry and dishonest. I do not think she would be a good choice for our country and it has nothing to do with her being a women or not being qualified. It has everything to do with her lack of honesty and that she really isn't trying to look out for the average Joe. Do I want to pay more taxes? Not really. But I do want all people to be able to get a higher education if they desire and to be able to have health insurance. I think that as a "wealthy" nation that is not unreasonable. There is no society that is able to sustain everyone being well off, no matter how hard they work. It is just not possible. I think there will always be different financial classes of people for many reasons, but as a society I feel it is important to help those who can't achieve some of the basics necessary to just live. I know that many believe that all those that can't better themselves are lazy or not trying. I think that there is a lot of luck involved. Not that those that have achieved it aren't working hard for it, but I know a lot of people who work hard and still can not get ahead. I often feel that I was so lucky in my life that I was not born in a 3rd world country. Because no matter how hard I worked or how smart I was I would not have the opportunities that do now. Do I deserve it anymore that than anyone else? Not really, but it is just how it worked out. I work hard for everything that I have but I have some advantages that many don't. sorry to ramble but it is a complicated world and I am thankful everyday to have the opportunities that I do, I just wish that everyone did.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 2:23:53 GMT
About the transcripts. Just exactly why should she release the transcripts? Because Bernie wants it? On Febuary 18 at a Town Hall Meeting she was asked why didn't she just release the transcripts. Her answer " I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate on this race has given speeches to private groups." I think that is a reasonable answer considering she is being asked to do something no other candidate has been asked. I believe that is called a double standard. And so she is declining to release her transcripts. Besides if there was anything "damning" in those speeches don't you think it would have been leaked by now? I checked no leaks. There are a couple of supposed transcripts floating around but they have been found to be fakes. What I have see over the years is if anybody has what they think "smoking gun" type of information they will blab. It's a given that not all those folks at her speeches are Hillary supporters so if they had something by now it would be out there. I mean ask Mitt about 47%. Well, for starters, because if it is such "a nothing thing," why is she being so private about them? She has been paid over $200,000 for those words. If they are worth that much, why wouldn't she share them with everyone? Refusing to release the transcripts just tells me that she is hiding something.
As for the whole "I'll do it if everyone else does it," that is such a pitiful excuse. Bernie said he'll release any transcripts of any speeches he gave. Except he didn't give any. She was secretive about the emails. She is secretive about the speeches. She will do things behind closed doors if the price is right and damned the citizens of this country. She is running for the President of the United States for goodness sakes! It's called transparency. If she wanted to be private, then she should have stuck with being an ex-first lady. I don't trust her at all. And her being all secretive does nothing to bolster trust in most of us.
Your "I'll do it if everyone else does it" makes me think you don't understand what double standard means. That's too bad.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2016 2:31:29 GMT
About the transcripts. Just exactly why should she release the transcripts? Because Bernie wants it? Because it's not just Bernie that wants it, for starters. I've said this in another thread but I'll put it here too: "Does this really have to be said? It's the fact that she is hiding the contents of her speeches that is the problem. What is she hiding is the question, but that she is hiding anything is the problem. Could be completely innocent but we would never know because she isn't being forthcoming about any of it." If she's trying to prove she's trustworthy, hiding the contents of her PAID speeches to Wall Street and others of the billionaire class is really not the way to do it. On Febuary 18 at a Town Hall Meeting she was asked why didn't she just release the transcripts. Her answer " I'm happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate on this race has given speeches to private groups." I think that is a reasonable answer considering she is being asked to do something no other candidate has been asked. I believe that is called a double standard. And so she is declining to release her transcripts. Smokescreen. Bernie already agreed to release all his speech transcripts. She knows Republicans will never agree to something like that...this is her method of dismissal. Besides if there was anything "damning" in those speeches don't you think it would have been leaked by now? I checked no leaks. There are a couple of supposed transcripts floating around but they have been found to be fakes. What I have see over the years is if anybody has what they think "smoking gun" type of information they will blab. It's a given that not all those folks at her speeches are Hillary supporters so if they had something by now it would be out there. I mean ask Mitt about 47%. Nope, I don't think the leak will come unless she is the nominee and the Republicans need to leak it to discredit her (if there is anything there, that is...which we don't know because she's got a death grip on those transcripts). The Republicans WANT to run against Hillary because she polls more poorly against them all and they would have a better chance to win against her than if Bernie is in the General. Ok if want to believe all this stuff carry on. I think your kidding yourself but I guess the same can be said about me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 0:05:14 GMT
Well, for starters, because if it is such "a nothing thing," why is she being so private about them? She has been paid over $200,000 for those words. If they are worth that much, why wouldn't she share them with everyone? Refusing to release the transcripts just tells me that she is hiding something.
As for the whole "I'll do it if everyone else does it," that is such a pitiful excuse. Bernie said he'll release any transcripts of any speeches he gave. Except he didn't give any. She was secretive about the emails. She is secretive about the speeches. She will do things behind closed doors if the price is right and damned the citizens of this country. She is running for the President of the United States for goodness sakes! It's called transparency. If she wanted to be private, then she should have stuck with being an ex-first lady. I don't trust her at all. And her being all secretive does nothing to bolster trust in most of us.
Your "I'll do it if everyone else does it" makes me think you don't understand what double standard means. That's too bad. I do know what double standard means. However, I do not believe it applies to her. It is what she is hoping all the people will say to support her decision to hide her deceptions. And it apparently is working.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 21, 2016 0:25:04 GMT
I do not trust Hillary as far as I can throw her. I believe the only person Hillary cares about is herself. She is power hungry, and is in this race for Hillary herself. Not for the people. Not for this country. She will say anything to get elected. I don't trust one word that comes out of her mouth. Especially when I look at who has contributed to her campaign-Wall Street, the Koch brothers, and Monsanto, among many others. You know what happens when you accept donations from people like this? They expect favors back after the election. Do I believe her when she says she's going to break up the big banks and fine Wall Street? Heck no!
Then I look at Bernie Sanders. All of his donations have come from private individuals. None from Super Pacs. His average donations is $27.00. His campaign is by the people, for the people. He honestly cares (I believe) about this country and about it's citizens. His plan (and every bit of it you can read about on berniesanders.com) raises taxes only if you make over $250,000 per year.
He wants to extend health care as a right to every citizen in this country. I believe that's important and should be done. We are the richest nation on the planet and we don't have that, while every other industrialized nation does. We spend almost twice as much on health care as they do, and yet we are sicker than most other countries. I don't know about you but my health insurance premiums rise every year and my benefits decrease every year. I'm now spending $1,300.00 a month for two adults a year! Even if I do end up paying more in taxes (and I don't make anywhere near $250,000 a year) with Bernie's plan to go to a single payer health plan I'll save so much there (and so will most Americans) I'll end up saving money. But more importantly than that it's a downright disgrace that in this rich nation of ours people still go bankrupt due to health costs. In fact I think I heard just two days ago that half all of bankruptcies are now due to health care costs. That people have to choose between paying for a prescription or paying the rent that month.
It is time for the minimum wage to go up to $15.00 across the country. It used to be that fast food workers were high school and college students back in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Remember those days? Now you've got adults doing those jobs, often with 2-3 jobs trying to support a family on those wages. And it's not possible. Inflation has grown while wages have not across the board. What can people do who are stuck in those jobs while also trying to pay for child care? They want to work. They are not the useless, sit at home and collect welfare people that the Republicans whine about. Hillary has said she'd be willing to go up to $12.00 an hour. Do I believe her? No! And $12.00 isn't enough.
The Environment-this is a huge issue for me. I trust Bernie Sanders to do the right thing towards the environment. He's very concerned about climate change and he hasn't taken money from Monsanto which is the devil as far as I'm concerned as a threat towards our environment and the future.
Those are only 3 reasons, but there are many more. If you OP are still trying to decide I urge you to go to Bernie Sanders website and read about his stance on the issues. It is right there, and what is also there is how he intends to pay for them. That way you are getting it straight from the horses mouth. If you still feel like voting for Hillary Clinton, more power to you. I do believe Bernie Sanders still has a chance to win the primary. They are neck and neck at this point no matter what the media says.
Debbie in MD.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 0:30:17 GMT
Your "I'll do it if everyone else does it" makes me think you don't understand what double standard means. That's too bad. I do know what double standard means. However, I do not believe it applies to her. It is what she is hoping all the people will say to support her decision to hide her deceptions. And it apparently is working. You say she is hiding her deceptions and it's working. But did it ever occur to you that what you are "seeing" isn't there? There is no solid proof just a lot of innuendos. But of course you are going to say no because the proof is there can't you see it!
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Apr 21, 2016 1:51:38 GMT
I read that hillary averages $57 per donor. lots of small donations to her too...
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Apr 21, 2016 2:08:47 GMT
I wonder if that includes PACs and Super PACs Hillary: www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=fTop 5 Soros Fund Management $7,039,800 Laborers Union $4,000,250 Euclidean Capital $3,502,700 Pritzker Group $2,814,343 Saban Capital Group $2,531,995 Bernie www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=fAlphabet Inc $254,814 University of California $139,633 Microsoft Corp $95,296 Apple Inc $85,576 Amazon.com $63,385 I wonder what a SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR Donation gets you?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 10:06:44 GMT
I do know what double standard means. However, I do not believe it applies to her. It is what she is hoping all the people will say to support her decision to hide her deceptions. And it apparently is working. You say she is hiding her deceptions and it's working. But did it ever occur to you that what you are "seeing" isn't there? There is no solid proof just a lot of innuendos. But of course you are going to say no because the proof is there can't you see it! I am not going to say that. Why do you insist on putting words on my keyboard? What I am saying is, based on past actions of this person, I would not put it past her to make her speech all about pandering to the elite attending. She is loyal only to herself. She is not "for the people" and if she were to get into the White House, she will continue pandering to those who in the top 1% and forget about the rest of us. And I, along with millions of others, cannot understand why you, et al., can't see that!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 16:19:12 GMT
You say she is hiding her deceptions and it's working. But did it ever occur to you that what you are "seeing" isn't there? There is no solid proof just a lot of innuendos. But of course you are going to say no because the proof is there can't you see it! I am not going to say that. Why do you insist on putting words on my keyboard? What I am saying is, based on past actions of this person, I would not put it past her to make her speech all about pandering to the elite attending. She is loyal only to herself. She is not "for the people" and if she were to get into the White House, she will continue pandering to those who in the top 1% and forget about the rest of us. And I, along with millions of others, cannot understand why you, et al., can't see that! I'm not putting words on your keyboard. I'm just recapping what I'm reading in your posts. You know what "double standard" means but it doesn't apply to Hillary because you just know she is hiding something. But you have no proof. You don't believe Hillary should have any privacy because she is running for a public office. You seem convinced she is only in this for "herself"and not to help people in spite of what she says. Again you have no proof. As to the 1% gang. There is no question Wall Street needs to be regulated and there is no question any and all tax loopholes need to be closed. But in spite of what Bernie is preaching they are not the enemy to the masses. In fact old Bernie is playing, IMO, a dangerous game with the America people by leading them to believe Wall Street is bad and their only purpose is to pay for all his pie in the sky schemes. It's that sort of rhetoric that sets up "it's us against them" scenario. Which never ends well. You and others like you are seeing a Hillary that I'm just not seeing. I have asked for proof of what you are saying because I'm wondering what you guys are seeing that I'm not. In the two threads I started about Hillary and Bernie there were a couple of items that I did my own research on. There was nothing there. At least not to the extent that would generate the intense dislike displayed by some. There is no questions that Hillary is flawed but when it comes to her "terrible misdeeds" that make her untrustworthy there is just nothing there. Gosh maybe I shouldn't have used the word flawed. But she is human and all humans are flawed but then again when it comes to saying Hillary is flawed like the rest of us it could be seen by some as an excuse. Because we all know Hillary has to be perfect otherwise she is seen as a liar and untrustworthy.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Apr 21, 2016 16:33:41 GMT
Yeah, I don't understand the whole "Hillary is only in it for herself" thing. Much of her working life has been spent in public service. You don't take a Yale law degree and go to work for social services because you're only in it for yourself.
There are apparently people out there who think she murdered Vince Foster and other bizarre BS. The fact that some people believe it does not make it true. Just as the fact that some people believe she will load up the Supreme Court with right-wingers if it suits her supposed what's-best-for-Hillary agenda doesn't make it true.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Apr 21, 2016 19:43:46 GMT
I was thinking about the speeches. I feel like most the time, private people and private companies have the right to keep their "trade secrets" or work product secret. If you pay a guy $10,000 to hack something, he/she is going to hack something and not necessarily tell you how he/she did it. that is the secret knowledge. we don't expect apple to give all their software away..they spent millions developing it. in the same way, the speeches Hillary gave as a private citizen were her work product...she offered speeches and people were willing to pay big bucks for her to be there and to give a speech. there is really no reason she has to give away her work product. I understand much of her earnings were given to charity.. but should she have said..gee, you are willing to pay me $200,000 but I won't accept a penny over $2000? that is not how capitalism works.
Her tax returns are public...lets see the other candidates release 10 yrs of complete tax returns.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 21, 2016 19:52:58 GMT
I was thinking about the speeches. I feel like most the time, private people and private companies have the right to keep their "trade secrets" or work product secret. If you pay a guy $10,000 to hack something, he/she is going to hack something and not necessarily tell you how he/she did it. that is the secret knowledge. we don't expect apple to give all their software away..they spent millions developing it. in the same way, the speeches Hillary gave as a private citizen were her work product...she offered speeches and people were willing to pay big bucks for her to be there and to give a speech. there is really no reason she has to give away her work product. I understand much of her earnings were given to charity.. but should she have said..gee, you are willing to pay me $200,000 but I won't accept a penny over $2000? that is not how capitalism works. I might be able to accept this, except for the fact that she is running for president of the US. Her interaction and accepting of money from those who have seriously damaged our nation as a whole are of utmost interest to those she is trying to convince to vote for her.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 20:38:42 GMT
I admire your zealousness in advocating for Hillary. I hope you are right, that everything that has been said about her is not true. But I would truly hate for her to get into the White House and prove you wrong. Which I firmly believe will happen. Therefore, I will do my part to keep her out. I didn't vote for her in the NYS primary. I will not vote for her come November if it is her name on the ballot. I can't do much more than that. I'm only one little person. So we shall see, I guess.
Sometimes, you just KNOW that someone is evil. But of course that is simply my opinion. Just as it is your opinion that she isn't. There is no proof on your side either. Just because you don't think she is going to do anything to hurt the country should she become president, doesn't make it true. I'd rather hazard on the side of you just never know, so it's way better to keep her away from all that power.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 22, 2016 16:53:37 GMT
Another thought about Hillary's transcripts...do ANY of the other candidates have similar speech transcripts? Sanders released his already, Kacich doesn't have any...does Cruz or Trump? Sincerely curious here because if Hillary is the only one who has made these kinds of speeches then her saying "I'll release mine when everyone else releases there's" is completely and totally disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by flanz on Apr 22, 2016 17:12:05 GMT
I read that hillary averages $57 per donor. lots of small donations to her too... I have a lot of trouble believing this. do you have a source?
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Apr 22, 2016 17:50:14 GMT
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 22, 2016 18:09:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 19:38:35 GMT
The more I listen to Sanders there days the more "red herrings" he is tossing out there to take away from the flaws in his programs.
The latest is "who's got the most small donors"?
Bernie had a field day when George Clooney hosted a fundraiser for Hillary that charged big bucks. Now we can argue if the Hillary Victory Fund is kosher in the eyes of Bernie or not but again that is nothing but a "red herring" when it comes to end result of fundraisers like this one.
Yes Hillary did get money for her campaign but like George Clooney said "It's going to the congressmen and senators to try and take back Congress. And that is importance (is) we need to take the senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice because the fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get the obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I don't have to do a fundraiser again. And that is why I'm doing it."
So the question becomes what has Bernie done to raise funds for these I guess they're call down ticket candidates? Not much. I read recently he finally has "chosen" three individuals. But that only came after bunch of criticism from Democrats.
Bottom line no liberal president is going to get much or any of her or his agenda through if the Democrats don't control either the House or Senate. Hillary understands this and it seems Bernie does not. I guess he figures his "revolution" will make everything rainbows and unicorns in DC. But it will be a revolution of "1" if more Democrats aren't elected to Congress. That is why it's important for Presidential candidates to take an interested in the races for the House and Senate as well as running their own campaign.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 22, 2016 20:34:57 GMT
The more I listen to Sanders there days the more "red herrings" he is tossing out there to take away from the flaws in his programs. The latest is "who's got the most small donors"? Bernie had a field day when George Clooney hosted a fundraiser for Hillary that charged big bucks. Now we can argue if the Hillary Victory Fund is kosher in the eyes of Bernie or not but again that is nothing but a "red herring" when it comes to end result of fundraisers like this one. Yes Hillary did get money for her campaign but like George Clooney said "It's going to the congressmen and senators to try and take back Congress. And that is importance (is) we need to take the senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice because the fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get the obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I don't have to do a fundraiser again. And that is why I'm doing it." So the question becomes what has Bernie done to raise funds for these I guess they're call down ticket candidates? Not much. I read recently he finally has "chosen" three individuals. But that only came after bunch of criticism from Democrats. Bottom line no liberal president is going to get much or any of her or his agenda through if the Democrats don't control either the House or Senate. Hillary understands this and it seems Bernie does not. I guess he figures his "revolution" will make everything rainbows and unicorns in DC. But it will be a revolution of "1" if more Democrats aren't elected to Congress. That is why it's important for Presidential candidates to take an interested in the races for the House and Senate as well as running their own campaign. Bernie begins raising cash for down-ballot progressivesBernie Sanders Reaches Down Ballot To Expand His Political RevolutionBernie Sanders Endorses Three Women House Candidates
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 29, 2024 20:22:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 23:27:13 GMT
The more I listen to Sanders there days the more "red herrings" he is tossing out there to take away from the flaws in his programs. The latest is "who's got the most small donors"? Bernie had a field day when George Clooney hosted a fundraiser for Hillary that charged big bucks. Now we can argue if the Hillary Victory Fund is kosher in the eyes of Bernie or not but again that is nothing but a "red herring" when it comes to end result of fundraisers like this one. Yes Hillary did get money for her campaign but like George Clooney said "It's going to the congressmen and senators to try and take back Congress. And that is importance (is) we need to take the senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice because the fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get the obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I don't have to do a fundraiser again. And that is why I'm doing it." So the question becomes what has Bernie done to raise funds for these I guess they're call down ticket candidates? Not much. I read recently he finally has "chosen" three individuals. But that only came after bunch of criticism from Democrats. Bottom line no liberal president is going to get much or any of her or his agenda through if the Democrats don't control either the House or Senate. Hillary understands this and it seems Bernie does not. I guess he figures his "revolution" will make everything rainbows and unicorns in DC. But it will be a revolution of "1" if more Democrats aren't elected to Congress. That is why it's important for Presidential candidates to take an interested in the races for the House and Senate as well as running their own campaign. Bernie begins raising cash for down-ballot progressivesBernie Sanders Reaches Down Ballot To Expand His Political RevolutionBernie Sanders Endorses Three Women House CandidatesPlease note above where I did point out Sanders had finally started raising money for "chosen" candidates after criticism from Democrats that he had done nothing for down ballot candidates. Hillary, last time I had checked, had help raise $18M for down ballot candidates. And unless specified by the donor the money went to help a variety of Democratic candidates. So maybe it's this headache that won't go away but I'm just not getting your point.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Apr 22, 2016 23:43:10 GMT
The more I listen to Sanders there days the more "red herrings" he is tossing out there to take away from the flaws in his programs. The latest is "who's got the most small donors"? Bernie had a field day when George Clooney hosted a fundraiser for Hillary that charged big bucks. Now we can argue if the Hillary Victory Fund is kosher in the eyes of Bernie or not but again that is nothing but a "red herring" when it comes to end result of fundraisers like this one. Yes Hillary did get money for her campaign but like George Clooney said "It's going to the congressmen and senators to try and take back Congress. And that is importance (is) we need to take the senate back because we need to confirm the Supreme Court justice because the fifth vote on the Supreme Court can overturn Citizens United and get the obscene, ridiculous amount of money out so I don't have to do a fundraiser again. And that is why I'm doing it." So the question becomes what has Bernie done to raise funds for these I guess they're call down ticket candidates? Not much. I read recently he finally has "chosen" three individuals. But that only came after bunch of criticism from Democrats. Bottom line no liberal president is going to get much or any of her or his agenda through if the Democrats don't control either the House or Senate. Hillary understands this and it seems Bernie does not. I guess he figures his "revolution" will make everything rainbows and unicorns in DC. But it will be a revolution of "1" if more Democrats aren't elected to Congress. That is why it's important for Presidential candidates to take an interested in the races for the House and Senate as well as running their own campaign. Why do you assume Bernie does not understand how important it is for Democrats to control the House and/or Senate? Has he ever said anything about not caring or not working towards that goal? No he has NOT! You are implying that voting for Hillary Clinton comes with an automatic Democratic House and/or Senate, and a vote for Bernie Sanders means an automatic Republican House and/or Senate like we have no with no change for the next 4-5 years. What gives you this opinion and certainty? Because I'd like to explain something to you. We Bernie supporters don't buy this for one second. We believe voting for Bernie Sanders is our best chance of getting a Democratic House and Senate. Debbie in MD.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on Apr 23, 2016 0:34:20 GMT
Please note above where I did point out Sanders had finally started raising money for "chosen" candidates after criticism from Democrats that he had done nothing for down ballot candidates. Hillary, last time I had checked, had help raise $18M for down ballot candidates. And unless specified by the donor the money went to help a variety of Democratic candidates. So maybe it's this headache that won't go away but I'm just not getting your point. Gotta apologize, krazyscrapper...I'm a serial skimmer. You are completely correct though, he did only just start fundraising and it isn't for the Democrats as a whole, it's more or less the up and coming Democrats that hold the Sanders POV. I would like to point out, though, it is purported that a huge portion of the money Hillary has brought in to the DNC has been funneled right back to her campaign through a tricky but legal loophole. If so, Hillary isn't doing as much for the DNC as it looks like she's doing as she may be the main beneficiary of her "down ticket" fundraising. (I posted on this the other day: begins page 3 @apr 18, 2016 at 4:38pm)
|
|