The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
being wrong is NOT THE SAME as lying, but I remember my kids having trouble w/ that one
====
Almost CERTAINLY not true: they have found NOTHING to charge her with, despite years of digging at public expense (doesn't that seem...WASTEFUL to you, as a taxpayer?). THEY LITERALLY HAVE NOTHING. AT ALL.
Imagining that she's about to be indicted is frankly stupid. Sorry.
Last edited:
I am not imagining anything and I said impeached, not indicted. Thanks for the name calling. Own it.
edit: Funny how things have shifted from "There is no pay to play there..." to " Pay to play is a good thing" lmao...
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
False. The FBI admitted they found multiple chargeable offenses, but recommended no charges. Very different. If this was CEO with gov. info they would be in prison right now. Political class almost always gets away with it.
. Can't let this go.
I have made no mention of the Clintons in white water or Benghazi in this thread.
I am not talking about Republican witch hunts. This is the State Dept, FBI and the IRS here.
The reason I posted that is because those emails were originally going to be kept secret for 27 months. Now a judge has changed that to before the election.
I am not the one doing this, I am just posting what I read. I am a Democrat and she is the candidate. It sucks.
If voting booths around the county had been ready ( big edit! - staggering number of approaches to voter suppression and election theft: Biased officials, voter registration prevented, wrongfully purged voter rolls, voter intimidation, voter misinformation, confusing polling places, untrained poll works, voter ID barriers, long lines, provisional balloting, and that’s all before you even get to cast your vote on what may be a touch screen voting machine unable to verify your vote was properly recorded.) for the number of Bernie supporters to vote, I think the outcome would be different and I think we deserve better than this.
With all of Clintons past investigations, it's mind blowing that she would do this.
Last edited:
As usual, this type of thread can be a minefield so please tread carefully if you choose to participate. If you can't say what you want without being respectful then please step away from the keyboard until you can. We're all in this together - until you get thread banned. 
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
So 3 people attempt to gain favor out of 15k emails, 2 get a direct knockback, 3rd goes through official channels, clinton gets blamed for something but it's unclear what's she is actually to blame for, in the meantime trump campaign has upped it's spending but mainly on salaries and travel and is paying large wodges of money to trump based companies and close to $500k on hats and no one bats an eyelid.
If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. You have to dance with the ones who brought you, if I may mix my metaphors. It's Trump vs Clinton. They, and their entourages brought us here. The proper question is, given these two choices, who would you rather have? Who would you rather see appoint Supreme Court Judges?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
How the AP Spun the Story About the Clinton Foundation
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 24, 2016 9:19 AM
The Associated Press has just shown us why it is important to be vigilant in how we consume the news as it is reported. They took some interesting information they gathered and spun it into something it wasn’t…scandalous. Here is their lead-in introduction:
Chris Cillizza is an example of a pundit who ran with it. In reference to that intro, he writes this:
Now…let me pull a couple of other quotes from what he said.
In other words, what it comes down to is “it just plain looks bad.” That is basically what most every drummed up “scandal” against Hillary Clinton comes down to: from the perspective of the people judging her – it looks bad. Welcome to the world of optics as scandal.
One way to look at this is that the AP spun the story they wanted to tell about this information. That happens almost all the time and we often don’t notice. To clarify how that happened here, note first of all the AP headline: “Many Donors to Clinton Foundation Met With Her at State.” As Adam Khan points out – that’s actually not true.
Brian Fallon @brianefallon
Hey @AP, this tweet is 100 percent factually inaccurate and remains uncorrected hours later. https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400?s=03 …
Follow
Adam Khan @Khanoisseur
Clinton Foundation has 7000 donors.
Hillary met with 60 as SoS= ~1%.
Wouldn't have made for a great AP tweet @brianefallon @SheWhoVotes
11:57 PM - 23 Aug 2016 · San Francisco, CA, United States
As he said, that wouldn’t have made for a “big story.” So they spun the information in a way that got an awful lot of attention. The AP did something else to spin this tale:
That is how they came up with the numbers to say, “More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation.”
But here is where the AP blew their story. In an attempt to provide an example of how this becomes an “optics” problem for Hillary Clinton, they focused much of the article on the fact that she met several times with Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor. In case you don’t recognize that name, he is an economist from Bangladesh who pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance as a way to fight poverty, and founded Grameen Bank. For those efforts, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.
The connection the AP tries to make is that SoS Clinton met with Yunus because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. What they didn’t mention is that their relationship goes back over 30 years to the time Hillary (as first lady of Arkansas) heard about his work and brought him to her state to explore the possibility of implementing microfinance programs to assist the poor.
During the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, the government of Bangladesh was trying to discredit Yunus and remove him from leadership at Grameen Bank due to the fact that he was seen as a political threat. In case you think Clinton’s engagement on that presents and “optics” problem, consider this press release from then-Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry.
Since those days, the whole fascination with microfinance as a way to combat poverty has waned a bit – mostly due to for-profit banks that abused the possibilities. But it is interesting to note that President Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Soetero, was deeply involved in promoting microfinance in Indonesia. Clinton herself made that connection on the day she started work as President Obama’s Secretary of State.
One has to wonder why the AP chose this story of Clinton’s 30+ year relationship with a Nobel Peace Prize recipient committed to combating global poverty as the one to highlight in their efforts to suggest that the Secretary of State met with people because of their donations to the Clinton Foundation. I can’t imagine a more flawed example.
I am not suggesting any nefarious motives on the part of the AP reporters. But as we see so often in the media, the facts must be paired with a narrative that gives them meaning. It behooves us as consumers of the media to think twice about whether or not the narrative fits ALL of the facts.
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 24, 2016 9:19 AM
The Associated Press has just shown us why it is important to be vigilant in how we consume the news as it is reported. They took some interesting information they gathered and spun it into something it wasn’t…scandalous. Here is their lead-in introduction:
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Chris Cillizza is an example of a pundit who ran with it. In reference to that intro, he writes this:
It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF.
And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)
It just plain looks bad. Really bad.
And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)
It just plain looks bad. Really bad.
Now…let me pull a couple of other quotes from what he said.
No one is alleging that the Clinton Foundation didn’t (and doesn’t) do enormous amounts of good around the world…
To be clear: I have no evidence — none — that Clinton broke any law or did anything intentionally shady…
To be clear: I have no evidence — none — that Clinton broke any law or did anything intentionally shady…
In other words, what it comes down to is “it just plain looks bad.” That is basically what most every drummed up “scandal” against Hillary Clinton comes down to: from the perspective of the people judging her – it looks bad. Welcome to the world of optics as scandal.
One way to look at this is that the AP spun the story they wanted to tell about this information. That happens almost all the time and we often don’t notice. To clarify how that happened here, note first of all the AP headline: “Many Donors to Clinton Foundation Met With Her at State.” As Adam Khan points out – that’s actually not true.
Brian Fallon @brianefallon
Hey @AP, this tweet is 100 percent factually inaccurate and remains uncorrected hours later. https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400?s=03 …
Follow
Adam Khan @Khanoisseur Clinton Foundation has 7000 donors.
Hillary met with 60 as SoS= ~1%.
Wouldn't have made for a great AP tweet @brianefallon @SheWhoVotes
11:57 PM - 23 Aug 2016 · San Francisco, CA, United States
As he said, that wouldn’t have made for a “big story.” So they spun the information in a way that got an awful lot of attention. The AP did something else to spin this tale:
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives…
Clinton’s campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Clinton’s campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
That is how they came up with the numbers to say, “More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money – either personally or through companies or groups – to the Clinton Foundation.”
But here is where the AP blew their story. In an attempt to provide an example of how this becomes an “optics” problem for Hillary Clinton, they focused much of the article on the fact that she met several times with Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor. In case you don’t recognize that name, he is an economist from Bangladesh who pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance as a way to fight poverty, and founded Grameen Bank. For those efforts, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.
The connection the AP tries to make is that SoS Clinton met with Yunus because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. What they didn’t mention is that their relationship goes back over 30 years to the time Hillary (as first lady of Arkansas) heard about his work and brought him to her state to explore the possibility of implementing microfinance programs to assist the poor.
During the time that Clinton was Secretary of State, the government of Bangladesh was trying to discredit Yunus and remove him from leadership at Grameen Bank due to the fact that he was seen as a political threat. In case you think Clinton’s engagement on that presents and “optics” problem, consider this press release from then-Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry.
I am deeply concerned by efforts to remove Muhammad Yunus as managing director of the Grameen Bank. The international community will watch this situation closely, and I hope that both sides can reach a compromise that maintains Grameen Bank’s autonomy and effectiveness. Institutions like the Grameen Bank make a significant contribution to Bangladesh’s development and democracy and Professor Yunus’s life-long work to reduce poverty and empower women through microloans has deservedly received world-wide attention and respect.
Since those days, the whole fascination with microfinance as a way to combat poverty has waned a bit – mostly due to for-profit banks that abused the possibilities. But it is interesting to note that President Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham Soetero, was deeply involved in promoting microfinance in Indonesia. Clinton herself made that connection on the day she started work as President Obama’s Secretary of State.
We have, with President Obama, someone who believes in development and diplomacy. Coming to the State Department yesterday sent a very strong signal. A few of you may even know, as I mentioned in my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, that the President’s late mother was an expert in microfinance and worked in Indonesia. I have been involved in microfinance since 1983, when I first met Muhammad Yunus and had Muhammad come to see us in Arkansas so that we could use the lessons from the Grameen Bank in our own country. I was actually looking forward to being on a panel with the President’s mother in Beijing on microfinance.
One has to wonder why the AP chose this story of Clinton’s 30+ year relationship with a Nobel Peace Prize recipient committed to combating global poverty as the one to highlight in their efforts to suggest that the Secretary of State met with people because of their donations to the Clinton Foundation. I can’t imagine a more flawed example.
I am not suggesting any nefarious motives on the part of the AP reporters. But as we see so often in the media, the facts must be paired with a narrative that gives them meaning. It behooves us as consumers of the media to think twice about whether or not the narrative fits ALL of the facts.
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Joel sez: "I am not imagining anything and I said impeached, not indicted. Thanks for the name calling. Own it. "
AFTER he (you) said, "We need an emergency do over, right now! She is not going to make it until Nov and if she does, they will just impeach her, then."
What name did I call you (or anyone)?
On-topic, how, pray, do you imagine (NOT a bad word) she will "not make it until Nov"? An indictment is the least violent way I can imagine, but I know I'm not perfect; if you didn't mean an indictment, what DID you mean? Assassination? Choking on a chicken sandwich? A dance-off?
The name-calling is...well...imaginary.
=====
LAW-ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE?
DID YOU READ WHY?
What I said is not false, they have found nothing they can make stick in court. It's their job to know things like that; if it's your job to know when they're lying, then spill it, dude - you'll have ALL the support (and hey, look, I don't think you're calling me a liar (yes, wasn't you, I remember)
)
Extra credit: name ONE CEO in jail for anything even remotely as petty, now or in the past (really);
Extra extra credit: how many millions of tax dollars are YOU willing to waste - and how many years (please remember to include the cost of the Whitewater/Vince Foster years, all the Benghazi re-runs AND the email thing)?
FTR (again) I don't like her AT ALL, but this bullshit's been going on since '92 - a derangement syndrome all it's own, time to put. It. DOWN....
I just don't understand why so many people think she's more powerful than the Wall Street posse - the Republicans have been DYING to put her in jail, AND ruin her, and they can't because they can't find anything that would stand up in court (there's technical terms and all, but the bottom line seems to be that you think the FBI/LEO are LYING because Almighty HRC and poor weak them...not even Alex Jones is that lame.
That position strikes me as ridiculous on the face of it: please defend it with substance.
"AFTER he (you) said, "We need an emergency do over, right now! She is not going to make it until Nov and if she does, they will just impeach her, then."
What name did I call you (or anyone)?
On-topic, how, pray, do you imagine (NOT a bad word) she will "not make it until Nov"? An indictment is the least violent way I can imagine, but I know I'm not perfect; if you didn't mean an indictment, what DID you mean? Assassination? Choking on a chicken sandwich? A dance-off?
The name-calling is...well...imaginary.
I love that you included this: I can't imagine (NOT a bad word) what makes you think it fits in a response to my comments.
=====
DID THEY CHARGE HER?
LAW-ENFORCEMENT ANYWHERE?
DID YOU READ WHY?
What I said is not false, they have found nothing they can make stick in court. It's their job to know things like that; if it's your job to know when they're lying, then spill it, dude - you'll have ALL the support (and hey, look, I don't think you're calling me a liar (yes, wasn't you, I remember)
)Extra credit: name ONE CEO in jail for anything even remotely as petty, now or in the past (really);
Extra extra credit: how many millions of tax dollars are YOU willing to waste - and how many years (please remember to include the cost of the Whitewater/Vince Foster years, all the Benghazi re-runs AND the email thing)?
FTR (again) I don't like her AT ALL, but this bullshit's been going on since '92 - a derangement syndrome all it's own, time to put. It. DOWN....
I just don't understand why so many people think she's more powerful than the Wall Street posse - the Republicans have been DYING to put her in jail, AND ruin her, and they can't because they can't find anything that would stand up in court (there's technical terms and all, but the bottom line seems to be that you think the FBI/LEO are LYING because Almighty HRC and poor weak them...not even Alex Jones is that lame.
That position strikes me as ridiculous on the face of it: please defend it with substance.
Last edited:
It was a late edit and not really directed at you. Just did not want to double post.
Big edits:.
I meant disqualified as in dropped out due to new evidence of... you name it. Leaked, hacked , deleted emails, pay to play corruption proof
Edit2:. I felt like you called me stupid for imagining anything could happen between now and the election. Not talking about violence. Just the email mess and the foundation links.
Last edited:
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
From your response above, "I am not the one doing this, I am just posting what I read. I am a Democrat and she is the candidate. It sucks." I get it, I'm not slamming, but what you're reading IS from the right-wing HRC character-assassination machine: after nearly 30 years, it become recognizable.
I'm not expecting you to account for it, or justify anything, I'm just trying to say, "that's a bad pile to pull from, there are no facts in it" - and the proof is that she'd already have been dragged through the courts with just as much gleeful commentary as the Fox/Breitbart/WorldNut could manage. It would have been YUUUGE.
Even Donald would know about it.
More from above:
This a little meta, but we all want to CONTINUE the conversation, not close it down, so - a moment of meta isn't so bad.... If I'm parsing you correctly, you're saying if there had been adequate provision for voters turning out in such high numbers in the primaries, Sanders would be our candidate, and the nation would be better for it. If that is what you're saying (it seems to me to be so), then we have no argument of any kind.
It seems like you're ALSO saying that you've never seen such rampant vote suppression, and between the biased officials and the wide range of "events" it all seems like someone's trying to rig the primary, and you seem to think that Clinton is to finger for this badly-manifested event. If I'm reading you right, again, we do not disagree at all: where our points of view diverge is here: the political parties - BOTH of them, together - have always made sure that "they" (the powerful/important) could turn out the candidate THEY wanted IN SPITE OF their own voters, and they made sure it stayed legal to do so.
Since none of this is illegal, and since both parties have been "arranging to secure desired outcomes" for many decades, it seems to me that it would take ACTUAL PROOF of an ACTUAL crime that actually IS illegal for any major-party candidate to run any risk at all.
This was a major portion of Sanders' appeal: he knew that was party politics among the ruling class, and he knew (knows) that only broad-based anger and opposition from voters will make pols pay attention - and until then, the parties will continue to run things internally to suit themselves.
Always trying to improve my communications skills: i have not tried to make people wrong, but I am kind of a stickler for actually parsing what people say - hope I haven't been TOO annoying...
I'm not expecting you to account for it, or justify anything, I'm just trying to say, "that's a bad pile to pull from, there are no facts in it" - and the proof is that she'd already have been dragged through the courts with just as much gleeful commentary as the Fox/Breitbart/WorldNut could manage. It would have been YUUUGE.
Even Donald would know about it.
More from above:
This a little meta, but we all want to CONTINUE the conversation, not close it down, so - a moment of meta isn't so bad.... If I'm parsing you correctly, you're saying if there had been adequate provision for voters turning out in such high numbers in the primaries, Sanders would be our candidate, and the nation would be better for it. If that is what you're saying (it seems to me to be so), then we have no argument of any kind.
It seems like you're ALSO saying that you've never seen such rampant vote suppression, and between the biased officials and the wide range of "events" it all seems like someone's trying to rig the primary, and you seem to think that Clinton is to finger for this badly-manifested event. If I'm reading you right, again, we do not disagree at all: where our points of view diverge is here: the political parties - BOTH of them, together - have always made sure that "they" (the powerful/important) could turn out the candidate THEY wanted IN SPITE OF their own voters, and they made sure it stayed legal to do so.
Since none of this is illegal, and since both parties have been "arranging to secure desired outcomes" for many decades, it seems to me that it would take ACTUAL PROOF of an ACTUAL crime that actually IS illegal for any major-party candidate to run any risk at all.
This was a major portion of Sanders' appeal: he knew that was party politics among the ruling class, and he knew (knows) that only broad-based anger and opposition from voters will make pols pay attention - and until then, the parties will continue to run things internally to suit themselves.
Always trying to improve my communications skills: i have not tried to make people wrong, but I am kind of a stickler for actually parsing what people say - hope I haven't been TOO annoying...
Last edited:
I also understand the smear machine but I believe this is different.
Yes the right wing sites are screaming it, but the mainstream is also reporting it.
You think it's over and done but I don't think it's done yet. There will be more to come out.. Then what ? You have faith she will escape it, but I do not.. That's it.
We disagree. It's cool.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Oops... Trouble in paradise...http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/bernie-sanderss-our-revolution-stumbles-out-of-the-gate/
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/bernie-sanderss-our-revolution-stumbles-out-of-the-gate/
Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution Stumbles Out of the Gate
August 24, 2016 11:13 AM
It’s not good news when a huge chunk of your staff resigns in protest right before you have the launch of your big new political organization, but that’s what just happened to Bernie Sanders.
Jeff Weaver is part of the problem, but the structure of Our Revolution is causing serious consternation from Sanders’ idealistic staff and many of his supporters.
The launch is scheduled for tonight, but obviously there is now a large shadow cast over the event.
Things haven’t been going well for Sanders in general since the end of his campaign. His failure to issue his financial disclosure after having delayed it throughout the campaign has raised a lot of hackles, and his conspicuous purchase of a vacation home on North Hero Island isn’t sitting well with a lot of people up in Vermont. There have been a bunch of articles detailing how Jane Sanders ran Burlington College into the ground and about how the state taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for the school’s collapse. Sanders is also taking a beating for not doing much for the candidates he’s supposed to be supporting, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opponent now reduced to begging and pleading for Sanders to show him some love now that he’s down by double digits with less than a week to go before the primary and claiming that he can’t even get Sanders to return his phone calls.
I myself lambasted Sanders for quitting the Democratic Party after so many people stuck with him to give him influence over the platform, putting their faith in him to reform the party from within. Now he’s being too cute by half by refusing to rule out running for reelection as a Democrat.
If the true believers closest to him who were lined up to help launch the next phase of his revolution are quitting in protest, I don’t think it’s biased or uncharitable to say that Sanders isn’t turning out to be the person people thought he was. I don’t doubt that he’s made some enemies who are looking to settle scores, but this mass resignation certainly isn’t an example of that. Tim Canova calling him out for not returning his calls isn’t an example of that. His enemies didn’t force him to hire Jeff Weaver or to organize his new political outfit as a 501(c)(4) that can accept dark money but can’t coordinate with his office. It was his choice to delay and ultimately blow off disclosing his finances and then turn around and pay cash for an expensive third lakefront home on North Hero Island.
The kick-off parties for Our Revolution begin at 8pm tonight, and Sanders will appear in a livestream from a Burlington studio at 9pm. It will be interesting to see how he sells his big new project, but it’s certainly off to an inauspicious start.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/bernie-sanderss-our-revolution-stumbles-out-of-the-gate/
Bernie Sanders’s Our Revolution Stumbles Out of the Gate
August 24, 2016 11:13 AM
It’s not good news when a huge chunk of your staff resigns in protest right before you have the launch of your big new political organization, but that’s what just happened to Bernie Sanders.
…while the establishment of the new group, Our Revolution, has been eagerly awaited by many of his most ardent supporters, it has been met with criticism and controversy over its financing and management.
A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the same pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency.
The announcement of the group, which will be livestreamed Wednesday night, also comes as the majority of its staff resigned after the appointment last Monday of Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s former campaign manager, to lead the organization.
Several people familiar with the organization said eight core staff members have stepped down. The group’s entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions.
After the resignations, Mr. Sanders spoke to some who had quit and asked them to reconsider, but the staff members refused.
A principal concern among backers of Mr. Sanders, whose condemnation of the campaign finance system was a pillar of his presidential bid, is that the group can draw from the same pool of “dark money” that Mr. Sanders condemned for lacking transparency.
The announcement of the group, which will be livestreamed Wednesday night, also comes as the majority of its staff resigned after the appointment last Monday of Jeff Weaver, Mr. Sanders’s former campaign manager, to lead the organization.
Several people familiar with the organization said eight core staff members have stepped down. The group’s entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital and data positions.
After the resignations, Mr. Sanders spoke to some who had quit and asked them to reconsider, but the staff members refused.
Jeff Weaver is part of the problem, but the structure of Our Revolution is causing serious consternation from Sanders’ idealistic staff and many of his supporters.
Claire Sandberg, who was the organizing director at Our Revolution and had worked on Mr. Sanders’s campaign, said she and others were also concerned about the group’s tax status — as a 501(c)(4) organization it can collect large donations from anonymous sources…
…“I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign,” she said, expressing concern that Mr. Weaver would “betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grass-roots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement.”
…The staff members who quit also said that they feared that the 501(c)(4) designation meant the group would not be able to work directly with Mr. Sanders or the people he has encouraged to run for office because such organizations are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates.
…“I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign,” she said, expressing concern that Mr. Weaver would “betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grass-roots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement.”
…The staff members who quit also said that they feared that the 501(c)(4) designation meant the group would not be able to work directly with Mr. Sanders or the people he has encouraged to run for office because such organizations are not allowed to coordinate directly with candidates.
The launch is scheduled for tonight, but obviously there is now a large shadow cast over the event.
Things haven’t been going well for Sanders in general since the end of his campaign. His failure to issue his financial disclosure after having delayed it throughout the campaign has raised a lot of hackles, and his conspicuous purchase of a vacation home on North Hero Island isn’t sitting well with a lot of people up in Vermont. There have been a bunch of articles detailing how Jane Sanders ran Burlington College into the ground and about how the state taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for the school’s collapse. Sanders is also taking a beating for not doing much for the candidates he’s supposed to be supporting, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s opponent now reduced to begging and pleading for Sanders to show him some love now that he’s down by double digits with less than a week to go before the primary and claiming that he can’t even get Sanders to return his phone calls.
I myself lambasted Sanders for quitting the Democratic Party after so many people stuck with him to give him influence over the platform, putting their faith in him to reform the party from within. Now he’s being too cute by half by refusing to rule out running for reelection as a Democrat.
If the true believers closest to him who were lined up to help launch the next phase of his revolution are quitting in protest, I don’t think it’s biased or uncharitable to say that Sanders isn’t turning out to be the person people thought he was. I don’t doubt that he’s made some enemies who are looking to settle scores, but this mass resignation certainly isn’t an example of that. Tim Canova calling him out for not returning his calls isn’t an example of that. His enemies didn’t force him to hire Jeff Weaver or to organize his new political outfit as a 501(c)(4) that can accept dark money but can’t coordinate with his office. It was his choice to delay and ultimately blow off disclosing his finances and then turn around and pay cash for an expensive third lakefront home on North Hero Island.
The kick-off parties for Our Revolution begin at 8pm tonight, and Sanders will appear in a livestream from a Burlington studio at 9pm. It will be interesting to see how he sells his big new project, but it’s certainly off to an inauspicious start.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Your opinion, based on the fact that no charges were brought, is that there were no offenses. Based on the testimony of the FBI director, that's not accurate. That doesn't make you a liar, nor was that me calling you one, but that your assumption is false. The FBI claimed no charges were filed because of "intent" not because of a lack of evidence.
A husband can beat his wife, and if she doesn't press charges, then he's not charged. Does that mean no offense happened? Nope. It just means no prosecution. Like I said, big difference.
Here's a list of offenders doing less than Clinton, without negative "intent," facing jail time.
http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-email-secrecy-double-standard/
I have been unable to find any CEO's because of this, but most are smarter than politicians anyway
A husband can beat his wife, and if she doesn't press charges, then he's not charged. Does that mean no offense happened? Nope. It just means no prosecution. Like I said, big difference.
Here's a list of offenders doing less than Clinton, without negative "intent," facing jail time.
http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-email-secrecy-double-standard/
I have been unable to find any CEO's because of this, but most are smarter than politicians anyway
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I'd rather Bernie won. My second choice based on my limited exposure and background reviews....would be Kaine now. On the republican side....I wish Kasich had won over Trump.
If nothing changes I'm voting for Hillary because I don't want Trump and none of the other contenders meet my requirements or support my viewpoints. Plain and simple.
You can call it the lessor of two evils, holding my nose when I vote...whatever. I'm calling it.....it is what it is.......until it isn't.
If nothing changes I'm voting for Hillary because I don't want Trump and none of the other contenders meet my requirements or support my viewpoints. Plain and simple.
You can call it the lessor of two evils, holding my nose when I vote...whatever. I'm calling it.....it is what it is.......until it isn't.
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I would have voted for Kaine over Trump had he not caved on Catholic principles. The whole "I personally oppose but publicly support" originated in the Lincoln-Douglas debates over slavery, and just doesn't hold water no matter what the issue. It just means you don't actually hold those principles.
FWIW, I am not Catholic, but if you claim to hold something as the most formative thing in your life and then completely drop it for political reasons, its obviously not that important
FWIW, I am not Catholic, but if you claim to hold something as the most formative thing in your life and then completely drop it for political reasons, its obviously not that important
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I went in the opposite direction......The fact that Kaine is personally against abortion but represented his constituency/democrats by defending it is one of the reasons I would vote for him. He isn't putting his personal views ahead of those he is supposed to represent. Breath of fresh air for me.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
If you are in govt, it is completely inappropriate (and unacceptable) to allow your religious beliefs to overrule your duty to your constituents.
If you are going to lead with your religion, you have no business in government in this country. Kim Davis, in Kentucky, is a perfect example of the unacceptability of leading with your religion. She should have been given a choice to follow the law or to resign. Period.
If you are going to lead with your religion, you have no business in government in this country. Kim Davis, in Kentucky, is a perfect example of the unacceptability of leading with your religion. She should have been given a choice to follow the law or to resign. Period.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
In politics there is a double standard far as religion is concerned. I agree that religious opinions shouldn't be involved in how you govern. So many politicians do though. Think about how many republicans govern with the holy bible in one hand.
Imagine if someone was running for president and they said they were an atheist. How far would they get? Part of that is the perception of the American people. How comfortable they would feel voting for an atheist? Could you imagine how the other politicians would pile on? You would be deemed the candidate of evil. We would hear our country was built on Christian values etc....
Edit
Absolutely people should believe in whatever religion they choose as long as it's not harming anyone. That is why folks founded America because of religious persecution.
It sounds like Trump is suggesting persecuting certain segments of our population. Do we want that kind of thinking in our country as a leader?
There needs to be separation between religion and state.
The only reason I'm voting Hillary is to vote against Trump. Basically that's what this election has become for me.
I've always liked the term live and let live - I heard one of you say.
Imagine if someone was running for president and they said they were an atheist. How far would they get? Part of that is the perception of the American people. How comfortable they would feel voting for an atheist? Could you imagine how the other politicians would pile on? You would be deemed the candidate of evil. We would hear our country was built on Christian values etc....
Edit
Absolutely people should believe in whatever religion they choose as long as it's not harming anyone. That is why folks founded America because of religious persecution.
It sounds like Trump is suggesting persecuting certain segments of our population. Do we want that kind of thinking in our country as a leader?
There needs to be separation between religion and state.
The only reason I'm voting Hillary is to vote against Trump. Basically that's what this election has become for me.
I've always liked the term live and let live - I heard one of you say.
Last edited:
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
I wondered how long it would be before this bad penny turned up...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938
ReggieB
Well-Known Member
It depends if they're trying to force their religious principles onto anyone else.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
There is a reason why there is a separation between church and state in America. And it is a very good reason. Religious tests are specifically disallowed in the constitution as they should be.
Shake your head all you like. There is nothing wrong with being religious, but you absolutely can not use it as a basis for decisions of government.
There are certainly decisions of humanity and law that may correspond with religious doctrine (6th commandment, for example), but the doctrine itself may not (and should not) be the source of those decisions.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
To add to what @ReggieB said.....IMO it would be perfectly fine for a Catholic president to feel that nobody should work on Sunday or for a Jewish president to feel that ham shouldn't be eaten. It would be WRONG for either president to try and pass a law to force THEIR view into being followed based on THEIR religion.
When Kaine was selected as HRC's running mate, the first thing I ran into when I looked into his background was his religious leanings, including being against abortion, and I thought.... FUCK NO! Then I looked into his voting history and saw that he supported abortion politically and I thought....excellent! I'm happy to support someone who has convictions of his own but doesn't put them ahead of what the majority of his/her constituency would vote for.