bernie sanders is a good man...

[georgephillip]

He gets money from the Union PACs. A half a million from PACs.

He also got $2.6 million from "large contributors" (millionaires)

Your link:

"Cycle Source of Funds, 2009-2014, Campaign Cmte only

Individual Contributions
- Small Individual Contributions
- Large Individual Contributions $7,591,112
$4,958,422 (61%)
$2,632,685 (32%) (93%)

PAC Contributions $520,061 (6%)

Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)

Other $62,742 (1%)
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for 2009-2014 and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on April 06, 2015 (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on March 09, 2015 for Top Contributors and Industries.

"In the "Source of Funds" chart, "Large Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals aggregating to more than $200 within a cycle, and "Small Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals totaling $200 or less within a cycle. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

 

[washamericom]

The Democrat Party would shit in their britches if they couldn't get money from PACs and large donors. Tom Steyer has given the Democrats $30 million just by himself. Obama is known for his $30K a plate donor dinners. Obama is George Soros's trained monkey in the White House. the greedy unions own the Democrat Party.

Bernie's NOT a Democrat, and he doesn't take money from super PACs, and he recognizes the threat that Steyers $30 million poses to US democracy is dwarfed by that posed by Charles and David.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

you are a class act gp remember bernie sanders is to America what music is to phish

 

[washamericom]

Bernie speaks up for the middle class. Can't say that for any other candidate out there. The rest are shills for the filthy corporations that control everything.

honesty may be the new politics. who knows.

 

[georgephillip]

He gets money from the Union PACs. A half a million from PACs.

He also got $2.6 million from "large contributors" (millionaires)

Your link:

"Cycle Source of Funds, 2009-2014, Campaign Cmte only

Individual Contributions
- Small Individual Contributions
- Large Individual Contributions $7,591,112
$4,958,422 (61%)
$2,632,685 (32%) (93%)

PAC Contributions $520,061 (6%)

Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)

Other $62,742 (1%)
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for 2009-2014 and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on April 06, 2015 (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on March 09, 2015 for Top Contributors and Industries.

"In the 'Source of Funds' chart, 'Large Individual Contributions' refer to all contributions from unique individuals aggregating to more than $200 within a cycle, and 'Small Individual Contributions' refer to all contributions from unique individuals totaling $200 or less within a cycle. ("Help! The numbers don't add up...")

"The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Why (and How) We Use Donors' Employer/Occupation Information

 

[JoeB131]

The Democrat Party would shit in their britches if they couldn't get money from PACs and large donors. Tom Steyer has given the Democrats $30 million just by himself. Obama is known for his $30K a plate donor dinners. Obama is George Soros's trained monkey in the White House. the greedy unions own the Democrat Party.

Bernie's NOT a Democrat, and he doesn't take money from super PACs, and he recognizes the threat that Steyers $30 million poses to US democracy is dwarfed by that posed by Charles and David.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

But it does beg the question. Why would the Democrats want to nominate a guy who isn't even a member of their party?

 

[HenryBHough]

But it does beg the question. Why would the Democrats want to nominate a guy who isn't even a member of their party?

Because everything else they have on the bench is, well, toxic?

 

[jillian]

i've known him since i lived in burlinglon, when he was mayor.
we couldn't be further apart politically, and i'm glad he is running. he will add to the color and depth of the election cycle. if he wins, that will herald the end of our republic as we know it, but hey, maybe it's time for a change.

yes we can. no hockey screams this time. and he is eligible too. would make a splendid VP choice for either team.

Reports Bernie Sanders to run for president

you had me until the "end of our republic" stuff. that's just silly.

this president WAS eligible.

ted cruz isn't. but why quibble?

you know i love you j. finally a political domain in my own back yard right ?

you're still ok in my book.

 

[gipper]

I'd take Bernie over Cankles or Jebby any day, but that really isn't saying much.

 

[georgephillip]

We have corporate oligarchy here that has zero respect for the middle and lower class and would rather see them not alive than having to deal with them by paying some taxes. The more power corporations get, the further from great we fall.

Bernie seems to understand the threat finance capitalism poses to the world much better than his primary opponent. It's also probably safe to assume Bernie hasn't personally profited from the corporate looting over the past twenty years like Hillary has.

"Financial reform
Sanders: A fierce critic of Wall Street, Sanders has advocated breaking up big banks to end the era of government bailouts of 'too big to fail' financial institutions. He's similarly skeptical of the Federal Reserve, leading the push to attach an amendment to the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial industry reform law that enacted the first ever audit of the institution.

"Clinton: Clinton has, at times, been critical of Wall Street, and she has slammed Republican attempts to roll back certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. But the candidate has had a long history of being cozy with America's financial elite: In fact, the top donors to her campaigns, from 1999 until 2014, include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan Chase."

Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders On the 2016 issues

 

[georgephillip]

But it does beg the question. Why would the Democrats want to nominate a guy who isn't even a member of their party

I think most dems don't want to see a coronation of Hillary without at least a semblance of debate concerning her many progressives failings; without another economic melt-down like the one that put Obama in the White House, Bernie probably won't accomplish much except (maybe) nudge Hillary slightly to her left during the primary season, but not so far she can't "triangulate" her way into the Oval Office in November.

 

[georgephillip]

The Koch brothers are small potatoes in this the game of raising money to influence politics. The Democrats have that scam down pat.

"Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government. In 2012, the Kochs’ network spent just under $400 million, an astonishing sum at the time. The $889 million spending goal for 2016 would put it on track to spend nearly as much as the campaigns of each party’s presidential nominee."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=1
You need to start including links to substantiate your claims, start with Soro's $3.5 billion fund for Democrats.

 

[Flash]

So, you know Economics? Why don't you prove that by linking to something Sanders has said that shows he's more "confused" than you are about the subject?

I have a much better understanding of economics than Sanders.

For instance, I know that prosperity is not created by taking money from the people that earned it and giving it away to those that didn't earn it. That stupid idea of redistribution of wealth and income is the cornerstone of socialism.

Like all Left Wingers he is a dumbass without a clue. That is confusion in any book.

He is also a liar when he claims that taking money from PAC and big donors is a bad thing but yet he does it himself.

If you have any faith in this joker then you are also confused.

Put your faith in God, not some stupid corrupt politician.

 

[georgephillip]

He also got $2.6 million from "large contributors" (millionaires)

You're a fucking liar, Con.
Large contributors are those giving more than $200 per campaign cycle.
"NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for 2009-2014 and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on April 06, 2015 (for Fundraising totals, Source of Funds and Total Raised vs Average) and on March 09, 2015 for Top Contributors and Industries. In the "Source of Funds" chart, "Large Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals aggregating to more than $200 within a cycle, and "Small Individual Contributions" refer to all contributions from unique individuals totaling $200 or less within a cycle."
Your link

 

[Flash]

The Koch brothers are small potatoes in this the game of raising money to influence politics. The Democrats have that scam down pat.

"Now the Kochs’ network will embark on its largest drive ever to influence legislation and campaigns across the country, leveraging Republican control of Congress and the party’s dominance of state capitols to push for deregulation, tax cuts and smaller government. In 2012, the Kochs’ network spent just under $400 million, an astonishing sum at the time. The $889 million spending goal for 2016 would put it on track to spend nearly as much as the campaigns of each party’s presidential nominee."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/u...-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=1
You need to start including links to substantiate your claims, start with Soro's $3.5 billion fund for Democrats.

The Democrats are coalition of all the despicable special interest groups in this country and the Limousine Liberals, greedy Unions and billionaire environmental wackos pay very well.

Here is a list of all the filthy ass Left organizations directly or indirectly funded by the shithead Soros:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237


Ton Steyer himself has pledged to fund almost as much as the Koch bros.

Nothing Really Compares to the Koch Brothers Political Empire BillMoyers.com

Steyer has declared that he intends to spend up to $100 million in the 2014 elections. Although that would no doubt make him the largest political donor among those backing Democratic candidates, it remains to be seen whether he will follow through. The Los Angeles Times said as much when it wrote that Steyer “may” be the liberal answer to the Kochs.

The Koch's are amateurs compared to the Democrat donors.

If this clown Bernie Sanders was serious about what he preaches he would stop taking money from the unions and the millionaires that contribute to him.

 

[Flash]

They want corporate money out of politics. They never ever say Union money, or special interest money do they? You never hear them mention George Soros and any of his PACs, just the Kich brothers.

Here's a clue, Squeal: unions are corporations.
Sanders has consistently called for outlawing ALL super PACs, and he's pledged his campaign will not employ one. You really should expand you're daily read list if you imagine Bernie has never criticized the influence the ALL billionaires, including Soros, exert on today's political process( or maybe you're just another liar?)
"'I think it is obscene that billionaires — Democrat, Republican, independent, whatever — play a significant role in our political process,' he said. 'That is not what democracy is about.' He would deny all of them an outsize voice by instituting public financing of campaigns.

"But Sanders said he believed that it is 'a false equivalence” to compare the influence of billionaires on the right and left. 'Some people say, well you’ve got several billionaires [on the left],' he said. 'You’ve got [George] Soros, you’ve got Tom Steyer spending a lot of money. But the truth is it’s not equivalent. The Koch brothers will spend as much as it takes.'”

Because the right wing billionaires know when voter turnout is equal among Republicans and Democrats, they will lose the battle of one person, one vote every single time.

Bernie Sanders has questions about Clinton - The Washington Post

Tom Steyer has pledged $100 million to the Democrats just by himself. (reference above)

Couple that with the Soros money and the $30K a plate fund raisers from the Limousine Liberals and the billion dollars the filthy unions spend on the Democrats each election cycle and the Democrat Party is knee deep in special interest money.

Liberal politicians talk about special interest but the fact is they are funded by special interest.

Sanders is a hypocrite on the issue because he takes money from the filthy unions and millions from "large donors" (i.e millionaires).

 

[Agit8r]

I like Bernie, but he won't fair well in the primaries.

 

[percysunshine]

At least Bernie will tell you who he is. A far cry from any other Democrat. I can respect that.

 

[georgephillip]

If this clown Bernie Sanders was serious about what he preaches he would stop taking money from the unions and the millionaires that contribute to him.

How many millionaires have contributed to Bernie?
How much did they give?

 

[georgephillip]

The Koch's are amateurs compared to the Democrat donors.

Then you should have no trouble providing links to any Democrat donors planning to spend $900 million in 2016?

 

[hipeter924]

Sanders won't be President for sure, but Americans could do worse.