??
His argument has nothing to do with the French revolution man, c’mon
No. He was still Mayor of Burlington in 1988.
Your quote from one of my cites conveniently cut off the beginning of the paragraph where it says:
My emphasis. This funding has been since he was elected to the Senate in 2007, and increased when he was committee chair. Why did you leave that part out?
But what was he doing in 1789?
That’s your response to you misreading your own cite? Is that a sneaky way to accuse me of lying? WTF is your problem?
Because $321K of what it spent was all in the 2014 year.
Yes it gave a little bit in the 2008 and 2010 cycles. It only ramped up, “began in earnest” in 2012. If you go to OpenSecrets you will find that the amount given to Democratic Federal candidates in 2008 and 2010 together was less than 65% of what it gave in 2012 let alone in 2014.
But you are right, I misspoke, he ran and lost in '88 and won in 1990. I apologize for being two years off. He was in Congress for 16, not 18 years without raising money for any Democrats and, after the DSCC helped him win what had been the most expensive race in Vermont’s history, “his” PAC donated some relatively small amounts, beginning in the 2008 campaign, to other Democrats (and gained personal access to the Big Money funders that he bemoans), and, per your cite, ramped up in order to get a Chairmanship.
The only period that he has facilitated reasonably significant amounts of money to Democrats was 2012 and 2014, and per your cite, was in order to get a Chairmanship.
You want to portray that as “always” raising money for Democrats?
Very Trumpian. And again, Sandersesque, of you.
You may not be lying but you are stating things that are blatantly untrue or minimally misleading. And even if true trite and irrelevant.
No, I did not misread my cite.
WTF is wrong with you?
Don’t bother answering that.
Would anyone dispute this characterization:
“Bernie Sanders only belatedly engaged in party building activities when he had clear quid pro quo benefits set immediately in front of him: a committee chairmanship, and access to email lists, which he exploited to raise far more money for himself than he ever has for the party or for other Democrats”
?
Wow.
In my previous experiences with you I would have thought this was beneath you. Apparently I was wrong.
Your posts speak for themselves.
Yup. When insulted and attacked I do sometimes respond in kind but not to any greater of degree. (It always cracks me up when I play back almost the exact thing someone wrote to me and it is responded to with great umbrage!) Shame that I am human that way.
When a poster presents misleading and inaccurate information I call them on it, with cites from reputable sources (in this case CUNY itself) that demonstrate the falseness of what they are posting. I know, very unfair of me.
The information in the CUNY cite is very clear.
You are making statements that are untrue, others that are at best misleading, and more that are trite and immaterial to the discussion.
That’s not an insult; it is a simple statement of what you are doing.
Unbelievable.
Do you want to bet money that CUNY was free for matriculated students (who met grade requirements) from it’s founding until 1976?
Keep in mind that my family and I attended these colleges.
Nah. I don’t want your money.
Even excluding as students those who went at night and less than full-time matriculants it was not free. Even the relatively elite full-time day students (only a bit more than half of those who recieved college education at CUNY in those years), who paid no tuition, were still “required to pay general or special fees such as for the use of the libraries or laboratories”. Again though “by 1957, when the municipal colleges expanded to include Hunter, Brooklyn, and Queens, 40 percent of the 60,000 students attending the municipal colleges paid tuition”.
That article is long but it gives a very full sense of why the funding mechanisms of the time are not something we should be wanting to emulate today. It was a first rate mess and was unable to provide education tuition-free other than to a small fraction of those who wanted college education. (And even them not fee-free.)
Tuition-free education (albeit with infrastructure that was falling apart) for those with high enough grades/test scores/class ranks and everyone else pays full freight, even within the rest of the state public system, even within the very same schools, is not relevant to what Sanders proposes.
Sorry that you are so uninformed of the history of where you and your family matriculated.
From DSeid’s cite:
First paragraph:
Fifth Paragraph:
No further comment that would be allowed in this forum.
Because he ran as a Democrat, and got enough Democrats to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses. The Democratic party chose him, not the other way around. That’s how it always works.
What I don’t get is why you are caught up on this “loyalty” thing. What in the world does it have to do with politics? Why would anyone be loyal to someone who they politically disagree with?
Let’s make it quite clear: your candidate did the exact same thing to Obama. She accepted her cabinet position in exchange for supporting him. Because that’s politics. You aren’t loyal to your opponents. That’s make absolutely no sense.
Sanders will probably support Clinton as the least worst option, from his point of view. But he’s also going to be trying to push her as far as he can. He does this by putting out ideas of what people want, and then they agree, and then she does them, since that’s who she is–the one who tries to do whatever her focus groups say the people want.
Sanders got what he got by being the candidate that a substantial portion of the Democrats support. Not because he promised any loyalty to the party. He has not said anything that would remotely make anyone think he is loyal to the party. But those Democrats gave him their support anyways.
The idea that he now owes them what he never promised is ridiculous. The idea that he owes anyone who didn’t vote for him anything is ridiculous.
So ridiculous that I’m still not sure you didn’t start with the premise of hating Sanders and then came up with the reasons afterwards. That would make far more sense than anything about “loyalty.”
The progressive moral values are “harm reduction” and “fairness.” They do not in any way involve “loyalty.” That’s a conservative value. And not even the Republicans actually practice it–they just try to leverage it.
Incorrect. Remember how he always brags that “we started at two percent in the polls”? The party gave him access to their infrastructure and data way back then, and then he used it to work his way up to where he is now. *Not *the other way 'round. It was foolish and naive on the DNC’s part, and I certainly hope they are going to be better gatekeepers in the future.
Nope. Before this election, and during its early stages, my attitude toward Sanders was that he was a quixotic gadfly, good for a chuckle or two, but ultimately harmless.
Do you have particular rules you would suggest, maybe rules designed to keep out bloodthirsty tyrants like Hitler and Sanders, or should they be gatekeepers in the sense of bouncers at clubs, who exclude people based on not liking their looks?
How about we start with excluding people who change their registration to Democratic within less than a year before the primaries start?
The revolution is a change in how political campaigns are funded, and enacting progressive policies…not mass violence.
As for masses of people descending on Washington to demand reform, that’s part of democracy, not a threat to it; and hardly anything new.
Were you alive in 1963? I can only imagine how appalled you must have been by Dr. King, and the March on Washington.
I would never vote for the Bern, but I still think that it’s good for the party and the country that he’s running and that some (not all) of his ideas are gaining some mainstream attention. I just happen to think that his ideas aren’t accepted by the mainstream of the general population and a general election with Sanders in it would prove that once and for all. What I take issue with is the fact that Sanders would support Sanders but not Clinton. It’s fine to say that Clinton isn’t their ideal candidate, but to effectively hand over the election to Ted Cruz would be a monumental disaster, and I’d have a hard time forgiving them for that, especially when, as others have rightly pointed out, it is their lack of voting support in past elections which have fueled republican obstructionism and forced progressives to compromise in a lot of cases.
All of that being said, I think it’s also fair to question whether the DNC was wise in its attempted coronation of Clinton. I know she looked like a too-big-to-fail candidate 18 months ago, but the same was true in 2007. And she failed - miserably. Those dynamics didn’t really change, either. There was still a large chunk of the progressive vote waiting to be inspired by someone, and anyone with half a brain had to know that Hillary was never going to inspire them. Maybe they could have reached out to Cory Booker a little sooner, or Kamala Harris. Al Gore might have been worth a second look as well. They probably should have seen the chasm as a distinct possibility.
If only! Look up “hyperbole,” “metaphor,” and “figure of speech.”
Damn, Sanders really does scare you, doesn’t he? It’s incomprehensible how he could, but he does.
Clinton approves of her own supporters swarming the capital when the process doesn’t go her way…