Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[triplehorn 2664]

There's the buzz about how Bernie has raised $6mil in short order this week, how it's a record of some sort and such.  

But what about that $10 million Sanders' PAC received all in one day, in $35 increments, all originating from Washington DC on June 30th, 2016:

 

Quote

Paperwork submitted on behalf of Bernie Sanders’ political action committee shows over $10 million in unnamed contributions pouring in from the nation’s capital.

The mystery money appears on a Schedule A-P filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by the Bernie 2016 presidential campaign committee with a receipt date of 30 June 2015. The report shows $10,465,912.39 in “Unitemized” receipts for the Primary election. (Transaction ID VPF7BEDRRH8E, page 9845.)

This report highlights the already problematic donations to Bernie 2016. On 11 February, $23 million was cited by the FEC as in violation of campaign finance regulations.

The federal form states that the $10 million is an aggregate of individual $35 donations, all with the same date and all originating from Washington, D.C.  This would require 299,026 separate donors, which equals roughly half the population of the capital.

Under federal campaign finance law, disclosure is required on contributions over $200. Thus, the $35 donations do not appear in violation. However, given the relatively small population of D.C. and the lack of support for Sanders among legislators, the 300K individual contributions do appear highly questionable.

Under campaign finance law, government contractors are also prohibited from making donations to political campaigns.

That, and he won't release his tax returns ??   I got a bad feeling about this.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Bernie essentially tied with Hillary among younger black voters. He got trounced among older black voters.

Black voters will not simply follow any black candidate like lemmings. They are not a monolith. They are a varied constituency along age, economic class, gender, and regional lines (just like every other constituency).

So while it might make the white lib feel very woke to speak as a voice for what they imagine the "black voter" to be, the reality is more complex. And since the reality is more complex, the white lib should make sure to listen to a wide variety of black voices along those varying constituent lines. Bernie-heads like me can spot-select black voices that validate us just as anti-Bernies can spot-select black voices that validate their anti-Bernie feelings.

Here's a very important thing for white libs to watch: How black voters actually vote in the primaries.

Look at the data when it comes in and use your listening ears. Don't sell yourself on thinking that you know, because what is going to happen is that you're going to ignore them when/if they don't do what you are so convinced they'll do.

Maybe black voters will, across all age/gender/regional/economic class lines, ignore Bernie. But what is your brain going to do when/if that doesn't happen? Is your white lib wokeness going to turn into white lib racial frustration because "they" aren't doing what you want them to do?

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

wrong thread

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[bad_teammate 13481]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

There's the buzz about how Bernie has raised $6mil in short order this week, how it's a record of some sort and such.  

But what about that $10 million Sanders' PAC received all in one day, in $35 increments, all originating from Washington DC on June 30th, 2016:

That, and he won't release his tax returns ??   I got a bad feeling about this.

Nice source!

What is Q telling you?

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

6 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

There's the buzz about how Bernie has raised $6mil in short order this week, how it's a record of some sort and such.  

But what about that $10 million Sanders' PAC received all in one day, in $35 increments, all originating from Washington DC on June 30th, 2016:

 

 That, and he won't release his tax returns ??   I got a bad feeling about this.

Cite your sources, especially when they are wingnut blogs. 

https://gobling.wordpress.com/category/the-new-america/

[triplehorn 2664]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Nice source!

What is Q telling you?

 

 

2 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Cite your sources, especially when they are wingnut blogs. 

https://gobling.wordpress.com/category/the-new-america/

 

Dude(s) - show tha it's false.  The source I cited in the link (Hank) was the first one I saw.  There are lots of other sources drawing attention to it from the past.  It's fact, not opinion.  Again, prove it's false.

When folks in the Spring of 2017 were talking about the level of corruption that was going to be exposed, there were fair warnings that some heartbreakers on the left would be included.  Bernie checks a number of boxes, unfortunately.

 

[Fozzz 152]

12 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

 

 

Dude(s) - show tha it's false.  The source I cited in the link (Hank) was the first one I saw.  There are lots of other sources drawing attention to it from the past.  It's fact, not opinion.  Again, prove it's false.

When folks in the Spring of 2017 were talking about the level of corruption that was going to be exposed, there were fair warnings that some heartbreakers on the left would be included.  Bernie checks a number of boxes, unfortunately.

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000528

[bad_teammate 13481]

16 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Dude(s) - show tha it's false.

Which part, specifically?

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Prove to me that the television show Boy Meets World is not an elaborate attempt by the Illuminati to indoctrinate our children. I have evidence: 

http://boymeetsworldilluminati.tumblr.com/

Checkmate. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

Kamala Day 1: $1.5M

Warren Day 1: $300k

 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Which part, specifically?

I don't know, what do you take issue with exactly ? 

Something not accurate about Bernie receiving $10 million in "unitemized" contributions from Washington DC on a warm June day in 2015 ?

[American Swindle 102]

How will the DNC screw Bernie this time?  Who will the  DNC Super-Delegates be instructed to vote for this time?  My money's not on Bernie, although he may get a pass this time around since he kissed the ring of HRC last go around after knowingly getting shafted.  

Inconvenient truths are inconvenient. 

[Js1 86949]

4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

How will the DNC screw Bernie this time?  Who will the  DNC Super-Delegates be instructed to vote for this time?  My money's not on Bernie, although he may get a pass this time around since he kissed the ring of HRC last go around after knowingly getting shafted.  

Inconvenient truths are inconvenient. 

TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. 

Super delegates only come into play in a brokered convention. Rule changed.

[bad_teammate 13481]

7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Something not accurate about Bernie receiving $10 million in "unitemized" contributions from Washington DC on a warm June day in 2015 ?

I don't know how that shakes out. Campaign finance law is complex and filings are amended and updated over time. I'm happy to entertain some kind of specific accusations (like the AOC accusations above, which indicate a certain level of banal, ultimately victimless finance shadiness), but the conspiracy blog you linked doesn't really make any concrete accusations. It just asks questions.

What's the accusation/insinuation?

[triplehorn 2664]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't know how that shakes out. Campaign finance law is complex and filings are amended and updated over time. I'm happy to entertain some kind of specific accusations (like the AOC accusations above, which indicate a certain level of banal, ultimately victimless finance shadiness), but the conspiracy blog you linked doesn't really make any concrete accusations. It just asks questions.

What's the accusation/insinuation?

That Sanders' FEC filing for Q2 in 2015 showed $10 million in unitemized donations of $35 or less originating from >200k residents in Washington DC in a single day.  It could be that all "unitemized" donations to PACs/candidates are designated as originating from "Washington DC", and that the June 30th 2015 date represents Q2, not the day.  I'd also like to see some historical comparisons that this kind of sudden anonymous cash bonanza 1.5 yr before the election isn't anomalous (I understand it is).

 

What happened described above is eerily similar to what is reportedly happening right now w Sanders' fundraising as posted in a tweet just above:

 

Quote

Since yesterday morning, the response to our campaign has been incredible.

-$6 million raised

-225,000 contributors

-Average donation: $27

We are just getting started. Let's stand together to transform this country.

 

Here's the FEC.gov filing for Sanders from 2015 showing the "unitemized" $10 million cash dump:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/716/201605039015371716/201605039015371716.pdf

Here's the letter from the FEC calling out Sanders' filing discrepancy failing to account for the anonymous "unitemized" $10M gift:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/542/201603300300040542/201603300300040542.pdf

 

[Spankytoes 1748]

Bernie isn’t going to be President. If he wins the nomination, hello 4 more years of Trump.

[bad_teammate 13481]

14 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Here's the FEC.gov filing for Sanders from 2015 showing the "unitemized" $10 million cash dump:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/716/201605039015371716/201605039015371716.pdf

Here's the letter from the FEC calling out Sanders' filing discrepancy failing to account for the anonymous "unitemized" $10M gift:

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/542/201603300300040542/201603300300040542.pdf

And what came of this?

The second letter is simply the FEC telling the Sanders campaign to update with an amendment. Given that this was sent in March of 2016 and the following is stated in bold: "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action."

The response was due 05/04/2016

That was coming up on 3 years ago. What happened? Did the Sanders campaign not respond? Did the FEC take further action?

I'm neither surprised nor impressed by a campaign needing to amend its filings. It happens constantly, even at local levels dealing with relatively minuscule amounts of money.

[bad_teammate 13481]

BEND

THE

KNEE

BEFORE

GRANDPA

[bad_teammate 13481]

Shows some respect for A REAL, OG MOTHERFUCKER

He's just so fucking awesome.

1991 speech him screaming about the bullshit war on crime and calling out how the justice system disproportionately punishes blacks

But it's all so good. He's been an absolute champion for longer than many of you have been alive.

Edited February 21, 2019 by bad_teammate

[406W30th 1111]

Me before he announced: "kinda really don't want him to run"

Me after he announced: "FUCK YES!!!"

 

[bad_teammate 13481]

PM evidence that you donated $27 to Bernie and I'll give you the secret link to the store for Bernie Bros only. Fresh imports from Russia include the Woman-Eraser and the POC-Silencer.

- No girls allowed, obviously.

[Gil Bang 26177]

On 2/19/2019 at 5:54 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From Planet Stupid

From the "worlds are colliding" desk:

Bernie has been going after Catalyst Pharmaceuticals over the price of one of their drugs, "Firdapse".   It's been in the news the last day or so, and Bernie has tweeted about it.

The Chairman and CEO of Catalyst?  Pat McEnany,  Kaleigh's uncle (I happen to know  Pat, and I like him very  much).  

 

Edited February 22, 2019 by Gil Bang

[bad_teammate 13481]

37 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

From the "worlds are colliding" desk:

Bernie has been going after Catalyst Pharmaceuticals over the price of one of their drugs, "Firdapse".   It's been in the news the last day or so, and Bernie has tweeted about it.

The Chairman and CEO of Catalyst?  Pat McEnany,  Kaleigh's uncle (I happen to know  Pat, and I like him very  much).  

 

Tell pat the guillotines are coming for his ass

[Anastasis 23700]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Tell pat the guillotines are coming for his ass

We'd be better off guillotining the FDA. Amifampridine was distributed under compassionate use as a work around.  

[bad_teammate 13481]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

We'd be better off guillotining the FDA. Amifampridine was distributed under compassionate use as a work around.  

Talk like that gets ya the guillotine, buddy

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

52 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

From the "worlds are colliding" desk:

Bernie has been going after Catalyst Pharmaceuticals over the price of one of their drugs, "Firdapse".   It's been in the news the last day or so, and Bernie has tweeted about it.

The Chairman and CEO of Catalyst?  Pat McEnany,  Kaleigh's uncle (I happen to know  Pat, and I like him very  much).  

 

Your buddy Pat sounds like a cocksucker. 

[babysdaddy 2731]

Tell pat the guillotines are coming for his ass

Aren’t you a rich guy? Will they come for you too?

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

Aren’t you a rich guy? Will they come for you too?

[wildcat09 29560]

We need more guillotine talk.

[Anastasis 23700]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Talk like that gets ya the guillotine, buddy

I know right. More government is always the right answer, even when government is the root problem.  Off with their heads! 

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, Anastasis said:

I know right. More government is always the right answer, even when government is the root problem.  Off with their heads! 

ur in the Bernie thread binch

I'm here to silence women, erase POCs, and build socialism. And I'm all outta women and POCs

[wildcat09 29560]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I know right. More government is always the right answer, even when government is the root problem.  Off with their heads! 

Would phrama companies suddenly find Jesus if they weren’t regulated? 

Maybe if there was an alternative to regulations, like being complete pieces of shit gets the execs the guillotine...ARE WE FINDING COMMON GROUND?

[Anastasis 23700]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Would phrama companies suddenly find Jesus if they weren’t regulated? 

 Maybe if there was an alternative to regulations, like being complete pieces of shit gets the execs the guillotine...ARE WE FINDING COMMON GROUND?

Its an interesting tale. One company makes drug available at no charge.  Another takes advantage of orphan drug regs to cash in.  It's almost like we shouldn't apply blanket judgments on motivations to an entire industry based on anecdotes.  

[bad_teammate 13481]

The Pharma Defender has logged in.

[Anastasis 23700]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

The Pharma Defender has logged in.

Meh, plenty of bad actors in Pharma.  This just isn't a great example. It's a better example of unintended regulatory consequences and gaming of the system. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

OK, I take my posts from earlier in the evening back. Grandpa has told us to take down all the "No Girlz Alowed" signs off the treehouse.

 

[Bookman 4754]

I don't know who I'm going to vote for but it's not going to be that piece-of-shit, corrupt, immoral, failed-businessman fuckstain who is currently President.

[WBT 20886]

I think Sanders benefited hugely last time from being the only alternative to Hillary.  I don't think he'll do very well in a crowded field.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Bernie's team rules so far.

Ro Khanna

Carmel Yulin Cruz

Nina Turner

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

What do you know, all of his campaign people are communists/terrorists

Ro Khanna- General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard

Carmel Yulin Cruz- Hugo Chavez's mistress

Nina Turner- uh, black and scary 

Maybe none of this is true, but it could be because I put it on the internet, so the perception is out there, which will be a problem for Sanders. 

[Eggo 4026]

Bernie's got Killer Mike again. I would vote for KM btw.

 

[NowThis 931]

does he get upset if called Killer Michael?

[triplehorn 2664]

13 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

OK, I take my posts from earlier in the evening back. Grandpa has told us to take down all the "No Girlz Alowed" signs off the treehouse.

 

I happened to watch this entire Sanders interview yesterday.  What stands out to me is that, while he's clearly very idealistic and has a lot of initiatives that appeal to a lot of people in concept, he didn't speak in a collective sense about coalition building and actual implementation in a realistic way, or at all.  When you're drawing direct comparisons to having the health care system of Sweden and free college education, you're talking about a much, much bigger overhaul of our current financial and tax equilibrium.  This is where his (I)ndependent stance really sticks out like a sore thumb.  I'm not convinced he's remotely capable of bridging pie in the sky ideas with current realities. 

OTOH, there was an interview with Elizabeth Warren in the last day with Cenk Uygur where she very specifically talked about the logistics and realities of political readiness and implementation.  That's what I'm looking for. 

It's possible you can point to where Sanders has addressed this specifically and believably - I'd be interested to hear/read it.

[bad_teammate 13481]

8 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

What stands out to me is that, while he's clearly very idealistic and has a lot of initiatives that appeal to a lot of people in concept, he didn't speak in a collective sense about coalition building and actual implementation in a realistic way, or at all.

The interview

It's the first thing he talks about with regard to his own policy proposals. Hayes asks about the feasibility of Bernie's platform only 1 minute into the interview itself and Bernie explains it from there. If you need to get straight to it, go to 1:40 in and listen for the next two minutes while Bernie explained exactly how it will work.

He's literally talking about a "political revolution" in which millions of Americans are politically mobilized to make change happen.

"I believe from the bottom of my heart, that if you learn from the Civil Rights movement, from the trade union movement, from the Women's movement, from the gay movement, you know that real change in this country never occurs unless millions of people are standing up and fighting back." (~2:30 in)

"So if we are going to pass Medicare For All, we need to mobilize millions of people to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That's what this campaign is about."

When you say "collective sense about coalition building", do you mean working in a bipartisan way with Republicans? I ask because Bernie's central principal is coalition building and you can see evidence of that in how his 2016 platform has become, essentially, the 2020 mainstream Democratic platform. You can also see evidence of it in the amazing amount of volunteers he has attracted and the number of young candidates he has inspired to run and carry that same platform forward.

But if you're talking about working in a bipartisan way, I don't see why Bernie should bother talking about that at this stage. Why create the message that we're not going to win? Worry about bipartisan wonk work later; negotiating against yourself before the negotiation actually happens makes no sense.

But perhaps you're intimating that Bernie Sanders, 77-year-old Senator, is some kind of naive, ignorant idealist who doesn't understand how government works? I don't know where to go with that, if that's the case, because it seems silly.

The wonk/lanyard view is that change comes from the top. The elites gather in a room and negotiate against each other, trade biting Aaron Sorkin repartee, and come out with some Grand Bargain compromise for the good of the nation. That's bullshit. Change comes from below. Real, meaningful, important change comes from mass mobilizations of citizens demanding change, demanding rights, and demanding services.

So I'm sure candidates who (1) don't have popular support, (2) are adopting this platform out of political necessity and not genuine belief, and (3) don't believe in mass movements are already operating under the self-defeating mindset of, "Oh now how do I negotiate with Republicans."

We get these things by demanding them. We vote in representatives who will say, "The people must have these things" and we vote out anyone who stands in the way. We win by believing that we can win.

You do not start a negotiation by defeating yourself before walking into the room.

[bad_teammate 13481]

 

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

He's literally talking about a "political revolution" in which millions of Americans are politically mobilized to make change happen.

"I believe from the bottom of my heart, that if you learn from the Civil Rights movement, from the trade union movement, from the Women's movement, from the gay movement, you know that real change in this country never occurs unless millions of people are standing up and fighting back." (~2:30 in)

"So if we are going to pass Medicare For All, we need to mobilize millions of people to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That's what this campaign is about."

I heard that part.   Obviously you need sustained energized popular momentum for major changes to happen, but most all of those examples he gave have more to do with expanding rights and protections, not sweeping structural changes that can destabilize an economy - even if they are ultimately better end points.  The rah rah is good for getting elected, but I'm looking out for a sober account of methods and timelines around implementation.  Granted, no one has hit that out of the park, but on various issues, both Warren and Harris have articulated a more moderate stance around how change would happen that could sound disappointing to those raring to go.

[bad_teammate 13481]

11 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I heard that part.   Obviously you need sustained energized popular momentum for major changes to happen, but most all of those examples he gave have more to do with expanding rights and protections, not sweeping structural changes that can destabilize an economy - even if they are ultimately better end points.

Then what, if not "energized popular momentum", will make "sweeping structural changes" possible? Public disinterest?

Bills that would need to be passed through Congress? Cool, Bernie's both introduced and co-sponsored a ton of them (as has Warren, who also rules).

What you'll notice is that they are co-sponsors on a lot of legislation, because that's what they do... they work together.

So is your question literally, "How will laws get passed?"

Because what you do is build popular support for a raft of ideas, introduce legislation to enact those ideas, and pressure everyone in Congress to vote for them. Bernie's plan is pretty obvious and I don't know if you're genuinely confused by it or being disingenuous.

Quote

 The rah rah is good for getting elected, but I'm looking out for a sober account of methods and timelines around implementation.  Granted, no one has hit that out of the park, but on arious issues, both Warren and Harris have articulated a more moderate stance around how change would happen that could sound disappointing to those raring to go.

Could you give me some concrete examples of Warren and Harris articulating these more moderate stances and methods/timelines? I've been following this very closely, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Eggo 4026]

23 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I heard that part.   Obviously you need sustained energized popular momentum for major changes to happen, but most all of those examples he gave have more to do with expanding rights and protections, not sweeping structural changes that can destabilize an economy - even if they are ultimately better end points.  The rah rah is good for getting elected, but I'm looking out for a sober account of methods and timelines around implementation.  Granted, no one has hit that out of the park, but on various issues, both Warren and Harris have articulated a more moderate stance around how change would happen that could sound disappointing to those raring to go.

I have a feeling that there is a general weighing of options between giving brief, soundbite-ready talking points that will energize voter joe and deep, technical policies with complicated mechanisms on limited air time.