Bernie Sanders and "top secret" emails are catching up to Hillary Clinton

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

i left a tab open on my computer at home during lunch. When i get there ill open it up again (or fish it out of my history).

But the long story short: 81% of his money is from "small donors". It works out that the money makes it to him via PAC's and various labor unions.

It feels like "washed money" to me. But i may just be too far gone as a cynic to be salvagable.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Answer
a reply to: theantediluvian

So you'd be fine with large population centers determining every election, then?

Do people living in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago represent the views of everybody in America?

Obviously you missed the point of the electoral college.

as of 2014, Wyoming had a population of 584,153.... and had 2 senators in congress.....as of 2014, California had a population of 38,802,500....and had 2 senators in congress.....yeah...that's fair representation...
fcw.com...

so in the senate, 584,000 people in Wyoming, represent the amount of senate legislative power as 38.8 million people in California

Good.

Californians have a history of supporting laws that the rest of the country thinks are nuts.

It's fair because every state gets an equal number of votes on issues that affect the entire nation. I sure as hell don't want California's nutball congresspeople having more power than they currently have in the senate and house. If you want change, keep it in your own state. That's the whole point of the system.

Oh, how easily this very important point is forgotten.

In matters of Federal governance, a state's population count means nothing. Their views are represented by their STATE Government. The Constitution guarantees every state has equal footing in the Federal Government. The President is a Federal matter, and the College is a great system to protect from the rule of the majority.

Here we go....
www.alternet.org...

www.opensecrets.org...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Can you explain this? I really want to know if he's receiving PAC money... Do you have a link or something? I can't find anything on it.

He is, what he's not taking is Super PAC money which is just a difference in size. Essentially he's just not accepting the checks from groups for millions at a time.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Thank you both. I was going to educate myself today on the exact difference between PACs and SuperPACs. Still deciding if I want to dive into that. LOL. I think everything in PACS has to be reported and there are limits.

bfft, it doesn't bother me at all that Bernie gets money from unions. I know there are some issues with unions, but they're not the big bad to me, like they are to many others. I don't see any corporations on that list and I feel really good about that.

From OpenSecrets:

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.

We donate directly to him and the campaign has NEVER asked for more. They send a "thank you" postcard and that's it.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Lucky Bernie. He has A LOT of cards stacked in his favor. He is poised to win it all with a MANDATE. It's amazing all the 'coincidental' variables that came together so perfectly for him: Hillary has a 'trickling out' email scandal always in the headlines. Currently, only two democrat candidates have any chance of winning. Biden may enter the race & take mainly Hillary votes because of the email scandal & they are more closely matched on policy. Biden waited so long to enter the race, Bernie has been able to solidify his supporters. Hillary is running a curiously lackluster campaign....


..On the other hand, republicans have 16/17 candidates that are all very similar -- except Trump-- & with so many running no one has a huge amount of support -- except Trump. Trump has been reminding republicans that all the others are 'the same' & has spent all his time criticizing the party and turning voters away from it. Trump is running an unpredictable campaign & can go independent to fracture the conservative vote so significantly, Bernie would win by enough to give him a mandate. If Trump is the nominee, at any moment he could completely sabotage his own campaign with his bizarre mildly vague polarizing comments, plus he's unelectable having praised democrats so much in the past and supported universal, single payer healthcare AND the highest tax on the wealthy ever, to pay off the national debt in one year -- so that will neuter his debate on Bernie's socialist positions. Someone sure is smiling on Bernie, because he would never have a chance under ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

Bernie may very well be a swell guy and even a good leader....BUT THE PERFECT ALIGNING OF ALL THE STARS AND PLANETS IN BERNIE'S FAVOR CREEPS THE H*LL OUT OF ME. It's a huge red flag.

And I am not comforted by knowing it was Joseph Retinger -- a Polish Socialist like Bernie Sanders -- who founded The Bilderberg Group. The Powers That Be are going to win, and the voters will lose again.

Are people seriously considering voting for Sanders?

The guy had his rally and speech hijacked by 2 random girls, and then ran away (leaving thousands) because he couldn't deal with them.

He knows how to pander definitely. But there's no way he could actually be commander of the world's most powerful nation/military against the world's most powerful foes when 2 random girls can completely usurp him and cause him to retreat on live TV and during his own speech. Every world leader will watch that video and know exactly how far they can push him around, even more so than Obama.

a reply to: TheLegend

Are people seriously considering voting for Sanders?

Yes, people are.

And these disruptive loudmouth "BLM" people are harassing him. Not the first time they've pulled the same stunt.

Bernie is too mature to put up with it. I'd walk away, too. Bunch of riff-raff trouble-makers.