Bernie Sanders 2020 campaign megathread v2 (pg 77 - declares victory in Iowa)

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

They haven't done that since 2018.  The group had zero endorsements in 2019 and has zero for 2020.

Ever since the midterms ended, the only thing they've been doing is helping Sanders become president.

[Donerail]

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

Yes. Thanks for playing!

[Florida Man for Crime]

Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar

CAVE

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

Yes. Thanks for playing!

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

[Hollywood]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

How much of the $218,000 has Bernie received?  

Is the donor an individual, corporation, or union group that collects individual donations?

Prove to me that Bernie has any direct control over moneys taken by the organization, or any ability to view and/or control the OR decision to take the donation?

Prove your claim that all funding primarily goes to Bernie's Presidential campaign.

You are talking about Bernie Sanders have no control over a situation, because an independent Super PAC accepted $218,000, which is peanuts to the half a million received by establishment candidates.  You're just talking out your arse, and making an issue out of something that Bernie probably doesn't even know about yet.  Meanwhile Zombie Biden has eaten another Woman's finger, and you've wasted all this time complaining about Bernie cause you have some sort of weird fetish for old Jewish dudes cause they remind you of your uncle.

[Hollywood]

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

Yes. Thanks for playing!

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

So you're saying he's not a hypocrite? 

[GeneralMacArthur]

How much of the $218,000 has Bernie received?

Do you not understand how Super PACs work?

Is the donor an individual, corporation, or union group that collects individual donations?

We don't know who gave the $218,000, because Our Revolution is a dark money group that is not required to disclose who donated what money.

Prove to me that Bernie has any direct control over moneys taken by the organization, or any ability to view and/or control the OR decision to take the donation?

Do you not understand how Super PACs work?

Prove your claim that all funding primarily goes to Bernie's Presidential campaign.

Do you not understand how Super PACs worK?

You are talking about Bernie Sanders have no control over a situation, because an independent Super PAC accepted $218,000, which is peanuts to the half a million received by establishment candidates.  You're just talking out your arse, and making an issue out of something that Bernie probably doesn't even know about yet.

First of all, the group received over a million dollars, which is twice as much as the "half a million" you ascribe to "establishment candidates."  But to address the bolded points, from the NYTimes article:

Sanders founded Our Revolution to further the political movement galvanized by his unsuccessful 2016 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, though Our Revolution leaders say he hasn't held a formal role since its first governing board was appointed in 2016.
The group, which also includes scores of local affiliates across the U.S., initially backed a series of candidates in Sanders' mold during the 2018 midterms. But after he entered the 2020 contest, its focus has shifted toward his candidacy.
Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and current Sanders adviser, was president of the group until she took a leave of absence to work on his presidential campaign.

So Sanders founded a Super PAC, put Nina Turner in charge of it, and packed the board with all his closest allies.  Now a lot of those former allies (including Turner) are back on his presidential campaign; the rest are still managing the Super PAC dedicated to supporting his campaign.

But yeah, it's totally an independent Super PAC that Sanders has nothing to do with and doesn't know anything about.

Oh wait, he was just on a conference call with Our Revolution a few months ago, well into his presidential campaign:

Yet in September, he joined an organization-wide conference call celebrating Our Revolution's third anniversary and thanked the group for doing “some of the most important work that can be done in our country."

Gee, that sounds like not only does Sanders know about the Super PAC run by his campaign chair, but he's directly communicating with them.  Is any of this a campaign finance violation?  Let's ask the experts:

“Any entity established by a federal officeholder can only raise and spend money under federal contribution limits for any activities in connection with a federal election,” said Paul S. Ryan, a campaign finance expert and attorney with the good-government group Common Cause. “Our Revolution was undoubtedly established by Sen. Sanders, is subject to these laws — and is seemingly in violation of them.”

Of course, Sanders doesn't care, since he racked up 600+ pages of FEC violations during his 2016 campaign and is well on his way to beating that record in 2020.

It doesn't really matter to me whether it's a campaign finance violation or not, though.  What matters to me is the brazen hypocrisy Sanders is displaying by having a Super PAC he created while simultaneously insisting that other candidates are totally corrupt for having a general election PAC (Biden) or raising money from millionaires/billionaires (Buttigieg).

But let's pretend for a second that you're right and Sanders doesn't know anything about the Super PAC he created and has nothing to do with it.  Nina Turner ran the Super PAC, raked in these high-dollar donations, and spent them supporting Sanders.  According to Bernie Sanders, isn't Nina an agent of corruption?  Isn't she selling out to millionaires and billionaires so she can get high-dollar donations for her Super PAC?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

It's not so much that all Super PACs are "OK", as that they're currently legal. Even if a candidate or movement disagrees with that, it'd be foolish to unilaterally disarm. Much like how the Democrats would be foolish to not gerrymander in Illinois, Maryland and New York on principle.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

It's not so much that all Super PACs are "OK", as that they're currently legal. Even if a candidate or movement disagrees with that, it'd be foolish to unilaterally disarm. Much like how the Democrats would be foolish to not gerrymander in Illinois, Maryland and New York on principle.

I 100% agree with this.  I would love it if Sanders would lay down his opposition to Super PACs and say "yes, it's ok for Democrats to have them, as long as they're not raising money unethically by accepting bribes, and promise to try to pursue campaign finance reform when in office."  This is my position.

The issue here is that Sanders has insisted for years that not only are Super PACs not "OK" but if you have one then you are totally, forever, unforgivably corrupt.  Am I the only one here who remembers in 2016 when Bernie started every single debate by saying "I am the only candidate on this stage who does not have a Super PAC.  I am the only candidate on this stage who does not accept donations from millionaires and billionaires."

[Hollywood]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

It's not so much that all Super PACs are "OK", as that they're currently legal. Even if a candidate or movement disagrees with that, it'd be foolish to unilaterally disarm. Much like how the Democrats would be foolish to not gerrymander in Illinois, Maryland and New York on principle.

I 100% agree with this.  I would love it if Sanders would lay down his opposition to Super PACs and say "yes, it's ok for Democrats to have them, as long as they're not raising money unethically by accepting bribes, and promise to try to pursue campaign finance reform when in office."  This is my position.

The issue here is that Sanders has insisted for years that not only are Super PACs not "OK" but if you have one then you are totally, forever, unforgivably corrupt.  Am I the only one here who remembers in 2016 when Bernie started every single debate by saying "I am the only candidate on this stage who does not have a Super PAC.  I am the only candidate on this stage who does not accept donations from millionaires and billionaires."

I really don't know the situation and neither do you.  Have you even seen the entire 990 tax form? 

In any event, it's about not receiving large contributions from millionaires and billionaires, who are trying to influence elections.  Bernie should seek information regarding the whereabouts of the donation, but I'm not going to call a man with an unblemished 77-year record unforgivably corrupt for one mistake that was out of his control.  That money was from the 2018 tax-year, so it's even possible that it was allocated to another campaign or program.  I don't know. At least he gave his best efforts.

[GeneralMacArthur]

To repeat again:

I don't care about a $218,000 donation, I don't care what Our Revolution did with it.  Anyone making jokes about how I think OR is some "shadowy organization raising tons of money" is intentionally mis-representing my argument.

What I care about is hypocrisy.  Sanders has spent decades insisting that everyone except him is corrupt because they take all their money from millionaires and billionaires.  His campaign even says "funded by you (not the billionaires)" on all its media.  Yet he has, through his pet organization that has always functioned as an arm of his movement/campaign, engaged in exactly the same fundraising practices.

In other words, if Pete is hopelessly, cravenly corrupt for raising $2,800 from high-net-worth individuals in a wine cellar, how is Bernie not similarly for corrupt for having his campaign staff operate a Super PAC that raises hundreds of thousands of dollars in individual contributions from presumably high-net-worth individuals?

Is it because Nina Turner was the one spending it, not Bernie himself?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK.

Is it because Our Revolution doesn't explicitly say it's working for Bernie Sanders, even though it obviously is (and it does say that)?  That would mean all Super PACs are OK since no PAC can explicitly coordinate with a candidate.

Is it because the money wasn't raised at an open-to-the-press dinner in Napa Valley?

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

It's not so much that all Super PACs are "OK", as that they're currently legal. Even if a candidate or movement disagrees with that, it'd be foolish to unilaterally disarm. Much like how the Democrats would be foolish to not gerrymander in Illinois, Maryland and New York on principle.

I 100% agree with this.  I would love it if Sanders would lay down his opposition to Super PACs and say "yes, it's ok for Democrats to have them, as long as they're not raising money unethically by accepting bribes, and promise to try to pursue campaign finance reform when in office."  This is my position.

The issue here is that Sanders has insisted for years that not only are Super PACs not "OK" but if you have one then you are totally, forever, unforgivably corrupt.  Am I the only one here who remembers in 2016 when Bernie started every single debate by saying "I am the only candidate on this stage who does not have a Super PAC.  I am the only candidate on this stage who does not accept donations from millionaires and billionaires."

I really don't know the situation and neither do you.  Have you even seen the entire 990 tax form? 

In any event, it's about not receiving large contributions from millionaires and billionaires, who are trying to influence elections.  Bernie should seek information regarding the whereabouts of the donation, but I'm not going to call a man with an unblemished 77-year record unforgivably corrupt for one mistake that was out of his control.  That money was from the 2018 tax-year, so it's even possible that it was allocated to another campaign or program.  I don't know. At least he gave his best efforts.

I'm not calling Bernie unforgivably corrupt either.  I don't think you should make those kinds of calls about people unless you have very clear proof, as we do with Trump.  My point is that Bernie Sanders levels those kinds of accusations at his fellow Democrats all his time, and here we have him failing his own purity test.

I'm sure it was just an honest mistake that 30% of Our Revolution's funding came from two mysterious high-net-worth individuals, though.  Just something Nina Turner failed to notice when she was doing the books.

Bernie should seek information regarding the whereabouts of the donation

It's not like he could just turn around and ask Nina Turner.

[Donerail]

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

Yes. Thanks for playing!

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

Seems a bit unfair — if I'm open about it, surely I'm an honest hypocrite?

But, yes, I don't really care whether Bernie is getting a fat check from Ben and/or Jerry. Buttigieg is another matter, but all evidence seems to suggest he was a corporate weasel well before running for president, so. Mainly worth discussing because other people seem to care about it -- it is a fairly effective cudgel that brings people over to our side

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bernie and Michael Bennet should be the fusion ticket, that will be the ticket to beat, against Trump and Pence

Michael Bennet comes from a swing state like Colorado and can help Bernie in VA, as well as AZ and TX

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is all they've got?

https://twitter.com/GregJKrieg/status/1215368479160897537

[GeneralMacArthur]

Interesting, I believe this is the first time Trump has ever directly attacked Bernie.  Usually Trump just calls him "crazy Bernie" and tries to tie other Democrats to him.

[Comrade Funk]

[redjohn]

Now's the time for Bernie to expand his base in IA and NH. Strong outreach to older voters in these last few weeks will be important. He's already going to do very well with younger voters, so it's important to close the gap a bit among older voters.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Or is is just because you like Bernie Sanders and don't like Pete Buttigieg?

Yes. Thanks for playing!

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

Seems a bit unfair — if I'm open about it, surely I'm an honest hypocrite?

But, yes, I don't really care whether Bernie is getting a fat check from Ben and/or Jerry. Buttigieg is another matter, but all evidence seems to suggest he was a corporate weasel well before running for president, so. Mainly worth discussing because other people seem to care about it -- it is a fairly effective cudgel that brings people over to our side

Hypocrisy is inherently disingenuous by its very nature.

[Donerail]

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

Seems a bit unfair — if I'm open about it, surely I'm an honest hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is inherently disingenuous by its very nature.

Then you're just being redundant. I award your post a C-; please do a better job of proofreading your work on your next assignment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Well, at least you recognize that you're a disingenuous hypocrite.

Seems a bit unfair — if I'm open about it, surely I'm an honest hypocrite?

Hypocrisy is inherently disingenuous by its very nature.

Then you're just being redundant. I award your post a C-; please do a better job of proofreading your work on your next assignment.

Oddly enough, I don’t care whether you approve of my posts.

[redjohn]

Sanders leads the Des Moines Register poll of Iowa. Their polls were almost spot on at this point in the 2008 and 2016 cycle for Democrats. Bernie's going to win IA, NH, and NV.

[Cinemark]

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to vote for an old white guy...

T____T

[John Dule]

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to vote for an old white guy...

T____T

No one's holding a gun to your head.

[Cinemark]

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to vote for an old white guy...

T____T

No one's holding a gun to your head.

Au contraire mon frere. For the future of this country and the world, it is imperative Trump loses. If that means voting for a 78 year old socialist, so be it.

[Devout Centrist]

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to vote for an old white guy...

T____T

No one's holding a gun to your head.

Au contraire mon frere. For the future of this country and the world, it is imperative Trump loses. If that means voting for a 78 year old socialist, so be it.

I respect your commitment. Rest assured, I will vote for Biden in November if necessary.