(03-28-2016, 11:34 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I like Bernie but he's getting a little bitchy about those who fund raise for Hillary, this particular time it's George Clooney. He said tickets for his events are $15-50 while the dinner George is hosting is getting donations of over $33,000 a plate with 2 tickets at Hillary's table going for $353,000.

George Clooney and anyone else can do whatever they want, but I agree with Bern that it's fucking ridiculous.

Uh, they are fundraising. If people want to pic a nit maybe they should be going after those fools who pay $33,000 to sit with Hillary.

(03-28-2016, 11:57 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Uh, they are fundraising. If people want to pic a nit maybe they should be going after those fools who pay $33,000 to sit with Hillary.

I believe that one of Bern's topics is campaign reform which Hilary also claims to be in favor of... Unless of course it comes to raising funds for HER campaign. Which for Hilary isn't really a shocker. I'm certain she's capable of lying out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.

(03-28-2016, 01:36 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I believe that one of Bern's topics is campaign reform which Hilary also claims to be in favor of... Unless of course it comes to raising funds for HER campaign. Which for Hilary isn't really a shocker. I'm certain she's capable of lying out of both sides of her mouth at the same time.

People are lining up to give Hillary money. Go Hillary!

It may get interesting if those knuckleheads from black lives matter show up. Bernie may sic them on the unsuspecting fools. I am starting to love this election!!!

(03-28-2016, 02:35 PM)Maggot Wrote: I am starting to love this election!!!

Me too. I never dreamed I'd feel this way about politics. Most of my fun is derived from bothering people. That's sick!

(03-28-2016, 01:36 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I believe that one of Bern's topics is campaign reform which Hilary also claims to be in favor of...

I agree. I don't think Bernie's comments about Hillary's donations are unfair or off-base in any way either.

Bernie's commitment to campaign finance reform is definitely wider and deeper than Clinton's or any other politician's, and he practices what he preaches.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling 5 or 6 years ago really surprised me and a lot of people (I think). The Court ruled that money is free speech and reversed the restrictions on corporations, media, and union expenditures to pimp or malign candidates and gave birth to Super PACs. Bernie's right; it's disastrous for those who are interested in a level playing field where money doesn't buy power and elections. Both Sanders and Clinton are on the record as opposing that ruling from the start.

Given Bernie's platform is focused on campaign finance reform and income inequality, his negative comments about Clinton raising campaign funds from very high $$$ Hollywood tickets is consistent with his message and his fund-raising practices.

Hillary is not breaking any laws though, and Bernie isn't claiming she is. He's simply making it clear that he's more committed and consistent on a key issue of both their platforms than is she. Nothing wrong with that; it's smart. In my opinion.

So..................Hillary's campaign claiming that she won't agree to another debate with Sanders until he "changes his tone" and stops the negative attacks cracks me up. It's condescending and an example of why she's unlikable to many, and would be even if she were male, in my opinion.

Bernie refuses to use the email server investigation against Hillary because it's not related to the issues. That makes him respectable, and makes her lucky.

When Hillary first started losing some states, to her big surprise, she started suggesting that Bernie Sanders, of all people, was sexist. That goes against everything in his record and his life. But, she claimed that Sanders telling her that shouting about gun control was not the way to get anything done about it at one of the debates was an attack on her as a woman. Total bullshit. I think that really backfired on her, just like Albright's and Steinhem's later statements that women were obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton.

And, when some Bernie supporters were in fact making sexist remarks about Hillary on the internet, Bernie wasted no time denouncing them and telling him he did not want their votes. That was the end of that.

Now Hillary thinks Bernie needs to change his tone and stop expressing negative views about her campaign? Gimme a break.

Anyway...........Bernie's negative statement about the Clooney and Hollywood donations is hardly below the belt or scathing.

Here it is:

'It is obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign. The people coming to this event have undue influence on the political process.'

'It’s not only this Clooney event -- it is the fact she has now raised well over $15 million from Wall Street for her super-PAC, and millions more from the fossil fuel industry, and from the drug companies.'

'I have a lot of respect for George Clooney. He’s a great actor. I like him. But this is the problem with American politics … Big money is dominating our political system. And [my supporters and I] are trying to move as far away from that as we can.'

So it’s not a criticism of Clooney. It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests - and it’s not Clooney, it’s the people coming to this event - have undue influence on the political process.'

(Clooney is hosting a fundraising dinner for the Democratic candidate in San Francisco on April 15, where two seats at the head table with Clinton, Clooney and his wife Amal cost $353,400. The following night, Clooney is hosting yet another event at his home in Los Angeles where tickets are $33,400 each.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...scene.html

I agree with Bernie about the big money, (Wall Street, super-PAC, etc.) but I don't view tens of thousands of dollars as "big money". I don't have a problem with any of the candidates raising money through dinner parties.

I think the comment made from Hillary's side about Bernie's tone is flat out dumb.

(03-29-2016, 04:52 AM)Duchess Wrote: I agree with Bernie about the big money, (Wall Street, super-PAC, etc.) but I don't view tens of thousands of dollars as "big money". I don't have a problem with any of the candidates raising money through dinner parties.

I think the comment made from Hillary's side about Bernie's tone is flat out dumb.

I don't really care how Hollywood stars wanna spend their money either, nor if Clinton and others choose to accept sizable donations from them.

But, Sanders is making a larger point and I understand it, "if you're really against big money influence in campaigns, Secretary Clinton, why are you accepting it from Wall Street, drug companies, fossil fuel companies, and political groups who attend $3000+ Hollywood plate dinners?" I think it's a fair point and differentiation technique and don't consider it a "personal attack" at all.

I saw some clips of two Clinton campaign staffers being interviewed yesterday and today about Clinton not considering Sanders' request for a New York debate until he changes his tone. I thought they sounded like control-freak bitches.

They both said Bernie stated early on that he wouldn't run negative campaigns, and now he's surveying voters about what they dislike in Hillary's platform!!! So what? If he's looking to attract voters by highlighting the strongest differences in their platforms, that's not a personal attack or a smear campaign. Does the Clinton campaign expect Bernie Sanders to put out an ad focusing on his points of agreement with Clinton, and slap a "vote for Hillary" tag line on it for good measure? C'mon.

The female Clinton staffer suggested to the interviewer that Bernie's out of line because he's not allowing Hillary to turn her focus to the general election and Donald Trump. I don't think she had any idea how entitled she sounded, but the CNN interviewer sure looked like she had an idea.

I do get where the Clinton campaign is coming from though; they want a Democrat in the White House and they really want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton, not that Independent old crackpot socialist Jew clown Bernie Sanders. And, they know they need to win over Bernie's supporters and get his endorsement to greatly heighten the likelihood of making that happen (which means she needs to be careful about attacking him and thereby possibly alienating those supporters). Plus, she needs to win New York and should have a big advantage there, so why risk it with a debate ahead of the NY primary.

But, it really seems to me that Clinton and her staff look down their noses at Bernie Sanders like he's a fly in the vaseline who's obligated to put their goals over his own and just effin' shew already, even though he has as good or better chance of beating Trump as Hillary Clinton.

And furthermore.................I can't stand DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and have felt, since the beginning, that the initial debates were definitely scheduled to benefit Hillary Clinton and minimize voter exposure to other lesser-known Democratic candidates. It really rubbed me wrong.

Anyway, it's still a Democracy and the voters should have the loudest voices in the selection process, and if they wanna keep Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the race, they can and should.

Yep, I'm done now.

(03-29-2016, 11:37 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yep, I'm done now.

Don't say that. I always get a lot out of your posts, they make me think and often consider other options. I'll always be open to differing opinions and points of view.

I don't approve of Hillary's team making snarky comments about Bernie. He's a gentleman and has conducted himself as such. I don't always agree with what he has to say but it doesn't necessarily affect my opinion of him in a bad way. I've never looked at him and thought LIAR! I think he's probably a genuinely good person and that means something to me.

Jesus. Ted Cruz is speaking to a young man on CNN and he said to him, "when God tells you to vote for me we will be on the same page". No eyeroll big enough!

Stop asking the candidates if they are going to support each other. It's not the stupidest shit I've ever heard but it's pretty fuckin' stupid. Just stop.

(03-29-2016, 11:37 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(03-29-2016, 04:52 AM)Duchess Wrote: I agree with Bernie about the big money, (Wall Street, super-PAC, etc.) but I don't view tens of thousands of dollars as "big money". I don't have a problem with any of the candidates raising money through dinner parties.

I think the comment made from Hillary's side about Bernie's tone is flat out dumb.

I don't really care how Hollywood stars wanna spend their money either, nor if Clinton and others choose to accept sizable donations from them.

But, Sanders is making a larger point and I understand it, "if you're really against big money influence in campaigns, Secretary Clinton, why are you accepting it from Wall Street, drug companies, fossil fuel companies, and political groups who attend $3000+ Hollywood plate dinners?" I think it's a fair point and differentiation technique and don't consider it a "personal attack" at all.

I saw some clips of two Clinton campaign staffers being interviewed yesterday and today about Clinton not considering Sanders' request for a New York debate until he changes his tone. I thought they sounded like control-freak bitches.

They both said Bernie stated early on that he wouldn't run negative campaigns, and now he's surveying voters about what they dislike in Hillary's platform!!! So what? If he's looking to attract voters by highlighting the strongest differences in their platforms, that's not a personal attack or a smear campaign. Does the Clinton campaign expect Bernie Sanders to put out an ad focusing on his points of agreement with Clinton, and slap a "vote for Hillary" tag line on it for good measure? C'mon.

The female Clinton staffer suggested to the interviewer that Bernie's out of line because he's not allowing Hillary to turn her focus to the general election and Donald Trump. I don't think she had any idea how entitled she sounded, but the CNN interviewer sure looked like she had an idea.

I do get where the Clinton campaign is coming from though; they want a Democrat in the White House and they really want that Democrat to be Hillary Clinton, not that Independent old crackpot socialist Jew clown Bernie Sanders. And, they know they need to win over Bernie's supporters and get his endorsement to greatly heighten the likelihood of making that happen (which means she needs to be careful about attacking him and thereby possibly alienating those supporters). Plus, she needs to win New York and should have a big advantage there, so why risk it with a debate ahead of the NY primary.

But, it really seems to me that Clinton and her staff look down their noses at Bernie Sanders like he's a fly in the vaseline who's obligated to put their goals over his own and just effin' shew already, even though he has as good or better chance of beating Trump as Hillary Clinton.

And furthermore.................I can't stand DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and have felt, since the beginning, that the initial debates were definitely scheduled to benefit Hillary Clinton and minimize voter exposure to other lesser-known Democratic candidates. It really rubbed me wrong.

Anyway, it's still a Democracy and the voters should have the loudest voices in the selection process, and if they wanna keep Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the race, they can and should.

Yep, I'm done now.

Any campaign promise from any candidate is a white lie at best

Well, now this -

Donald Trump said Wednesday that women who undergo abortions should face "some form of punishment" if the procedure were outlawed. Trump, who once supported abortion rights, now favors outlawing the procedure, which he called "a very serious problem," according to excerpts of an MSNBC town hall that is scheduled to air Wednesday evening.

"There has to be some form of punishment," Trump said in the town hall.
Trump declined to specify how women should be punished if they underwent an illegal abortion.

The Republican front-runner conceded that outlawing the practice would lead some women to seek out abortions illegally. "Well, you go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places, but we have to ban it," Trump said during the town hall.

Story

Well they would have to do it legal then. Obama care covers it so.......

He says he wants to ban abortions and punish women who do today's version of "back alley". Every new day is more outrageous than the day before in regards to him.

(03-30-2016, 04:39 PM)Duchess Wrote:

He says he wants to ban abortions and punish women who do today's version of "back alley". Every new day is more outrageous than the day before in regards to him.

But then he said this

"this issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination. Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times."

The video in your link had nothing to do with his stance on abortion, it was about some woman with a terminal disease. I'd like to see the video of what he really said because I feel like sometimes people takes his words and run with whatever they feel like.

Like when HotD said that he would ban all Muslims from entering the country, including those who already have a status here wouldn't be able to re-enter. I listened to what he said on TV and he never said anything like that.

(03-30-2016, 05:17 PM)sally Wrote: The video in your link had nothing to do with his stance on abortion

I didn't watch the video, I read the story, that's why I included the link, so everyone else could too.