This just in (to my inbox) from Sanders re: 2020 run
I receive from Sanders requests for donations at least every day or two. This one is a bit different. I post it, in its entirety (except for my real life first name). Bolding is mine.
Bernie Sanders{Henry} -
Let me take this opportunity to wish you a very happy holiday season and a wonderful new year.
Whenever I am asked about running for president in 2020, I answer that if I am the best candidate to beat Donald Trump, then I will probably run. That is the truth.
If that happens, the political, financial and media elite of this country will stop at nothing to defeat us. You know that. We’ve lived through it together once before. Our ideas terrify them. So what they will do is try to divide us up with attacks — some old, some new — and our political opponents will spend obscene sums of money on ads to defeat us.
I just did not expect the attack ads to begin before I even made a decision. But they have…
Right now, a group of Wall Street Democrats known as the Third Way is running ads in early primary states — Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — calling me out by name and saying our ideas, like Medicare for all, are a path to defeat in 2020.
They not only want to discourage or defeat a Sanders candidacy, they want to make sure that the progressive agenda is not advanced by anyone. They want us to go back to their failed corporate approach which has led to a massive level of income and wealth inequality, a bloated military budget and a failure to address the crises of climate change, a broken criminal justice system and inhumane immigration policies.
Last time we ran, we made the financial elite pay a price for their attacks on our progressive agenda. It is just as important we do it again today:
Make a $400 donation to our campaign to help us fight back and send a message that we will NOT let the political and financial elite of this country buy this election and scare candidates from supporting a progressive agenda.
Our agenda terrifies the political and financial establishment of this country.
But the truth is, their agenda should terrify all of us.
Our ideas will lift people out of poverty, they will guarantee health care as a right for every man, woman and child, and they will make certain that every person in this country with the ability and the desire can get the education they need, regardless of the income of their family.
Ours is not a radical agenda. It's the agenda the American people want.
Their agenda, paid for by wealthy campaign contributors, has led to record levels of inequality, a health care system that costs more per capita than any other developed nation while leaving millions uninsured and underinsured, and grotesque amounts of student debt that rob many of our young people of their futures.
Theirs is the agenda that made Donald Trump possible. Ours is the agenda that will defeat him.
And that’s why it’s so important progressives stand up to their attacks today:
Make a $400 donation to our campaign as a way of saying we will NOT let the political and financial elite scare candidates from supporting a progressive agenda. Make them pay a price for their attacks.
In 2016 we faced the kitchen sink. If we run again, you should expect no less. But the political revolution is stronger and larger than ever, and they will be no match for us if we’re in this fight together.
In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders
DONATE
*Ducks for cover while rapidly exiting left.*
Comments
Just came from ToP
and saw a few people putting down Bernie for not 'being a democrat' and for 'attacking' them all the time! Once upon a time I remember when people there were for the very things that Bernie offered during the primary. But then that was during the Shrub's admin because once Barack failed to deliver on his campaign promises people there just went along with what he offered.
Bingo!
Ehh?
What price did anyone face for rigging the primary in so many ways? His not doing anything about that turned a lot of people off and so has his signing on to Russia Gate.
I'm more worried that tthe political and financial elite of this country buy steal this election again and scare candidates from supporting a progressive agenda. What has been done to keep that from happening again?
One thing is true and that the turd way is one of the reasons why we have Trump.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
IMO, it's difficult to read complaints about Third Way
from someone who endorsed and campaigned for the Queen of the Third Way. Or is she the Queen Mother, or the Empress or the Maharinsess?
Then again, I am not a member of the group that believes he did that only because he was threatened with physical harm to himself and/or his family members. (If you believe that Bernie sold out an entire nation, if not the entire world/planet for that reason, rather than asking for protection, are you really a friend of Sanders?)
Excellent essay
Here's what he said about the Creature from your essay:
“And by the way, on her worst day, Hillary Clinton will be an infinitely better candidate and President than the Republican candidate on his best day.”
I think that Hillary would have just hid what she would be doing like Obama did. This is what I find refreshing about Trump is that he has removed all the masks from the government and we can see what it is in all its naked glory.
Trump is really not doing anything that Obama's administration did. Sure Obama may have dressed it up better, but look at his foreign policies. His war on whistleblowers. His deporting more people than even Trump has so far. People are aghast that Trump is stripping people's US citizenship because they committed some crimes or lied on their paperwork. Guess what? This started during Obama's tenure. Yup. As Caitlin stated, Trump is not the new Hitler, he's the old Obama.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Thank you, snoopy
During the Bush administration, many were fooled into thinking that Democratic websites like DailyKos and its baby sister, Democratic Undergound, represented the left. Anything posted on those websites was fine, including anti-establishment posts, because, at the top of the establishment at the time was Bushco. However, those posting openly pro-Bush or openly pro-Republican during the first eight years got banned. Democratic posters either did not mind seeing them banned or were happy to see them banned.
Starting in 2006, when Democrats took back Congress, Bush's star was falling. It was still fine to post against Bush, but people who posted against Congress or Democrats in general had to watch their words. And, once Obama was elected, those sites became more and more restrictive. As the 2016 primary neared, they became downright authoritarian.
Some people asked, "What happened to this site?" But nothing had happened. They had begun as pro-establishment Democratic sites and have remained so. Those of us who refused to get in line got banned or left disheartened--after supporting Sanders, then running as a Democrat, for as long as we were allowed to do so. A number of sites sprung up and a number of sub-reddits. Posters at those sites began splitting into pro-Sanders, anti-Sanders and, like me, "unsure." Others stopped posting entirely. And, here we are, with a historically divided left that may be more divided than it has ever been.
Self censorship was the only way to remain a member there
even more so after the democrats took the house and Pelosi blabbed about impeachment off the table and keeping her powder dry.
Amen to this:
Anyone who criticized him was called a racist because he practically walked on water for so many there. From getting everyone to call, write and sign petitions to Obama and the democrats to "single payer never was going to pass and the ACA is just the first step towards it" to anyone who bitched about it became a racist! But I don't remember it being an echo chamber as it is now. And the front pagers were the ones who first pushed Russia Gate on everyone there. Even after information about it has been debunked in the main stream media people are still saying it. "All 17 intelligence agencies agree that..." to Summer linking to the false guardian article on how Manafort met with Assange. 3 times.
Ha!
Oh for cripes sake, dude. If you'd remove your lips from Obama and Hillary's #*^% you would see how much they sold us out.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
.
IMO, what explains that is the bannings and the "leavings" that my prior post mentioned. If you see people get banned and you wish to remain, you learn to watch your words. If people who were unwilling to watch their words left to create sites or to post at sites where they could speak their minds, only those willing to support the establishment or to STFU with their dissenting views remained.
You're asking a hooker
to remove his lips from the behind of his best-paying client?
Ain't gonna happen.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@HenryAWallace jhe did that because
he did that because the dems made him sign an agreement to do so if he wanted to run as a dem.
I dont trust anyone who two years later is still using that in an attempt to squash the progressive vote for Bernie.
I am not sure that I agree.
Bernie first got to Congress in 1991, when Bill Clinton was running to be the first DLC President. Bernie endorsed Bill Clinton and every Democratic Presidential nominee since Bill Clinton, referring to newer party challengers, like Nader, as "spoilers." In addition, well before Bernie announced that he was running for President, he stated publicly that he would not run as a spoiler himself, if he ran for President. I cited sources for all of the foregoing and more in this essay: https://caucus99percent.com/content/spoiler-candidates-and-protest-votes...
Subsequent endorsements by Bernie included the Gore Lieberman ticket. Both Gore and Lieberman were also founding members of the DLC, with Lieberman being so much a Democrat that he campaigned for McCain for President. Then, it was the Kerry Edwards ticket, with Kerry being a founding member of the now defunct Senate New Democrat Caucus and Edwards' Senate record being far from left.
In light of that consistent history over the past quarter century, I do not see a basis for claiming that Bernie endorsed Bill Clinton's spouse and fellow founding member of the DLC only because the DNC required Bernie to do that.
In any event, regardless of why Sanders endorsed Hillary--and before the convention, despite promise after promise in his fundraising emails--he did endorse her and he praised her, both during and after the primary-- and all that does affect my reading of certain portions of the email that I posted as the thread starter.
Nothing in my life will turn on whether or not you trust me. However, your assumption as to my motive is quite wrong. I've responded to it more thoroughly in another post on this thread. But, mentioning that Bernie endorsed Hillary suppresses Bernie's votes? Seriously? Do you think anyone in this country has forgotten that he endorsed her?
Very well said
I’ve been at work all day, reading this discussion as time allowed but with no time to respond to anything. Which was probably for the best. It’s been fascinating to just observe. But now I’m home and was considering if it’s too late and/or not a good idea to jump in. Your reply above is spot on.
I’m actually a little surprised at how many people are ready and apparently eager to forget and overlook some very basic facts. Like these you cited here.
And, also important to me, his continued support for the past two years of Hillary’s “the Russians robbed me!” narrative. Nothing in his agreement with the DNC required him to jump on the Blame Russia bandwagon after she LOST the election.
I finally realized, Bernie is a Democrat, period. His loyalty is to the party. He has demonstrated that beyond any question. Some will excuse that as “the only path there is” to getting anything at all accomplished, leaving Bernie “no choice” but to go along to get along with the democrats.
I believed Bernie was serious when he said “we need a political revolution in this country” but then he showed that he wasn’t. I should have known about his past long relationship with the democratic party and his regular endorsements of DLC democrats, but I failed to research him thoroughly before getting involved and invested.
I also thought Obama was serious when he said we needed to “turn the page” from the Clinton era. Then he showed he wasn’t. I should have been more skeptical of Bernie from the beginning. I guess I still wanted to believe. So I did. But no more. Unlike you I do feel certain that I will not again give money to, or pin my hopes for change on, any political showman or woman. Twice is enough.
I don’t want a pony. Bernie is probably the best democrat of any currently alive. Still, he’s a democrat and in the end he will play his part like he’s supposed to.
And he’s continually raising money, because that’s what politicians do. But this fundraising effort based on “the democrats are being mean to me” again... yeah, that’s hard to swallow. Poor Bernie. Get in bed with scorpions, you get stung. Waaahhh. But he cannot possibly be surprised. This is his assigned (and chosen) role. I’m surprised at how effective it apparently is, and how much appeal it still holds, for so many people to believe he’s in opposition to the party.
You have come to conclusions and also come to peace with
your conclusions. I am not there. However, I have always believed that you don't ignore any facts or manufacture what you hope will pass as fact--never, but especially not when you are still trying to come to a conclusion.
This
That he blithely goes along with that narrative that the only way Her could have lost is because of election shenanigans while staying silent on the election shenanigans that robbed him of the primary is what gets me. He knows what the cost of spreading the propaganda is going to be and he can see what it's already costing us. And he's not just blaming her loss on election interference, he's saying that Trump is being controlled by Vlad and some of the things Trump is to benefit Russia.
BTW. Has Bernie ever addressed why he isn't a democrat? IIRC Vermont doesn't allow people to be any party but independent.
Guess it's true:
So next time someone says that "Bernie isn't even a democrat" .....
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Thank you for making that point, SD! I
might add, considering the fact that he holds a Dem Party Leadership position, what difference does it make what his Party registration is?
Bear in mind, he got the appointment immediately after he was said to have been cheated out of a primary win. And, as a result, [many would argue] the Presidency itself.
IMO, his own words belie the claim--which frankly, is never made by Bernie, that I recall, but, is sometimes made by his minions--that he wants/intends to undermine or overturn the Democratic Party Establishment. Plus, he literally caucuses with the Dems. So, how can he be considered 'other than a Dem?'
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
How many times did we point that out?
"Bernie caucuses with the democrats most of the time." But one reason why people are so upset about him is because of the things he said about Hillary during the primary. People think that he was being mean to her when all he was doing was telling the truth about her.
Did she get paid to give speeches to financial institutions before she declared? Yep.
Did she vote for the Iraq war? Yep.
Did she go along with the decision to invade Libya? Yep
Did he campaign for her anyway after she screwed him? Yep.
Did she do all the other things he said she did? Yep.
As I've said a few times here, before Obama's presidency people wanted the same things that Bernie was running on and I'm wondering if Hillary hadn't run would they have gotten on board with him? I'm thinking yep.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Hey, if you're talking about folks
over at TOP, or anywhere, for that matter--thinking that Bernie was "mean" to FSC--for real? Hey, they must live in an alternate universe, or something.
Seriously, I never would have thought of the Dem Party primary race in those terms. Remember, he wouldn't even try to hold her accountable for the email server shenanigans--during the debates, and/or otherwise. Heck, if I'd done a fraction of what she got away with (during my career), I'd probably still be a 'guest' at Fort Leavenworth!
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I looked into this to defend Bernie during the primary.
In Vermont, you register as a voter, full stop. You do not register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or as someone who is not affiliated with any Party. The way that you become any of those things is by "declaration." Some lamebrains then said, I'm not aware that Bernie has made any declaration." They assumed, incorrectly, I think, there was some magical paper or set of words that constituted a declaration. However, a declaration is simply a formal statement or announcement.
So, when Bernie announced that he was running for President as a Democrat, that sufficed to make him a Democrat in the eyes of Vermont (which probably did not care, one way or the other anyway). And, later, when he said he would run for the Senate again as an indie, that was enough for Vermont, too.
There is a Vermont Democratic Party and it has nominated Bernie for the US Senate a number of times. However, Bernie always declines to accept the nomination. Of course, if Bernie is the nominee of the Vermont Democratic Party, no nominee of that Party opposes him. Part of Bernie's deal with the DSCC is that the DSCC will not fund any Democrat opposing him for his Senate seat, or something to that effect. In return, Bernie agrees to vote with the Caucus on administrative or housekeeping type matters. He also, either by agreement or as a courtesy, gets the permission of majority leader before doing something like filibustering. That is all I know about the agreement, which does not mean I know everything about it that there is to know. I rather suspect I don't. but that is just a guess.
Bernie has said that he did not become a Democrat before his Presidential run because he did not want to be beholden to the Party's big donors. His fundraising, not only for the primary, but for his Senate runs, has certainly been consistent with that. Does he have other reasons that he has not mentioned? I have no idea.
Hope that helps.
He should just change his name to Bernie O'Rourke
And then he'd be set with the zombie types over on 'Dems Forever'.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
I don't think that will fly.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/aa1gy5/betoloving_establi...
That won't stop Little Nap
and his little cult at Orange Dead State pushing 'Beto is Best... makes the greens go down'.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
LoL to both comments
I have to agree with you.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Please never stop posting on this board.
If you do, at least pm me about where you've gone.
I was only a $3 donor
$15 max. So I did not receive that email.
At the moment I just want to follow the Greta example. Maybe post the same Deep Adaptation climate doc on Facebook every day. http://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Hi, mhagle. Did you see this morning's excellent OT on
the subject of the environment? https://caucus99percent.com/content/hot-air-20
As I have posted many times before, this site is blessed with great open threads. Each author is different from the others, but they are all great. Same for amazingly prolific regular posters, like gjohnsit.
I was a $0 donor to Hillary, but I still get hers n/t
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
$400 bucks, wow. What happened to that $27 thing?
So he wants money because he "might" run? How's that work? What's the money for? I'm new to this.
I should have redacted the amount.
As mhagle's post may suggest, the Sanders campaign originally asked for donations of $3.00 each. At some point, the average amount of donations was $27, so that became the new request. However, $400 was either the amount of my last donation to the Sanders campaign or the amount of my largest donation to the campaign: I don't remember which.
In 2009, my favorite person to discuss politics with IRL, even though he is "blue no matter who" chided me for having donated to the Obama campaign with, "Never donate to a politician." At the time, I thought I would live by that advice. Then, Sanders ran....
Was scolded by my wife.
"Don't give our money to those politicians! If you want to donate your time, that's OK. Just don't give them any money."
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Sigh. I wish I had enough faith in myself to know without
a doubt that I won't go gaga again. For Obama, I volunteered and donated more than I could reasonably afford. During the Sanders era, health issues prevented me from even phone banking from my home.
I got the email from Sanders too, it didn't quote any of the
amounts you said. So, what is that supposed to mean?
Can explain yourself?
https://www.euronews.com/live
@mimi I think they are
I think they are personalizing the amounts based on the email recipients' previous donations to Bernie.
The amount requested in the email I received was $50. During the 2016 campaign, I usually gave the standard $27. But toward the end, I think I gave a couple of larger donations, and they must have used those amounts in the email yesterday.
I don't know whether they're getting the prior donation amounts from the Bernie campaign's internal records or from ActBlue.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
He must get info from Act Blue.
I donated both in response to Bernie's emails and through Act Blue accounts set up by message boards on which I posted. IIRC, the $400 donation referenced in the thread starter went through one of the Act Blue accounts set up by a message board on which I posted then. I am almost certain that I offered to match donations from other posters made within a certain time frame, up to a maximum of $400 or $500. IIRC, even the link in Bernie's emails went to an Act Blue account.
"Funny" thing about Act Blue accounts, btw: the person who set up such an account on behalf of a message board or other community can request a kickback of any portion of the donations that the person who set up the account wishes, something that was never disclosed on any of the boards through which I donated. I learned that only after I stopped donating to Democrats, including Democratic primary candidate Sanders. I had donated to Obama's general campaign via a message board, too.
If I had set up such an account, but was not taking anything, I think I would have posted, "Please know that 100% of your donations will go to the (candidate) unless you choose the option to donate to Act Blue as well. I did not request any portion of the donations from this account, which Act Blue would allow me to do." Since nothing at all was said, my cynical guess is that the person(s) who s up those accounts did get a percentage but never disclosed that to his or her good friends and fellow posters.
People working to promote Bernie on FB
are posting his snail mail address so people can donate directly to him.
I will support Bernie. Yes, I am disappointed in some of his decisions; others I admire.
I absolutely support his agenda, and he is the only politician out there with a longterm record that matches his words. Unless someone has a magic hat from which to pull a miracle candidate, I see no one better.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
thanks I hope I was not confusing.
As best I know, Act Blue would not deduct anything from an account set up directly by Bernie or his campaign. Let's say I use Bernie's link to get to Act Blue and indicate that I wish to donate $25. Act Blue site will ask if wish to add a tip to reward Act Blue for processing the donation. If I refuse, Bernie gets $25 and the services of ActBlue for free. If I agree, I can pick the amount of the tip. So, let's say, I tip a buck. My charge card gets hit for $26 and Bernie still gets $25 and the services of ActBlue. So, I think it's fine to click on the Donate button in emails from Bernie.
The potential for kickback would come up if I posted here that I'd set up an account for the benefit of Bernie and the convenience of Caucusers and asked posters here to use my link for their donations. As I understand it, when setting up the account, I could require Act Blue to pay me a percentage of my choosing of the money donated to Bernie and Act Blue would comply. Act Blue does not disclose that to the donor. So, if I don't disclose it, either, the donor is clueless. If true, I see that as an ethical issue on the part of both Act Blue and the person who set up the account, in this case, hypothetically me. Maybe even worse than an ethical issue. After all, collecting money under false pretenses or fraudulently is a crime. And if all appearances to the donor are that my entire donation is going to Bernie, but it isn't, then failure to disclose the truth might well be fraud and/or false pretenses.
The problem that I have with the above is that, surely, ActBlue gets legal advice. So, maybe I was misinformed about the potential for skimming?
Untrue. I mentioned $27 on this thread and so does
the the email that you posted, not once but twice--once in the list of suggested amounts, which my version of the email did not contain and once in the penultimate paragraph. I also mentioned on this thread why the $27 figure originally appeared in his solicitation emails. I did the same with $3.00; and another poster posted on this thread about receiving the same email that I did, except with $3.00 instead of $400. In addition, I have already explained on this thread why $400 appeared in my email.
The email that you received is obviously not identical to the one that I received, as far as suggested donation amount(s). Without comment about your implication, I will respond to your question by saying that I can probably explain myself at least as much and as well as any other poster can explain herself or himself. However, you seem to be asking me to explain why the email you received is different from the one that I and other posters on this thread received.
Because the Sanders people do not explain their email choices to me, I can only guess why you received one with a number of suggested amounts, instead of one specific figure as others of us did: Possibly, you never donated to Sanders in the past, at least not via his emails or Act Blue. However, as stated, that is only my guess.
If you want a definitive answer, you'd very obviously have to ask the campaign, not I. If you do, please feel very free to ask if the representations that I've made on this thread about various amounts are accurate and to report back as to the campaign's response on that point.
oops, now I made you angry,
sorry. I really don't care about these things. The times I have donated are long bygone, and if I donated to a candidate, these were minuscule amounts. And the whole thing if it happened were during my dailykos years. If I ever should have donated to candidates it would have been only to Obama and to Sanders, but I don't remember those things.
I don't donate, because I don't like anything about your campaign finance system.
I don't understand that stuff and find it somehow disgusting that people monitor and categorize people over the amount of money they donate, if that really should be the case.
And of course I have no funking idea how the system works and I really do not care any more.
So, my apologies, for not caring, not understanding and some anger shining through my words.
Heh, a new year is coming up. So, let's just make peace and be friends.
https://www.euronews.com/live
"I really don't care about these things. "
Interesting, in light of your prior post to me. I do appreciate your apology, though.
I am quite peaceful unless and until someone comes for me personally, be it with condescension, snark, passive aggressiveness, accusations, insinuations, or whatever. Even at that, I often ignore it. However, that doesn't mean I don't notice it or that my patience will be endless.
IOW, I'm peaceful with anyone who is peaceful with me. I thought you and I had already reached that point, but maybe I was mistaken. In any case, no need to wait for the new year: All the best to you, mimi, now and in 2019.
It is s me who has to apologize
and I would like to do so formally. My mind has been pretty much out of order the last weeks and month and that is exclusively related to my stay in Germany and things that happen here to me. M
https://www.euronews.com/live
One apology was more than enough, mimi, but thank you.
@HenryAWallace or you just want to
or you just want to suppress the votes from the left.
Occams razor.
This is non-partisan blog, and
even if it wasn't, everyone should still be entitled to their own political opinions. Having said that, I can understand why you feel a need to defend Bernie. Some of his detractors are a bit over the top. They do bring to mind the dailykos trope, "what do you want, a pony?". My politics on Bernie are probably closer to yours than many others on this blog, but I've learned to each his/her own. The US political system cannot be trusted even if some think Bernie can. We just need to give everyone space to vote or not vote their conscience and hope something happens to dethrone the global elite.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Thanks for reminding folks that,
[my boldface
]
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Your razor is as faulty as your reasoning.
First, I got your Occam's razor right here: The point of starting any thread is to expose the community to the information contained in the thread starter and to get responses from the community. Bothering to put up a thread that no one reads or responds to is a total waste of an Op's effort. So, you did not use Occam's razor. You used your imagination based on your own issues and/or your pre-existing opinion of me.
Second, IF I had wanted to suppress votes for Bernie, I know of far, far more effective ways to do that than by posting a thread starter that consists almost entirely of a letter that Bernie wrote and very much wanted many people to see, with no changes or cuts whatever made by me. I imagine that anyone with half a brain would also know of better ways to suppress votes than to post the candidate's own fundraising letter. Nor would this be the board that I would choose for a vote suppression mission.
Third, you are far likelier to suppress votes for Bernie with insulting accusations of your fellow posters than anyone who posts one of his letters in its entirety as a thread starter That puts you right in line with Hillary calling ANY voters "deplorables" and with her supporters at Kos and Democratic Underground who insulted Bernie's supporters, ostensibly in an attempt to protect Hillary's vote count in the general. Obviously, that "strategy" could not have been more counter-productive or misguided.
I assumed that all Bernie's supporters who went through that--as I did--would know better than to use to "help" or protect Bernie the very same technique that helped Hillary lose the easiest election ever for a Democrat to win.
Fourth, go to any pro Bernie website or sub reddit and you will see that same letter posted by one of his supporters to inform his other supporters of the most concrete statement made by him to date about running in 2020. Oh, and look, the bit about his running in 2020 is the very part of his letter that I bolded in the OP.
Actually, think there 'might be'
a slight misreading of some of the dynamics behind the recent pushback against Bernie [declaring a second run].
IMO, it's not coming solely from the corporatist/Third Way/DLC "Beto-Loving" wing of the Dem Party. Lately, on Twitter, I've observed some dissension/dissatisfaction directed at him from his left flank.
IOW, from folks/lefty political activists who don't want to see him siphon off very left-wing voters, especially, those who'd likely consider voting 'third party.'
I'm 'guessing' that it's because they fear that he might be willing to fall in line (again) with the Dems--if/when 'push comes to shove'--such as, in the event that there are voting shenanigans/irregularities, or even flat-out cheating in 2020.
Of course, that's just my takeaway.
As they say, "To each, his own."
Blue Onyx
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I got the same one that you did
I went big for Bernie
and never regretted it.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Each of us has had his or her own journey with Sanders.
I posted two essays about how I was struggling with mine and linked to them somewhere on this thread. I more conflicted about the money I got others to donate than I am about my own funds.
The only support and donations I regret
are those I made at daily kos. Talk about a scam and a racket, dkos tops the list.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I feel as though I may have gotten so encouraged by his
successes that I may not have made the right disclosures when I solicited funds for him. To the contrary, I probably told people our donations would increase his chances of winning. Which is, of course, true to a degree. However, in the beginning, when I was more rational, I thought my donations would help him get his message out, period. I knew he was not going to win for all the reasons he did not in fact become the nominee.
P.S. I have been receiving requests for money every day or two
all along. And I still don't know how it works. I stopped donating after June 7, 2016, but I did not ask to unsubscribe.
Something similar happened with Obama. I gave until it hurt, almost literally. I cried for joy election night. The next day, I got another request from Obama to donate. My reaction was WTF, which, of course, stands for "Winning the Future."
Before his inauguration, I had begun regretting every dollar, just based upon his nominees, such as Rahm "The Finger" Emanuel, Hillary "What Happened" Clinton, Timothy "NY Fed Economic Crash" Geithner and Robert "Bushco 'Defense'" Gates. Before long, I asked to be unsubscribed from the incessant Obama donation requests.
Nonetheless, for two Decembers after his first inauguration, I received the actual official White House Christmas card. For the next two years, I received only a xeroxed something or other at Christmas time. Then nothing. Those four season's greetings were the most costly, and probably the least sincere, not to mention the least welcome, season's greetings that I've received in my life.
As I've posted elsewhere on this thread, I thought I had learned my lesson, but then, Sanders ran....
You definitely weren't alone there
Remembering how many people were at Grant park that night smiling and crying because he won and then the stunned looks when he made his bone headed moves on his cabinet picks and the FISA vote.
11 dimensional chess went on for how many years? "He's got the republicans right where he wants them." Gag.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
I did not support him or vote for him because he was
African American. But, that was the reason for a good portion of my tears.
Wow! At least you admit your prejudice.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
i think you've misinterpreted that comment.
It could have been written, "His being African American was not the reason I supported or voted for him."
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
He said ...
"I did not support him or vote for him because he was African American. "
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
And you're misinterpreting that statement.
Given the context in which the statement was made, including the many comments in this thread by the same person who made the statement, it's clear what the meaning was.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
Exactly
He also said:
As HAW already clearly stated that he did support Obama, giving a lot of money, and cried for joy at his election, it’s more than obvious that this meant his support and vote were not because of Obama’s race, but for other reasons. English can be tricky that way, but given the context you’d have to really work at it to misunderstand this one.
Thank you. That was brave and kind.
Thank you. When posters put themselves on the line for
someone else--or just for truth, it speaks volumes about their own bravery and integrity.
Even after someone pointed out how off base your
accusation was, you just doubled down, without a second glance at the thread, not even the post I had made as a reply directly to you? And after being on this board with me for how long? "Wow," indeed.
Of all the accusations that could be made, racism and dishonesty are the most vile in my eyes and also the most unwarranted on this thread.
Without glancing at the sky, I'm going to chalk the vile, baseless personal insults on this thread up to a full moon. However, the next time, I'm calling the Hayden Planetarium before I restrain my replies.
Learn how to write the English language!
There is NO other way to read that sentence. If one meant something else, then one should edit the statement.
Personal insult? What personal insult? "I didn't vote for Kennedy because he was Catholic." I'm supposed to take that as a support of Kennedy?
"I don't like him because he comes from China." I'm supposed to take that as an endorsement of Chinese immigrants?
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Nonsense!
"I didn't vote for Obama because he was black." does not necessarily mean "I did not vote for Obama." Try this. "I did not vote for Obama because he was black. I voted for him because his stated policy objectives were closest to mine. But when the US elected a black president it had an effect on me beyond policy preferences."
There is nothing wrong with the original statement. I suggest you take an introductory course in formal logic that includes predicate calculus..
Thank you.
This is how I interpreted the comment
I didn't vote for Obama because of his race, but because of the issues he was running on.
I do think though that part of everyone's happiness that night he won was because he became the first black American president after over two centuries of only white men winning. People saw it as the great accomplishment it was.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Incredible. Learn how to read; how to stop doubling down
when you're as wrong as can be; how to recognize truth, even if it is not flattering to you; and learn when to apologize.
First, if you don't get that calling someone racist is a foul insult, even if you believe it to be true, that's nothing short of stunning; and not in a good way.
Second, before posting a vile insult about a poster who has posted here for over two years without posting an untoward comment, people acting in good faith would check for any contrary evidence and/or an alternate reading. Despite your claim about only one way to read a sentence, there was an alternate reading; and contrary evidence abounded on this thread, including, but not limited to, this series of posts in which you participated:
Of course, posters other than I demolished your accusation of racism and your claim that you could not have read my sentence any other way. (Cute that you sought to confine the issue to a single sentence, taken totally out of abundant CONTEXT, but that dog won't hunt. Reading in context is taught in grade school.)
The refutations of your claims are on the board for all to see. No one needs to have them repeated. Your next step should have been an apology. Your insulting me again instead of apologizing speaks more ill of you than I ever will.
I supported Obama because he was (to me)
a child of an African father and a white American mother. I have no problems with that emotional support I had for him. To most of you he is an Afro-American. I learned pretty quickly that there is a difference between the two angles of 'seeing' him and that my understanding of him was different probably from your views in the beginning of his appearance on the political stage.
I think I had a lot of pipe dream imaginations about what he would do politically and learned quickly that those imaginations I read into his persona were like a 'fata morgana'. It is all in his first book. And I read it, my way ...
So, sure I supported Obama, because he was black. And why the funk is that forbidden now?
Gosh, now I get angry again. Have to stop.
https://www.euronews.com/live
My, that was fast!
FYI, as one of my posts indicated, relatively early on, Obama said that he prefers to be called African American (not Afro American) because that reflects both parts of his ancestry. And, if I possibly can, I refer to people the way they say they want to be referred to. That has nothing to do with how I see the person.
In my opinion--and I am not alone--treating someone differently solely on the basis of skin color is racist. However, I said absolutely nothing about supporting someone because you empathize with his or her family situation being racist. So, as usual, the reason for your anger is a mystery to me.
....
another possibility would be that you don't understand me.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Or I do and it's you who has misunderstood me.
As I said upthread, I never came for you. It's always been the other way around. And always based upon your misunderstanding of what I posted.
The pattern since I first started posting here is that I make an OP or a reply, usually to someone other than you, whereupon, for reasons I've never understood, you impute some evil on my part and lash out.
Even in its edited version, your very first post to me is an example. https://caucus99percent.com/comment/149670#comment-149670 (edited after I pointed out to you that I had not posted anything at all to you and your entire "understanding" of what I posted could not have been more wrong).
And that is how it's been since, twice on this thread alone. The only thing I haven't understood is your baseless conviction that I am always up to no good, which seems to underlie all your misunderstandings of my posts. As you might be able to tell, I may no longer always pretending that I'm oblivious.
it is a sad development - I will certainly self-censor
my words and stop posting here at all.
I don't recall what I posted a couple of days ago, you remember what I posted in 2016.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Um, what prejudice? And what the fork is this, the
Why Bother Thinking or Reading for Comprehension--Or At All--Before Insulting the OP Thread?
I supported Obama and donated to him, beginning on Thanksgiving Day 2015 because I thought he was the Presidential hopeful most likely to win the general; and I did not want a
republican to win it because I was still laboring under the belief that Democrats would be much different than Bush. And, my assessment about the general proved to be right on the money, no pun intended.
Had I donated to, volunteered for, and voted for Obama because he was African American, that would have been prejudice. On the flip side, had I assumed that an African American (as he prefers to be referred to) could never win an election or should not be President, that would have been prejudice.
Once he won, however, I cried tears of joy, in great part because America had finally elected to the Oval Office someone other than a white man.
I would love to know how any of the above is prejudice in your mind.
ETA: I posted this before I saw the other responses to you. However, I will leave it here anyway.
Ditto my comment
I hadn't read yours or the one future passed posted before I wrote mine.
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Thank you snoopydawg. Much appreciated.
How low does someone have to be to upvote that?
The typical wingnut response at the time
was that us middle-class white folks were all happy because we were unloading two centuries' worth of white guilt from our dimwitted do-gooder consciences. It was -- unsurprisingly, considering their general psychological profile -- impossible for them to imagine simply that we were just happy to witness the joy of a large class of our fellow citizens who were experiencing, en masse, an authentic Dream-Come-True moment.
I wish that as president BHO had done more on their behalf, but that doesn't change the real significance of the moment itself.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
A good friend and co-worker
who was born in the ghetto told me how hard he worked to elect Barack Obama. My friend was an "outside child". He was happy that he knew who his father was and that his father was a man he could go to with problems and guidance. He told me half the kids in his school had no idea who their father was. That should tell you about the stratum of society he was born in. My friend worked his heart out to elect the first black President. I was reminded of my father telling me of working for Al Smith because he was Catholic at a very anti-Catholic time.
My friend also told me how disappointed he was in Obama's policies and actions. I was honored that he would share that with me when he defended Obama vehemently to other white people, but shared his true thoughts with me. I'm sure other black Americans feel the same. I understand that. Damn Obama for betraying his people.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Teenage daughter of a friend called her mom
from Grant Park that night: "Thank you so much for letting me come here! I'm in the happiest place on earth!"
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Obama was a huckster, and it was obvious.
His rallies reminded me of mega-churches with Obama as the preacher. All that was missing was the snakes. I never could understand why people trusted him, but I was willing to be proved wrong. Worst two votes of my life are the votes that I gave to that low-life crook. I am proud to say that I never gave him a dime.
Emotions don't belong in politics. We're hiring someone, not marrying them.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I gave him one vote.
After the ACA, I could barely look at him, much less vote for him again.
The version I got asked for 3 bucks not 400.
We must have been sorted into different income brackets.
I also got this from OrganizingForBernie[dot]com
Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.
No, not income brackets. Please see my reply to Big Al.
Hey, for his lifetime in DC, best person there all-in-all, imo,
and, in recent years, he has moved the pendulum further to good for the 99 percent than anyone else.
I agree he is the best of the D.C. bunch, although that is
not saying a whole lot. I agree that he moved the needle for the 99%. So did Occupy, from which Orwell's term "the 99%" re-emerged.
I once thought I understood Bernie. Then, I didn't think I understood him. Now, I know I don't understand him. Still, I agree with you on those two points, which ain't nothin'.
Henry, face value, it's a blood sport most all politicians
and kings with courts play and on and on, a given for centuries; he's a good man at heart, has been from the beginning, fought more battles, paid more dues and happens to be intelligent as well. I've no arguments with you, personally, i enjoy your intellect, too; very much in fact and your gracefulness in writing; "much to do about nothing" is a play i've enjoyed being in, many times.
Question remains, who can lead us from this present comedy of errors?
Oh, smiley7, thank you for all the much too kind words.
I have become somewhat fearful about expressing my thoughts. It's not that I fear repercussions against me. I've always said that, unlike Groucho Marx, I don't want to be a member of any club that would not have me as a member. It's that I don't want to depress anyone with my pessimism. After all, maybe it will pass. It always has in the past. With all that as prologue and warning, I will respond that I don't know if anyone can lead us from this comedy of errors, which, after all, is not comedy but tragedy.
A nation with so much land and national resources and so much potential. A President (Obama) with so much public support and a Congress filled with almost as many Democrats as Congresses before Democrats lost the Solid South. Tragically wasted in both instances. On the bright side, my friend, Lady MacBeth didn't make it to the White House.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJHUres_2xU]
Funny, i needed this conversation, now ...
cheers.
"I like my cigar, too, but i take it out once in a while." Love you, Henry.
Back at you,
(((smiley7))).
Historically, poets, or bards, and court jesters have made the best political commenters, from Elizabethean times, right up until the end of Bush the Lesser's administration.
Whoa! $400 !
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Yes, and that was only one of the donations.
And, trust me, it wasn't that I was rich. It was that I wanted that much for him to be the nominee. Actually, that came later. My very first donations were before he formally announced. At that point, I knew he would not be the nominee, but I donated because I wanted people to hear his message. At some point, I lost my grasp on reality and began thinking he might win it.
In addition to my own donations, I raised over $30,000. I don't have an exact figure because people who promise to donate after a pep talk don't always keep that promise.
Perhaps this post put in perspective posts of mine like these:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/my-inner-journey-sanders-date#new
https://caucus99percent.com/content/my-inner-journey-sanders-date-phase-2
I noticed you posted Bernie's fundraising email
Without an editorial. Is this an FYI in case we'd care to donate? Or is this an FYI in case we'd care to comment?
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Hi, zoebear. No comment in the thread starter, but I've
commented plenty since (and before).
It was an fyi in general, since it is the strongest indication to date, IMO, that Bernie may well run again. And I wanted to get the reactions of Caucusers.
If you read my comments after the thread starter, I think you will realize that I am confused about Bernie and regret some of my own donations to him, which ended shortly before June 7, 2016.
Since my anti-Hillary posts to November 2016, I've tried not to tell people how to vote, much less to whom to donate. Even in my anti-Hillary posts, I don't think I told people how to vote. I just told the truth about Her, though I could be mis-recollecting.
BTW, though, when I ask people to do something, I make it as easy for them to comply as I possibly can: Had I been urging people to donate, the OP would have ended with a live link to Bernie's Act Blue, as the email did, instead of simply the word "Donate."
Pages