and some of us can't, $10 or $20 is great also. The number of people giving is just as important as the money raised.

I added another $5 a month. The monthly thing makes it affordable.

I have Bernie on retainer, too.

also aware that it may not be enough.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”
― Robert F. Kennedy

You're doing just fine. This a movement, not just a campaign.

this election is over. No one can change that. Some of it will be picked up by others and made into law. Some will change attitudes.

That is why I intend to leave my avatar and sig line just the way it is no matter who wins. They will stay on my posts to remind others that he will continue to influence us if we remember.

"Each small candle lights a corner of the dark."

Great song, too.

will be a HUGE deal.

Show, somehow, that he raised, for instance

$50,000,000 over a 6 month period (for instance)

Show that the average donation was $13 (for instance) and that almost 3 MILLION people donated to his campaign comprising his totals compared to the obvious other campaigns ON THE RIGHT where tiny numbers of donations comprise the entire deal.

Average people will look at that and it will mean something to them.

bring new meaning to "Serfs up!"

is it the same thing to say that the serfs are revolting?

Just a crude draft, but here.

To be exact.

a smart fight is wrong.

We are watching the collapse of the EU. As goes Greece, so goes the world. Truly frightening.

thought the United States would collapse immediately to.
Of course the power of the US is declining now in favor of China but thats just how things go, countries come and go all the time and the same for political parties.

the power will remain with a few people no matter political system you try.
I think democracy does a better job than most at keeping the abuses to the minimum but even it can be perverted over time as we seen with our political situation.

We ARE an oligarchy and have been for some time.

Fuck the ads. Bernie's backers can't be bought, either.

make, the more people are hurt. So yea, this is the guy and there is no better time.

Bernie is not tilting at windmills. He is for real.

He can win.

I look at the opportunity this way, why is this peaceful guy who has worked within
the political system for so long now calling for a political revolution?

Because he has a record of being a reckless impulsive man? A man who calls for an extreme
form of democracy? I don't think so. Sounding the alarm is what responsible people
do, and that is how I see Bernie Sanders.

"Extreme form of democracy"? What would that be? Social Security? Raising the minimum wage?
Those "extremes" are what the Democrats used to champion.

I get the "fighting within the system" thing, though. He has to run as a Democrat, otherwise he'd never get into the debates. THAT's what sucks about our system. Well, one of the sucky things, anyway.

We don't change it, it will continue to deteriorate.

scum.

If you can raise 114 million with just a few donors as Bush has..one would hope
that alone would help Sanders. It is obscene and no democracy can thrive
under that model...it is not possible.

Warren Buffett is a well-known fan of Hillary Rodham Clinton, but would he vote for Elizabeth Warren?

Not so much, says America’s second-richest man.

“I think that she would do better if she was less angry and demonize less,” Buffett told CNBC about Warren. “I believe in ‘hate the sin and love the sinner.’ I also believe in praising by name and criticizing by category. And I’m not sure I totally convinced Elizabeth Warren that that’s the way to go.”

The billionaire Buffett has contributed $25,000 to Ready for Hillary, the super PAC that’s laying the groundwork for Clinton to get into the 2016 race.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/03/02/warren-buffett-elizabeth-warren-angry/

He is not the saint his PR points him out to be. He would be happy as a clam with Hillary.

Bernie can't be bought. And Bernie's backers can't be bought, either.

Government without the consent of the governed will not stand. The Constitution guarantees us the right to change it. But it goes further than that.

You could make a strong case that the founders expect us to change it.

Truth and nothing but.

Fuck the oligarchs, the plutocrats and the aristocrats. With pitchforks.

"Jeb Bush announced that a relatively small number of wealthy donors have contributed over one hundred million dollars to his Super PAC."

They forgot to applaud all the little investors & drones that are more than happy to assist them in contributing over one hundred million dollars.

They literally couldn't do it without them.

country that is decent and fair to all of its people.

And the fact that some believe the only way to beat him is to join him is just as bad.

the corruption as people are now able to ask 'if he can get this far without all that money, why can't everyone else'?

I would say the opposite, 'why don't THEY join HIM and refuse this bribery, which is what it is'?

And I am saying it and asking it. When someone says they oppose CU but takes the money it makes possible, that is called hypocrisy at best.

engines ever made. The fact that he is doing so well is astonishing. Clinton's investors are going to have to keep pumping in money to keep the illusion up. Why on earth they decided that running on Citizen's United was a good idea is beyond me. It is mind boggling that they wouldn't want to keep the subject quiet because they have the ability to control the conversation. Her campaign is one of the strangest I have ever seen.

expensive talking points against Bernie have been extremely dumb. I think I'm going to make a list just to see how ineffective each one has been.

Eg, to attack someone who participated in the Civil Rights Movement and dismiss that whole part of history, I cannot think of ANYTHING more dumb than that.

Just wait until Bernie's friends in that community start campaigning in earnest, and watch THAT talking point fade away pretty quickly. I am watching as they put both feet in it with each new effort to AVOID talking about ISSUES but talking about HIM.

Whoever they are paying, they are being robbed imo.

that a campaign that thinks outside the box is the only one who can beat the establishment. Obama was both and we have to acknowledge that. But Obama's Hope campaign paved the way for Sanders to run on Change. I think a good majority who voted for Obama because he seemed more liberal would be willing to vote for someone who is not Clinton. I don't know about those who voted for Clinton in the primaries last time where they are now.

But the latest poll shows that the black community is where his support is the weakest. I think he knows it and is working on it. The statement about apologizing for slavery is pretty big. Though it was hardly acknowledged by those who are saying he ignores PoC and then not enough for all the Hillary supporters either. Nothing will ever be enough. So people can either vote for the person who ran a shameful campaign or not. That's really all there is.

on that money. Each president tries for a second term, anyone screwed over is
going to fuel the other side, and heavily.

I feel it is up to us the voters to say, no more..enough is enough. With Bernie as
that vehicle, I hope we get there sooner than later.

But it is up to the people now to resist all the propaganda and make up their own minds. The only reason he has a shot in hell is because he doesn't play the game.

I saw the video that's being passed around where he was pretty grouchy on the gun question in Virginia and I thought, that's going to play on the newsloop for a while. But to be honest, though I don't agree with him, I do respect that he didn't change his answer for the campaign. He's willing to defend himself and be open to other things, but he's not lying to act like it didn't happen. I hope people notice that at least he sticks to his convictions.

And what does his opponent do? Of course, becomes the greatest champion for gun control ever. That kind of low and smarmy stuff will eventually catch up I have no doubt. Whoever is running her reactionary campaign is as dumb as the chair I'm sitting on. The only person who can beat Hillary is Hillary and she's doing a fantastic job so far.

I feel the same way about his gun control issue and his honesty since then.

I have commented in a couple of threads about my disagreements and have satisfied
myself on that score..which is what all voters will need to do in the end. How he
goes forward? I believe he already signaled a fairly clear message, he recognizes
that gun legislation is not a one size fits all..Vermont is not a reflection of the
country per se. I would hope voters appreciate his ultimate goal is public funded
elections, and understand how that translates to legislation.

His opponent has a peculiar thing going on, how do you profess to push for
replacing a supreme court justice when the time comes with a person who
is dead set against Citizens United while you take campaign money from
various groups now?

This is a puzzle for me. There is a trust factor too, when you have
demonstrated time and again in your prior campaign that you'll
say just about anything to win..the idea she will be a champion
on issues is not believable...not for me.

Who knows, perhaps there will be a tarmac moment of sorts for Sanders and Clinton
as there was for Obama....a moment when he knew he had won.

I think a lot of people do. But what is a tarmac moment? I must have missed that one.

Well, it seems as if she's already blowing up. Why on earth, the woman who walked out of the gate with all the name recognition in the world and the highest polling ever, would totally run from the press and give Sanders his chance to gain traction is beyond me. The pundits started out making every question about her, but as time goes on, they don't mention her as much. And as he keeps going, and gets all of this positive press for his momentum and his turnout, people will be interested. If I didn't know about their incredible amounts of money and every power player in politics and advertising working for her, I would say she lost already. Wait until people start paying attention. Wait until they hear who's been paying her all this time.

But then I read this, and think, there's no way he can win. Because big money and dirty tricks will always win.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/hillary-clinton-could-run-her-hispanic-media-strategy-like-c#.vaedBbmVz6

The cost must be astronomical.

We'll see what develops, something to consider into the equation:

Formally entering the 2016 Presidential race on Sunday, Hillary Clinton is the favorite (and only official) candidate in the Democratic field. She’s got broad support among women and other traditional Democratic voters. Yet immigrant advocates are skeptical about her politics. If elected president, would Hillary continue Obama’s deferred action programs? Would she prioritize comprehensive immigration reform? What exactly is Hillary Clinton’s stance on immigration reform, and what steps must she take in the coming months to win the pro-immigrant vote?

“We’re not going to simply coronate any Democratic candidate just because they’re popular,” Cesar Vargas, co-director of the Dream Act Coalition, told the National Journal.

Immigration advocate groups have made good on that threat in the past, even disrupting Democrats during campaigns. In Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, immigrant advocates punished him for delaying his 2008 promises to reform the immigration system. Dozens protested outside his campaign offices in swing states, including a hunger strike in Colorado. In 2016, pro immigrant votes will look back at two Obamas, the the first-term president who set records for deportation, and the second-term president who implemented aggressive measures to help millions of undocumented residents.

http://www.latintimes.com/hillary-clinton-immigration-why-latino-vote-wont-be-free-309189

I am sure party leaders in all walks of life will be endorsing her as the safe bet, to ensure "access." They don't care what the membership or the voters think, they can't piss off the Clintons who are very vindictive. But here is the time they can get what they really want, and I hope they are not too stupid or cowardly to pass it up.

With one of the teacher's unions already endorsing her, I wonder what she promised them? Ending NCLB, high stakes testing, charter schools, the attack on tenure? With her shareholders being very interested in privatizing public schools, will she flat out lie or obfuscate? I guess we will know in her economic speech how far she is willing to go or what she is willing to say.

You may find the comments section of interest, from the Diane Ravitch blog,
if you haven't seen it:

http://dianeravitch.net/2015/07/11/aft-endorses-hillary/

From those comments they said look at the AFT Facebook. They are getting an earful too.

https://www.facebook.com/AFTunion/posts/10153100472779160

Well, maybe the leaders won't make a difference this time. That was interesting.

I'm signing off, you have a good night.

Check this out once you get a chance because our discussion is continuing in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6965687

From December 2014

Congress is rushing to pass a mammoth 1,603-page spending bill before it closes up shop in 2014. It's packed with all manner of unfortunate provisions, but among the worst is one literally written for and by big banks.

As Mother Jones reports, at the very end of the negotiation process of the bill — which must pass in order to fund government operations in 2016 — members of Congress slipped in language that was written "almost entirely" by Citigroup lobbyists to allow big banks to engage in more risky trading with taxpayer-backed money.

As you can see, the language in the bill is almost exactly the same as a draft written by Citigroup's lobbyists:



http://mic.com/articles/106288/one-big-bank-literally-wrote-part-of-a-bill-that-could-lead-to-a-government-shutdown

the past number of decades, and the latest and most egregious, the TPP? Corporations WRITING OUR Legislation and rubber stamped by their paid 'employees' in Congress!

again, tell those stories.

Hasn't been a democracy for decades.

eom

and then tried to hide the memo…

http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutonomy-memos-two-bombshell.html

http://www.cps-news.com/2010/11/08/evidently-citigroup-is-embarrassed-over-plutonomy-reports/

"Back in October, we coined the term ‘Plutonomy’ (The Global Investigator, Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances, October 14, 2005). Our thesis is that the rich are the dominant drivers of demand in many economies around the world (the US, UK, Canada and Australia). These economies have seen the rich take an increasing share of income and wealth over the last 20 years, to the extent that the rich now dominate income, wealth and spending in these countries. Asset booms, a rising profit share and favorable treatment by market-friendly governments have allowed the rich to prosper and become a greater share of the economy in plutonomy countries. . . . [T]he lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge in converting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor . . . contribute to plutonomy.

[W]e think that global capitalists are going to be getting an even greater share of the wealth pie over the next few years, as capitalists benefit disproportionately from globalization and the productivity boom, at the expense of labor."