2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie funneled campaign cash to family members
Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)
I wonder how much of his donor's hard earned money is going to straight into the Sander's family pockets this time, don't you?
"Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
His wife Jane O’Meara Sanders received $91,020 for “consultation” and to negotiate the purchase of television and radio ads. Approximately $61,000 of that was “pass through” money used to pay for the ads, O’Meara Sanders told the Bennington Banner. She kept about $30,000 as pay for her services.
Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, earned $65,002 from the Sanders campaign between 2000 and 2004, records show."
http://www.progressivestoday.com/bernie-sanders-used-campaign-donations-pay-family-members-2000-2004/
ETA: It was a hoot to watch the sudden conversion about right wing sources by Sanders supporters. Now that we've seen that, here is a source where his campaign admits it is true.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boomer
(4,168 posts)The Sanders family isn't independently wealthy. I would imagine they can't afford to focus their lives on campaigning without some recompense.
"Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, earned $65,002 from the Sanders campaign between 2000 and 2004, records show."
That's $13,000 a year. That not even a living wage.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This shit should be illegal. It's something cons do a lot as well. Disgusting.
It's nepotism, but so what? If his wife and stepdaughter are caopale of doing the job, and do tghe job, and donlt hide it and lie about it...it's above board.
Proserpina
(2,352 posts)
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)
tecelote
(5,122 posts)Worked for Wall Street.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)phone company, the IRS, and Chet the snow plow driver. Oh, the scandal!
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Check it out.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)and should be avoided. Whether it was legit
or not, it looks bad.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Hiring family is always a potential conflict of interest, IMO....
Same answer to your cohort below.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I knew there was something fishy going on with this OP. Bernie is one of the only non slimy politicians in the business.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)For the Clinton's to hire their daughter and pay her a he'll of a lot more, right. I will be looking forward to you being as upset about that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)acknowledge Chelsea's income to be comparable to Bernie's wife. It would just destroy the venom in her post. And she doesn't listen well to logic.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)39. This place
Has lost the last shred of any remaining standards.
Turn off the the lights on your way out.
Sad.
So. Jim Hoft is bad when his bagger bullshit is lobbed at Clinton, but needs to be seriously considered when lobbed at Sanders?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:41 PM - Edit history (2)
Yeah, so get this...
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:50 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Spam
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... pid=877102
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Repeatedly posting one word accusing someone of "spam" is rude behavior.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:58 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh, good grief.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: So, one word response is reason this is being flagged? Another poster did FYI how many times?
Slow day, for troll on troll BS?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It adds nothing and offers nothing to support the accusation the comment it refers to is 'spam'.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Seriously, folks. 
"Repeatedly" = posted twice.
Juror #6, wut?? What does that even mean??
SPAM!!! I got alerted for posting the word SPAM. Two people actually voted to hide it. 
Too funny...
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why is Jim Hoft a bad source when he's targeting Clinton, but an acceptable one targeting Sanders?
George II
(67,782 posts)
Cha
(297,281 posts)
William769
(55,147 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)
jehop61
(1,735 posts)I'm a Hillary supporter but hate to see anyone slamming any of our candidates. Keep your eyes on the prize
still_one
(92,216 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's something republican candidates love to do. It doesn't become okay because Bernie does it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)What I do know is that the $150,000 figure is intentionally misleading since $61,000 was actually spent on the ads. So the real number is $89,000. The outright lies tell me something about the purveyor of this information, and it should tell you the same.
I do know that if his step-daughter did indeed work on his campaigns in those years, and if he has a history of paying his staffers, then it would be unusual not to pay her, no? Can you show that he did not pay his other staffers? Or that he paid them less than her? Ditto for his wife.
If you can show those things then I will agree it is unethical. But I suspect you will have trouble, because this go around Sanders is paying even his interns.
George II
(67,782 posts)And as a college president, what experience did she have buying advertising time?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Besides, colleges do ad campaigns all the time; can you show she has never had experience with advertisements for a college?
merrily
(45,251 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....clearly states that the information was contained in Sanders' FEC filings. Every candidate is required to itemize every expense paid by the candidate's campaign committee.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Even when it's factually true. LOL!
polly7
(20,582 posts)5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Driscoll worked in several capacities for Sanders' campaigns from 2000 through 2004, earning a total of about $65,000. She maintained mailing lists, prepared Federal Election Commission reports and performed other tasks. Her highest income for any of those years was about $20,400 in 2003, Weaver said.
Jane O'Meara Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office for about six years during the 1990s, four of them as chief of staff. She did not take a salary for that work.
You should be ashamed of yourself but shame is probably not your strong suit.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)On Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:36 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
FYI
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=876587
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Spam. This is posted repeatedly throughout this thread, essentially becoming spam. Please hide.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:46 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: DUers can re-post an idea or link. Nothing outside TOS.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just another stalker alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes a message deserved repeating. It's a bit of a web and until people realize the smoke and mirrors a few posts won't hurt.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's not spam, it's a rebuttal. What a pathetic alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post reports analysis of a third party and is not directed against any DU members. Whether or not the post is 'spam' is mutually exclusive of whether or not the post stimulates discussion or whether or not it attacks individuals.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Obviously, I agree with the jurors who called it a bogus alert.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)I imagine just an overall disdain for anything factual.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)They have nothing! nothing!
Thank you.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Because it's not illegal to hire someone to work on your campaign, especially someone qualified for the job, even if they are related to you.
And it's not like they got rich doing it. Even in the first OP ETA link, it says:
Jane O'Meara Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office for about six years duringthe 1990s, four of them as chief of staff. She did not take a salary for that work. Chiefs of staff typically earn between $120,000 and $150,000 a year.
So they could be reaping very nicely from this, but they are not. It takes time and money to find and hire qualified staff for campaigns...sometimes it's easy just to grab someone available for a small job. And, as it says in this article, politicians do this all the time. The difference between this and Tom Delay, is his wife was probably not even earning the 500K he paid her. She probably wasn't qualified and she got paid a big hunk of money. For what? And this was not the ethics problem Tom Delay was being probed for.
Yes, this is a very republican thing to do...so consider the source of this story and continual harping on "hypocrisy" here on DU.When the Bennington Banner and Brattleboro Reformer carried a story about the payments on Wednesday, Vermont Republican Party Chairman James Barnett said he smelled hypocrisy.
Some people love to hate the BERN, and will post anything to try to bring him down.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He hired as staff when he was in congress. And he got her a job working for the state of Vermont after the college canned her.
He has enriched his family plenty off of the taxpayer dollar. But it's okay if you're Bernie.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Is every congressman held to account here, or only the ones who are obviously getting wealthy on tax payers money?
If this is a legal activity (and it is), and nobody is getting "rich" off of it, then I don't see the abuse. No funneling of money, just earned wages for work done, and not much money earned at that.
The Clintons on the other hand are megga millionaires now...maybe billionaires. Do you want to start critiquing how they got there?
You are sounding more and more desperate Maggie.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I thought you all considered that rich? When did that change?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who rails against the “billionaire class” on the presidential campaign trail, reported relatively modest income last year: just more than $200,000 on a tax return filed jointly with his wife.
The vast majority of the couple’s income came from Sanders’s $174,000 Senate salary and Social Security benefits that both he and his wife, Jane, a former college president, receive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/30/on-tax-returns-sanders-and-wife-report-200000-in-income-mostly-from-his-senate-post/
Bernie Sanders
Net worth: $110,014-$550,999
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/26/24-7-wall-st-net-worth-presidential-candidates/32409491/
You really want to compare this to Clinton money?
Oh and BTW, your title of Sanders funneling money to family members is an outright lie. And you know it. They got paid for services rendered for the campaign.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)"funneling"
lousy, stinking character assassination
George II
(67,782 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)like, oh I don't know, someone with a foundation that has been brought into question numerous times?
Keep digging MaggieD, maybe you will find something, but in my opinion if you want to find something, it would be quicker if you googled Clinton instead of Sanders.
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)Have you got a good look at those idiots on the other side? We cannot lose, for the sake of the world.
still_one
(92,216 posts)
still_one
(92,216 posts)or have substance
riversedge
(70,242 posts)VMA131Marine
(4,139 posts)Especially since $61,000 of the $150,000 went to pay for ads. It averages to less than $6,000/year. It's also recorded so he wasn’t trying to hide it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I agree with the article:
"What Sanders did is technically not illegal, but it’s astonishing that someone campaigning on the removal of big money in politics used campaign funds to pay large sums of money to members of his own family."
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)It's not the amount, it's the act, & bernies fist pounding stump speech mantra that continually shows his flip flopping hypocricy.
Add this to the growing list also.
UGH!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Hillary's shit don't stink.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here's the "About" page of Progressives Today
Many Americans who consider themselves left of center have an antiquated sense of today’s Democrat party. This is not their father’s Democratic party. Democrats today are controlled by, and answer to, the most radical elements of their party. Yet, with cover generously provided by the mainstream media, progressives are able to push their influence in the shadows. And they have no shame.
Progressives Today follows and publicly exposes the radical elements of the institutional left. It will be the go to resource for all elements of the progressive movement through old school investigative journalism. We will cover their conferences with undercover reporters, we will interview their leaders, we will follow their writings, teachings, social media presence. Our goal is to finally hold the left accountable for their radical opinions, their destructive policies and their dangerous anti-American agenda.
One of the goals of PT, in addition to simply exposing progressives, is to expose their views to moderates and Democrats so that a choice must be made. It is our strong belief that, Progressives Today will cause many on the left to re-evaluate their political alliances.
From the about page of the Gateway Pundit:
So. That's your go-to, looks like. Good job.
What next, climate change denial...? oh. Right.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)this source, but it's bogus what you're doing. Nothing in this source is different from what the so -called progressives here do to criticize Hillary. I see people here brag that Bernie attracts Repubs, so this is a self--described "progressive".
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But the source is 100% credible, right?
Oh, here's some more from Progressives Today:
It’s only natural that Hillary Clinton started politicizing the California shooting as it was still developing.
Sadly typical, even for a liberal.
Still sounding like a credible source? Okay! let's find more!
Hillary Clinton certainly used the Benghazi YouTube video lie but according to her emails, she may have been the person who put the deception together in the first place.
Soooo credible, such good progressive journalism!
Let's have some more!
That one sources the Washington Free Bacon, er, Beacon, which is another goofy-ass right-wing site. Er, wait, i mean a Perfectly Valid and Perfectly Acceptable Progressive Site. Right? yeah, right.
Oh, more!
With the ever-growing list of things that Hillary Clinton has lied about, Republican Senators are now questioning if she is covering legal expenses for the tech company she hired to handle her email server.
If this turns out to be true, it’ll be more bad news for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016.
Daily Caller is the source for that one, apparently adding to the ever-expanding family of Totally Awesome And Not At All Discredited Progressive Sources.
Would you like more samples of your eminently credible Progressives Today?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)sound like. Anything goes......as long as it bashes Hillary. Right? If it bashes Bernie, then it's not credible.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)MaggieD is promoting a nutjob right-wing site. Just like you did in September. Same article even.
it is not Sanders' supporters fault that you and maggieD are using right-wing nutjob sites as a primary source. That's all you.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)was that he was an ex-Democrat now a "progressive". I rummaged there for a while back then, and it was equal opportunity bashing.
You are assuming that every so-called progressive loves Bernie. In any case, this is what Progressives' sound like.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Here's the very first post from PT:
March 1, 2014 by Jim Hoft 0 Comments
Progressives Today is a project of the Gateway Pundit. We’re officially launching in the next few days. PT’s objective is to highlight the insanity of the hard (and soft) Left; to expose their outrageous conduct and hammer them where they need hammering. Check us out.
"Progressives Today" has always been a stupid right wing 'exposing the librulz" site. It's always been a project of Jim Hoft. There's no mystery here ,and you were called on these facts when you pushed this same article back then. Why are you even TRYING to bullshit on this?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)September, October, November, December. Months ago.
And I was harassed, not called on anything. They did what you are doing -- especially in the context of that thread. If it's Hillary bashing, source doesn't matter. If it's remotely negative about Bernie, then it matters.
This is what independents write like. I see.it here all the time. You only object because it's a factual article about Bernie.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And I have done so regardless of who it gets pointed at.
You were called on using a stupid piece of shit right-wing source. With citations of how it is a stupid piece of shit right-wing source. That's not harassment, it's pointing out the obvious.
And your claim was that back in September the writer of Progressives Today - Jim Hoft - was a "disillusioned progressive." That's never been true, and he made that clear in his first post on the site.
You are using right-wing bullshit to attack progressives and try to claim you're coming from a more liberal position while doing so. You're not subtle, you're not clever. And you really need to stop, back up, and find a different road to take.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)already.
This is what so-called independents sound like -- anything goes. You just don't like it if it's anti-Bernie.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Given that progressives Today flat-out states that it is run by Jim Hoft, and that he is active in the tea party, I struggle to see how this point has been refuted.
You keep insisting that I don't care unless it targets Bernie. I just gave you two links showing otherwise.
R B Garr, you have gone beyond begin wrong. Seriously, stop. You're not winning any prizes. Your source is a right-wing hack, and you need to stop cutting excuses for accepting him as legitimate.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Good to know.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)If they slam Hillary or Bill, that's fine. That's the point. And of course nothing is taken in context so it's a waste of time to argue your irrelevant tangents.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)You need to give it a little tap so that it moves on and doesn't play that same track over and over, and again.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to find this post and then kick it SEVENTEEN DAYS LATER.
LMAO!!!!!!
Someone is stuck, all right, but it ain't me. Good Lord!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Making conclusions without ANY evidence.
I' didn't "go back" anywhere. This thread was posted to prove a point in a thread that is on the Greatest Page, and currently active.
No apology necessary.
Your embarrassment is reward enough.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Your OBSESSIONS are not my concern .
And LMFAO that *I* would be embarrassed because YOU kicked a post from SEVENTEEN DAYS AGO.
Yikes, how bizarre of you. 
bvar22
(39,909 posts)If not, then I stand by my post.
TRUTH has no expiration date.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)a petty insult. So you kick a SEVENTEEN DAY OLD POST just to insult me. How FUCKING PETTY can you get.
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to get posts hidden. GOOD LORD, how bizarre. 
And it's pretty OBVIOUS the obsession that "some" have with this poster Maggie so you're just playing games with her threads. Truth my ass! 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's like watching the clowns at freerepublic when they get outraged over Obama calling them out.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL! Personally, after seeing that shit from the right wing Washington Examiner and AEI numbskull, smearing Hillary, I simply do not give a shit who the source is any longer. I have lost count of the number of right wing sources used to smear her here.
If it's okay if you're a Bernie supporter then I guess sources don't matter here. At least this one is factually correct.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)What are you, 12?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But it was fun to watch you all have a sudden conversion on using right wing sources. Admit it, I am clever!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Hillary gets that much from one corporate buyer, I mean donor.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)I've seen so much made up crap all in the name of a "progressive" voice. Also independents. They can bash away here without regard to source integrity. Hillary bashing is the only criteria.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Whether or not it's the title of the article. Posting it here is repeating a lie.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)24. He's a real progressive?
Enjoy your fantasies.
Speaking of fantasies, Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped. I simply cannot understand how a real liberal would vote for a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped. Can you explain that to me? I just can't wrap my head around that. Especially when I think about how many women have been raped at the point of a knife or gun.
A Jury voted 7-0 to hide this post on Thu Dec 3, 2015, 12:23 AM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868622
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)I guess "progressive " means anything goes.
merrily
(45,251 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Why bother. But that's just the tip of the iceberg, which you know. All in the name of the independent voice. Anything goes. You just don't like when it's turned around. The dishonesty claims are laughable.
merrily
(45,251 posts)there is video showing her doing that.
"Hillary is evil" is an opinion, and something I never posted anyway.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)independents operate. You just don't like it because it is negative towards Bernie. Its constant here about Hillary, but you don't object.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)She based an article for being a right-wing source, for an article about the Clintons' much more complicated and massive financial pecularities.
Which is it? Do we believe right wing reporters or don't we?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Progressive apparently means anything goes like we've seen here against Hillary.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)53. Sanders used campaign donations to pay family
http://www.progressivestoday.com/bernie-sanders-used-campaign-donations-pay-family-members-2000-2004/
What no one cares about is someone else's moralizing, especially when the moralizing is couched in "issues". It looks like Sanders is perfectly capable of acting just like any other candidate out there.
And where are your Real World calls to Bernie Sanders about his supporters harassing people on the internet? How ridiculous that a Bernie supporter hunts down internet posters they have run off a message board and then proceeds to tell them what they can and cannot post about. It's a free country. Not everyone has to adore Bernie Sanders.
And some of the Bernie supporters were Ross Perot voters, so who cares what tangent they go off on next. Democrats can get elected without some of the fringe that were never there to start with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=627898
And when you were informed it was right wing you doubled down and claimed it was a progressive website:
60. You should take your own advice on research. And since when have headlines meant
anything. Have you read the vile headlines on THIS website, especially about Hillary. The "progressives" like to slam everyone, being so pure and all.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=629599
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)to what is linked here, and you'll just try to get my post hidden if I remind you what you linked to. That website is what independents sound like.
I'm not interested in your manipulatove tangents. Only credible people can "inform" me and that didn't happen.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Then you posted it here and defended it when people called you out.
I don't link to racist tea party websites, that's you and Maggie.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Guardian originally. LMAO.
I didn't see you lose your cookies when some woo person had Fox News links bashing Hillary in their anti-Hillary spam. ETC.
AND I already said that you took my previous response out of context because you didn't mention what you were linking to at that time. No need for your phony manipulative outrage. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do tell.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Now you claim I linked to something similar, please elaborate.
Unless you want people to think you're making things up, that is.
Link?
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)Obvious, but hilarious.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Could your false claim have something to do with this post of yours, which says nothing about a link:
59. lol, this coming from you after the Starr report is featured prominently in a
thread and you just go along with it with your friends. As long as it slams Clinton, it's all good, including Fox News and the Starr Report. Just laughable.
And Google the subject matter, and you will see it, including Vermont papers. It's out there.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=629581
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)261. You would know about this because your pals are posting from the Starr report.
But that seems to be okay with you.
P.S., The Starr report is very right wing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=628109
271. You need to denounce the Starr report right now
Do it now. Or you are a hypocrite about taking about right wing talking points.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=628162
Is that what you were referring to when you said "what you linked to"?
I'm responsible for something another person posted?
Sounds like deflection to me.
You linked to a racist tea party website, were called on it and now you're pointing the finger at other people pretending they did something just as despicable.
ESKD
(57 posts)Bernie supporters gets chided for other RW sources.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Objectively, factually true. Wouldn't matter if it was published on the back of a cereal box. It's a fact that he funneled campaign cash to family members. Right?
Excuse me....
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
Jarqui
(10,126 posts)Jane O'Meara Sanders worked in her husband's congressional office for about six years during the 1990s, four of them as chief of staff. She did not take a salary for that work. Chiefs of staff typically earn between $120,000 and $150,000 a year.
This is what they're trying to expose?
And with the House, you're there for 2 years and then in a re-election that can get you unemployed in a hurry. Bernie doesn't have much money. Can't fault him.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I just wanted to make you aware that your source is right-wing bullshit from beginning to end.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You used the exact same criticism to discredit an article from a conservative about the Clintons.
Which is it? Do we use and accept RW sources or not?
A little intellectual consistency would be refreshing.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)I've posted this source before and was attacked by one of your followers, though it was in a response in a thread.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The post isn't hide-worthy but it merits community disapproval just short of a hide.
I was Juror #2.
On Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:58 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Bernie funneled campaign cash to family members
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876329
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Funnellng" is accusing the potential Democratic presidential nominee of a crime without any evidence. Being paid the amounts listed is actually normal for that level of consulting and less than ad execs make per project and there is no reason to suggest any of this was illegal. This OP makes inflammatory posts about Sanders here on a near daily basis. Accusing him of "funneling," as in secretly sending money to someone who doesn't deserve it, it OVER THE TOP.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:10 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This I see a legitimate source for discussion. Quit the Bernie coddling. Quit alert stalking MaggieD.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with the alerter's substantive points about the silliness of this attack (which comes from the side that screams in outrage at anything negative about Hillary Clinton). The alerter should post these comments as a refutation. To choose the word "funneled" is of course to put the worst possible spin on the report. To get that insinuation in, the poster had to alter the headline on the source; neither in headline nor text does the cited source use that term. Nevertheless, I don't think that "funneled" amounts to an express allegation of outright criminal conduct. It's open to the interpretation that it's just a criticism, and that candidates' family members, even those who don't command six-figure speaking fees, should work for the candidate for free (the way some candidates' interns do).
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This is a BS attack with no merit.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. OP is trying to demagogue a candidate
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The article is quite possibly biased rubbish...but doesn't violate the rules. Refute it, don't silence it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Instead of alerting, post a reply with your objection.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Without getting an alert.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If so, you're utterly delusional.
Consider this post, which, without commentary, posted video clips of Clinton and Sanders addressing the H-1B visa issue. This information (it's just fact, as per your repeated posts in this thread) showed Clinton taking the pro-corporatist, anti-worker side, thereby putting her in a bad light. The jury happened to have four Clinton supporters who didn't care about the ToS; they just wanted to hide an unattractive truth about Clinton.
At least, that's my explanation for the hide. Your smear -- which went beyond mere factual reporting, and altered your source to amp up the insinuation of misconduct -- was allowed to stay. That's also a fact.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I guess that Gif got to you yesterday. Sorry for the truth about Hillary and her greed. You have a sad. 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And it's not the truth, but carry on.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)philly_bob
(2,419 posts)It is "possibly biased rubbish" -- it's a ten-year-old article from a questionable source and involves relatively small sums of money -- but I agree with Juror #5, "Refute it, don't silence it."
I think the discussion in comments has effectively refuted it.
And if Sanders is the nominee, we'll face these questions in the General Election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's bullshit and only allowed because it's against Sen Sanders.
philly_bob
(2,419 posts)As clearly happened in this case.
Besides, next time we hear about Sanders' hiring family members, we'll know: relatively small amounts of money involved, 10-year-old article, Republican "false-progressive" hit piece.
Are you suggesting the jury vote would have come out differently if it had been a hit piece on Clinton? I doubt it.
I've enjoyed your posts over the years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I do believe that the numbers of locks and hides of Sanders posts are not proportional to the population here. But I shouldn't let it get to me. They can't win on issues so they must resort to attempts at locking, hiding and banning. I just wish I believed that the truth will win out over money.
merrily
(45,251 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Sanders supporters don't follow suit.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Thanks Maggie
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)From the same site. Is this the "TRUTH" as well?
damn, people just don't take the time to read.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Simply because it's about bernie doesn't make it a complete falsehood.
An investigation would prove it one way or the other.
Perhaps that is where this should go in this case.
Shouting at the messenger won't make the message go away.
Kali
(55,012 posts)30k for 15 years work is nothing, 65 for 3 or 4 years is pretty reasonable and damn near nothing if that was full time for 4 years
95 for two people for 15 years total is nothing to scream ethics about. jeebus.
none of it is what anybody in their right mind could call "Big Money"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Do you agree? It's a loophole, but it should not be. And it is flat out unethical in my opinion.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)doing things like placing media ads, you ought to be paid for your work. Doesn't matter if you're related to the candidate.
And has already been pointed out, the sums are trivial.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Well, well, well.
Would the Sander's withstand the same financial scrutiny the Clintons are constantly under?
This is the first place the RW would attack to destroy the "socialist" candidate should they need to.
Good thing this comes out now.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)and has put 5 kids through college and works a middle class job. Stop the presses!!!
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Worse yet, he likely expected them to actually work for the money.
Someone needs to tell him how to do corruption right, then maybe he could get NBC to hire his daughter.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts) JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,315 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)A biased perspective works both ways.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)in congress making much more money than I ever made in a year. On a salary of $175,000 in a year his net worth really increased in a year. I don't know if this includes Jane's net worth or not.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Thanks for that info.
It should concern all voters.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Where theres smoke, theres fire?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)UNBELIEVABLE: Democrats Agree To Prayer Service At Mosque WITH 9/11 CONNECTION
Just when you thought Democrats couldn’t get anymore deranged, they decide to attend a prayer service at a well known radical mosque.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/unbelievable-democrats-agree-to-prayer-service-at-mosque-with-911-connection/
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)They say deranged and your response is that it is true? My links sort of show these people spew all manner of nasty. Care to address that? Do you agree with them about Hillary?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So it's true - right?
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)the Clinton foundation paid their daughter? I might have missed it since the thread has gotten so long.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Of Course: Hillary Clinton Rushed To POLITICIZE The #SanBernardino Shooting
Never let a crisis go to waste.
It’s only natural that Hillary Clinton started politicizing the California shooting as it was still developing.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/hillary-clinton-rushed-politicize-sanbernadino-shooting/
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)It deserves the same attention & scrutiny as all the truths/nontruths written about HRC.
This is questioning bernie.
I believe it should not be dismissed but investigated so it can be proven for what it may be.
Drag it out & debunk it then.
Just to make sure no on-line warriors can ever use it against him. Ya know.
You don't want half truths to be used against bernie in his primary campaign, do you?
We do need to talk about this, then.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So I don't trust it. Why do you?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I mean, here you are complaining about how terrible it is to bring right-wing news sources to DU. You'd never do the same thing you were just railing against, right? Especially not on the same day. Especially an entire 30 minutes after making that complaint.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Can't dispute the facts, can you?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)At least this one is factually true.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and calls Democrats deranged. It is your actions that are being questioned I'm not willing to take the word of this source on anything. You are. Why is that?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)when it is full of anti Democratic smears? You keep stating that it is factual but not citing anyone but the same folks who say Democrats are deranged. Why do you trust such a source? They hate Hillary. And Bernie.
merrily
(45,251 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)So....can't find the self-delete button?
As for disputing, believe it or not people can legally employ their relatives. And the amounts of money involved are actually extremely trivial when you include the pass-through.
Shall we now discuss your new favorite source's stories about Clinton? Is it awful how she "Rushed to politicize the San Bernardino shooting", as he claims?
Or perhaps we should talk about Chelsea Clinton's salary....
polly7
(20,582 posts)5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
Response to polly7 (Reply #122)
polly7 This message was self-deleted by its author.
merrily
(45,251 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)The shit posted just here from Maggie's trusted site is enough to make you gag.
Yeesh .......... the hateful bullcrap here is getting DEEP. (You guys have seriously whacked election campaigns. 
)
merrily
(45,251 posts)goes to a Christmas song. Good grief.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)from similar sites are posted and treated as truth here. Have you noticed that? I have.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I certainly have not posted anything at all from progressive today since I posted a story about Sanders from there that turned out to be the opposite of the truth.
However, that site has a track record of lying about Sanders and linked to a Christmas song as its source for this story. Both those things seemed worth mentioning. There is knee jerk source shaming and then there is pointing out that a link to a Christmas song is being used to back up the story.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Rules for thee, not for me....
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why not for me? You've all been doing it for 6 months, and I haven't noticed any complaints from Bernie supporters when it's used to smear Hillary. Now, all of the sudden, it's not okay?
At least this one is factual.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)hurling of dishonest and unsupported accusations at people, Mags. You did this. I have never done any such thing nor do I endorse it when others do. Do not characterize me falsely, that is not acceptable.
Prove your accusation or delete it. Own your own words and actions.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And none of you seem to object to that.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)others do, nor what they claim to be when they do it. I am responsible for my actions and so are you. 'Mommy, Johnny did it first' is the sort of argument that it is, evasive and immature. I do not employ such measures, Mags. You should not either, as it destroys the wee bit of credibility you might have.
Your source bashes Hillary. Do you endorse that as well? I sure as fuck don't. You brought that whole site here. Not me, not 'plenty of people'. You.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But your high standards for sources certainly don't seem to apply to Bernie supporters, now do they?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Hillary bashing Democrat hating source of yours is not working. My standards are not at issue and you obviously have no actual basis for bashing me like that or you'd offer it. I am a consistent person. You want to hang me, bring evidence or stand down.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)At least this is factually true.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)bashing, Democrat hating, racist as shit right wing source. Provide your evidence. I have no need to prove my innocence to your McCarthyist deflections..
You are a crass operator that is nothing like the candidate you claim to support. With support like that, who needs MattyDrudge?
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Think about it.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I don't know, but I don't think this will make any difference at all.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Right wing candidates and pols have been doing this for years. It's disgusting when they do it, IMO, and no less disgusting when Bernie does it. It's just flat out unethical.
Did you know that most government programs have an anti-kick back regulation? Congress saves this particular kick back loophole for themselves.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)paid campaign positions. Someone's gonna get paid to do that work. 
RichVRichV
(885 posts)1) Did the family member do the work they were payed to do?
2) Was their pay comparable or less than other people doing the same job?
If the answer to both is yes then I don't see an issue. Now if you want to call the practice nepotism or even foolish, those things I might agree on. But it's not corrupt to hire family.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)But please explain - why this new found concern over sources?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)You seem to need a good spanking factually for spreading such right wing bullshit here.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)It's the internet, after all.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)This site is ran by the same guy that posted the fake x ray of Office Wilson (Ferguson)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)I guess that's the difference.
That site covers it all. Not specific to any one topic.
Everyone is fair game.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Their history of racism is very relevant to their reputation.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)The owner of that website(Jim Hoft ) is a racist, but ok for you HC supporters because it bashes Sen.Sanders
http://stlactivisthub.blogspot.com/2012/01/jim-hoft-continues-to-promote-racism-at.html
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)..linked & quoted right here on DU that beat to death the debunked Benghazi, Email/server, Clinton Foundation etc etc etc etc.
Is it's tolerance dependent on who posts such links?
To me it's something that is true or not.
It is debunked by proving it
Trust me, HRC supporters have had to debunk the entire Gowdy Committee & more. We all know that getting rid of it on DU doesn't get rid of it elsewhere. If you believe its a lie then get busy, go to the source.
HRCers have been debunking the RW talking points for 25 yrs. Its like herding cats, but you do what you can how ever long it takes, because you believe that strongly in the purpose of your candidate.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)that all I want to know
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)You may take on the other postings from the site in another thread.
Dont change the subject.
BTW
Don't you ever refer to me as being ok with racism.
And why are you bringing "racism" into an OP that has nothing to do with racism?
Stop race baiting me to change the direction of this OP.
thank you
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I first noticed it about 6 months ago. Have you protested any of those? I saw an article from the Washington Examiner posted today to smear Hillary. The author comes from the right wing org AEI.
And of course DUers have not been shy about using right wing sources to smear Obama either. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Let me know when Bernie supporters start to object to right wing sources being used to smear Hillary and Obama.
At least this story is factually correct.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Thanks for letting me know
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)You choose to source a right-wing bullshit site. And when you get called on it, you try to blame Bernie supporters for what you did. While acting like it's bad when (if, at this point your word ain't exactly worth a damn thing) they do it. if it's bad, it's bad, and you doing it doesn't make it good.
Ethics, indeed.
You can't own up to your own decisions. What you have done wrong is someone else's fault. And it's okay when you do it, because reasons.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)She does it to herself. $250,000 speaking fee. 9/11
merrily
(45,251 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)But what about this story makes you think it's true? Have you verified the information with other sources? Have you looked at the objective facts in context? Have you checked to see if this is a normal occurrence?
Or are you willing to spew hate, lies, and misdirection without conscience or shame so long as you're team wins?
Based on every other post I've ever read of yours, I'm betting on the latter.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)This quote from Progressives Today "About Page" says:
That comment has no basis in facdt.
I do not support Sanders in the Primary. In my opinion, this story should be deleted because they are a rightwing propaganda site willing to make shit up.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You realize that, right?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you. Their 'facts' about Hillary and other Democrats are actually right wing smears. Why do you trust them?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Period.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)The story you posted just repeats something they don't link to.
The link they give allows me to download "We Wish You a Merry Christmas."
Give me a link to the 2005 story or another source that isn't from right wing bullshit land.
Add that it s a far rightwing site that makes factually untrue claims on their About page.
I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders.
I detest bullshit stories posted without any way to asses truth of their claims.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So you should be good to go.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Being that he's the "poorest person in Congress", that's a huge feat. Where did that money come from?
Also, in 2006, Sanders wasn't as opposed to accepting PAC money. He accepted $10 grand from HillPAC to run for the Senate.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)His disagreement with PAC money is very recent.
As far as his personal money, oddly everything is in his wife's name. And his reported net worth is reportedly $350K, which is astonishingly low for a couple that makes over $300K per year and has for decades. Something stinks there.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Hillary Clinton's PAC. Now he's excoriating her for having Super PACs? It feels like money-envy to me. In fact, most of his issues regarding social security protections appear to stem from self-preservation rather than caring about the program itself since he and his wife both receive huge social security checks every month.
Something, indeed, smells fishy.
merrily
(45,251 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)The link in the OP to progressivestoday.com references the Times Argus article of 2005:
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees.
The issue arose as questions were raised about the ethics of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whose wife and daughter had been paid more than $500,000 since 2001 for work on his political action and campaign committees.
Such payments are not illegal, but some watchdog groups say they raise questions about nepotism. "It's a form of self-dealing and anytime you're involved with self-dealing, questions are going to be raised," said Larry Noble, head of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based campaign finance watchdog group.
Look, I really could care less that Sanders' family benefited from campaign money just as long as they did the work. Why shouldn't they be paid? They have lives and expenses, too, and those numbers are peanuts compared to Delay's half a million to his family members.
Contrary to some people - especially those who dislike Hillary Clinton - I don't see nepotism as a bad thing, especially when they're not family of the uber-wealthy. Family members work harder than hired people who just get a check, and they should be paid for it. Period.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and claims campaign funds were "funneled" to family members. That sounds very different from getting relatively modest commissions on ad buys.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)"funneled" instead of compensated. But the facts remain the same although I see nothing wrong with paying family members for doing the hard work. They should be compensated. Only the sun rises for free, as they say.
merrily
(45,251 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
Response to workinclasszero (Reply #69)
last1standing This message was self-deleted by its author.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:20 PM - Edit history (1)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Inquiring minds want to know. 
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Now there are anti kick back statutes in place when dealing with government programs, but congress reserves their right to get kick backs from campaign contributions for themselves.
I have never heard of a Dem doing it, but I have certainly seen lots of republicans do it over the years. I have always found it unethical, and certainly think it SHOULD be illegal.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Why won't you prove that what you've posted isn't a right wing lie or out of context propaganda?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Google is your friend.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)That's disgusting.
ESKD
(57 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And I'm good at it too. That's how I was able to find a right wing site making this claim AND another article where his campaign admits it's true.
See how smart I am?
ESKD
(57 posts)Even if they have refused to take a salary. You are talking about chump change as compared to oh, say, Clinton. A very nice way to sound off the alarms on the Clinton Foundation now.
You are just making yourself look silly right now.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Got it.
ESKD
(57 posts)You can do the math.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And that was taxpayer dollars.
ESKD
(57 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And it looks real bad for a holier than thou crusader like Bernie. SMH
jeff47
(26,549 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Nope. We have the First Amendment that protects even those who purposefully try to mislead others and work to harm the poor and middle classes with lies and out of context crap.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Clearly you guys are missing out. You could start an entire thread about how Sanders underpays his own family!!!!!!!!!!
immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
jeff47
(26,549 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)
--imm
larkrake
(1,674 posts)having no pac, 2k per year is low pay for two hard workers he can trust.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)in general, that's not a big problem, though there is a bit of nepotism there. Are there people more qualified for the job - likely.
merrily
(45,251 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779780 (the real story)
And, Agnostic Sherbert is correct. If you click on the link that is supposed to take you to the Vermont Guardian, you go to a Christmas message.
The OP should self delete and apologize.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)The owner of that website is promote racism
Look at this shit using I cant breathe chant protetos have been using since Eric Garner
Progressives Today
?@ProgsToday
WAKE UP LIBERAL JEWS! The #SanBernardino Jihad was a MUSLIM slaughtering a Jew because he said Islam is violent. Pogroms are coming here.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Sure this is a little nepotism. But above board and straightforward. If they did the work, why not?
I'd steer away from about complicated interrelationships in a family, and dubious payments for services rendered in immense amounts.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)The poster is spreading right wing propaganda without context or verification.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)complains about "Right-wing sites" on DU.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)How does it make you feel to know you're doing the work of racist hate-mongers for them?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Since you know that you're spreading right wing propaganda written by racists in order to smear progressives with out of context lies, why stop there?
You've shown that spreading the words of racists doesn't bother or shame you so what's next?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Can you explain why sources matter all of the sudden? Because they sure haven't mattered when it comes to smearing Hillary, even when the story is baloney.
Help me understand why sources are important all of the sudden?
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Your posts lost all credibility when you posted this article and then admitted that you don't care whether it's true, out of context, or just a dirty smear by racists.
I certainly wouldn't dream of speaking for you, but I'd be sick to my stomach if I had done something so sleazy.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Just saying, of course.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I wonder how many posters at DU who claim their voting for Democrats while knowingly spreading right wing lies are actually Democrats.
I'd guess zero.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Go get 'em, tiger!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's true.
polly7
(20,582 posts)5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)your chosen title suggests something more sinister but it did get you some attention
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Never seems to apply to Bernie supporters. Hey, I'm just following the trend set here.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In reading future posts of yours, I will bear in mind the "trend" that you have perceived and have on that basis adopted for yourself. In general, if anyone unenthusiastic about Clinton makes any post that is deficient under the normal standards -- honesty, consistency, adherence to evidence, the deprecation of logical fallacies, etc. -- then you will consider yourself freed from normal standards to that extent. In the specific case here, you consider it perfectly acceptable for a DUer to post a serious attack on a candidate for the Democratic nomination, even though there is no evidence for the attack and it is motivated solely by the poster's personal animosity.
While your position is somewhat startling, I appreciate your frank admission of it, which will certainly facilitate my future reading of your posts.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Frankly, I think I did so brilliantly, and therefore you should not only read all my posts, but you should gleefully anticipate them.
And always have popcorn ready.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Some of the "unhinged" people who don't support Clinton are planning a big party when the Hillary Clinton Group makes DU history by blocking its 300th member. Inasmuch as the tally is already at 299, I don't expect we'll have to wait much longer.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You keep ignoring this part of the article you didn't include.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)you've insinuated something more sinister IMO though
ESKD
(57 posts)
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)If this source is okay for Hillary supporters to post against Bernie Sanders, then there should be no more griping about what others use as sources.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/
Jim Hoft, founder and proprietor of The Gateway Pundit, brings you the new online project “Progressives Today.”
Many Americans who consider themselves left of center have an antiquated sense of today’s Democrat party. This is not their father’s Democratic party. Democrats today are controlled by, and answer to, the most radical elements of their party. Yet, with cover generously provided by the mainstream media, progressives are able to push their influence in the shadows. And they have no shame.
Progressives Today follows and publicly exposes the radical elements of the institutional left. It will be the go to resource for all elements of the progressive movement through old school investigative journalism. We will cover their conferences with undercover reporters, we will interview their leaders, we will follow their writings, teachings, social media presence. Our goal is to finally hold the left accountable for their radical opinions, their destructive policies and their dangerous anti-American agenda.
One of the goals of PT, in addition to simply exposing progressives, is to expose their views to moderates and Democrats so that a choice must be made. It is our strong belief that, Progressives Today will cause many on the left to re-evaluate their political alliances.
More about The Gateway Pundit:
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+gateway+pundit&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Progressives Today ?@ProgsToday Nov 27
REPORT: MANY BABIES DEAD in #PPShooting! None from the shooting. All from business as usual for @PPACT.
@ProgsToday Nov 26
Hey @BilldeBlasio are you going to sit your son down for a talk about how the cops are protecting his ass (and all of NYC) from Jihad?
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
enid602
(8,620 posts)Google Jane Sanders/Burlington Cillege/balance sheet fraud/$200000 golden parachute. But I guess it's okay to break the rules if it's deemed to be in the proletsriat's best interests.
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
Eric J in MN This message was self-deleted by its author.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Response to MaggieD (Reply #146)
Eric J in MN This message was self-deleted by its author.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)This post is bullshit. So Bernie pays his family for their work. You Hillary supporters are sooooo desperate. I know I would be to if I chose to support her. Using GOP talking points to raise Hillary will get you nowhere.
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I just used that source in the OP to watch you all have a sudden conversion about using right wing sources. See how smart I am? LOL!
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
polly7
(20,582 posts)
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Are really getting desperate.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)therefore, he can do whatever he wants!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)All the sudden sources matter even when it's factually true. I find that odd, don't you? I have seen so much BS here using right wing sources to smear Hillary even when there is zero truth to what is posted.
But all of the sudden sources matter even when the facts are that this is true. Too funny!
5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)nt
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Comes straight from FEC filings.
Can you explain why Bernie supporters have a sudden objection to the source? Sure doesn't seem to matter when his supporters are smearing Hillary. Right? At least this is true.
polly7
(20,582 posts)5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
villager
(26,001 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)"Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission."
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Good enough source for you?
"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I thought you said it was a lie?
polly7
(20,582 posts)a complete nutter site.
5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
merrily
(45,251 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You mean considerably less than Hillary makes in a single evening from her Wall St buddies? You've becone a parody.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And the info can be checked out with the fec.
R B Garr
(16,954 posts)The "progressive" umbrella obviously means anything goes.
Good to see you justin! 
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Here is his campaign admitting it is true:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Some campaigns pay millions to consulting agencies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/political-consultants-2012-campaign-big-money_n_1570157.html
merrily
(45,251 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)But it means that donors got more-for-their-money than if he paid a consultant millions as Hillary Clinton paid Mark Penn's agency in 2008:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/28/505103/-
merrily
(45,251 posts)That is not the same as "funneling campaign funds" to his wife. His daughter got $65K over a five year period for services rendered. Big whoop. None of that changes the fact that progressivetoday has flat out lied about Sanders in the past and linked to a Christmas song as the source for its info for this story.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And he got her a job working for the state of Vermont once she got canned from the college for her antics over the loan.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)after months of scurrilous right wing lies many of them posted about Hillary directly from The Blaze and other reich wing garbage dumps.
The irony, it hurts.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)There are other sources for this story, but I thought this one would make a dual point. Looks like I was correct. LOL!
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)@ProgsToday
When will #MikeBrown's parents apologize 2 #Ferguson for their #DontSnitch thug son robbing minority business owners?
@ProgsToday Nov 27
That crying sound you hear is from lefty news producers sad the #PPShooting isn't actually a #PPShooting.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission."
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts) Truprogressive85
(900 posts)you and Jim Hoft share the same views ?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So is it not okay, or is it okay? You guys need to make up your mind. Just let me know.
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)You share the same views as racist who called Micheal Brown a thug , called PP attack leftists crying for attention.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Was Sen. Sanders charged with any wrongdoing ?
You support a racist and his site therefore this back and forth is over
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I tuned into DU this morning and saw Bernie supporters using right wing sources yet again to smear Clinton. And as usual, none of you seem to mind that. So I thought it might be a fun object lesson to use a right wing source about a true story, and later, after all the objections to the source, post the Times Argus article where his campaign staff verifies it is true.
If you feel as strongly as you seem to about right wing sources here is a new one from today. The only difference is that it is smearing Hillary with untrue info:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1
Go get 'em, tiger!
TheBlackAdder
(28,208 posts).
I'm a poli-sci continuing ed student who is a staunch Democrat and a Neutral.
Democrats winning is my only goal!
This OP is an embarrassment to the whole progressive front and does a disservice to the spirit of DU.
To have your candidate 'Win,' at what cost? Scorched Democratic Party Earth?
.
polly7
(20,582 posts)not this racist, tea-partier crap site. Shouldn't be difficult.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)He's not a relative.
But is that a better use of donor's money then Jane O’Meara Sanders getting $15K each for two House campaigns?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/28/505103/-
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)For some reason, he no longer seems as evil to me in our modern political climate. Can't quite put my finger on it, Maggie.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Jarqui
(10,126 posts)deficit during Hillary's last run in 2007-8
The Foundation's bottom line bounced back after her run. And yes, you see a lot of names in common between the Foundation and her campaign contributions. Hard to convince me there isn't a relationship. And a bunch of those same folks are the ones paying the Clintons six figures for speeches.
Chelsea got a $10 million dollar apartment in New York less than three years after getting married.
I didn't find anything to Sanders wife or step daughter Driscoll in his expenses for President or Senate (maybe I'm not looking in the right place ..)
http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do
(you have to put in search criteria)
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)And Carson is the best example.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)For those of you with a new found objection to sources. LOL!
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees.
polly7
(20,582 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)With this info in the general.
Just sayin
dlwickham
(3,316 posts) MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm am LMAO over here.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)5. That is pure right wing bullshit
From a right wing rag and right wing writer. Why are you posting right wing shit here?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/timothy-p.-carney
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)They hate RW sources unless it's used against Sanders. Hill Shills are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)but you can't take it
boo hoo
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I bet if MaggieD posted that Bernie wore a brown belt with his pants, the bernie crowd would be like "oh no he fucking didn't!" "It was a black belt with brown trim!"
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)So the donors got good value.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01?template=printart
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)If you say so.
polly7
(20,582 posts) Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
polly7
(20,582 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But honestly, I just posted it to watch the complaints about using right wing sources, knowing I had a link showing his campaign admitting it to post later.
I just got fed up with yet another right wing source being used to smear Hillary this morning. Funny, no Bernie supporter was upset by that.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)...while knowing she might be president someday?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)she'd owe them money.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Everyone with any type of business does that, including non-profits.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Ohh right. You don't care.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Isn't it interesting how upset they became, even though they never seem to mind when right wing sources are used to smear Hillary? At least this story is true, as evidenced by this link, showing his campaign admitted it was true:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Come join Bernie. Until then keep petty attacks to yourself.
This is the part where you apologize and take down the OP.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But you know what is really teabaggish? The right wing sources used here consistently to smear Clinton. But since it is apparently ok I thought I would turn the tables.
Now at least I had enough ethics not to post something that wasn't true like I see here a lot about Clinton. So there is that. I knew I could follow it up with his campaign admitting it. I just wanted to teach a little object lesson first. Hope you don't mind.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)I do say that kind of stuff to all Hillary supporters, I don't say anything to Republicans about politics, and respect your tenacity as a Hillary supporter, and don't mind your rendition of an " Object lesson " at all. Peace & Love .
opiate69
(10,129 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)What's wrong with - payment for work done?
And, still no comment on this:
Again ...... do you work for free?
Fearless
(18,421 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's a couple orders of magnitude more than the money Maggie's so worried about here.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)The dollar amounts paid were reasonable.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts) orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You mean you're not? But thank all of you who have finally gone on record as objecting to right wing sources. Too bad this one is true.
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
rhett o rick This message was self-deleted by its author.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)It's bullshit and you know it. We get it, you're working for the Clinton campaign, but your posts are both tedious out usually outright false. Most people here will support Clinton *IF* she wins the Primary. Will you support Sanders if he wins?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)See the edit in the OP.
But if you hate right wing sources being used here is one you can criticize http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251876200#post1
Matariki
(18,775 posts)I believe you are merely posting on a payroll. I don't know what else could explain your persistence and vitriol.
villager
(26,001 posts)nt
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I mean if it's a non-issue and everything.
ESKD
(57 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)https://twitter.com/ProgsToday
get 'em now before they're scrubbed!
Vinca
(50,276 posts)I'd call that slave labor. It probably saved him a couple of hundred thousand dollars in wages for other people which means donor money was well spent. I don't get the outrage.
Gothmog
(145,293 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)After all, you're supposed to overpay your family. Like at the Clinton Foundation. How much is Chelsea getting paid again? I'm sure that wouldn't come up at all if Clinton's the nominee.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Cuz that seems to be the only thing that would make you happy.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Should be, but isn't. I do think it's unethical though. I would also like to see them make it illegal to hire family members, paid for by the taxpayers as congressional staff. His wife got paid that way as well.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)In really wish your clothes were more opaque.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Read the thread.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Or read it at all for that matter. If it isn't illegal I don't care. If Hillary does it and it's not illegal I don't care.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Answering that he won't be is a cop out. So, in a hypothetical situation where he does win the Primary - will you be voting for him?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I only vote for Democrats. Would not want to ruin my 38 year voting record of voting straight Dem. But he isn't going to get the nomination, so I don't worry about it.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)If he is the democratic nominee you should vote for him, it's not my job to tell you what to do... But you'd be a fool not too.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)No worries.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Otherwise don't be so sure, I know I work my but off to get Hillary elected... posting OPs doesn't cut it IMO.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Write in Clinton?
sonofspy777
(360 posts)Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!
that is all!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So it's not bullshit at all. It is factually true. File it under inconvenient facts about Bernie Sanders.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Oh, let's also throw in a massive amount of hypocrisy (Clinton Foundation Chelsea cough cough!) and irony (All you Sanders supporters carry water for the Right by using Right Wing news sources!).
Why am I not surprised with this poster.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I await your apology for calling my post "lying horseshit." Thanks in advance!
artislife
(9,497 posts)The more desparate some posters become, the higher the likihood that Sanders is going to the GE. This fear transforms into these kinds of OPs and responses.
My little heart is jumping for joy!
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I imagine the filth at that site will want to thank the op and all of her friends for giving them so much traffic.
Well done Maggie, a new low, even for you.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Then thank the op for bringing that racist right wing rag here to DU and giving them another source of revenue.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I see the object lesson was lost on you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #374)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Looks like you have a lot in common with the teabaggers who run that site, you both hate Bernie and will say anything to smear him.
You laid down in the gutter today and wallowed around in the filth, Maggie.
Don't complain when others can't stand the smell of you.
TSIAS
(14,689 posts)This was never an attempt to have a discussion on the issues. She just wanted to create dissension and draw attention to herself and make some point about how awful Bernie supporters are. Funny this thread doesn't have many recs, and it seems like a quarter of them are from people who broke the rules with such frequency that they aren't allowed to actually post at the moment.
I don't care if you're a supposed "liberal" or conservative, if you post with the intent of riling people up over meaningless crap, you are a disruptor.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They will exploit any issue to score points and they don't care how much damage they do to DU in the process.
And yet they're the "victims" when their posts are hidden.
840high
(17,196 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why do you then drag them here, link to them and strongly assert the honor and truthfulness of the source? That site was horrible. Racist, right wing, paranoid material of the exact sort that is poisoning our politics. And you brought that here. Your trusted source despises all three of our candidates, and I think you do as well.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I had the real article from the Times Argus, but I thought it would be fun to find a right wing site reporting it first.
I wanted to watch you all complain about the source, even though you never do when it's a Hillary smear. Pretty funny, huh?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You're making money for websites that post hideous things about our president and you think it's funny?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This is horrible stuff and there is no excuse for it. I have many times defended Hillary from unfair attacks while you do nothing but smear Bernie and other Democrats here on this site, all the time. You are here to smear.
Today I have put in time defending all of our candidates, our President, Party and the truth from the trash you dragged in.
left lowrider
(97 posts)This is silly
10k a year. . . how is that big money?
And funneling? . . . its all above board.
Turn CO Blue
(4,221 posts)Please create or include a comparison chart of the relative scale of this practice as abuse across multiple congressional (or local) campaigns, while comparing fair market value of skills or roles over a comparable period of time (normalized for number of months, inflation and value of the dollar)
Examples of a few questions that could be posed to expand the OP beyond a simplistic polemic:
Should nepotism be illegal, is it unethical, are there other professions with comparable ethics limits or prohibitions, how common is the practice, who is doing it and how can we compare and contrast this activity on a normalized scale, and what do ethics and oversight groups such as the Ethics Committee, CREW and the FEC offer as rules or guidance on this issue?
This could be a great topic for GD if approached in a more insightful and scholarly manner.
Here are the results of a study of Congressional family members hiring family members for campaign roles - which took all of one single second on the clock of Googling, and I include as an important part of the discussion that the OP omitted to include.
Please note: the high number of Democrats engaging in this common practice.
_______________________
82 members (40 Democrats and 42 Republicans) paid family members through their congressional offices, campaign committees and political action committees (PACs);
44 members (20 Democrats and 24 Republicans) have family members who lobby or are employed in government affairs;
90 members (42 Democrats and 48 Republicans) have paid a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit;
20 members (13 Democrats and 7 Republicans) used their campaign money to contribute to a family member's political campaign;
14 members (6 Democrats and 8 Republicans) charged interest on personal loans they made to their own campaigns;
38 members (24 Democrats and 14 Republicans) earmarked to a family business, employer, or associated nonprofit.
Top five representatives who paid family to work for them:
Rep. Alcee Hastings, (D-FL) paid his girlfriend $622,574.
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) paid his wife $512,293.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) paid her daughter and grandson a combined $495,650.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) paid six different relatives a combined $304,599.
Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) paid his wife $238,438.
Top five representative's payments or contributions to a family businesses or employer:
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) paid her stepdaughter's company $408,818.
Rep. Waters paid her daughter's company $347,837.
Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) paid his daughter's company $250,000.
Rep. Jesse Jackson (D-IL) paid his wife's company $196,000.
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) paid his sister's company and father's scholarship fund.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)MaggieD...why do you read these sites, and how do you not get ppr'd?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"Rep. Bernard Sanders' wife Jane was paid about $30,000 from 2002 to 2004 for work on his campaigns, while his stepdaughter Carina Driscoll got about $65,000 over a five-year period ending last year, a Sanders aide said Wednesday.
Jeff Weaver, chief of staff to the Vermont independent, provided those totals amid reports Tuesday that about four dozen members of Congress had hired family members to work on their campaigns or with political action committees."
mythology
(9,527 posts)This isn't illegal and if they are qualified it's not even unethical.
William769
(55,147 posts)Game, set, match.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why am I not surprised?
Some headlines from the site she linked to:
"LIBERAL NARRATIVE FAIL: Majority of Americans See Guns As Solution, Not Problem"
"It's very common in Muslim culture for granny to live upstairs from a bomb making factory & have no idea at all."
"The SAME people who've been marching on police stations & shutting down WHOLE cities ALSO say it's wrong to march on Mosques."
"Spin whatever narrative you want @Democrats. The truth on the ground in #SanBernardino is good guys with guns saved Libs from Jihadis."
"#FarooqSaeed was "living the American dream" right up until he unleashed his Muslim nightmare on innocent Americans."
"WAKE UP LIBERAL JEWS! The #SanBernardino Jihad was a MUSLIM slaughtering a Jew because he said Islam is violent. Pogroms are coming here."
"Unhinged #BlackPrivilege woman berates Hispanic McDonalds manager"
"Pious #SanBernardino jihadi "Showed no outward signs of violence" (other than his devotion to Islam of course)"
"@HillaryClinton LOVES Australia's gun laws. So what if it leaves #LGBT unarmed against their Muslim executioners!"
"Muslims slaughter people who would dare imply that Islam is a blood soaked death cult."
to "ask all candidates today about ending gun violence" they responded "You should be so ashamed. You've disgraced American Jewish community. #Apologize"
"Women in Special Forces? More like rape victim delivery service to our enemies"
"Progressive gun control is partially responsible for every death & wound AFTER the #SanBernardino Jihadis reloaded. #SittingDucks #2A"
"Obama & #progressive rhetoric demonizing Netanyahu is to blame for #SanBernardino massacre. #BloodOnYourHands" (though the wording "Koranimals" had to wait a few Tweets later)
"#SanBernardino jihad was attack on Jew in the office. I blame vicious progressive #BDS rhetoric against Israel."
"#ObamaLied #IsisThrived #AmericansDied"
"Neighbor of #SanBernardino jihadis was suspicious but didn't say anything because what if #FarooqSaeed #Ahmed was just building clocks?!"
"Muslim Tracks Down His Wife’s Rapist, Cuts Off His Penis, Eats It"
"What a shameful day for the Reformed Jewish movement. The MUSLIMS had PIPE-BOMBS!"
"Come to think of it Muslims are VERY anti-abortion but they get a Progressive hall pass for some reason."
"I'm sick of these white male NRA Republicans and their mass shootings beca... um, Sayeed Farook? Hey, let's not vilify an entire group."
"Sliver lining to #SanBernardinoTerror...More people will become gun owners. Every time an American buys a gun the terrorists lose. #2A #NRA"
"Let me guess, "lone wolf" or "not real Islam". Probably sent over the edge by #GlobalWarming or lack of jobs."
"Were the #SanBernardino shooters desperate from California drought? Damn you #GlobalWarming!"
"The moment #Progressive gun control screwed the sitting duck victims of #SanBernardino. THEY RELOADED!"
"Another gun free zone filled with sitting ducks targeted for slaughter. When do we call @TheDemocrats a terrorist organization?"
"If only 9/11 had hit an abortion clinic!"
"VIDEO OF THE DAY!! Man gets mad at White trash welfare ho's using EBT to pay for food & cash to play the lottery"
"Has Obama called in the Feds to investigate @RahmEmanuel's police debt like he has elsewhere?"
"Paris orders Jews to cancel public Hanukkah celebrations! #IslamWins"
"Democrat endorsed & supported #BlackLiveSmatter rhetoric is to blame for #JabariDean threat to kill 16 white people at #UofChicago"
"ANOTHER dead kid in Chicago who #JesseJackson won't march for because no whitey to blame. #BlackLiveSmatter little."
"The left created a toxic environment for police & white people. Their rhetoric caused Jabari R. Dean to want to execute 16 white people."
"The real victims of the #LaquanMcDonald shooting are the cops thanks to collective punishment doled out by the radical left."
"No wonder Obama doesn't support the Kurds. They're pro-Jew! ==> Kurds hold ceremony recognizing expulsion of Jews!"
"Muslim actions have turned us off to giving a crap what turns them against us!"
William769
(55,147 posts)Wow! But then again with you anyone that doesn't tow the Bernie line fits that category.
Yes there are two links in the OP but you knew that. Typical of your ilk.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But considering the anti-Semitic posts about Bernie at your website I'm not surprised by anything that comes from you or your ilk.
This post accusing Bernie of being funded by Israel is from your website, isn't it?:
William769
(55,147 posts)Thanks for the clarification!
Have a nice day.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They are laughing at you all the way to the bank.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)All will be made clear
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Some background:
http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/
Jim Hoft, founder and proprietor of The Gateway Pundit, brings you the new online project “Progressives Today.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America
"MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/27/books/review/david-brocks-killing-the-messenger.html
"In Brockworld no criticism of the Clintons has ever contained a shred of truth."
"With a few exceptions, the upper echelon of the conservative blogosphere is a mess.
OK then.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/09/21/jim-hoft-dumbest-man-on-the-internet/170927
Breitbart's "Big" websites traffic in misleading non-scandals and have published people like 9-11 truther Michael Moriarty, racist penis-enlarger/vagina-tightener Kevin Pezzi, and former SNL actress/spouter-of-incomprehensible nonsense Victoria Jackson. NewsBusters and The Media Research Center spend a lot of time finding the liberal bias in television shows that don't treat their gay characters as ostracized sub-humans.
Atlas Shrugs is run by a woman that is haunted at every turn by Islamic crescents, and whose hatred for the president once compelled her to claim that his penchant for "purple" (actually blue) neckties meant that Democrats were "Flying the Gangsta Colors at the White House." Confederate Yankee Bob Owens - who also writes for Breitbart and the Washington Examiner - openly speculates about whether he and an army of "freshly-experienced combat veterans and graying patriots" are going to have to start killing people to combat the "slavery" of health care reform.
But despite all this stiff competition, Jim Hoft (aka Gateway Pundit) stands out as uniquely incompetent. Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension."
Lol; that's just the warm-up!
Vattel
(9,289 posts)R B Garr
(16,954 posts)I've seen people bragging that Bernie attracts crossover Repubs and you call them"progressives" and independents. This is what they sound like. If you are independent you can slam anyone. You just don't like when it's done to Bernie. Its constant about Hillary here, but that's apparently okay.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)53. Sanders used campaign donations to pay family
http://www.progressivestoday.com/bernie-sanders-used-campaign-donations-pay-family-members-2000-2004/
What no one cares about is someone else's moralizing, especially when the moralizing is couched in "issues". It looks like Sanders is perfectly capable of acting just like any other candidate out there.
And where are your Real World calls to Bernie Sanders about his supporters harassing people on the internet? How ridiculous that a Bernie supporter hunts down internet posters they have run off a message board and then proceeds to tell them what they can and cannot post about. It's a free country. Not everyone has to adore Bernie Sanders.
And some of the Bernie supporters were Ross Perot voters, so who cares what tangent they go off on next. Democrats can get elected without some of the fringe that were never there to start with.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=627898
And when you were informed it was right wing you doubled down and claimed it was a progressive website:
60. You should take your own advice on research. And since when have headlines meant
anything. Have you read the vile headlines on THIS website, especially about Hillary. The "progressives" like to slam everyone, being so pure and all.
http://www.progressivestoday.com/about/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=629599
That's getting to be quite a habit for some Hillary supporters, and yet you scream bloody murder when someone else does it.
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
GoneFishin This message was self-deleted by its author.
Menshunables
(88 posts)very entertaining.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)your candidate's hands.
Out, damned spot!
You support a candidate with the blood of one million innocent human beings on her hands. Kind of explains the character assassination you are engaged in here.
You and Hillary are repugnant to any decent human being.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I think by this time, the majority here see your work is like an obsession to you when dreaming up the next smear. You qualify it by telling us how much you hate Sanders and his supporters, then prove again how seeds of hate are tended to grow thorns out of bullshit.
It's one thing to reveal that a campaign staff, as Bernie Sanders historically used when he ran for state office entrusted people close to him to produce campaign adds that were quite good. I think it was clever because they did not have the big bucks that his Republican opponent was fed from big donors. The campaign ads Jane was involved in producing were successful, and many trusted individuals, including her were involved in running a campaign that spoke TRUTH to POWER. It was the forerunner of what we admire today.
You don't understand about that, do you?
If you had made it a point to read any historical account about how Bernie Sanders ran his campaigns, you would know that. But, that's not your style. You show everybody here how you take the low road. You choose to manufacture hateful comments. It consumes your time.
Indeed... a hypocritical thing to again demonstrate.
artislife
(9,497 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
zigby
(125 posts)I hate to keep coming back to you but you were one of the first people I read on this website when I joined and I remember getting really fired up by your passion and support for Hillary. But c'mon girl, this is just some run of the mill nepotism and if his wife and daughter are qualified to help out on the campaign then so what? My daddy hired me to pick rocks out of the sawdust at his business! Now I wasn't paid 30K a year but still it was good old nepotism for sure.
I haven't read every comment because Lord who has that kind of time but it also looks like the source to this is bogus and the FEC filings whatever those are were never stated by the source as evidence. SO I could state right here that pigs flew over the silo last night to some right wing bigot source and I'm sure if it hurt Democrats they would sure as hog shit print it!
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts) 
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Douglas Carpenter (19,801 posts)
129. I pledge to support Hillary if she is the nominee? Do you pledge to support Bernie if he is the nominee?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868787
-----------
131. Absolutely not
I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.
Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.
So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804
George II
(67,782 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...that at some time or another just about everyone on DU has mentioned Trump. So that's not earth shattering news.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Hiring at modest salaries family members to do jobs that they can do quite well is not illegal or unethical.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Trashcanning this turd op.
Jeroen
(1,061 posts)Clinton and the CF would have kept you busy 24/7
