I hope he can restore my trust.

Yeah right...

Yeah, the experiences of Nelson Mandela and Anne Frank are just like Clinton's supporters', in your world.

Go with that.

!

it says so much about you and others who would do that.

Of course, I also don't think you understand the point of this thread, either, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

Disingenuous behavior is amusing. The more sincere it attempts top appear, the more bemusing it becomes. When it begins using bumper-stickers to deliver its shtick, it becomes stooge-like in its buffoonery.

I believe our interlocutor was speaking informally and colloquially. That's how we speak to one another in the south.

The American people need to know what Sanders stands for. He's done an excellent job of telegraphing his ideas, policies and beliefs.

We also need to know how he is different from Hillary. He needs to draw contrast by explaining the differences between his policies and Hillary's policies.

And there are very stark differences!

This isn't negative. Although Bernie seems to think it is.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out that she receives money from Wall Street, big banks and other powerful interests. Because she does.

Bernie's campaign contributions come from "We The People."

That's information that voters need to know.

She is an R in Dem clothes -- IMO; Bernie is a true liberal. Hillary supports the status quo; Bernie is in for change.

He had a lot of people fooled but not us.
Bernie has a talking points campaign.
He has no foreign policy.
He has no policy on women's issues
He has no policy on social justice.
He wants to tax us all saying things will be free when all he is doing is shifting the costs to others.
He's going nowhere

I'd call that going somewhere!

It's a fact that Iowa could go either way.

Both camps know that.

This chart clearly shows that as far back as 2012, Clinton was polling at 60 percent. She started dropping in September 2014.

Sanders didn't even show up in the polling data until September 2014, where he garnered a whopping .8 percent.

Never, in any poll was she at 0. You know that.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-iowa-presidential-democratic-primary

campaigns.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are among the top ten of Hillary Clinton's donors.

You can call them Chilean, flap-winged fruit bats if you want.

Find a principle and stick to it.

Please tel me more about her principles.

Sanders supporters are racist and sexist for not discussing questions about their candidate, but when Clinton's principles are questioned, we'll just refuse to engage in "negative threads".

She's been very consistent about being a neocon darling and a hellish proponent of senseless war in the Middle East.

She voted for the Iraq war, knowing full well that the neocons who were asking for it--were the same warmongers who asked her husband for an Iraq war when he was President.

She also has done a lot of saber rattling for Iran and Syria and has made several hawkish speeches in the past several weeks.

I'll never get used to the fact that Robert Kagan (one of the original sociopaths who asked her husband for war with Iraq in 1998) has praised Hillary's foreign-policy stances. He's one of the granddaddies of the neocon movement. He loves to kill brown people.

And the kicker, Kagan was one of Hillary's closest foreign-policy advisors when she was Secretary of State.

So yeah. She's highly consistent when it comes to wanting to keep us in perpetual war in the Middle East.

They would be in the Soup Line, these hedge fund crooks...Just stop it, stop it I say. The peasants wouldn't know what to do with money...fact is they don't have much...see how that works? The wiser, the richer. Just accept your fate and pay your rent on time, losers.

That seems to work well for Hillary.

Nothing is good enough for those who constantly whine and pile on because they didn't get their way against someone running a better candidate than theirs.

He should have kept it IMO. If HRC supporters can't handle ads that are not personal attacks, but state her financial backing, what makes them think she/her support will be there after the republicans rip her to shreds? I certainly will not support her, and her supporters don't make that anymore likely.

(whereas Sanders has experienced nothing in the way of GOP negative campaigning).

Personally, I have no objection if the Sanders campaign runs it's little video; it'll certainly bring joy to his fan base. But it's inconsistent with the "non negative ads" promise he made.

...would actually give one whit if Bernie went negative.

In fact, I think most wish that he would.

I'd like to see her knocked to the ground. It wouldn't be that difficult.

Her warmongering, her Wall Street connections, her flip flopping on the TPP and Keystone and the Clinton Foundation is full of quid-pro quo scandal that has not been vetted.

This is politics and we expect Sanders to clearly spell out why he is right, and Hillary is wrong, for our country.

I mean, if she can throw shit at the wall, and accuse Sanders of being sexist--why in the world can't he discuss her track record of surrounding herself with neocon assholes (Rober Kagan) and following their sociopathic policies?

Then this is a sad world for HRC.

I get they have already ripped her to shreads, but what makes you think they will stop? What makes you think that she will be able to get anything done is congress?

Truth does not equal negative.

What do you think he can do to restore your trust and mine.

And strongly urge his supporters to do the same.

All democrats need to unite against the un american republican candidate in the fall.

!

For example:

!

Too bad some of his followers wouldn't do the same.

If not, why the pretense about Bernie going negative?

If so, why the hell is your candidate engaging is such negative actions?

Is a puzzlement!

I have never heard a candidate—never—who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street from the military-industrial complex, not one candidate, who doesn't say, 'Oh, these contributions will not influence me, I'm going to be independent.' But why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again, I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors, 750,000 of them, thirty bucks apiece. That's who am I indebted to.

- good. Campaign financing is an issue.

It's not as though he's complaining she's sexist.

It's not Bernie fault Hillary gets her money from banks. I'm glad he's exposing it.

Or is this yet another instance where facts are "smears"?

I find this highly detrimental to women. Imagine being an employer and watching this. How eager would you be to go through this kind of thing in your shop?

"Anything short of Hosanna to Hillary in the Highest is a smear, going negative, hating, sexism...:

I pretend that very same thing too. It's very convenient when we apply it to alleged tin-gods, supposed sacred cows and other melodramatic embellishments designed to appear as anything other than the half-witted bumper-stickers they so often are.

Saying unflattering things about your opponent is the definition of negative campaigning. That doesn't make it dirty campaigning, but it is certainly negative. Here are examples:

Positive: Bernie Sanders is a great guy. Here's why you should vote for him.
Negative: Hillary Clinton has taken campaign donations from employees of Wall Street firms.
Dirty: Hillary Clinton is a liar and you can't trust her.

Positive: Hillary Clinton is a strong leader. Here's why you should vote for her:
Negative: Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill five times.
Dirty: Bernie Sanders is a liar and you can't trust him.

The manner of addressing that truth though, can be either negative or positive, regardless of the truth itself. It's irrational to believe otherwise.

...that he thinks Wall St executives who donate to Hillary Clinton are expecting to get something in return.

The ad seems like it has the same message.

for a minuscule advantage if that. The ad would have probably backfired.

another fact-free poster

And this thread's a real 3 flusher...

Just imagine that! Sanders pointing out how big money infuses Hillary Clinton's campaign. Imagine that!

Hey, imagine how influential Wall Street is with the Clinton Foundation and Campaign... Imagine that!

Now, imagine how telling the truth, which is what Sanders shouldn't be afraid of doing is nothing more than telling the truth!

IMAGINE crying like babies over the idea of someone honest continuing to be honest!

What a joke of an OP! I see all the legs thrashing around and the sound of newborns wailing!

... for those who think democracy is walking in lock step and never questioning. I still disagree, but I'm not running his campaign, am I?

All the empty, bogus platitudes. and now even this phony pledge is exposed as manipulative hot air just to get people to clap for him.

Totally agree with your comments, bigtree. Duplicity to the Max.

Crushed by the slightest breeze, small shafts of sunlight or moist drops of rain.

Too much insanity here!

People are entitled to tell the truth. Sometimes the truth hurts.

That's what worries a certain campaign. That's why the media blackout and the odd, limited Democratic debate schedule.

BTW, I've had a recent string of replies from ... from ... well, let me just put it this way: it's awfully good to hear from a fellow Bernie supporter.

I used to say that Democrats are mammals and Republicans are reptiles but now am having to refine these political definitions.

Unless Hillary invites him to visit.

He entered the race a few months ago, funding his campaign solely on donations from regular Americans, and has consistently spoken truth to power despite a media blackout.

I don't think your cosseted, pampered, money-entrenched, behind the scenes deal-making candidate could ever, EVER do anything like that.

Sanders is ANYTHING but "weak."

I'm proud of mine.

If she isn't she should be running this ad herself.