they support him and we have no earthly idea where the money comes from.

That was likely a billionaire.

If that person had an extra dollar though, they would be EVIL.

Who was the one person who gave his SuperPAC $400,000? I'm pretty sure that was probably a billionaire.

Most of the top non-self funding candidates have raised millions and millions and millions of dollars from other Americans.

Simple math indicates that their campaigns are also "fueled by the working class" and not billionaires.

Shame on Sanders and his divisive campaign for continuing to slander Democrats with his intentionally misleading slurs.

"The most a billionaire can contribute to someone else's campaign is $2,800."

And the fact that you don't says all that needs to be said about Sanders supporters on this subject.

Sanders gets dark money as well, so do not try and play the pure as the driven snow card.

not from billionaires and their narrow self-serving interests.

I believe Buttigieg raised around $75 million in 2019.

There are 600 billionaires in the USA.

600 x $2,800 = $1.68 million

Where did the other tens and millions of dollars come from? Answer: mostly from everyday Americans.

Shame on Sanders supporters for trashing a Democratic candidate like this.

and Pete knows it.

Do you think that Buttigieg is somehow """corrupted""" because some individual billionaire donated $2,800 to his campaign -- a campaign that has raised tens of millions of dollars from everyday Americans?

mega corporations will have an instinctual feeling of obligation to look out for their best interests over those of the average working American.

If even nothing else more shady than that takes places, half a century of death by a thousand cuts is still death.

No one is going to be "bought off" by $2,800.

"Both sides" doesn't work at DU.

while he will always have tri care for himself, being a vet and all

I imagine some of the billionaires bundling for pete also want insurance rather than healthcare for us peons

if billionaires want to be taxed more to provide for the common good with nothing in return I have no problem with any dem receiving their support

even if it means others will completely go with out, sadly that is human nature

the problem with letting the ones with great insurance plans keep theirs is, for all their working lives many big bucks will be fed to insurance companies but when they get old we the people will get to pay for their healthcare


better if when they were young their bucks were being fed into the system that they would need when they were old and really need it

in general big insurance gets all the money when not too much healthcare is required but taxpayers pick up the super expensive end of life years

I do not think even the public option will have a chance of passing, even it we take back the Senate by say a 52-48, or even 53-47 majority. Too many trillions of dollars in potential profits at stake. The system will collapse in its current form given the current rates of increase. At current projections, the US will spend over 125 TRILLION USD on all health care over the next 20 years. that rate of growth is unsustainable, BUT unfortunately, it will have to reach systemic collapse levels before there is the political will to do anything.

I fully agree that a Nordic model (I currently live in Sweden) is the best route to go, but the systemic controllers will fight that to the death, and to try and make the full leap to MFA in one fell swoop is electoral suicide, whether you or I like it or not. I also never see the discussion about what happens to a truly national MFA system if/when the Rethugs get back into a tripartite (POTUS and both branches of Congress) level of power and are able to wreak havoc upon it. The odds are fairly high that even the limited reforms of Obamacare are quite likely to be rip apart by the SCOTUS this summer. That means an extraordinary amount of poltical capitol is going to have to be expended just to get back to that level, a level that is still woefully not good enough.

Sometimes politics is the art of the possible, not the art of an all-or-nothing wish list. To intimate that a person is somehow corrupt due to simply trying to get through a programme that is actually doable, versus a politically DOA massive thrust is disingenuous at best.

you said....

Too many trillions of dollars in potential profits at stake.(true words)


if we had a majority we could pass anything, if we had the political will...aca was passed with reconciliation which is a simple majority


last time we had a chance we asked for a public option, which we didn't get maybe this time if we demand m4a we will get a good public option?

How in the world could BS possibly know the financial status of his 1.5 million donors? Does the campaign require each donor to file their long form tax returns before they accept a donation? Does his team audit each person?

Do not say the word that Bernie supporters cannot hear.

taking money away from poor people... doesn't sound very progressive to me

voters question the judgement of any candidate who would reject Bloomberg's help?

More money = more ability to win. We need someone willing to win.

and as long as donations are legal and documented I truly don't care if they came from billionaires. If a few billionaires are giving to Democrats instead of Republicans maybe that's a good thing. Bloomberg, who is not my first choice (though I'll take him over Bernie) will be helping bankroll whoever the nominee is even if it's not him, and will help down-ticket Democrats as well. I assume Bernie wouldn't want any of Bloomberg's dirty billionaire money, though. Or maybe he would just run it through his own PAC, Our Revolution, so he can keep up the pretense.

To think otherwise is suicidal.

End of story.

them getting money from people with money to fight Trump. Yes I am.