What doesn't jibe?

Like claiming over and over again not to have a super pac, while actually having one? Is that what you mean by actions not corresponding to rhetoric? http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

Or claiming not to raise money from Wall Street while hosting fundraisers for those very investment banks he claims not to have anything to do with? http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

Or being cited repeatedly by the FEC for accepting what totals over $23 million in illegal campaign contributions?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/

Is that the kind of thing you mean?
#WhichBernie?

Meanwhile, the FEC has sited the Sanders campaign for $23 million in illegal campaign contributions

Those aren't questionable. They are violations of the law. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/

Some of the sources above provide links to the FEC sites where you can see the letters set by the FEC and the response by the Sanders Campaign Treasurer, Susan Jackson. The response to the second round of violations is due to the FEC today. They are, in all likelihood, going to have to refund even more of the illegal donations they accepted.

You can post videos about "questionable" donations to Clinton all day long, and they don't come close to actual documented violations of federal election law by the Sanders campaign.

How about providing some evidence for that?

It's not like Sanders message is particularly complex. He's repeated it ad nauseum. I dare say there are few people in this country who couldn't recite it by now.

I've done a lot of get out the vote activities and made phone calls to multiple states, and I have yet to encounter one person who doesn't know who Bernie Sanders is. On the other hand, I have yet to encounter a high-profile Sanders supporter on this site who has bothered to inform themselves about Clinton's policy positions. In fact, many pointedly refuse to look at her issues page. Instead, they habitually make up crap they project onto her.

Clinton is exponentially more qualified than Sanders. For you to attribute her success to her "husband's coat tails" is more of the gender-based condescension that is typical in this election. Considering her opponent has only one major legislative accomplishment in 25 years in federal office, the dismissal of her qualifications is absurd. It's not everyone who can boast the single lowest rating in bipartisanship of anyone in the Senate. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
But your claim is Americans voters are just too stupid to know how much better he is than Clinton.

The projection around here is phenomenal.

When I post something negative about Sanders, I provide evidence, something Clinton's detractors rarely if ever do (internet memes and opinion pieces are not evidence), principally because they haven't shown enough interest in policy to even bother informing themselves on what she actually proposes. Sanders supporters use juries to hide that evidence, whether it is links to Sanders voting record, articles about his support for Lockheed Martin and big sugar, or they call people Nazis (as was done to me) for daring to post about his record on guns.

We haven't seen any concern from Sanders supporters about the disclosures that he has not been truthful about not having Super pacs http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
About the FEC citation of $23 million in excess campaign contributions http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/12/f-e-c-tells-sanders-campaign-that-some-donors-may-have-given-too-much/?_r=4
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/02/13/fec-hits-bernie2016-with-campaign-finance-violations/
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/bernie-2016-returns-donations-to-remedy-campaign-finance-issues/
(whether you like the above source is irrelevant. It links to the actual letters from the FEC and from Sanders Campaign Treasurer in response).

Or his campaign manager's announcement of a strategy for him to seize control of the nomination against the popular will of the electorate. http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-fantasy-campaign-hopes-win-hillary-clintons-pledged-delegates-unlikely-2338452

Yesterday someone actually got a hide for criticizing Tad Devine. Apparently a political operative making huge amounts of money off campaign contributions is sacrosanct and that a lowly citizen has no right to criticize him without facing censure. The rich are to be protected at all costs, as long as they are affiliated with Bernie. The poor and working Americans must be punished if they fail to prostrate themselves before Bernie and the "progressives" convinced of their inherent superiority.

There aren't scores of articles about Clinton supporters bullying civil rights activists, super delegates, ordinary voters or progressive politicians. That is the reputation of another candidate whose run is coming to a close.

That said, this OP isn't about the awful reputation of Clinton supporters. It's about a rich person talking about putting a horrendous right-wing billionaire in office in order to spawn a "revolution." The responses in defense of Sarandon demonstrate that the rhetoric about the 99-1 percent we have heard for months and months now isn't meant to be taken seriously, and that rich people who support Bernie's career are just too important to be criticized. In other words, they expose hypocrisy of epic dimensions.

You choose to condemn Democratic voters, those who support the candidate will be the nominee. Not the neonazis, Islamophobes and homohobes who support Trump, but Democrats. That is who you despise, that is who some responding to this thread resent. Strip away the rights of the majority, no problem. Stump for a billionaire, no problem. But vote for a a Democrat, that is unforgivable.


I finally read a post in this thread that was actually persuasive in advocating for Sanders. Rather than insulting Democrats for disagreeing with him, he talked about his own life experiences and why Bernie's campaign meant so much to him. If more people had been doing that since the beginning of his campaign, they might have succeeded in attracting supporters. Instead, too many have spent the entire time insulting other Democrats, insisting they were inferior for caring about issues like equal rights, reproductive rights and voting rights. They have assailed one progressive public figure, advocacy organization, union, and civil rights activist after another for daring to endorse or speak favorably of Clinton. None of that has worked, yet they've continued to engage in it relentlessly, now taking their efforts to superdelegates to try to intimidate them into supporting someone who trails by 2.5 million in the popular vote. Yet never have they tried anything approaching positive persuasion. That is why they, and not Clinton supporters, have been the subject of scores of articles expressing alarm at their tactics. The reputation is theirs, and your post is oddly detached from that reality.

I'm ready for a revolution

Susan Sarandon says Donald Trump would be better for America then Clinton because Trump will make it more likely for a revolution to occur. It would seem Sarandon doesn't believe the poor currently suffer enough to suit her, and that she wants to make their lives as miserable as possible to shock them into putting her guy into power. (Because revolutions really work that way. I suppose you've spent your life reading movie scripts you might think they do).

Why wait? I say we start the revolution right now. Not the revolution of campaign slogans that are about installing one man as head of the capitalist state. No, a real social revolution that forcibly redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. I can think of no better place to start than one of Sarandon's many multi-million dollar homes.

Now, I'm not sure exactly how many she has. She has three apartments in New York City. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/open-house/Susan-Sarandon-Snatches-Up-Third-NYC-Property--138832289.html This sprawling $1.75 million estate in Pound Ridge, NY. http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/susan-sarandon-tim-robbins-house/view/bing/

She has another home in Los Angeles. http://www.elledecor.com/celebrity-style/celebrity-homes/news/a6310/eva-amurri-martino-home/

There may be more, but I say the revolution should start at her $11.9 million California home here:



12 bathrooms. I think that is about the number of bathrooms on this side of my entire block. My entire lot would fit in her kitchen.

So what is a revolutionary doing with five plus homes, you might ask? Good question. How do you suppose someone in that position wishes for life to become more arduous for the most vulnerable Americans so that they do her political bidding?

Well, Susan. You say you want a revolution. I say we start at your $11.9 million dollar home and move on to the others. There is space to house hundreds of families there. That's what happens to estates in real socialist revolutions. People like you lose their wealth and are put to work doing honest labor.

So why wait for your guy Trump to start the revolution? Now is the time.

For the irony impaired, this is parody. I am not actually advocating violence. However revolution is in fact violent upheaval. The super rich like Sarandon ought to be careful what they wish for.

Earning a salary that is legal is not corruption

It is not illegal and it is not corrupt. If people actually gave a shit about corporate influence, they wouldn't defend Bernie's on again, off again support of blanket immunity for gun corporations, or the $1 trillion plus to Lockheed Martin.

They wouldn't ignore his fundraising from Wall Street investment banks or his claims to not have super pacs when he has them.
http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sanders-record-filings-show-benefits-from-super-pacs-links-to-wall-street-donors-1455300881

That people argue that Clinton is corrupt for earning money is in fact part of an atmosphere of vilification that is sexist. That they insist women who support her of voting "for the vagina," when Clinton is in fact an extremely well qualified candidate and her competitor has the second worst record in congress in terms of legislative accomplishments most certainly is sexist. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2015
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2014

Her detractors refuse to as much as look at her policy positions. That is how little they care about actual issues.

That Clinton is vilified more than Republicans and murderous dictators show that the vitriol against her has nothing to do with her actual record or policy proposals and everything to do with what she represents: a woman who seeks to be president, following on the heels of an African American president. A number of Democratic voters see what is going on, which may be why people of color and especially African American women are resounding supporting Clinton with their votes.

Then when we see people who claim to care about progressive principles argue that Trump would be better, it exposes precisely what their goals truly are.

Clinton is beating Sanders. Don't blame the party, blame the people

Reality

Defending Democracy

Voter disenfranchisement through lines and voting irregularities is indeed a concern, and I believe strongly in championing access to the voting whenever and wherever possible in all states. Yet democracy also includes respecting the will of the people especially when their vote differs from one's own choice. Democracy is not served by overturning elections that didn't turn out how we might like or by finding ways to discount those votes.

Much attention has been paid to the controversial superdelegates. Earlier in this primary season, the Sanders campaign argued they were antithetical to democracy. They imagined being in a position where they would win the popular vote and earned delegates but then might lose due to the superdelegates. Many of us doubted that would happen.

Fast forward to March, and Sanders is seeking to woo superdelegates. Suddenly they aren't so antidemocratic. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-surprises-controversial-superdelegate-strategy

Yet it doesn't stop there. Tad Devine has indicated that pledged delegates can also be flipped.

Voter suppression in Utah