Bernie Sanders

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

42. What evidence is that that progressives (as you define them) want only Warren?

Reply to Segami (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 21, 2016, 08:17 AM

Jun 2016

I haven't seen evidence of that and would like to read it.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Wall Street Donors Seek To BLOCK Warren VP Pick [View all] Segami Jun 2016 OP

Tsk tsk Faux pas Jun 2016 #1

and folks think bernie wouldn't have to deal with this. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #2

Well, since Bernie isn't dependent on Wall Street money, I guess he 1monster Jun 2016 #15

so he can raise a billion dollars from small donations. do you really think that. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #25

Look, it is a moot point now. But, obviously, you haven't been paying attention: 1monster Jun 2016 #30

i am paying attention, but i'm not in denial sir. i know bernie okieinpain Jun 2016 #31

Whatever. 1monster Jun 2016 #35

i agree with you 100%. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #37

The advantage of a Sanders-grassroots fundraising method is that Bernie wouldn't care about their $. w4rma Jun 2016 #18

he would have to care, do you really think he can okieinpain Jun 2016 #24

I don't think he would need *that* much money. It's overkill. And it's unseemly. w4rma Jun 2016 #26

if that's what you think, you were going to be heart broken in november. n/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #27

Have you looked at Trump's fundraising? Bernie has slaughtered his fundraising and his staff the w4rma Jun 2016 #28

I just don't see how you think he was going to be able to raise okieinpain Jun 2016 #29

You don't see what he already did? Try opening your eyes. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #32

you folks keep saying the same thing. neither one of you is addressing okieinpain Jun 2016 #33

Why would that change Bernie's fundraising style or success? He's very consistent and honest. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #34

ok, you're right bernie will not need to raise money. he will make okieinpain Jun 2016 #36

No. I'm saying that he wouldn't need to raise funds at a rate any higher than he already has been. w4rma Jun 2016 #41

You're posting in a protected group. blackspade Jun 2016 #39

Sorry didn't mean to hurt you. N/t. okieinpain Jun 2016 #43

Oh look, Wall St. is making demands if you want their money..... Segami Jun 2016 #3

But they are okay with Hilliary! RoccoR5955 Jun 2016 #4

Warren is more useful in the Senate. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #5

Obviously, Vice Presidents have enough power that these blackmailers are concerned. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #19

The reason might have less to do with the actual power of a VP The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2016 #21

Agreed. Plus the one impeachment/heartbeat away from the Presidency thing. w4rma Jun 2016 #22

Woo-Hoo! With Sanders out of the picture TalkingDog Jun 2016 #6

Very illuminating, though maybe not in the way they think. CharlotteVale Jun 2016 #7

And all along people have been saying these large contributors Segami Jun 2016 #8

Since when does Wall St. make demands of its politicians out in the media? senz Jun 2016 #9

Do you think this is nothing more Segami Jun 2016 #10

That, or they have inside info on HubertHeaver Jun 2016 #12

Good insight. However senz Jun 2016 #13

I agree with you.....nixing EW would leave Segami Jun 2016 #16

What evidence is that that progressives (as you define them) want only Warren? HereSince1628 Jun 2016 #42

Yeah, why this, why now? HubertHeaver Jun 2016 #17

I think there's something about it that doesn't make sense. senz Jun 2016 #14

Likely fabricated... TeeYiYi Jun 2016 #20

Fucking Great! She'll do much more NOT in the VP position. Phlem Jun 2016 #11

This looks like one of politico's none articles where they are trying to make the news. rhett o rick Jun 2016 #23

I can't say I'm surprised. blackspade Jun 2016 #38

I don't want to see Warren as VP magical thyme Jun 2016 #40