HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bernie funneled campaign ...

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:54 PM

 

Bernie funneled campaign cash to family members

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:58 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."

482 replies, 24609 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 482 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie funneled campaign cash to family members (Original post)
MaggieD Dec 2015 OP
Boomer Dec 2015 #1
MaggieD Dec 2015 #4
Armstead Dec 2015 #52
merrily Dec 2015 #137
Proserpina Dec 2015 #304
CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #481
polly7 Dec 2015 #246
tecelote Dec 2015 #359
GoneFishin Dec 2015 #420
Human101948 Dec 2015 #476
Bobbie Jo Dec 2015 #8
jeff47 Dec 2015 #87
Bobbie Jo Dec 2015 #119
merrily Dec 2015 #138
liberalnarb Dec 2015 #462
grasswire Dec 2015 #410
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #100
merrily Dec 2015 #136
floriduck Dec 2015 #479
merrily Dec 2015 #135
Bobbie Jo Dec 2015 #140
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #313
Bobbie Jo Dec 2015 #334
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #399
George II Dec 2015 #442
Cha Dec 2015 #458
William769 Dec 2015 #435
George II Dec 2015 #438
rbrnmw Dec 2015 #439
yawnmaster Dec 2015 #478
merrily Dec 2015 #134
jehop61 Dec 2015 #2
still_one Dec 2015 #5
MaggieD Dec 2015 #6
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #11
MaggieD Dec 2015 #21
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #38
George II Dec 2015 #61
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #94
merrily Dec 2015 #142
George II Dec 2015 #161
MaggieD Dec 2015 #178
polly7 Dec 2015 #183
Vattel Dec 2015 #424
merrily Dec 2015 #141
Juicy_Bellows Dec 2015 #230
merrily Dec 2015 #233
Juicy_Bellows Dec 2015 #235
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #236
passiveporcupine Dec 2015 #323
MaggieD Dec 2015 #332
passiveporcupine Dec 2015 #351
MaggieD Dec 2015 #352
passiveporcupine Dec 2015 #376
grasswire Dec 2015 #411
George II Dec 2015 #440
2pooped2pop Dec 2015 #259
CanonRay Dec 2015 #12
still_one Dec 2015 #3
merrily Dec 2015 #144
still_one Dec 2015 #187
riversedge Dec 2015 #169
VMA131Marine Dec 2015 #7
MaggieD Dec 2015 #9
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #14
jeff47 Dec 2015 #115
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #155
merrily Dec 2015 #150
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #10
R B Garr Dec 2015 #15
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #25
R B Garr Dec 2015 #51
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #64
R B Garr Dec 2015 #286
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #309
R B Garr Dec 2015 #386
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #395
R B Garr Dec 2015 #400
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #401
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2015 #427
R B Garr Dec 2015 #434
bvar22 Dec 2015 #463
R B Garr Dec 2015 #464
bvar22 Dec 2015 #473
R B Garr Dec 2015 #474
bvar22 Dec 2015 #475
R B Garr Dec 2015 #480
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #441
MaggieD Dec 2015 #67
Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #218
MaggieD Dec 2015 #231
2pooped2pop Dec 2015 #264
R B Garr Dec 2015 #301
MaggieD Dec 2015 #302
RichVRichV Dec 2015 #368
passiveporcupine Dec 2015 #418
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #426
merrily Dec 2015 #148
R B Garr Dec 2015 #294
merrily Dec 2015 #296
R B Garr Dec 2015 #305
merrily Dec 2015 #306
R B Garr Dec 2015 #387
Armstead Dec 2015 #66
R B Garr Dec 2015 #288
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #425
R B Garr Dec 2015 #436
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #437
R B Garr Dec 2015 #450
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #451
R B Garr Dec 2015 #452
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #453
R B Garr Dec 2015 #454
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #456
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #457
ESKD Dec 2015 #23
merrily Dec 2015 #149
MaggieD Dec 2015 #29
ESKD Dec 2015 #33
MaggieD Dec 2015 #226
Jarqui Dec 2015 #385
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #39
Armstead Dec 2015 #74
Duckhunter935 Dec 2015 #112
merrily Dec 2015 #145
R B Garr Dec 2015 #13
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #18
MaggieD Dec 2015 #22
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #65
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #104
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #164
MaggieD Dec 2015 #189
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #198
MaggieD Dec 2015 #201
philly_bob Dec 2015 #132
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #291
philly_bob Dec 2015 #445
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #449
merrily Dec 2015 #160
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #293
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #16
TSIAS Dec 2015 #56
jkbRN Dec 2015 #73
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #147
Kali Dec 2015 #17
MaggieD Dec 2015 #20
SheilaT Dec 2015 #319
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #19
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #27
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #50
winter is coming Dec 2015 #63
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #76
JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #88
Qutzupalotl Dec 2015 #107
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #154
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #209
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #223
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #83
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #214
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #217
redstateblues Dec 2015 #428
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #24
MaggieD Dec 2015 #30
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #40
MaggieD Dec 2015 #228
MaggieD Dec 2015 #225
2pooped2pop Dec 2015 #269
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #26
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #42
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #84
jeff47 Dec 2015 #28
MaggieD Dec 2015 #31
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #34
MaggieD Dec 2015 #37
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #45
MaggieD Dec 2015 #77
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #92
merrily Dec 2015 #151
jeff47 Dec 2015 #43
polly7 Dec 2015 #122
polly7 Dec 2015 #123
merrily Dec 2015 #162
polly7 Dec 2015 #177
merrily Dec 2015 #191
Skidmore Dec 2015 #397
merrily Dec 2015 #459
merrily Dec 2015 #157
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #32
MaggieD Dec 2015 #41
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #55
MaggieD Dec 2015 #57
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #75
MaggieD Dec 2015 #81
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #103
MaggieD Dec 2015 #121
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #287
Skidmore Dec 2015 #398
MineralMan Dec 2015 #35
MaggieD Dec 2015 #44
MineralMan Dec 2015 #49
RichVRichV Dec 2015 #383
Vattel Dec 2015 #402
merrily Dec 2015 #168
MineralMan Dec 2015 #184
merrily Dec 2015 #207
opiate69 Dec 2015 #255
Doctor_J Dec 2015 #36
MaggieD Dec 2015 #47
merrily Dec 2015 #165
MaggieD Dec 2015 #196
merrily Dec 2015 #202
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #193
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #48
merrily Dec 2015 #171
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #46
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #53
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #59
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #72
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #127
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #133
misterhighwasted Dec 2015 #170
MaggieD Dec 2015 #54
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #79
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #80
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #203
merrily Dec 2015 #174
last1standing Dec 2015 #58
jeff47 Dec 2015 #60
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #62
MaggieD Dec 2015 #71
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #82
MaggieD Dec 2015 #89
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2015 #97
MaggieD Dec 2015 #101
BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #68
MaggieD Dec 2015 #99
BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #118
merrily Dec 2015 #176
BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #234
merrily Dec 2015 #238
BlueCaliDem Dec 2015 #249
merrily Dec 2015 #256
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #69
last1standing Dec 2015 #91
hrmjustin Dec 2015 #70
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #78
MaggieD Dec 2015 #85
last1standing Dec 2015 #98
MaggieD Dec 2015 #106
last1standing Dec 2015 #111
ESKD Dec 2015 #317
MaggieD Dec 2015 #324
ESKD Dec 2015 #328
MaggieD Dec 2015 #329
ESKD Dec 2015 #331
MaggieD Dec 2015 #333
ESKD Dec 2015 #336
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #120
jeff47 Dec 2015 #446
last1standing Dec 2015 #93
jeff47 Dec 2015 #109
immoderate Dec 2015 #86
jeff47 Dec 2015 #110
immoderate Dec 2015 #139
larkrake Dec 2015 #90
merrily Dec 2015 #179
treestar Dec 2015 #95
merrily Dec 2015 #96
Cheese Sandwich Dec 2015 #102
merrily Dec 2015 #124
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #131
polly7 Dec 2015 #166
Armstead Dec 2015 #105
last1standing Dec 2015 #108
jeff47 Dec 2015 #113
MaggieD Dec 2015 #116
MaggieD Dec 2015 #114
last1standing Dec 2015 #117
MaggieD Dec 2015 #156
last1standing Dec 2015 #172
MaggieD Dec 2015 #182
last1standing Dec 2015 #197
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2015 #220
last1standing Dec 2015 #227
MaggieD Dec 2015 #244
MaggieD Dec 2015 #318
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2015 #322
polly7 Dec 2015 #125
azurnoir Dec 2015 #128
MaggieD Dec 2015 #159
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #204
MaggieD Dec 2015 #290
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #367
MaggieD Dec 2015 #375
Jim Lane Dec 2015 #384
polly7 Dec 2015 #282
azurnoir Dec 2015 #285
MaggieD Dec 2015 #303
azurnoir Dec 2015 #316
ESKD Dec 2015 #325
madfloridian Dec 2015 #126
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #153
m-lekktor Dec 2015 #173
enid602 Dec 2015 #129
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #130
MaggieD Dec 2015 #146
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #163
Politicalboi Dec 2015 #143
merrily Dec 2015 #192
MaggieD Dec 2015 #232
polly7 Dec 2015 #243
deathrind Dec 2015 #152
ericson00 Dec 2015 #158
MaggieD Dec 2015 #175
polly7 Dec 2015 #180
hrmjustin Dec 2015 #167
villager Dec 2015 #181
MaggieD Dec 2015 #185
polly7 Dec 2015 #190
villager Dec 2015 #341
merrily Dec 2015 #195
MaggieD Dec 2015 #206
merrily Dec 2015 #211
MaggieD Dec 2015 #241
merrily Dec 2015 #260
MaggieD Dec 2015 #261
polly7 Dec 2015 #271
merrily Dec 2015 #289
MaggieD Dec 2015 #292
Kentonio Dec 2015 #379
hrmjustin Dec 2015 #212
R B Garr Dec 2015 #265
hrmjustin Dec 2015 #396
MaggieD Dec 2015 #279
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #186
merrily Dec 2015 #199
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #221
merrily Dec 2015 #268
MaggieD Dec 2015 #200
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #188
MaggieD Dec 2015 #194
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #205
MaggieD Dec 2015 #208
MaggieD Dec 2015 #327
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #337
MaggieD Dec 2015 #338
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #340
MaggieD Dec 2015 #342
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #349
MaggieD Dec 2015 #350
Truprogressive85 Dec 2015 #361
MaggieD Dec 2015 #363
TheBlackAdder Dec 2015 #210
polly7 Dec 2015 #213
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #215
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2015 #216
MaggieD Dec 2015 #229
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2015 #315
Jarqui Dec 2015 #219
Renew Deal Dec 2015 #222
MaggieD Dec 2015 #224
polly7 Dec 2015 #240
workinclasszero Dec 2015 #321
dlwickham Dec 2015 #237
MaggieD Dec 2015 #239
dlwickham Dec 2015 #250
MaggieD Dec 2015 #253
polly7 Dec 2015 #258
TSIAS Dec 2015 #308
dlwickham Dec 2015 #432
leftofcool Dec 2015 #311
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #242
MaggieD Dec 2015 #245
polly7 Dec 2015 #247
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #252
polly7 Dec 2015 #254
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #248
MaggieD Dec 2015 #262
Eric J in MN Dec 2015 #380
reformist2 Dec 2015 #257
polly7 Dec 2015 #251
opiate69 Dec 2015 #263
polly7 Dec 2015 #266
Sunlei Dec 2015 #267
Fearless Dec 2015 #270
MaggieD Dec 2015 #272
Fearless Dec 2015 #274
MaggieD Dec 2015 #277
Fearless Dec 2015 #280
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #283
MaggieD Dec 2015 #295
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #430
opiate69 Dec 2015 #284
polly7 Dec 2015 #275
Fearless Dec 2015 #276
jeff47 Dec 2015 #447
Skwmom Dec 2015 #273
MaggieD Dec 2015 #320
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #278
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #281
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #298
MaggieD Dec 2015 #300
MaggieD Dec 2015 #299
rhett o rick Dec 2015 #297
Matariki Dec 2015 #307
MaggieD Dec 2015 #326
Matariki Dec 2015 #330
villager Dec 2015 #343
darkangel218 Dec 2015 #344
MaggieD Dec 2015 #345
ESKD Dec 2015 #405
MisterP Dec 2015 #310
Vinca Dec 2015 #312
Gothmog Dec 2015 #314
jeff47 Dec 2015 #448
Kalidurga Dec 2015 #335
MaggieD Dec 2015 #358
Kalidurga Dec 2015 #362
MaggieD Dec 2015 #364
Kalidurga Dec 2015 #370
MaggieD Dec 2015 #371
Matariki Dec 2015 #339
MaggieD Dec 2015 #347
Agschmid Dec 2015 #354
MaggieD Dec 2015 #356
Agschmid Dec 2015 #357
Matariki Dec 2015 #431
sonofspy777 Dec 2015 #346
MaggieD Dec 2015 #348
TM99 Dec 2015 #353
MaggieD Dec 2015 #355
artislife Dec 2015 #360
Liberal_in_LA Dec 2015 #365
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #366
MaggieD Dec 2015 #369
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #372
MaggieD Dec 2015 #373
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #374
Post removed Dec 2015 #390
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #392
TSIAS Dec 2015 #403
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #406
840high Dec 2015 #404
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #388
MaggieD Dec 2015 #389
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #407
Bluenorthwest Dec 2015 #408
left lowrider Dec 2015 #377
Turn CO Blue Dec 2015 #378
Doctor_J Dec 2015 #381
MaggieD Dec 2015 #391
mythology Dec 2015 #382
William769 Dec 2015 #393
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #409
William769 Dec 2015 #413
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #415
William769 Dec 2015 #416
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #419
Scootaloo Dec 2015 #443
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #444
Babel_17 Dec 2015 #394
Vattel Dec 2015 #412
R B Garr Dec 2015 #414
beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #421
GoneFishin Dec 2015 #417
Menshunables Dec 2015 #422
Vattel Dec 2015 #423
orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #429
KingCharlemagne Dec 2015 #433
MrMickeysMom Dec 2015 #455
artislife Dec 2015 #465
George II Dec 2015 #468
zigby Dec 2015 #460
liberalnarb Dec 2015 #461
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2015 #466
George II Dec 2015 #467
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2015 #471
George II Dec 2015 #472
Douglas Carpenter Dec 2015 #469
PowerToThePeople Dec 2015 #470
Jeroen Dec 2015 #477
Hiraeth Dec 2015 #482

Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:59 PM

1. Fair pay for work

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boomer (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:00 PM

4. Uh huh - like what?

 

This shit should be illegal. It's something cons do a lot as well. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:40 PM

52. Illegal?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Armstead (Reply #52)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:50 PM

304. And nobody else would work that much for so little...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proserpina (Reply #304)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 09:25 PM

481. Agreed... Do The Math... These Relatives Were Paid PEANUTS! HillBill Crew grasping @ Straws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:06 PM

246. Disgusting!!!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:58 PM

359. Why don't you tell them to "Cut it out!"?

Worked for Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:22 PM

420. Yes. It's outrageous. He also "funneled" money to a grocery store, electric company,

phone company, the IRS, and Chet the snow plow driver. Oh, the scandal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:10 PM

476. CLINTON FOUNDATION...

 

Check it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boomer (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:04 PM

8. It's called a "conflict of interest"

and should be avoided. Whether it was legit
or not, it looks bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:51 PM

87. Like hiring your daughter to run your foundation? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:03 PM

119. Yeah

Hiring family is always a potential conflict of interest, IMO....

Same answer to your cohort below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to merrily (Reply #138)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 04:53 PM

462. Thank You!

 

I knew there was something fishy going on with this OP. Bernie is one of the only non slimy politicians in the business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:00 PM

410. that's gotta burn nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:56 PM

100. so it is wrong

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:36 PM

479. I doubt you can get Maggie to

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to merrily (Reply #135)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:13 PM

140. Spam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:08 PM

313. Hi, Bobbie Jo. Changed your mind on Jim Hoft?

 

Here's what you said when another DU'er used Jim Hoft's other site, gateway Pundit, to tackle Hillary:

Star Member Bobbie Jo (12,140 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #313)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:28 PM

334. Spam-ETA

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:41 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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #334)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:40 PM

399. That's not an answer, Bobbie Jo

 

Why is Jim Hoft a bad source when he's targeting Clinton, but an acceptable one targeting Sanders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #334)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:44 PM

442. Classic:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #334)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:24 AM

458. Mustn't be "rude", Bobbie Jo! LOL.. who was Juror #5?!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #313)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:02 PM

435. Spam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #313)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:26 PM

438. Maps

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #313)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:39 PM

439. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobbie Jo (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:24 PM

478. I'm not sure I see the conflicting interests. What interests are in conflict here? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:00 PM

2. Incomplete and misleading

I'm a Hillary supporter but hate to see anyone slamming any of our candidates. Keep your eyes on the prize

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:01 PM

5. You make a valid point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:02 PM

6. Nah, this shit should be illegal

 

It's something republican candidates love to do. It doesn't become okay because Bernie does it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:07 PM

11. Republican candidates also love to win. Should that be illegal as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:20 PM

21. I find it unethical - don't you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:33 PM

38. I don't know what to think -- I don't know if this is at all unusual.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

61. The real number to his wife is about $30,000 but $30K to buy $61K worth of ads? Hmmm.

And as a college president, what experience did she have buying advertising time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:53 PM

94. If she was able to competently execute the job, I see no issue.

Besides, colleges do ad campaigns all the time; can you show she has never had experience with advertisements for a college?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:14 PM

142. According to this lying source or according to a credible source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #142)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:21 PM

161. Who is considered the "lying source", the author of the article? The article...

....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #161)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:26 PM

178. Funny how sources matter all of the sudden, isn't it?

 

Even when it's factually true. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #178)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:29 PM

183. Very funny .....

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:35 PM

424. Your own link says:

 

Media buyers typically earn a commission of about 15 percent of the cost of placing an ad. In 2004, Jane Sanders earned about $11,000 for about $70,000 in media buys, Weaver said. In 2002, Sanders took commissions of about $14,500 for media buys of about $98,000, Weaver said. She earned an additional $4,800 for other consulting to the campaign.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to merrily (Reply #141)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:54 PM

230. In case you're interested

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #230)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:58 PM

233. Thanks. Funny how the one juror who voted to hide gave no explanation.

Obviously, I agree with the jurors who called it a bogus alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #233)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:59 PM

235. cuz reasons!

I imagine just an overall disdain for anything factual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #141)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:02 PM

236. Fascinating -- it was just a baseless smear the whole time.

They have nothing! nothing!

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #236)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:18 PM

323. I don't think it was baseless, but it was most def a smear

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 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.


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.

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.
Yes, this is a very republican thing to do...so consider the source of this story and continual harping on "hypocrisy" here on DU.

Barnett said he could not identify any instances of Sanders criticizing DeLay over his campaign hiring family members. "I'm not sure if he has or not," Barnett said.
SNORT!

Some people love to hate the BERN, and will post anything to try to bring him down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #323)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:27 PM

332. She got taxpayer money too!

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #332)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:47 PM

351. I didn't know the Sanders were rich

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #351)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:48 PM

352. Well they make about $350K per year

 

I thought you all considered that rich? When did that change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #352)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:15 PM

376. Sorry Maggie

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passiveporcupine (Reply #376)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:05 PM

411. YES

"funneling"

lousy, stinking character assassination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:12 PM

259. yes aren't you suppose to use a charity to funnel money instead?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:08 PM

12. ^This. We have to win.

Have you got a good look at those idiots on the other side? We cannot lose, for the sake of the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:00 PM

3. Well he is a socialist.... (Sorry I couldn't resist)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to merrily (Reply #144)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:30 PM

187. Thanks, I an not surprised. My post was just tongue and cheek, not intended to be

or have substance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:23 PM

169. Chuckle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:03 PM

7. Doesn't seem like much money over 15 years

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VMA131Marine (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:05 PM

9. 4 years, not 15

 

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:14 PM

14. Precisely Maggie. Wtf! Again, bernie's campaign words fail to match his deeds.

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:01 PM

115. Imagine if he hired his daughter to run his foundation. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #115)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

155. Shhhhh!

 

Hillary's shit don't stink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:06 PM

10. Oh, MaggieD... Oh dear...

 

Here's the "About" page of Progressives Today

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.


From the about page of the Gateway Pundit:
Jim Hoft is active in the Tea Party and was the associate producer of Hating Breitbart. He has a devotion to growing democracy and freedom movements everywhere, from inside Iran to the darkest corridors of the U.S. Capitol. His passion is liberty. His dedication is to a free America.


So. That's your go-to, looks like. Good job.

What next, climate change denial...? oh. Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:14 PM

15. This same crap was tried before with discrediting

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".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:27 PM

25. Think so?

 

Here's Progressive Today talking about that bullshit question posed ot Hilalry over her husband's infidelities years ago. PT's response to it?
Why has no one in the media asked her that question?


But the source is 100% credible, right?

Oh, here's some more from Progressives Today:
Never let a crisis go to waste.

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!

Report: Hillary May Have Been The Architect of the BENGHAZI YOUTUBE VIDEO LIE

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 MANY? Only 27 Percent of Voters Think Hillary Clinton is Honest


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!

Hillary May Be Covering Legal Expenses For Company That Handled Her Email Server

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:39 PM

51. I'm saying that this is what so-called "progressives"

sound like. Anything goes......as long as it bashes Hillary. Right? If it bashes Bernie, then it's not credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

64. Oh cut the shit.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:32 PM

286. That was.months ago. The website description

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #286)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:05 PM

309. It was September, dude. And it's always been what it is.

 

Here's the very first post from PT:
Welcome to Progressives Today!

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #309)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:01 PM

386. September WAS months ago, lol

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #386)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:34 PM

395. I object to it when it's a piece of shit right-wing source

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #395)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:43 PM

400. All your points have been refuted in this thread

already.

This is what so-called independents sound like -- anything goes. You just don't like it if it's anti-Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #400)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:49 PM

401. My point is that Jim Hoft is a right-wing teabagger, and Progressives Today reflects that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #386)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:48 PM

427. So you and MaggieD gravitate toward right wing fucks, and you have the attention span of a gnat

 

Good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #427)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:01 PM

434. Sources only matter if they slam Bernie

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #434)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 02:57 PM

463. Your needle is stuck in a crack.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #463)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 03:55 PM

464. You had to go ALL THE WAY BACK TO DEC 5th

to find this post and then kick it SEVENTEEN DAYS LATER.

LMAO!!!!!!



Someone is stuck, all right, but it ain't me. Good Lord!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #464)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 05:15 PM

473. There you go again.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #473)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 05:39 PM

474. My post is dated DECEMBER 5th, SEVENTEEN DAYS AGO

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #474)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:02 PM

475. Have you changed you mind in 17 days?

If not, then I stand by my post.
TRUTH has no expiration date.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #475)

Tue Dec 22, 2015, 06:36 PM

480. LMFAO! Truth, my ass. Your post is nothing but

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #427)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:41 PM

441. The hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance is amazing, isn't it?

It's like watching the clowns at freerepublic when they get outraged over Obama calling them out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:44 PM

67. That seems to be the case

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:44 PM

218. So knowing that you are posting right wing garbage your defense is "but Timmy did it too".

 

What are you, 12?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #218)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:54 PM

231. LOL - his campaign staff admitted it

 

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01

But it was fun to watch you all have a sudden conversion on using right wing sources. Admit it, I am clever!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #231)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:19 PM

264. fuck

 

Hillary gets that much from one corporate buyer, I mean donor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:43 PM

301. Nailed it again, Maggie!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #301)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:44 PM

302. At least I have enough ethics not to post a lie

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #302)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:06 PM

368. Yeah, you never lie......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #302)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:19 PM

418. LAbeling this as money funneling is an outright lie

Whether or not it's the title of the article. Posting it here is repeating a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #302)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:43 PM

426. Didn't you get a post hidden the other day for saying "Bernie thinks women enjoy being raped"?

MaggieD

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to merrily (Reply #148)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:38 PM

294. Most of what I read here about Hillary is made up.

I guess "progressive " means anything goes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #294)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:39 PM

296. Then, it should be easy to refute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #296)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:51 PM

305. Hillary laughed. Hillary is evil.

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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #305)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:56 PM

306. If it's Hillary laughed at killing Gaddafi and Hillary laughed at the prospect of nuking Iran,

there is video showing her doing that.

"Hillary is evil" is an opinion, and something I never posted anyway.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #306)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:07 PM

387. Now you see how so-called progressives and

independents operate. You just don't like it because it is negative towards Bernie. Its constant here about Hillary, but you don't object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

66. And the OPer used the same tactic against an article criticle of Clinton

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #66)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:35 PM

288. It says "progressives".


Progressive apparently means anything goes like we've seen here against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:39 PM

425. You linked to the same racist tea party website/article:

R B Garr (2,652 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:

R B Garr (2,652 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #425)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:12 PM

436. Of course you don't take that in context, which was

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #436)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 09:15 PM

437. What context? You went digging in the manure pile and found some shit.

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.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #437)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:07 AM

450. You are hilarious. The article was from the Vermont

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.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #450)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:17 AM

451. What are you on about now? What was I linking to at the time?

Do tell.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #451)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:22 AM

452. Ah, yes. Now confusion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #452)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:24 AM

453. No, really, explain. You were called out for linking to a racist website.

Now you claim I linked to something similar, please elaborate.

Unless you want people to think you're making things up, that is.

Link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #453)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:30 AM

454. Hilarious

Obvious, but hilarious.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #454)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:35 AM

456. So, linking to tea party website AND making false claims, got it!

Could your false claim have something to do with this post of yours, which says nothing about a link:

R B Garr (2,658 posts)

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


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #450)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 01:54 AM

457. Ah, I found the thread where you demanded I renounce something or other:

R B Garr (2,660 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


R B Garr (2,660 posts)

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:23 PM

23. Nice catch. Ultra-RW source

 

Bernie supporters gets chided for other RW sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Scootaloo (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:29 PM

29. It's factually true

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:32 PM

33. That's a doozy.

 

Excuse me....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ESKD (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:51 PM

226. You think his campaign chief of staff is lying?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #226)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:00 PM

385. From that link

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:34 PM

39. In fact it's not, as others have pointed out to you before.

 

I just wanted to make you aware that your source is right-wing bullshit from beginning to end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

74. So this is more credible than the right wing source you bashed?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Armstead (Reply #74)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:59 PM

112. that will not happen with some

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:09 PM

13. This was alerted.

I've posted this source before and was attacked by one of your followers, though it was in a response in a thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:16 PM

18. The post survived by 3-4, which I think is the right result.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:21 PM

22. Typical for DU - can't tell the unattractive truth about Bernie

 

Without getting an alert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

65. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

104. Are you implying that unattractive truths about Hillary never get alerted on?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:22 PM

164. LOL! You sure are funny

 

I guess that Gif got to you yesterday. Sorry for the truth about Hillary and her greed. You have a sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #164)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:31 PM

189. Truth about Bernie hurts, I guess

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #189)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:35 PM

198. No, it doesn't

 

And it's not the truth, but carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #198)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:36 PM

201. Seems so by looking at this thread - LOL!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:10 PM

132. Agree that the Jury System worked here.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philly_bob (Reply #132)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:35 PM

291. So we can post hit pieces from Fox News? Really? Is that what we want here?

 

It's bullshit and only allowed because it's against Sen Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #291)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 10:55 PM

445. Don't silence the idiots. Refute them.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to philly_bob (Reply #445)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 12:07 AM

449. Damn you you are using my own arguments against me. You are correct of course.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:21 PM

160. The source has made up things about Sanders before. It's dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #160)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:38 PM

293. I think we are seeing the despiration showing. This is a very low blow that I hope

 

the Sanders supporters don't follow suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:15 PM

16. K & R for TRUTH

Thanks Maggie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:41 PM

56. UNBELIEVABLE: Democrats Agree To Prayer Service At Mosque WITH 9/11 CONNECTION

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

73. +100

damn, people just don't take the time to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TSIAS (Reply #56)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:16 PM

147. This OP is about bernie. Refute this OP first, then you can take on the other subjects.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:15 PM

17. somebody has a math problem

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kali (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:18 PM

20. Campaign cash should NEVER be funneled into a candidates pocket

 

Do you agree? It's a loophole, but it should not be. And it is flat out unethical in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:17 PM

319. If you work for a campaign, especially

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:17 PM

19. Wow, and he still reports a $800,000 net worth, what is happening there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:28 PM

27. $800, 000 net worth? Does that include Jane's net worth also?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:39 PM

50. Oh my god! That's about the same as my dad's net worth who is >10 years younger

and has put 5 kids through college and works a middle class job. Stop the presses!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

63. I'm appalled that Sanders paid two family members less than a living wage over ten years ago.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

76. Its not the how-much, its the how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:51 PM

88. I flatly disagree, if he is paying others and this is relatively common practice, I see no issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #76)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:58 PM

107. You just admitted you lack perspective. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Qutzupalotl (Reply #107)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

154. lol.. well of course. From your perspective

A biased perspective works both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:40 PM

209. Yes, last year it was $350,000 and then suddenly it is $800,000. After twenty five years

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #209)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:49 PM

223. Worthy of question, in that case.

Thanks for that info.
It should concern all voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:48 PM

83. Hmm...

 

Where theres smoke, theres fire?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #83)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:41 PM

214. Time to follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #214)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:44 PM

217. Oh yeah

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #214)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 07:59 PM

428. hoisted on his own petard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:24 PM

24. Hell of a source you link to Mags, this is another story on their front page right now:

 

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/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:30 PM

30. Is it not factually true? Well yes it is (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM

40. The link I cited calls Democrats 'deranged' and you are saying this source is factually true?

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:52 PM

228. His campaign staff admitted it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:51 PM

225. How about his campaign staff - that a good enough source?

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #225)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:21 PM

269. I'm ok with this. Did you answer above where the poster asked about the amount

 

the Clinton foundation paid their daughter? I might have missed it since the thread has gotten so long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:27 PM

26. What your source says about Hillary is disgusting as well:

 

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM

42. HRC is irrelevant to this OP.This calls into question bernie from Vt.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:50 PM

84. The OP asks me to trust the source. When I looked at the source it smears Hillary and all Democrats

 

So I don't trust it. Why do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:29 PM

28. Now, you would never post an article from a right-winger would you?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:31 PM

31. Yet the info is true - right?

 

Can't dispute the facts, can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:32 PM

34. How about their Hillary stories over there? Factual or presented with loaded right wing slant?

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:33 PM

37. Seems okay with Bernie supporters if it's a Hillary smear - right?

 

At least this one is factually true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:37 PM

45. That's an absurdly evasive response. You are the one posting a source that smears both candidates

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

77. It's an FACTUAL response

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #77)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:52 PM

92. No it is not. It's evasive and so is this one CAPS and all. Why do you present this source as honest

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:36 PM

43. According to your complaints in that thread, your OP should be deleted instead of disputed.

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....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:07 PM

122. ..............

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #122)


Response to polly7 (Reply #122)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:22 PM

162. FYI on progressivestoday. com and Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #162)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:26 PM

177. Good that you started that thread, merrily.

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. )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #177)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:31 PM

191. Yep. The defense of "facts" in a RW source that has lied about Sanders before and uses a link that

goes to a Christmas song. Good grief.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #191)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:38 PM

397. Funny how RW "facts" and smears about Hillary

from similar sites are posted and treated as truth here. Have you noticed that? I have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skidmore (Reply #397)

Sun Dec 6, 2015, 04:37 AM

459. No, I have not noticed anything posted here about Hillary from progressivetoday.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #31)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:19 PM

157. Aside from the lying source your OP cites, what makes you think the info is true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:31 PM

32. Astonishing in a way....

 

Rules for thee, not for me....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:35 PM

41. Hey, if it's okay for Bernie supporters to site right wing sources....

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:40 PM

55. That's just false, I have never, ever linked to any right wing site and you need to stop with that

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:42 PM

57. Don't know if you have or not - but plenty of Bernie supporters do

 

And none of you seem to object to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

75. Your edit does not change anything. I am an individual as are you. I don't give a flying fig what

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #75)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:48 PM

81. I didn't edit shit

 

But your high standards for sources certainly don't seem to apply to Bernie supporters, now do they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

103. Show me what I have done that bothers you? Hurling words becasue you can't defend this

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:04 PM

121. Show me where you've complained about sources used to smear Hillary

 

At least this is factually true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #121)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:34 PM

287. How is that my job? You are the one that accused me of wrongdoing when trying to excuse your Hillary

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #32)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:38 PM

398. That is the point.

Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:32 PM

35. Seems like a pretty minor thing to me.

I don't know, but I don't think this will make any difference at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:37 PM

44. I don't think it's minor

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM

49. Frankly, I have no problem with family members holding

paid campaign positions. Someone's gonna get paid to do that work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:47 PM

383. I have two questions before I could call it corruption.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RichVRichV (Reply #383)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 06:51 PM

402. Excellent. Those are the relevant questions.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:23 PM

168. Not only minor but likely false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #168)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:30 PM

184. I don't care, either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #184)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:39 PM

207. Not surprising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #207)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:11 PM

255. He cares so little, he just haaaaad to pop in to tell us just how little he cares...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:33 PM

36. right wingers hate Sanders. hard to believe

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:37 PM

47. It's factually true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:22 PM

165. According to which credible source? The source in your OP has lied about Sanders before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #165)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:34 PM

196. The FEC

 

But please explain - why this new found concern over sources?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #196)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:36 PM

202. Really? Where are links to the relevant FEC filings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:32 PM

193. Please put your mother on the post

 

You seem to need a good spanking factually for spreading such right wing bullshit here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:38 PM

48. I'm told repubs are voting for bernie.

It's the internet, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:24 PM

171. This sources has flat out lied about Sanders before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:37 PM

46. Since when are racist site allowed ?

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



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:40 PM

53. This OP has nothing to do with racism.

I guess that's the difference.
That site covers it all. Not specific to any one topic.
Everyone is fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:42 PM

59. It's a right wing source that smears Hillary, Bernie, other elected and all other Democrats.

 

Their history of racism is very relevant to their reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

72. excuse me ?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 PM

127. So tell me how does it work again? Shall I list the RW sources

..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.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misterhighwasted (Reply #127)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:11 PM

133. So you ok with racism by the site ?

that all I want to know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #133)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:24 PM

170. This is about bernies questionable campaign cash.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:40 PM

54. Since Bernie supporters have been using right wing sites to smear Hillary

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:47 PM

79. So you are ok with using website that a racist is behind

Thanks for letting me know




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:47 PM

80. Cut the shit, maggieD

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #54)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:38 PM

203. We don't need right wing sites to smear Hillary

 

She does it to herself. $250,000 speaking fee. 9/11

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:25 PM

174. Source has lied about Sanders in the past and is likely lying again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:42 PM

58. You keep trumpeting the "truth" of this right wing racist propagandist...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:42 PM

60. Btw, what's Chelsea Clinton's salary from the Clinton Foundation? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:43 PM

62. The source mention in this bullshit story takes me to a download for 'We Wish You a Merry Crhistmas.

This quote from Progressives Today "About Page" says:
Democrats today are controlled by, and answer to, the most radical elements of their party.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #62)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

71. The info is factually correct

 

You realize that, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:48 PM

82. You claim the source is reputable and to be trusted to present facts. Most of us do not agree with

 

you. Their 'facts' about Hillary and other Democrats are actually right wing smears. Why do you trust them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #82)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:51 PM

89. The info is factually correct

 

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #71)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:54 PM

97. Post a link that takes me to the factually correct information other than this bullshit retelling.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #97)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:56 PM

101. I already posted a link

 

So you should be good to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:44 PM

68. I'm just wondering how he was able to write his campaign a $1 million dollar check.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:55 PM

99. He used lots of PAC donations to run for Senate

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #99)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:03 PM

118. I never knew that. But the irony is, he accepted $10 grand from none other than HillPAC,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #68)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:26 PM

176. This source cited in the OP lies about Sanders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #176)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:59 PM

234. Does Vermont's Times Argus newspaper lie, too?

The link in the OP to progressivestoday.com references the Times Argus article of 2005:

MONTPELIER — 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.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #234)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:02 PM

238. progressivetoday has lied about Sanders in the past and claims

and claims campaign funds were "funneled" to family members. That sounds very different from getting relatively modest commissions on ad buys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #238)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:08 PM

249. Yes, words matter, and they purposely used the nefarious sounding

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #249)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:11 PM

256. Since this source has lied about Sanders in the past, no one should take its word for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

69. What the hell...........................................

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #69)


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:45 PM

70. Should be easy to confirm with his FEC filings.

 

Last edited Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:46 PM

78. Uh isn't this illegal?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:50 PM

85. Sadly no

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:54 PM

98. I'm still waiting for you to prove your OP isn't a right wing lie.

Why won't you prove that what you've posted isn't a right wing lie or out of context propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #98)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

106. LOL - okey dokey

 

Google is your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #106)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:59 PM

111. You're spreading rightwing propaganda for the sole purpose of smearing progressives.

That's disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #106)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:16 PM

317. Oh that's right, you don't know what "Google" means, don't you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ESKD (Reply #317)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:19 PM

324. Indeed I do

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #324)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:23 PM

328. It's true because they worked for them and get paid just like any other workers

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ESKD (Reply #328)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:24 PM

329. It's okay if it's Bernie

 

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #329)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:26 PM

331. You are talking about 60,000 over fifteen years.

 

You can do the math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ESKD (Reply #331)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:28 PM

333. Nope - he hired her on his congressional staff as well

 

And that was taxpayer dollars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #333)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:29 PM

336. Yet you failed to see the part where "Jane Sanders refused to take on a salary as CoS"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #85)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:04 PM

120. Well its still unethical

 

And it looks real bad for a holier than thou crusader like Bernie. SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #120)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:04 PM

446. Yeah...almost looks as bad as paying your daughter a 6 figure salary from your charity. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:53 PM

93. What? Posting right wing propaganda with no verification on DU?


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to workinclasszero (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:58 PM

109. Nope. You are free to hire family members. And given the numbers involved, he underpaid them.

Clearly you guys are missing out. You could start an entire thread about how Sanders underpays his own family!!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:50 PM

86. Imagine him with a charitable foundation, with donations from lobbyists, in the millions!

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #86)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:58 PM

110. And then hiring his own daughter to run that foundation. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #110)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:13 PM

139. That would be — scandalous!

 



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:52 PM

90. sounds smart to hire family as staff.

 

having no pac, 2k per year is low pay for two hard workers he can trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to larkrake (Reply #90)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:27 PM

179. Assuming it's true. Not necessarily a sound assumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:53 PM

95. If they did the work and it was valued at that amount

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:54 PM

96. Progressives Today is a RW site that has lied about Sanders before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128036499#post62 (false story from progressives today) versus

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

102. Just look at their front page, it's all right wing trash

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #102)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:08 PM

124. I know. I just posted an OP exposing this source. This thread is shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #96)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:10 PM

131. Its much more than just RW trash

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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Truprogressive85 (Reply #131)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:22 PM

166. Vile. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:57 PM

105. I don't think you want to go there regarding family finances and how people get money

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:58 PM

108. OP is a right wing lie that the poster refuses to delete!

The poster is spreading right wing propaganda without context or verification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #108)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:59 PM

113. Yep. And it will be very handy to bring this up again every single time this poster

complains about "Right-wing sites" on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #113)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:01 PM

116. No worries- Bernie supporters have convinced me the source doesn't matter!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #108)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:00 PM

114. It is factually true - sorry

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:01 PM

117. You have posted rightwing, out of context lies.

How does it make you feel to know you're doing the work of racist hate-mongers for them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #117)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:19 PM

156. No, it's factually true

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #156)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:24 PM

172. Will you post their racist articles here as well?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #172)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:28 PM

182. It's factually true

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #182)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:34 PM

197. Why would I believe someone who posts right wing lies?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to last1standing (Reply #197)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:45 PM

220. Did you know that most people who post right wing lies are right wing shitstains?

 

Just saying, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #220)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:52 PM

227. I've seen nothing from the poster of this OP that contradicts your post.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #220)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:17 PM

318. Here's a Bernie supporter this morning

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #318)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:18 PM

322. Did you know that most people who post right wing lies are right wing shitstains?

 

It's true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:08 PM

125. .............

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 PM

128. Factually Bernie Sanders employed family members in his campaign

your chosen title suggests something more sinister but it did get you some attention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #128)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:20 PM

159. I doubt they did any real work

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #159)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:38 PM

204. And your evidentiary basis for that vile smear is what, exactly? (n/t)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #204)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:35 PM

290. Is that a new rule?

 

Never seems to apply to Bernie supporters. Hey, I'm just following the trend set here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #290)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:05 PM

367. Your standard of intellectual honesty, or lack thereof, is duly noted.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Lane (Reply #367)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:14 PM

375. Sometimes one needs to use an example to make a point

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #375)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:57 PM

384. I'm saving my popcorn for the big event that's imminent.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #159)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:30 PM

282. .........

You keep ignoring this part of the article you didn't include.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #159)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:31 PM

285. bring your doubts up with FEC because essentially you're accusing Bernie Sanders of fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to MaggieD (Reply #303)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:11 PM

316. thanks for the 2005 article that states he hired family members to work for his campaign

you've insinuated something more sinister IMO though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #128)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:20 PM

325. True. Unwanted attention. Really exposes for who she is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:08 PM

126. Read the About page of Progressives Today.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #126)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

153. look at this shit that they post

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madfloridian (Reply #126)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:24 PM

173. it's "the gateway pundit" wingnut "exposing progressives" yeah, nice source. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 PM

129. Janie

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)


Response to Eric J in MN (Reply #130)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:16 PM

146. 4 years, not 15

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #146)


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:15 PM

143. How much has Hillary given her family?????

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #143)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:32 PM

192. The source in the OP has lied about Sanders before and seems to be lying again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #192)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:55 PM

232. His campaign staff admitted it

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #232)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:05 PM

243. And ......... your thoughts on this?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:18 PM

152. The HRC supporters...

Are really getting desperate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:19 PM

158. its OK; its not Hillary

 

therefore, he can do whatever he wants!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ericson00 (Reply #158)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:25 PM

175. Yep - and I'm getting a real kick out the sources complaints

 

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #175)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:27 PM

180. LOL.

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:23 PM

167. This source does not seem appreciate for DU.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #167)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:28 PM

181. It's a rightwing, discredited source, for an incredulous -- and now discredited -- OP

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #181)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:30 PM

185. It's factually true

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #185)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:31 PM

190. ..........

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #190)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 04:40 PM

341. Heh. I guess sauce for the goose *isn't* sauce for the gander, in this instance

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #185)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:33 PM

195. Did it? Your source claims the info came from the Vermont Guardian, but that claim seems to be crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #195)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:39 PM

206. FEC

 

"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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #206)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:40 PM

211. That's fom your lying source that links to a song. Where are the links to the relevant FEC filings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #211)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:04 PM

241. His campaign staff admitted it

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #241)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:14 PM

260. $30,000 for 3 years, which seem to be commissions on ad buys, and $65,000 for 5 years. Wowza!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #260)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:14 PM

261. But, but, but....

 

I thought you said it was a lie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MaggieD (Reply #261)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:22 PM

271. Well it took you long enough to come up with a source that wasn't

a complete nutter site.

Star Member MaggieD (4,951 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?