Amy Vilela for Nevada's 4th

[abandonconflict]

The article you cited was written by Ken Vogel, the same Ken Vogel who got caught sending an article to DNC communications director, Luis Miranda making sure the DNC approves of it before publication;


From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2016-04-30 22:32
Subject: Fwd: per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated


Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

Politico actually apologized for it, too. So good luck trying to deny it

That doesn't mean it was fake. If it was, it would have been removed. They apologized for allowing the DNC to take part in the editing process. Ken Vogel was obligated by his employer to follow this procedure but he wrote the article himself.

Bernard accepted Super-pac money. Instead of denying it like a liar, why not just cling to the one valid defense there is, that he was not in a position to renounce the support and that he had no choice or even ability to decline the super pac money.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Donna Brazile apologizes for passing debate questions during Clinton-Sanders primary battles
Top DNC Official Apologizes for ‘Insensitive’ Email After Leak
DNC Apologizes to Bernie Sanders and Supporters Over Leaked Emails

 

[UncleBuck]

Donna Brazile apologizes for passing debate questions during Clinton-Sanders primary battles
Top DNC Official Apologizes for ‘Insensitive’ Email After Leak
DNC Apologizes to Bernie Sanders and Supporters Over Leaked Emails

why did obama disavow reverend wright?

 

[abandonconflict]

"We don't like to call it a super pac"
Some fucking nurses union...

 

[Padawanbater2]

That doesn't mean it was fake. If it was, it would have been removed. They apologized for allowing the DNC to take part in the editing process. Ken Vogel was obligated by his employer to follow this procedure but he wrote the article himself.

Bernard accepted Super-pac money. Instead of denying it like a liar, why not just cling to the one valid defense there is, that he was not in a position to renounce the support and that he had no choice or even ability to decline the super pac money.

It proves Vogel is an unethical journalist

In what way was the Sanders campaign affiliated with any superPAC?

 

[UncleBuck]

It proves Vogel is an unethical journalist

In what way was the Sanders campaign affiliated with any superPAC?

besides the $6.3 million dollars bernie got from super PACs?

 

[Padawanbater2]

besides the $6.3 million dollars bernie got from super PACs?

Yeah, you can keep repeating your lie ad nauseum, it won't make it true

Sanders didn't "get" anything from any superPAC, as st0w has told you repeatedly;

He didn't "take" anything. An unaffiliated super PAC set up by a nurses union (that Bernie neither endorsed nor coordinated with) that existed long before Bernie ever decided to run for potus decided that they liked Bernie, so they sent out some mailers and whatnot in support of him. He didn't "take" a dime, and he certainly didn't buy a house from the proceeds as you said above.

So keep repeating it all you want, you're only lying to yourself. You believe in your own alternative reality, just like Trump supporters

 

[abandonconflict]

It proves Vogel is an unethical journalist

No it doesn't. That's just your opinion. The guy has written extensively about money in politics. Just because he has to answer to his boss doesn't mean he was lying. In fact he has written plenty of dirt against Clinton.

This guy lays it out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/07/25/lay-off-politicos-ken-vogel/?utm_term=.c908e7610cdb

He dug up dirt you don't like so you ignore that he has made a career digging up dirt on democrats, Clinton at the top of the list.

Even Matt Taibi disagrees with you:

Vogel maybe shouldn't have sent a whole copy for review, but his intent wasn't to give the DNC or Hillary a break – far from it. It seems pretty clear that he wanted to make sure he didn't miss with a piece full of aggressive, original reporting that took on a very powerful target.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814

But go ahead and insist that this means I support Clinton, we've already seen that you don't care about the truth, or about bigoted remarks.

 

[Fogdog]

Yeah, you can keep repeating your lie ad nauseum, it won't make it true

Sanders didn't "get" anything from any superPAC, as st0w has told you repeatedly;

So keep repeating it all you want, you're only lying to yourself. You believe in your own alternative reality, just like Trump supporters

I just left a string with tty where he told me because I couldn't prove that the senators from my state were not corrupt then I'm being truthy when I say they aren't corrupt.

Here, you say, prove Bernie stole money before it's true.

I actually agree with you that the proof needs to be there before I can accept as true Bernie accepted that money for personal use. I also say, one can't just conveniently have it both ways. Set a high bar for charging corruption. Apply it to everybody.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yeah, you can keep repeating your lie ad nauseum, it won't make it true

Sanders didn't "get" anything from any superPAC, as st0w has told you repeatedly;

So keep repeating it all you want, you're only lying to yourself. You believe in your own alternative reality, just like Trump supporters

is the washington post lying when they said bernie got $6.3 million dollars from super PACs?

 

[UncleBuck]

No it doesn't. That's just your opinion. The guy has written extensively about money in politics. Just because he has to answer to his boss doesn't mean he was lying. In fact he has written plenty of dirt against Clinton.

This guy lays it out:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/07/25/lay-off-politicos-ken-vogel/?utm_term=.c908e7610cdb

He dug up dirt you don't like so you ignore that he has made a career digging up dirt on democrats, Clinton at the top of the list.

Even Matt Taibi disagrees with you:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814

But go ahead and insist that this means I support Clinton, we've already seen that you don't care about the truth, or about bigoted remarks.

Fine points.
Again, padaraper is caught lying.
Guy claims sending the article to the DNC was nefarious, but it wasn't.
Good journalists often run their work by the subject they are covering first.
Overall, i see nothing bad.
Too bad padaraper has to lie about everything.

 

[travisw]

is the washington post lying when they said bernie got $6.3 million dollars from super PACs?

View attachment 3983113

dunno

Were they lying when they said?

Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do.

Were they lying when they said?

In the age of dark money and unlimited fundraising opportunities via super PACs, it’s fair for Sanders to make the distinction that he, unlike Clinton and most of the Republican candidates, is not affiliated with the super PAC

Were the lying when they said?

Technically, there is no super PAC sanctioned by Sanders in the same way that other candidates have.

 

[abandonconflict]

dunno

Were they lying when they said?

Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do.

Were they lying when they said?

In the age of dark money and unlimited fundraising opportunities via super PACs, it’s fair for Sanders to make the distinction that he, unlike Clinton and most of the Republican candidates, is not affiliated with the super PAC

Were the lying when they said?

Technically, there is no super PAC sanctioned by Sanders in the same way that other candidates have.

Super pacs, by definition, are not affiliated with candidates, derpsauce. Super pacs fund campaigns, freeing up money to be used in other ways, such as buying lake houses.

 

[UncleBuck]

dunno

Were they lying when they said?

Sanders does not have a sanctioned super PAC that acts as an extension of his campaign and is affiliated with wealthy donor networks or corporate industries, in the way that other presidential candidates do.

Were they lying when they said?

In the age of dark money and unlimited fundraising opportunities via super PACs, it’s fair for Sanders to make the distinction that he, unlike Clinton and most of the Republican candidates, is not affiliated with the super PAC

Were the lying when they said?

Technically, there is no super PAC sanctioned by Sanders in the same way that other candidates have.

does that undo the $6.3 million dollars bernie took from superPACs though?

 

[londonfog]

does that undo the $6.3 million dollars bernie took from superPACs though?

but his lake house is very nice.

 

[abandonconflict]

Our Revolution™ (No Refunds)

 

[londonfog]

Maybe Bernie will let the BernieBabies sleep over ?

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[schuylaar]

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but if I were to guess I'd say it's a variety of things. A lot of older black voters supported her because of Bill. After all, he was the "first black president". She did particularity well in the south with black votes, so I would say that some of that boiled down to religion. They might have had an issue with Bernie being a Jew. The dnc was trying to push the narrative that Bernie was an atheist, so some may have heard/believed that. I also believe that Bernies support for gays, and gay marriage hurt him in the black community. While Clinton was busy signing the defense of marriage act, and don't ask don't tell, Bernie was voting against those initiatives and standing up for gays before it was popular. The black community (I'm guessing largely due to religious beliefs) is very opposed to gay marriage and gay equality. Yes, they are capable of being prejudiced too.



In this case, yes I am. Do you not feel that's possible? How do you explain rural, poor, white voters who consistently vote Republican? Do you not feel that they vote against their own self interests? If so, why not with southern black voters? I have not heard a single argument as to how the following Bernie policies would not be good for the black community...

- Medicare for all
- Free public university
- Raising the minimum wage to $15
- Ending the war on drugs/mass incarceration
- Legalizing marijuana

Those are all positions that Hillary did not support, and they are all positions that would disproportionately help minorities. So you tell me.... did the black community vote against their own self interests in 2016?

I'm open to hearing why I'm wrong, but please keep the "you're racist and priveleged and white" stuff to yourself. I won't respond to that.

nice contribution! +rep

 

[schuylaar]

That's a good question. I don't know the answer, but if I were to guess I'd say it's a variety of things. A lot of older black voters supported her because of Bill. After all, he was the "first black president". She did particularity well in the south with black votes, so I would say that some of that boiled down to religion. They might have had an issue with Bernie being a Jew. The dnc was trying to push the narrative that Bernie was an atheist, so some may have heard/believed that. I also believe that Bernies support for gays, and gay marriage hurt him in the black community. While Clinton was busy signing the defense of marriage act, and don't ask don't tell, Bernie was voting against those initiatives and standing up for gays before it was popular. The black community (I'm guessing largely due to religious beliefs) is very opposed to gay marriage and gay equality. Yes, they are capable of being prejudiced too.



In this case, yes I am. Do you not feel that's possible? How do you explain rural, poor, white voters who consistently vote Republican? Do you not feel that they vote against their own self interests? If so, why not with southern black voters? I have not heard a single argument as to how the following Bernie policies would not be good for the black community...

- Medicare for all
- Free public university
- Raising the minimum wage to $15
- Ending the war on drugs/mass incarceration
- Legalizing marijuana

Those are all positions that Hillary did not support, and they are all positions that would disproportionately help minorities. So you tell me.... did the black community vote against their own self interests in 2016?

I'm open to hearing why I'm wrong, but please keep the "you're racist and priveleged and white" stuff to yourself. I won't respond to that.

it was clintons minority policy that garnered all those black votes according to @Fogdog. unfortunately i cant get him to cite them.

'..get her the hell out of here..'.-Hillary Clinton after seeing her own 1996 quote.

dear black man/woman of RIU..would you describe yourself as 'superpredator'? why/why not?