HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » NBC News: How Bernie Sand...

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:10 AM

NBC News: How Bernie Sanders Avoided Disclosing His Personal Finances

How Bernie Sanders Avoided Disclosing His Personal Finances

by DAVE LEVINTHAL

As a Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Bernie Sanders vociferously argued for political transparency, especially when money was concerned.

Sanders insisted, for example, "on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns." He decried "huge piles of undisclosed cash" benefiting candidates.

But when federal law required Sanders to reveal, by May 15, current details of his personal finances, his campaign lawyer asked the Federal Election Commission for a 45-day extension.

Request granted.

On June 30, Sanders' campaign requested a second 45-day extension, saying the senator had "good cause" to delay because of his "current campaign schedule and officeholder duties."

Again, regulators said yes.

Now that Sanders' second extension has expired, spokesman Michael Briggs confirmed to the Center for Public Integrity that the senator won't file a presidential campaign personal financial disclosure after all.

Complete article here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-bernie-sanders-avoided-disclosing-his-personal-finances-n633081

162 replies, 23821 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 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply NBC News: How Bernie Sanders Avoided Disclosing His Personal Finances (Original post)
George II Jan 2017 OP
bravenak Jan 2017 #1
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #2
George II Jan 2017 #3
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #12
George II Jan 2017 #13
Gothmog Jan 2017 #55
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #61
synergie Jan 2017 #64
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #85
SticksnStones Jan 2017 #94
synergie Jan 2017 #130
Gothmog Jan 2017 #149
George II Jan 2017 #68
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #86
LanternWaste Jan 2017 #99
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #158
Gothmog Jan 2017 #112
tecelote Jan 2017 #4
NWCorona Jan 2017 #27
George II Jan 2017 #69
NWCorona Jan 2017 #72
George II Jan 2017 #74
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #87
QC Jan 2017 #70
NWCorona Jan 2017 #73
WhiteTara Jan 2017 #103
NWCorona Jan 2017 #107
Gothmog Jan 2017 #121
synergie Jan 2017 #66
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #88
LanternWaste Jan 2017 #100
Gothmog Jan 2017 #122
synergie Jan 2017 #127
Chasstev365 Jan 2017 #5
baldguy Jan 2017 #23
WhiteTara Jan 2017 #104
Gothmog Jan 2017 #56
LanternWaste Jan 2017 #101
OneBlueDotBama Jan 2017 #6
George II Jan 2017 #7
George II Jan 2017 #9
Gothmog Jan 2017 #123
George II Jan 2017 #11
yardwork Jan 2017 #8
juxtaposed Jan 2017 #10
George II Jan 2017 #15
dionysus Jan 2017 #14
George II Jan 2017 #16
dionysus Jan 2017 #17
George II Jan 2017 #19
NWCorona Jan 2017 #36
George II Jan 2017 #37
NWCorona Jan 2017 #39
George II Jan 2017 #41
NWCorona Jan 2017 #44
George II Jan 2017 #45
NWCorona Jan 2017 #47
George II Jan 2017 #49
NWCorona Jan 2017 #51
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2017 #71
George II Jan 2017 #75
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2017 #77
George II Jan 2017 #78
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2017 #79
George II Jan 2017 #118
Bohunk68 Jan 2017 #84
George II Jan 2017 #146
NWCorona Jan 2017 #153
Gothmog Jan 2017 #160
NWCorona Jan 2017 #162
lapucelle Jan 2017 #133
Gothmog Jan 2017 #150
lapucelle Jan 2017 #152
Gothmog Jan 2017 #154
yardwork Jan 2017 #18
dsc Jan 2017 #22
Bayard Jan 2017 #20
George II Jan 2017 #21
Gothmog Jan 2017 #125
dsc Jan 2017 #24
NWCorona Jan 2017 #25
George II Jan 2017 #29
NWCorona Jan 2017 #31
George II Jan 2017 #33
NWCorona Jan 2017 #34
Name removed Jan 2017 #26
George II Jan 2017 #35
underthematrix Jan 2017 #28
George II Jan 2017 #38
underthematrix Jan 2017 #43
AgadorSparticus Jan 2017 #30
Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2017 #32
AgadorSparticus Jan 2017 #40
riderinthestorm Jan 2017 #95
hollowdweller Jan 2017 #42
NWCorona Jan 2017 #48
Vinca Jan 2017 #46
R B Garr Jan 2017 #50
Name removed Jan 2017 #52
kimbutgar Jan 2017 #53
StevieM Jan 2017 #63
Gothmog Jan 2017 #54
Cha Jan 2017 #57
George II Jan 2017 #59
Cha Jan 2017 #67
pansypoo53219 Jan 2017 #58
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #60
bettyellen Jan 2017 #62
Takket Jan 2017 #65
Joediss Jan 2017 #76
Arazi Jan 2017 #80
Motown_Johnny Jan 2017 #81
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #82
Gothmog Jan 2017 #102
George II Jan 2017 #106
Post removed Jan 2017 #108
George II Jan 2017 #110
Gothmog Jan 2017 #111
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #113
Gothmog Jan 2017 #115
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #116
Gothmog Jan 2017 #119
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #126
Gothmog Jan 2017 #128
George II Jan 2017 #131
aikoaiko Jan 2017 #132
Gothmog Jan 2017 #136
Gothmog Jan 2017 #137
George II Jan 2017 #117
Gothmog Jan 2017 #120
George II Jan 2017 #124
George II Jan 2017 #135
Gothmog Jan 2017 #138
R B Garr Jan 2017 #139
George II Jan 2017 #140
Gothmog Jan 2017 #151
R B Garr Jan 2017 #157
JNelson6563 Jan 2017 #83
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #89
JTFrog Jan 2017 #91
randome Jan 2017 #92
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #93
JTFrog Jan 2017 #90
UCmeNdc Jan 2017 #96
yardwork Jan 2017 #97
emulatorloo Jan 2017 #109
Gothmog Jan 2017 #129
Rex Jan 2017 #98
sfwriter Jan 2017 #105
Gothmog Jan 2017 #114
HassleCat Jan 2017 #134
jalan48 Jan 2017 #141
George II Jan 2017 #142
jalan48 Jan 2017 #143
George II Jan 2017 #144
jalan48 Jan 2017 #145
George II Jan 2017 #147
jalan48 Jan 2017 #148
Cha Jan 2017 #155
Gothmog Jan 2017 #161
Lil Missy Jan 2017 #156
Fast Walker 52 Jan 2017 #159

Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:11 AM

1. I noticed this at the time and am sure he knew exactky how to access the records

 

by contacting the IRS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:13 AM

2. Why bother since Trump didn't. It must not be that important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:14 AM

3. Trump filed his required Personal Financial Disclosure, but didn't release his income tax returns.

The Personal Financial disclosure is required by the FEC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:11 AM

13. That was his statement of candidacy. Every candidate is required by law to also file....

...a Personal Financial Disclosure, as indicated in the article in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 06:44 PM

55. Sanders never filed his financial disclosures

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 08:23 PM

61. so what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:53 PM

64. So, if it's wrong and dishonest and shady when Trump does it, it's the same when others do it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #64)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:02 AM

85. So what No one is holding Trump to this standard. Are They?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #85)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:19 PM

94. No but Hillary was and then some

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #85)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:10 PM

130. So you're saying that if Trump gets away with lying, being shady and going back on his word,

 

that Bernie should slither down to this standard? And Liberals and progressives are indeed calling out Trump, so why let Bernie off the hook? He did promise, like Trump, to release information, and gave squirrley reasons for not doing so. What are they hiding anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #130)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 05:07 PM

149. Being just as unethical as trump is not a good standard to use here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:42 PM

68. So what? If Federal law that all Federal candidates file Personal Financial Disclosures....

Even Donald Trump did so.

Sanders filed a request for an extension, then filed a second request for an extension beyond the date of the convention (convenient) and then decided he wasn't a candidate so he never file it.

What makes him so special that he didn't have to do what every other Federal candidate has to do? The big question that many people are asking, "what does he have to hide?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:02 AM

86. So What? No one care about standards. Trump proves that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #86)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:42 PM

99. No doubt, that's the narrative you use to dismiss and trivialize concerns

No doubt, that's the narrative you use to dismiss and trivialize concerns of this issue, regardless of your fallacious use of "proof" rather than the accurate "evidence."

On the other hand, one wonders if the great reponse to this thread (including yours), this topic and this OP illustrates your premise as wholly without merit.

Sacred cows are sacred, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #99)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 11:16 AM

158. If it is good enough for Trump it is good enough for Bernie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:39 PM

112. So Sanders was not being honest about being transparent

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:15 AM

4. NEWS AUG 18 2016, 12:45 PM ET

Has Bernie bashing become a sport?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:31 PM

27. Some unfortunately need to go that far back for dirt on Bernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:46 PM

69. "that far back"? It was only a few months ago and he skirted around Federal law.

As fare as "that far back", do you know how many on this site complained all spring about Clinton being a "Goldwater Girl" WAY back in 1964 when she was only 17 years old?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:13 AM

72. That was a little tongue and cheek on my part as it does seem like a lifetime ago

I agree with you that Bernie played lose on this but he didn't break any election laws. It's like I said earlier to you. We will just have to wait until March 15th or there abouts to see if Bernie files his annual reports.

I don't like the fact that Hillary was a Goldwater girl at all. I've mentioned that here on this board, as you probably know, I don't think she still holds that kind of political thinking tho. I admire that the people that Hillary holds closest are POC. What irks me are when people use that Hillary was only 17. What does that have to do with anything other than a reference of time?

On a lighter note. Are you the poster that loves Seinfeld too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #72)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:37 AM

74. Well, I've been called an extreme left wing liberal (at times "commie", which is so passe)...

...but when I was 17 and in high school, I campaigned for a mayoral candidate in NYC - William F. Buckley! As Mel Allen used to say, "how 'bout that?"

People change over the years. Hillary Clinton has demonstrated for decades that she's not truly a "Goldwater girl". On the other hand, if one studied the ideology and history of Barry Goldwater*, they'd realize that to him the country came first, political ideology came second. He was the one who went to see Richard Nixon privately back in 1973 and convinced him to resign.

*William F. Buckley was the same way, he cared more about the United States than he did about conservatism. Conservatives of the 1960s and 1970s were nothing like "conservatism" has been since the Reagan 1980s and onward.

And yes, I am a Seinfeld fanatic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:04 AM

87. Who Cares? Trump has so much dirt on him and who brings that up?

Trump proves it does not matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:03 AM

70. It makes me think of another news story from some time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #70)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:16 AM

73. That story is one that I come back to quite a bit lately.

The picture of him handing over his sword is something else.



Also, is it just me or did he clean up good or what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 03:17 PM

103. Far back is his book about

women and his rape fantasies. But then who really cares...it's only about women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WhiteTara (Reply #103)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 04:40 PM

107. You can go back that far as I know that those stories are a hard pill for some to swallow.

Also, please don't lump me into the woman hater crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #27)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:34 PM

121. Are you kidding? Trump had a two foot thick oppo book on Sanders that would have destroyed him

Trump had an oppo book on Sanders that was two feet thick. http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

Trump would have destroyed Sanders in the general election

I don's care about most of the material in Trump's book but I do want to know who owns Old Town Media and how Sanders now can afford three houses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tecelote (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:11 PM

66. How is it Bernie Bashing? He failed to do what he repeatedly said he would,

 

just like Donald Trump, all the while attacking others who followed rules he pretends don't apply to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #66)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:08 AM

88. Who Cares? Trump never does what he says he will do. Why hold bernie to a higher standard?

Trump gets away with lying constantly and the voters love it. Why worry about Bernie's background?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:45 PM

100. We'll never be wrong if we predicate our ethics on the lowest common denominator

It is indeed, ethically convenient to lower the standards on anyone we ourselves support, and rationalize that lowering of standards by pointing towards the lowest standard available.

We'll never be wrong if we predicate our ethics on the lowest common denominator. Yours is the petulant excuse used by seven year olds since time immemorial: "they did it too!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:38 PM

122. So your position isthat if Trump gets by with something, then it is okay for Sanders to do the same?

I personally do not accept this standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #88)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:02 PM

127. Seems like you're holding Bernie to a LOWER standard. I hold Bernie to his own word,

 

and to the same standards I hold Hillary Clinton. Bernie is acting like Trump and I won't lower my standards for any of them.

Why do you keep pointing to Trump when Bernie is doing the same thing, and his supporters keep trying to dismiss it?

He said he'd do these things, HRC already has, surely Bernie should be acting less like Trump and living up to his own word, lest he be called a constant liar, who is shadily hiding his finances, right?

What exactly is the problem with transparency anyway?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:17 AM

5. Good, Good, let the hate flow through you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 12:53 PM

23. Because Sanders is pure as new-fallen snow, right?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 03:19 PM

104. And he is Saint Bernie

of the Little Bird. That should be all ANYONE needs to know about our new Savior of the Democratic Party which he refuses to join.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 06:45 PM

56. Have you bought his latest book yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chasstev365 (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:48 PM

101. Without campy and tired movie quotes, many people would be unable to add anything of substance.

Without campy and tired movie quotes, many people would be unable to add anything of substance. Actually, I think it yet holds true even with the presence of campy and tired movie quotes as well.

However, we all like to maintain the pretense our additions are somehow relevant, so I get it. You're gonna need a bigger boat...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:21 AM

6. In Other News, A New World Record...

250 pages of possible violations...Trump Campaign

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/964/201701100300074964/201701100300074964.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneBlueDotBama (Reply #6)


Response to OneBlueDotBama (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:46 AM

9. Not a world record, last summer one was sent to a candidate that was 600 pages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:39 PM

123. I remember this also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneBlueDotBama (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:57 AM

11. FYI:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-bernie-sanders-donors-who-are-giving-too-much/482418/

The Donors Who Love Bernie Sanders A Little Too Much

The FEC has notified the campaign that thousands of its 2.4 million contributors may be violating federal limits.

For months, the Federal Election Commission has been writing to the Sanders campaign with warnings that hundreds of his donors have exceeded the $2,700 contribution limit and that hundreds more may be foreign nationals illegally giving Sanders money. The most recent, and by far the longest, letter came on Tuesday and flagged more than 1,500 questionable donors.


http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/847/201605100300045847/201605100300045847.pdf

645 pages!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:30 AM

8. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to juxtaposed (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:21 AM

15. Those documents are for the Campaign Committee. Every candidate for Federal office...

...is also required to file a Personal Financial Disclosure. Sanders never filed that in 2016, and took the unprecedented steps of asking TWICE for extensions, the second of which was for a date after the Convention.

I predicted when he first asked for an extension that we'd never see that Disclosure. I'm sorry that I was correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:18 AM

14. you know what i'm pretty sure they wouldn't find in his account? 200 thousand dollar deposits from

goldman sachs.

you're really going to cast stones from within a glass house on this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:21 AM

16. What candidate had "200 thousand dollar deposits from goldman sachs"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:26 AM

17. sorry, it was more. she actually got $675,000 from goldman sachs for 3 speeches. link included.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/05/inside-hillarys-675k-worth-of-goldman-speaking-fees/

Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches were contracted and negotiated by the Harry Walker Agency, and her Goldman payments ($225,000 a speech) were on par with her typical speaking fees.

now, i'm not opposed to either ofthem making a living.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:33 AM

19. She wasn't a candidate at the time. But since you're digging up "dirt", do you or anyone know...

...who the principles of Old Towne Media LLC are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:25 PM

36. Miles Kailburn and Vallene Kailburn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:27 PM

37. Tad Devine has owned up to being part owner. I wonder who placed $64M in media buys from them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:35 PM

39. Where has he owned up to that? If you are trying to make a point you should start with that

Instead of being cryptic. Hillary used GMMB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:50 PM

41. Here, and the rest of the article is interesting, too:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/31/1532953/-The-Potential-Scandal-at-the-Heart-of-the-Sanders-Campaign

"In an interview, Devine acknowledged that he has made more money than expected from the campaign, but he noted that he is working for a much lower rate than usual. While he usually gets a double-digit percentage of a campaign’s ad spending, the veteran admaker is instead splitting a single-digit-percentage commission with the media buyers at Old Towne Media."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 03:57 PM

44. That's not him admitting that he's a part owner. That's him saying that he's splitting

A sales commission and that is not uncommon in contracts.

I remember this story when it came out and it didn't make much sense then either other than a rather unheard of media company received a huge ad buy and that it was odd that one of the founders chose to use her maiden name. Since your supplied link hit the net OTM now looks to be a front for Cannal Media Partners.

Personally I'm not surprised or disappointed that a few key campaign officials and vendors made a lot of money. Especially considering that more money could have been if they followed contact norms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 04:26 PM

45. I should have said he has "very close ties" to the mysterious Old Towne Media LLC.

Another thing he says in that article is "splitting a single-digit-percentage commission" (actually getting a single digit percentage commission, the other half received by someone else)

Also noted in the article is that "someone else" could be the reason why Sanders refused to file that Federal Personal Financial Disclosure or release his tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 04:38 PM

47. Yes the article notes that he worked with the founders but I still don't see

why that matters.

Yes. It's the same as when a home buyer asks both Realtors to split the commission. Doesn't always work but it's not uncommon.

That's conjecture but feel free to think that Bernie waited all this time to get rich off of politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 04:49 PM

49. When real estate is sold, both realtors get paid, one by the seller, the other by the buyer.

As for getting rich off politics, we don't know. But what I do know is that Sanders' fellow Vermont Senator, Pat Leahy, has a reported net worth much less than Sanders, and he's been at the higher paying Senate job longer than Sanders has been at his House or Senate jobs combined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 05:04 PM

51. And sometimes both Realtors split the 3% instead of the combined 6%

While $200k over Pat might seem like a lot. It could just be that Bernie has a rental property in his portfolio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:06 AM

71. I think you need to bail on this thread and read up.

He wasn't an owner and the seller pays the sale commission. Buyers don't pay a commission. The agents split the sellers money.

Back to the drawing board for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:40 AM

75. Sorry, that's not the way it worked in the seven real estate sales in which I've been involved.

Next?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:12 AM

77. Then you got screwed.

Seller lists with the listing broker/agent and negotiates a commissioner produce a buyer ready willing and able to purchase based on the seller's terms (or negotiated terms). Usually around 6% ish. The listing agent/broker places the property in the MLS with the terms payable to any potential cooperating brokers. Typically split but it can be more or less and/or can include a bonus.

A buyers agent brings a buyer to the table and thereby becomes a cooperating broker/agent when the buyer's offer is accepted. The cooperating broker agent is paid from the seller's broker cut.

A tricky but more well known ( as of late) issue in the business is the fact the seller is paying the commission to a cooperating broker and therefore doesn't necessarily owe YOU a fiduciary duty. In other words, absent additional buyer broker agreements, YOUR OWN agent can legally conspire against you (within ethical bounds).

This is BECAUSE the seller is paying the commissions.

This is how it's worked in the hundreds of transactions I've been involved in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #77)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:20 AM

78. I didn't get screwed, maybe the brokers involved "got screwed"? Doubt it but....

...we're off the track.

The issue is commissions for media buys during the primary campaign. Who got the millions of dollars of commissions for the Sanders campaign media buys? Anyone know definitively?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #78)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:49 AM

79. This article goes in to some depth about who received commissions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:18 PM

118. Not really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 07:57 AM

84. I am in the process of closing a sale within the month of my own property.

Selling off all but the house and two acres around it. The realtor is only getting a commission from me, the seller. NOTHING from the buyer. Don't know where you live, but if that is the case, you were hosed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #36)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 03:27 PM

146. And therein lies the problem with Old Towne Media, which handled upwards of $100 million..

....of the Sanders campaign's media buys. No one really knows for sure.

You say Miles Kailburn and Vallene Kailburn, others say David Hartig with the Shelli and Heather Hartig.

Also what we don't know is who got all of the 15% commission on that roughly $100 million.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #146)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 09:47 PM

153. I would think that the truth will come out soon enough

I'm not too worried about it but I'm sure you already know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #153)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:11 PM

160. Time will tell

I agree that the truth will eventually come out unless Sanders drops out so that he does not have to file his next report. I would prefer to know how Sanders is paying for the $600,000 for his third house

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #160)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 06:01 PM

162. If I was to guess I'd say that he leveraged their assets with the

Hopes that the book sales would cover the mortgage on the backend. I personally don't care that he has multiple properties as long as the books are in order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:48 PM

133. I thought Devine had handled Sanders's advertising.

I've always found the Manafort - Devine connection fascinatingly bizarre.

Only in politics could you find two guys for hire who worked together to elect a Ukraine oligarch handpicked by Putin and then parted ways to work in the US on opposite sides in the same cycle for two separate come out of nowhere "populist" candidates

Politics does make strange bedfellows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #133)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 05:10 PM

150. Devine only took one-half of the 15% commissions

There has been no public disclosure as to who got the rest of the commission. It was estimated that this is between $4.5 million to $6.5 million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #150)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 09:30 PM

152. That's an awful lot of $27 donations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #152)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 12:02 AM

154. It takes a large number of $27 donations to pay for a $600,000 third home

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dionysus (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:28 AM

18. How do you know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 12:44 PM

22. because he has a penis

only women are corrupt don't you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 12:01 PM

20. I remember reading

I remember reading that Bernie's annual income was around $300K. And his house was worth about the same amount. And that he did his own laundry.

What's the point of rehashing all of this? Look at what he is still doing for us--he's in the fight still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bayard (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 12:36 PM

21. We don't know what his net worth is now, he refused to file his FEC mandated disclosure.

BTW, did you miss that a day or two after the convention, when previous contenders for the nomination traditionally go out on the campaign trail with the nominee, he went up to Vermont to close on a "summer home" that cost more than double his house in Burlington ($650,000)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bayard (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:43 PM

125. What about the $600,000 third home he just bought?

You do know that Sanders has three homes now http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house

Bernie Sanders now has one thing in common with the millionaires and billionaires and other 1 percenters he so frequently attacked on the campaign trail: he now owns his very own summer home.

Vermont magazine Seven Days reported Tuesday that the 74-year-old senator and his wife, Jane Sanders, have purchased a four-bedroom house on the shore of Lake Champlain for roughly $600,000. Jane told Seven Days that they had recently sold a house in Maine that had belonged to her family since the 1900s, and used the proceeds to purchase the new property, which is located in North Hero (population 803, as of the 2010 census). With this purchase, Sanders now owns at least three houses, the others being in Burlington, VT, and Capitol Hill in D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:02 PM

24. Hillary paid an immense price for being open about her personal finances

both in the primary and in the general election her opponents refused to discuss their personal finances and as you thread points out got off scot free. It is hard to imagine that future candidates won't learn that lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:26 PM

25. You can have this point if you want but the last two paragraphs in the link explain a lot

"There's a couple decades' worth of congressional financial disclosure reports that show pretty much the same thing from year to year," Briggs said.

The public will eventually find out how Sanders managed his assets while running for president: As a sitting senator, Sanders must next year file a personal financial disclosure with the U.S. Senate covering calendar year 2016.


People are acting like a sitting senator doesn't have to fill out annual financial disclosure forms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:49 PM

29. And we're all waiting for that with bated breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:57 PM

31. May 15th will be here soon enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:15 PM

33. Yes, as was June 30 and then August 15 last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:17 PM

34. Yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:22 PM

35. I don't recall anyone saying he owned two mansions or even a mention of what kind of car...

....he drives.

But he does own two homes less than 30 miles apart, the second of which he bought two days after the convention for almost three times the value of the average home in Vermont (and 2X his reported net worth)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:41 PM

28. So what is this story really about? Why is it being posted today?

Last edited Sun Jan 15, 2017, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

It's most certainly is not about his decision to not file his presidential campaign personal financial disclosure form.

Remember this story because it's part of a larger puzzle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:29 PM

38. What foreign outlet are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 03:37 PM

43. Thank you for pointing out my error

I have too many tabs open

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:52 PM

30. Bernie Sanders must be doing something right for them to go after him like this.

Or, they must be REALLY scared of the possibility that the democratic party is unifying in light of not just the trumputin mess, but the domestic Healthcare mess they are about to unleash.

Unless they go after the fucking peotus about his INCREDIBLE conflicts of interest and financial statements, they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. This has propoganda written all over it.


It's NBC. GO FIGURE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AgadorSparticus (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 01:59 PM

32. This article is from August of 2016

Somebody is worrying about the Democratic Party unifying but it is not necessarily NBC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 02:38 PM

40. Oh. I didn't notice the date....b/c...wtf would anyone post this then?

Grrrrr.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:19 PM

95. +1 SMDH nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 03:27 PM

42. Clinton should have hit Sanders more on this issue

 


Sanders should have hit her hard on the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hollowdweller (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 04:40 PM

48. It's definitely fair game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 04:34 PM

46. I can't believe you folks are still rehashing this shit.

It doesn't fucking matter. We're within a week of the worst possible nightmare anyone might have imagined. What Hillary did doesn't matter. What Bernie did doesn't matter. What matters is what the fuck do we do now??????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 05:02 PM

50. A good reminder of his duplicity. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 06:25 PM

53. Who cares. He lost and Hillary lost

And now we have the evil thumpenstein and rethug control for the next 8 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kimbutgar (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 10:28 PM

63. 8 years? Are you giving up on winning the 2020 election? (eom)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 06:43 PM

54. Where are Sanders tax returns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 07:55 PM

57. What's that word for when the person is hammering on

"transparency" but refuses to be so?

That's what this is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 08:14 PM

59. That is EXACTLY what this is all about, thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:38 PM

67. You're

, George! And, I know you're not letting anyone tell you differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 07:56 PM

58. he is not resident elect. IS HE? WTF. eyes on the con man please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 08:21 PM

60. Why ask about this,when you got the biggest liar called Trump to worry about?

Bernie is small patato compared to Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 09:50 PM

62. Most fans insist that 14 summary was actually releasing his taxes-

 

Same folks thought Comney HAD found something illegal and all those "corporate" contributions went from the CEOs straight into campaign coffers.

Perfectly nice people were misled on many issues last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Sun Jan 15, 2017, 11:01 PM

65. why the hell is anyone at NBC looking into this????????

Sanders lost way back in the primaries. Trump is about to destroy the nation. Who gives a flying fuck about Sanders FEC forms??????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:54 AM

76. Joediss

Somebody trying to change the subject.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:00 AM

80. JFC, this is old bullshit. Trump's our focus now. Fuck the primaries

Boring as fuck this obsession on shitting on Sanders.

We have much bigger problems. Can we stop this stupidity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:11 AM

81. Thanks for making clear he didn't do anything wrong.

 


He filed the requests for extensions on time. Those requests were granted and the requirement that he disclose his finances ended when he ended his campaign.


No problem with anything here.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:24 AM

82. Bernie hate is awesome at digging up 5 month old articles


Showing that Bernie was compliant.

I love the Bernie hate.

Your angry tears make great lemonade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 02:56 PM

102. Have bought Sanders latest book yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #82)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 03:41 PM

106. "Bernie hate is awesome at digging up 5 month old articles", as opposed to "Hillary Hate"....

....that dug up 30+ years of articles/events to bash her?

My tears may make great lemonade, but the angry tears of Sanders' fans makes wonderful kool-aid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #106)


Response to Post removed (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:30 PM

110. How pleasant of you, I'm sure you're proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #108)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:37 PM

111. Sanders needs to file an updated financial report in May

I will be looking forward to reviewing that report

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #111)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:41 PM

113. I know you are. Please do make an OP and report the results. Maybe 5 OPs saying the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Gothmog (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:55 PM

116. I love it when you take the mask off and show yourself.


I don't know who owns or receives money from Old Towne Media.

Keep us posted on your investigations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #116)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:24 PM

119. The May 2017 FEC reports will be interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:46 PM

126. May they be all that you want. What do you want them to say?



Do you think it will show payments from the Russians to Bernie to sabotage Hillary Clinton's candidacy?

Do you think it will show that Bernie has a secret business with James Comey that works for the Koch brothers?

Maybe it will show that Bernies owns the voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and PA.

Oh my, the imagination runs wild and it is only January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #126)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:04 PM

128. It may explain where the money came from for Sanders to buy a $600,000 third home?

It may show who owns Old Town Media and why Sanders spent so much on TV ads instead GOTV and ground operations. Read the Daily Kos article http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/31/1532953/-The-Potential-Scandal-at-the-Heart-of-the-Sanders-Campaign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #126)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:17 PM

131. They may show that the "common man" who lives frugally, washes his own clothes, and....

.....decries the greed of the 1%, became a full fledged member himself over the course of a few months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #131)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:44 PM

132. I think you should bigger. Maybe payments from Trump's campaign.


That would be so good for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #132)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 12:33 PM

136. The truth about where Sanders got the money to pay for the house will be sufficient

The $600,000 came from someplace and one likely source are commissions from TV ads. Do you approve of Jane Sanders taking commissions from the TV ads used in the campaign?

BTW have bought Sanders latest book yet? That is all that Sanders really cares about

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #131)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 12:35 PM

137. There is evidently $4.5 million to $6 million of tv ad commissions unaccounted for

A percentage of that money could pay for a new $600,000 home

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:16 PM

117. We may learn more about that once Sanders files his FEC Personal Financial Disclosure on May 15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:31 PM

120. I am curious as to how Sanders can now afford three houses

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #120)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:43 PM

124. Me too. The latest, which was purchased only days after he officially was no longer a candidate....

.......cost over $600,000, almost twice his reported net worth of $350,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:54 PM

135. Here's some more insight into "Old Towne Media"....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 12:35 PM

138. There are a ton of questions being raised by this shell company

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 12:53 PM

139. Wow, that is interesting! The comments after are devastating and sound like people

familiar with Vermont LLCs and local history with that couple. They still have millions to account for, yet smear others with a pious transparency standard they do not adhere to themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #139)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:01 PM

140. It would not surprise me one bit if between now and next year Sanders decided not to run again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #140)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 05:10 PM

151. I also would not be surprised

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #140)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 10:58 AM

157. I think that is more likely than not. He is very divisive and I bet going forward

he'll be held more accountable for his divisive rhetoric, which he obviously doesn't handle well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 04:04 AM

83. Wow. This OP and the replies...

Good thing we are still battling each other and there isn't some greater threat to our world as we know it...

No wonder we always lose. *sigh*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:11 AM

89. Yeah, why are we only worried about the Democratic candidates conduct???? Trump does worse things

and we ignore that on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:16 AM

91. Nobody is ignoring Trump, but nice try. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:11 PM

92. No, it wasn't a nice try.

 

"So what? So what? So what?" A broken record.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:19 PM

93. Let's talk about Trump and his lies then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 09:13 AM

90. We get 2 months of OP's trashing Hillary and where she went wrong, ignoring Russia, Comey, etc,

 

but there will be no postmortem on Bernie allowed.

Got it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JTFrog (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 12:25 PM

96. Well to worry about Bernie is a waste of time when you have Trump in a position to do some very real

damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Reply #96)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:14 PM

97. Wouldn't that same reasoning apply to trashing Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #97)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:12 PM

109. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #97)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:06 PM

129. Are you daring to imply that there is a double standard at work here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 01:53 PM

98. lulz

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)


Response to sfwriter (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 08:41 PM

114. Sanders admitted that he was in the Democratic primary for money and media coverage

Sanders admitted that he was running for media coverage and money http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/bernie-sanders-independent-media-coverage-220747

Bernie Sanders on Monday told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he ran as a Democrat to get more media coverage.

During a town hall-style event in Columbus, Ohio, the independent Vermont senator said, “In terms of media coverage, you have to run within the Democratic Party.” He then took a dig at MNSBC, telling Todd, the network “would not have me on his program” if he ran as an independent.

Money also played a role in his decision to run as a Democrat, Sanders added.

“To run as an independent, you need — you could be a billionaire," he said. "If you're a billionaire, you can do that. I'm not a billionaire. So the structure of American politics today is such that I thought the right ethic was to run within the Democratic Party.”

It appears that you are correct in that Sanders did get what he wanted and did not have to disclose how he is paying for three homes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Mon Jan 16, 2017, 10:51 PM

134. And what does this have to do with anything?

 

This certainly does not relate to postmortem. It looks to me like another pointless personal attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:18 PM

141. I bet he's getting tens of millions from Goldman Sachs without even having to give speeches!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #141)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:21 PM

142. If he did, he's the only one who did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #142)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 01:56 PM

143. Oh yeah!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #143)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 03:13 PM

144. So who else did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #144)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 03:26 PM

145. Uh-you know who!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 03:33 PM

147. Yes I do, no one. But if you're going to make rash, vague accusations, you could be more specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jalan48 (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 17, 2017, 03:56 PM

148. Ah-I think I see what you mean-my apologies.

I should have said, big Wall Street firms and banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 04:24 AM

155. Hillary disclosed her tax returns right up front

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #155)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:14 PM

161. We will never see Sanders tax returns

That is an interesting definition of transparency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 05:45 AM

156. He knew he'd lose anyway, so he got away with this hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Original post)

Wed Jan 18, 2017, 02:51 PM

159. so why did he do this? Just to avoid awkward questions about his wealth?

 

or something more devious? Any guesses?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread