zargof

And my personal experience is that those of your generation are clueless as they beleive everything that Fox and CNN spoon feed them.

zargof

So you accept the corruption then?

dakota44

And you would be wrong. But every group has its own mix. Are all milenials what I expressed? No. But enough of them are.

dakota44

There is no corruption simply by accepting highly paid speaking engagements when out of public office. Rather silly to assume there is.

SultanOfSwing

The problem is that idealism clouds realism.

I'd like Sanders to get the nomination, I'd like him to win the election, but I am realistic enough to know he won't get that far. At which point, I'd rather get behind Clinton because I know, while she won't change much, she won't undo those things Obama has managed to get done this last 8 years in the same way Trump will should he win.

Generation X to the rescue, yet again

zargof

You really don't see the cognitive dissonance do you? I'm wrong and you're right? Please.

zargof

So why are Goldman Sachs and everyone else on Wall St just throwing their money away?

zargof

I agree. I just find it insulting that because young people still have ideals, they're idiots.

I'm not saying you think that BTW, but it seems that others do.

SultanOfSwing

Where my objection lies, and where I find myself diverging with a lot of Sanders' support (of all ages, I've seen this coming from), is that they are so hell-bent on 'never Hillary' that they may inadvertently allow Trump to win by accident.

It would be much better to work together to get as many of Sanders' ideas into the Clinton agenda as is possible than to hand the election to Trump, however inadvertently.

dakota44

Why don't you take a look at who Goldman Sachs is throwing their money at overwhelm8ngly Republicans.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/sum...?id=d000000085

And then there is this.

"In fact, despite lagging in the polls, performing poorly in debates and being nowhere near as sure a bet as Clinton is for his party’s nomination, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has so far taken more than five times as much Wall Street money as Clinton into his campaign and super-PAC.
Bush has already raised more than $30 million from Wall Street, according to an analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics done for The Hill, which looked at donations from a range of firms in the commercial banking, securities, and investments industries.

Clinton, on the other hand, has received just $5.9 million from Wall Street into her campaign and super-PAC, less than half of that raised by Tea Party conservative Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who received $12.5 million, most of which came from hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer.

Clinton has raised only slightly more financial sector money than struggling Republican candidate Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.), who has taken in $5.2 million.

Wall Street donors began moving away from Democrats during Obama’s first term. After charming hedge fund managers and investment bankers during his campaign of “hope and change,” Obama, once in office, quickly angered these same supporters when he passed the Dodd-Frank regulations on the financial industry."

Seems Clintons speaking to Wall Street must not have enthused them very much.

zargof

The thing is a lot is made of the Never Hillary camp, but in reality it's a lot smaller group than people think, they just shout the loudest. But really, if Clinton loses to the dumpster fire that is Trump's campaign can you really blame the voters?

zargof

So the Republicans are worse? Back to the lesser of two evils argument. Red or blue, the rich still win.

SultanOfSwing

If she loses, it is what it is, I get that.

The problem is, a presidential primary and a general election are not, in my mind, the correct forums to attempt to achieve this kind of change. It's too big, too much too soon.

This kind of thing needs to start at a local level and build from there, if it is even going to happen at all.

dakota44

As I said when ai updated my previous post...Clinton must not have said what Wall astreet wanted to hear.

"In fact, despite lagging in the polls, performing poorly in debates and being nowhere near as sure a bet as Clinton is for his party’s nomination, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) has so far taken more than five times as much Wall Street money as Clinton into his campaign and super-PAC.
Bush has already raised more than $30 million from Wall Street, according to an analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics done for The Hill, which looked at donations from a range of firms in the commercial banking, securities, and investments industries.

Clinton, on the other hand, has received just $5.9 million from Wall Street into her campaign and super-PAC, less than half of that raised by Tea Party conservative Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who received $12.5 million, most of which came from hedge fund magnate Robert Mercer.

Clinton has raised only slightly more financial sector money than struggling Republican candidate Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.), who has taken in $5.2 million.

Wall Street donors began moving away from Democrats during Obama’s first term. After charming hedge fund managers and investment bankers during his campaign of “hope and change,” Obama, once in office, quickly angered these same supporters when he passed the Dodd-Frank regulations on the financial industry.

zargof

That's why Bernie is playing the long game.

From The Ashes Of Bernie Sanders' Campaign Rises An Army Of Candidates | ThinkProgress