all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 2 months ago

But half the party relies on that money for their reelection. How will they win without it? It wouldn't be "fair".

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like only banning it in primaries just lets them save up and über-bribe whoever makes it to the general.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    First of all, fuck off Zionist.

    Second off, this is more a matter of, "why are the Democrats letting AIPAC influence the primaries when the same donor is generally opposing our candidates?"

    And to actually address your comment of "they go low, we go high" - literally if you read the first paragraph of the article you'd see he was only referring to primaries. Just as a heads up, Republicans* don't participate in Democratic primaries.

    *Except for Centrist Democrats, and especially sex offender Cuomo.

  • source
  • parent
  • 3 comments in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    It's worth reading Sander's one page memo. He makes a good, practical point.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    He always does. The problem is the establishment doesn’t give a rats ass what he says. If fact they actively try to undermine him, which is how we ended up with Hillary in 2016.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    The problem is the establishment doesn’t give a rats ass what he says.

    He should try bribing the establishment to the tune of billions of dollars in campaign contributions, kickbacks, and sinecures. So many of these assholes have one foot out the door to become Silicon Valley Defense Sector board members and O&G lobbyists.

  • source
  • parent