Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US

Fogdog said:

You and Paddy are.

The difference is in the act. Bribes are given with an up front agreement -- "I'll give you this if you'll do that".

Definition of bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust. Police officers accused of taking bribes (Merriam Webster)

Large, legal campaign contributions gain access but there can be no promise of an expected outcome or overt expectation of influence. Did I bribe my Congressman with my $25 legal contribution?

Agree that there is corruption in the current campaign contribution system in that big donors gain access and an advantage but legal contributions are not bribes. Perhaps you confuse corruption with bribes?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Unlimited contributions from anonymous donors cross the line.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

I'll put up two names and let you knock them down if you like.

Ron Wyden, Peter Defazio. Congressmen from Oregon who have a lot of policies that I like.

But I'm not an absolutist. They just have to be mostly good. Like me.

Click to expand...

tangerinegreen555 said:

Like Russia?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Unlimited contributions from anonymous donors cross the line.

Play all the semantic games you want, the end result is the same.

Click to expand...

tampee said:

Did she do the same in Saudi Arabia? Or just took their money?

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Dude, words aka semantics matter. Paddy was shouting about bribes which holds a different meaning than legal campaign contributions that give access. Unlike a bribe, accepting a legal campaign contribution is not the same as giving a promise of a favor.

The issue at hand is whether or not Democratic party candidates should reject legal campaign contributions when their opponents not only do but will never do anything to repeal Citizen's United.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

So send only those candidates who pledge to actually do it once elected.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

like hillary clinton?

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

There's the credibility factor to consider.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

she was the most honest politician in the nation, if verifiable facts are to be believed.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Hmmmm. That doesn't square with what I know about Bernie Sanders.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

you can either believe facts or disregard them.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Ok so they're close, and Sanders stands for what I believe in.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

so does hillary and she's more honest.

Click to expand...

ttystikk said:

Here's where we disagree.

She's done. No three time losers, our political system can't take the abuse.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

You are hung up on fake conspiracy theories, not just about Clinton but the Democratic party itself. Buck has shown you some facts that run counter to your belief about Clinton and so you reject them. I bore down on a "semantics" difference because words matter when using them to draw conclusions. I'm pretty sure I didn't get through.

Clinton is done, this is true. Discussing her is only important because the cause of her failure is complicated. Some of it is her own shortcomings. Quite a bit more is due to the propaganda and misogyny that plagued her career. She is done. But the Democratic Party is beset by the same fake news and other forms of propaganda. And so, I'm willing to talk about both.

Click to expand...

Fogdog said:

Quite a bit more is due to the propaganda and misogyny that plagued her career.

Click to expand...