Huh? I say again, "Huh?"

I asked you to cite where Sanders himself, not a surrogate, called her, personally, corrupt. That hasn't happened. He's calling the finance system corrupt. He did say this in one of your links Emphasis Mine.:

Speaking to CNN, Mr Sanders said it was "obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign".
...
“I have a lot of respect for George Clooney. He’s a great actor. I like him,” Mr Sanders said. “But this is the problem with American politics.

"It’s not a criticism of Clooney. It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests... have undue influence on the political process.”

You think a $350,000.00 a ticket "fund raiser" for anybody isn't obscene? It is horrifically obscene. If I were a Hillary apologist and wanted to have her make inroads with Sanders supporters, when asked about that comment, I'd tell her to say, "Yes. Senator Sanders is correct. A 350K per seat fundraiser is obscene. I hate it, but until we change campaign financing the way I want to change it, this is what must be done. I am as much a victim of this process as anyone." It would ring hollow, of course, but that's on the candidate.

Your second link offering opinions that match yours, also without any direct citations, is equally uninspiring.

1) What is Bernie running for at this stage in the process?
2) Who is Bernie running against at this stage in the race?
3) What distinction is he trying to draw with his rhetoric and his campaign?
4) What does it mean for us to have a Corrupt Campaign Finance System™ and for Bernie to claim not to be in it?

Some hints:

1) Bernie is running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. (He's not running for President.)
2) Bernie is running against HRC. (He's not running against Dick Nixon or Trump or Cruz.)
3) Bernie is overtly and implicitly saying that he is different from and better than HRC because of the way he finances his campaign, (among other things).
4) Bernie is overtly and implicitly saying he is not part of the Corrupt Campaign Finance System™ "$27!!" (A corrupt system that does not corrupt people inside it isn't much of a system, is it?)

What other reasonable interpretation is there for the 4 things outlined above? He's running against her. He's screaming about her "corrupt" fundraisers. He's screaming about the "corrupt" people who send her money. Yet he's not saying she's corrupt for taking the money? Really? Then what's "corrupt" about it?!?

The verbal and written dots are there and Weaver and the rest of his campaign have connected them. J has heard them loud and clear in them calling her "corrupt".

Just because he didn't use the explicit words doesn't mean that he is not and his campaign is not saying it.

To be clear, Bernie and his campaign aren't stupid enough to say it outright because they know it would be suicide for his future. And implicit is enough to get the message out - it's politics. I see that he's playing politics. You're apparently too taken with his "Starman" image to see it.

That's ok. People are different. ;-)

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #409,179 by mmoffitt 4/6/16 2:09:14 PM 4/6/16 2:09:14 PM Reply	Huh? I say again, "Huh?" I asked you to cite where Sanders himself, not a surrogate, called her, personally, corrupt. That hasn't happened. He's calling the finance system corrupt. He did say this in one of your links Emphasis Mine.: Speaking to CNN, Mr Sanders said it was "obscene that Secretary Clinton keeps going to big-money people to fund her campaign". ... “I have a lot of respect for George Clooney. He’s a great actor. I like him,” Mr Sanders said. “But this is the problem with American politics. "It’s not a criticism of Clooney. It’s a criticism of a corrupt campaign finance system, where big money interests... have undue influence on the political process.” You think a $350,000.00 a ticket "fund raiser" for anybody isn't obscene? It is horrifically obscene. If I were a Hillary apologist and wanted to have her make inroads with Sanders supporters, when asked about that comment, I'd tell her to say, "Yes. Senator Sanders is correct. A 350K per seat fundraiser is obscene. I hate it, but until we change campaign financing the way I want to change it, this is what must be done. I am as much a victim of this process as anyone." It would ring hollow, of course, but that's on the candidate. Your second link offering opinions that match yours, also without any direct citations, is equally uninspiring.
Post #409,182 by Another Scott 4/6/16 2:46:00 PM 4/6/16 2:46:00 PM Reply	Riddle me this, Batman. 1) What is Bernie running for at this stage in the process? 2) Who is Bernie running against at this stage in the race? 3) What distinction is he trying to draw with his rhetoric and his campaign? 4) What does it mean for us to have a Corrupt Campaign Finance System™ and for Bernie to claim not to be in it? Some hints: 1) Bernie is running for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. (He's not running for President.) 2) Bernie is running against HRC. (He's not running against Dick Nixon or Trump or Cruz.) 3) Bernie is overtly and implicitly saying that he is different from and better than HRC because of the way he finances his campaign, (among other things). 4) Bernie is overtly and implicitly saying he is not part of the Corrupt Campaign Finance System™ "$27!!" (A corrupt system that does not corrupt people inside it isn't much of a system, is it?) What other reasonable interpretation is there for the 4 things outlined above? He's running against her. He's screaming about her "corrupt" fundraisers. He's screaming about the "corrupt" people who send her money. Yet he's not saying she's corrupt for taking the money? Really? Then what's "corrupt" about it?!? The verbal and written dots are there and Weaver and the rest of his campaign have connected them. J has heard them loud and clear in them calling her "corrupt". Just because he didn't use the explicit words doesn't mean that he is not and his campaign is not saying it. To be clear, Bernie and his campaign aren't stupid enough to say it outright because they know it would be suicide for his future. And implicit is enough to get the message out - it's politics. I see that he's playing politics. You're apparently too taken with his "Starman" image to see it. That's ok. People are different. ;-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,185 by mmoffitt 4/6/16 4:48:33 PM 4/6/16 4:48:33 PM Reply	He's not a superhero. Just a standard issue 1965 Democrat.

Welcome to IWETHEY!