My point was, what’s great for him as senator from Vermont doesn’t really mean much as a candidate for president, because no matter how much they donate, it isn’t going to move the needle on a national scale.

It really doesn’t mean that much in the grand scheme of things, it is where he has the most established donor network already, and it is a state with an incredibly small population. Yes, his constituents are happy with him, but it’s not too difficult to get a high per capita number when you have a lot of regular…

I’d be angry too if Sanders was encouraging me to flush my hard-earned money down the toilet. The anger is sometimes misplaced.

Chris Matthews was telegraphing that tax return gotcha from a mile away, and Weaver waltzed straight into it, and it was glorious. He’s got that perma-smirk of the asshole in the poli-sci class who genuinely believes he’s smarter than everyone else in the room when he’s demonstrably NOT.

You are really easily manipulated. Data without context is meaning less.

Weaver is in over his head. Did you catch his conversation with Chris Matthews and Barney Frank? You have to be really incompetent if someone like Tweety Bird is destroying you in an interview.

Except for that horrible accent, he’s pretty much all Vermonster.

100 % of Sanders donations since March 15th have been donated to a lost cause/vanity campaign.

I feel like Jia is stating facts without making a moral judgement here, she didn’t call anyone freeloaders. The headline seemed appropriate to me too.

But we all knew that already. SuperPACs have only existed since 2010. Before the Citizens United ruling (made for a film against Hillary Clinton), corporations and unions were incapable of donating to campaigns. There was an individual limit of $2,500 and that’s it. And, unless he defeats Clinton, it won’t prove that…

Didn’t Obama do it with mostly ‘micro-donations’? In any event, good to see that it can be done.

His campaign manager was just terrible.

Fascinating. All that money and Sanders did that bad means to me his campaign manager isn't getting that same job any time soon.

Vermonters generally are happy with Sanders, but that’s an average and Vermont is a small state. A few big donors can skew it pretty easily. The % of Vermonters who donated would be more indicative of a happy constituency.

It is a quick way to let other students and visitors be aware of the situation. I get what you’re saying, but most lockdown procedures for schools are available to the public anyways.

This is a very complicated issue that won’t be fixed just by legalizing it. I actually agree with him that legal prostitution commodifies women’s bodies (and to a smaller extent, men’s bodies) and that’s not ok with this feminist.

Everything he’s saying applies to sex workers who are trafficked, coerced, or forced by desperate circumstances into an industry they don’t really want to be in, but it doesn’t apply to sex workers who are working safely, legally and by choice. To be fair to President Carter, there are more in the first category.…

Yeah, honestly he is saying a lot of things that are true and things that clearly come from compassion. It’s a complex issue without a perfect solution right now and I appreciate anyone who is trying to understand it without being completely sexist. I do think he is probably wrong about a lot, but wrong in a less bad…

Agree. I feel like calling Carter’s editorial “bad” and “awful” is a gross simplification of a complex issue. While I don’t necessarily agree with Jimmy, there are a fair amount of feminists and organizations that do.

And unfortunately if you look at countries with legalized sex work sex trafficking has not disappeared... it’s just easier to hide. There are more men who want to buy sex than there are women willing to sell sex, and there are awful people willing to take advantage of that.