2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA critical thinking response to "Hillary is a corporate shill" memes.
This is a diary from Dailykos.
Now lets break this all down. This is for over 17 years running 2 US Senate races in one of the largest states with the most expensive media market, and 2 Presidential campaigns in which shes raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Because corporations cannot directly donate to a candidate, this is looking primarily at what organizations a donor like me actually works for. When I donate to a candidate, I have to report who I work for and then that corporation appears to be the donor in these type of tallies, even though they arent. The GDP of New York is 48 times that of Vermont. So for any source of funds for any statewide race in NY vs. VT $48 donated in NY is equivalent to $1 donated in VT.
So who is the largest evil corporation that donated to her campaigns? Emilys list-A feminist organization with the mission of electing women.
2nd is not Citigroup itself, but people who work for them. Lets imagine incorrectly that Citigroup itself actually donated $850,000 over 17 years. That would mean the largest financial donor gave about $50,000 per year. Remember though, that isnt true, its people that work for Citigroup and they are a huge employer and are based in the state she represented in the Senate. In the current race shes raised $188 million, and Sanders has raised close to $100 million. The argument that she is owned by Citigroup, or Goldman Sachs, or any other is a joke. Lets imagine Citigroup actually gave her or her PACs $850,000 this cycle. That would be a whopping 0.45%! But remember, the real percentage is a very small fraction of that because its from Citigroup employees to all her campaigns over 17 years.
....
And that video of Elizabeth Warren saying she changed her vote on a bankruptcy bill because of Wall Street? Dig deeper, (http://billmoyers.com/story/just-how-cozy-is-hillary-clinton-with-wall-street/) as there is a lot more to that story and Clinton voted the same as that far-right extremist Barbara Boxer.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/6/1497214/-A-critical-thinking-response-to-Hillary-is-a-corporate-shill-memes
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I know its not the 15th yet but I started early.
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)Sorry for having to ask - but with all the people being thrown under there these days, it's hard to keep up.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Its a very big bus so room is not a problem. I have seats available now. I don't put them under the bus anymore. I put them on the bus ( nice seats too) then the entire bus is pushed over the cliff. Who goes on the bus? All republicans, of course. In addition anyone and everyone that is contributing in any way to further fuck up this country and the american people by buying congress, promoting lies in the media, manipulating the vote with lies, manipulation, and underhanded tricks, anyone promoting more of the same policies that have come to a full head and are causing the non well off to live in poverty, without hope, in constant fear of bullshit arrest, unable to care for their families and living without joy in their lives.
Its a very big bus. Seating is now available
NanceGreggs
(27,817 posts)... by simply stating the obvious: Anyone who doesn't worship Bernie is going under the bus.
At least the under-the-bus folks have great company: Howard Dean, Al Franken, Gabby Giffords, John Lewis, Sybrina Fulton, EVERY Democrat who has endorsed HRC, EVERY journalist/blogger who has said anything positive about HRC, etc.
Must be quite the party going on under that bus (or ON that bus of yours), what with all that great company to keep!
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Then its less fun with lots of pant shitting, screaming, and the ol gnashing of teeth. Then the party really gets fun for everyone else.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least based on that paragraph.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)Or are so easily fooled to work to keep the rich in charge. If that's a majority then so be it. Over the cliff with them. The sooner, the better. Buy bye, and all that.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Under the bus is definitely looking like the place to be. Of course, in spite of pooped's gory imaginings, it would have been disabled long ago. We are not even a tenth as stupid as the righteous ones need us to be.
SunSeeker
(51,659 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)Let the data decide.
QED!
See link in OP. Just repeating the kind of meme that is being debunked on that diary, is kind of useless.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Where did you get it from?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Problem is, why should Obama be free of criticism. I like how Chrysos puts it in the comment section:
If Hillary is not at least soft corrupt, who is? What is the threshold for being a corporate politician? If Hillary doesnt meet that threshold, then most people in DC probably dont. If they dont why does big money have such a stranglehold on politics?
At least for me, the criticism of HRCs contributions are not about her individually. I condemn Obama for his and his work on the TPP, and I condemn all politicians for soliciting bribes from big money. Doesnt mean I dont think hes done good things, as has HRC. I think theyre both good people, and I like them. But am I going to pretend that they are not in some way, shape or form corrupt? Of course not. They are. The vast majority of Democrats are. Its the nature of the system. Thats why I support Bernie, because I feel our only recourse is to radically change the system. Im not convinced we can survive(climate change, etc.) without that kind of change. This is a much bigger issue than in 2008 because we actually have someone working outside that system. Its not Hillarys albatross alone, but that doesnt mean she cant be criticized for it.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Corporate super PAC money, literally fundraised from corporations, which she is now using to fight a primary battle against a candidate of the people. But no, no "critical thinking response" to that point, because there is none.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)I read this at open secrets~
I think its important to point out that about 3 percent of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world, Clinton said during Saturdays Democratic debate. You can go to OpenSecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.
Well, alright, Madam Secretary well go to OpenSecrets and check that. Spoiler: Clinton is technically right, but there are some important caveats. Like super PACs. But well get to that.
First, lets look at her campaign contributions. For what Clinton is trying to show, shell want a numerator that includes how much she has received from the securities and investment industry plus the commercial banking industry combined, thats what most people think of as Wall Street, and in her case, it comes to just about $2.5 million. Her denominator should be her total amount of individual contributions from people who gave more than $200 plus her PAC receipts, which adds up to $63.4 million.
.......snip.........
But Clintons statement ignores how dominant super PACs have become in the campaign finance picture. And donors in the securities and investment and commercial banking industries have given the super PACs backing Clinton more than $3.5 million out of the $20.3 million theyve raised overall from individuals, unions and other entities a healthy 17.2 percent. Virtually all of that $3.5 million came from the securities and investment industry rather than commercial banks, putting Wall Street at second place on Clintons list of top industry donors to her super PACs.
Bottom line: Taking into account donations to both outside groups and the Clinton campaign itself, Wall Street has provided about 7.2 percent of the funds backing Clinton more than double what she said on Saturday.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/12/actually-hillary-clintons-wall-street-money-more-than-double-that-3-percent/
Plus, the industry has already given her million$ in soft contributions via one hour speeches on nothingness.