WP gives Sanders three Pinocchios for Fossil Fuel Statements.

[Henhouse]

Washington Post fact check gives Sanders three Pinocchios for his statements on Clinton and the fossil fuel industry

The Pinocchio Test

The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry.

Three Pinocchios


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

[JaneyVee]

1. Not only proof of lying, but proof he's running a negative campaign.

[hobbit709]

2. Oh look, it must be the memo went out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511629566

[Henhouse]

3. If by "memo" you mean this morning's newspaper? Why yes...

Why are some of Sander's supporters so paranoid?

[hobbit709]

4. You're funny.

Paranoid?
someone makes an observation about two identical posts within an hour with the same smear.

[Snotcicles]

9. I think you are onto something. nt.

[CorporatistNation]

42. Washington Post Is A Propaganda Rag! This Is Not About Low Level Employee Contributions It Is About

ENERGY INDUSTRY LOBBYIST BUNDLERS! Three Pinocchios? Pure unadulterated BullSh**! "Establishment" Mouthpiece!

[Bill USA]

59. "smear" from the WaPo fact-checker?? Paranoid, or the same tactic as the GOP when confronted with

valid criticism... attack the messenger --not criticism of the arguments presented, or of the analysis.... just name calling, demonization: ..."It's a smear!!!!"...IOW: unfair criticism, therefore such criticsm MUST be driven by evil motives.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

31. Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now

what did the post say about this issue

[riversedge]

5. Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! GREAT subtitle memo also. thanks for link

[hobbit709]

6. I will say the same thing I said there. Are there any unburnt remnants of your pants?

[riversedge]

7. @DemsUWMadison @uwecCollegeDems Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

And you get the prize of a tweet for your post.

@DemsUWMadison @uwecCollegeDems Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/ … #feeltheBern NOT

[AgingAmerican]

24. The article admits she took the money

Reading is fundamental...

[KPN]

36. Yup.

The article is laughable. It makes the same lame case that Hillary herself makes -- basically: just because someone gives me a lot of money doesn't mean I'm corrupt and favor them as a result; show me evidence that I have favored anyone in exchange for money.

That's sort of like saying you can't prove that God does/doesn't exist, you can't prove that human activity is a primary cause of current climate change.

It also then tries to make the case that the fossil fuel industry contributions to her campaign are insignificant because they only represent 2% of total contributions ... so now we kknow that $4.5 million is not a significant amount of money and certainly wouldn't cause someone like Hillary to act or feel beholden to that industry. I guess when you compare it to the 9% or so she has received from the finance industry it does tend to shrink its effect (LOL).

The Clinton machine was obviously on overdrive yesterday getting stuff into this morning's media to "artfully smear" Bernie. ... A sure sign of panic ... or is it desperation?

[riversedge]

69. You missed the main point of the article

[Uponthegears]

8. Welcome to DU

Henhouse.

Could I add a little bit more from the "Factcheck" article from the newspaper that has already endorsed Clinton

So that adds up to more than $4.5 million. That’s certainly a bigger number than $333,000, but it’s still only 2 percent of the total contributions received by Clinton and outside groups backing her.

$4.5 million is "hardly significant" only in a post-Buckley v. Valeo world where a millionaire has a million times more "free speech" than a worker.

Oh, and saying that funds donated by bundlers representing multiple clients DON'T come from one client without PROOF is as much a Pinocchio as saying that they DO. Maybe a little more "fact-checking" should have been done before calling that "misleading."

Btw, do I need to mention that the fact Hillary might be getting big donations from CIGNA (one of the biggest vultures using loopholes in the ACA to rip-off consumers) instead of the oil and gas industry is not much of a defense?

Bottom line is Hillary had the opportunity to swear off sipping from the oil industry Camelback and chose to side AGAINST GREENPEACE.

Her choice, her consequences.

[FlatBaroque]

10. Sorry, Team Clinton is still working on refining the talking points so that are translated

into 100% Clintonese.

[Henhouse]

11. I've been a member since 2002 but, thanks for the welcome...

I've been a Democrat for over 30 years and I do not share Senator Sanders negative view of corporate and business interest. I'm a capitalist, not a socialist. I care about the environment but I also understand that our nation's energy policy has to respond to the citizen's need for an affordable and reliable sources of fuel to run our cars, heat our homes and power our workplaces.

And as an aside, I also understand that Senator Sanders blames all the woes of the world on free/fair trade but I happen like to my safe and affordable Honda Accord and inexpensive electronics that improve the quality of my life.

I'm saving for retirement and not burried in student loans so, I appreciate that Sanders supporters see things differently.

Anyhow, thanks for the welcome and your reasoned response.... I rarely comment at DU but I do come here to catch up on the news and read posts.

[hopemountain]

14. thanks for letting us know you are a far right democrat.

do you consider yourself a reagan democrat? will you vote republican in the general when bernie is the nominee?

[Henhouse]

15. Gee Hopemountain...Not sure what provoked your attack but I've been a Democrat a lot longer...

than Senator Sanders.

I've always considered myself liberal on social issues, conservative on fiscal issues and on foreign policy, I tend to be more interventionist than isolationist.

I voted for President Carter in 1980 when I was 20 years old and I've voted Democrat ever since but, even if I hadn't, why would you not welcome me to the party?

[hopemountain]

21. of course you are welcome to the party.

but, i found the tone of your op self righteous, arrogant and superior. you discount the democratic socialist and the grassroots populace. i have considered myself a democrat socialist for over 35 years. there are many shades of democracy, i understand this - but how can there be social, economic and environmental justice when capitalist conservatives reap all of the profits and are so conservative fiscally to spur their almighty profits? there can be a balance, of course. but i do not see this today. capitalism has hit the ceiling resulting in a fascist response to control the people and the government. as long as we are by the people and for the people - and not the corporations, i'm fine with you calling yourself a democratic capitalist.

[AgingAmerican]

22. So you are right wing on fiscal issues?

So are you a supply sider or a Libertarian?

[Henhouse]

33. Not just no but hell no on "trickle down"...

Definitely not Libertarian. I believe in government regulation of industry. Where I differ with Senator Sanders and agree with Secretary Clinton is in my belief that private industry, whether it is health insurance or finance, often can do a better job handling certain segments of the economy.

I'm a Registered Nurse who is close to retirement and I don't have a lot of faith in government run health insurance or retirement (social security). I support a safety net but I like having commercial/private options, as opposed to only government options. i.e Medicare Advantage Plans as opposed to original Medicare or the VA system.

As I said earlier, I have been a Democrat for the majority of my life and I believe my policy positions put me firmly in the Democratic camp.

[quickesst]

54. See it didn't take you long

.... to find out that if you don't worship at the altar of Saint Bernard, it is not if you will be attacked, it's simply a matter of when. Water off a duck's back.

[Henhouse]

55. Thanks Quickesst...I'm just going to shake it off...and carry on. :-)n/t

[quickesst]

62. good for you

Sometimes I think it's hard for some to understand that everyone is not cast from the same mold, and either can't understand it, or resent it. Go figure.

[ibegurpard]

23. you're more generous than me

Sounds like this is a person who lost their way from the Republican Party.

[hopemountain]

25. ...

thank you. it must be hell to justify depleting our natural resources for fossil fuel reserves that are already 5Xs what we will ever need according to the fossil fuel industry's stockpiles - when every other major country in the world is supporting and providing funding and infrastructure for non fossil fuel energy sources - not including nuclear.

[KPN]

44. You are right!

[KPN]

41. Thanks for letting us know you've got yours

and are just fine with fiddling while the world burns. ... Really -- too much!

BTW, I've got mine as well. I already am retired, have been for several years and live in a nice house on a fantastic piece of property in a great location, and am financially secure with no debt and not dependent on Social Security. AND I"M 100% FOR BERNIE and his views regarding what ails our nation and what needs to be done about it.

I am privileged to have what I have out of life, but I haven't let that privilege or desire to attain it get in the way of me seeing the urgency of today.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. True but this doesnt matter to GOP and their trolls, their tolls use this against her to

harm her chances in November, assuming she gets that far.

So the messenger is very important in these situations.

So I wont make accusations, only to say it is interesting to see who pushes this meme and others, like the phony email story.

[Uponthegears]

34. I appreciate your sentiments

but I have to wonder how the Republican candidate who emerges from their brokered conviction (quite possibly one Paul Ryan, the House majority leader) will use Secretary Clinton's coziness with Corporate America against her.

This, in turn, makes me wonder whether her supporters who raise this argument do so solely to stifle ANY criticism of Secretary Clinton. After all, if criticizing her on an issue only Democrats care about is off-limits, how would ANY criticism be permissible?

Btw, because, like the vast majority of Senator Sander's supporters, I do believe that we should be talking about what should be the Democratic Party'supplies priorities, I agree that the "email controversy" is pretty much BS.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

40. How can entirely bought and paid for attack partially bought and paid for and win?

This is simple, if you dont crawl across cut glass to get to the polling booth this November to vote a straight Democratic ticket, there is something wrong with you.

[KPN]

45. I'm inclined to agree

but I certainly won't like doing so if I'm voting for Hillary.

We need to change our campaign finance system; we need to get corporations (profit maximization) out of governance; we need to take good care of everyone, not just the privileged, in order to have a sustainable society; and we need to do these things soon -- it is urgent NOW (all you have to do is look at the numbers that support Bernie, Trump, Cruz -- they support real change).

I simply have no confidence that Hillary will make significant dents in any of these key issues as President. Bernie certainly won't accomplish much of what he says he will do with today's Congress (on both sides of the aisle frankly), but I think he is far more likely to start any political negotiations from a position that mirror's his supporter's interests, as opposed to the interests of corporations (e.g., what Obama did with the ACA).

[Uponthegears]

49. You do see

The difference between voting for the Democratic Party nominee and averting our gaze from Secretary Clinton's dependence on corporate funding and pro-corporate philosophy, don't you? It's the difference between loyalty and subservience.

[giftedgirl77]

32. So, because he didn't get as much it's ok?

He got it, period. His entire issue was HRC taking $$ from fossil fuel companies. Come to find out he is too, just not as much. That my friend is the perfect definition of a hypocrite.

[Uponthegears]

35. Friend

$50K from small donors vs. $4.5 million of dark money funneled into PACS by bundlers.

Hypocrisy implies equivalence and that is the epitome of a false equivalence.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

43. When will they figure out none of this matters. What difference will it make to the women

self aborting because President Cruz appointed justices overturning Roe?

If they survive, that is.

[Uponthegears]

50. You do realize

that Centrist Democrats' betrayal of liberal policies and values can be, and has been, just as responsible for a Democrat loss in a presidential election as liberals voting their conscience, right?

[cosmicone]

12. He has been lying all along .. media are just now catching up n/t

[jmg257]

13. "In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant"

[LexVegas]

16. More lies. Not surprised. A dishonorable man. nt

[AgingAmerican]

20. Did you read it?

The article says she took the money, but it was "only" $4.5 million!

[Sunlei]

17. Siding against GreenPeace was wrong of Mrs. Clinton. She's a citygirl and Corps will 'snooker' her,

just like President Obama got snookered by Salazar & friends for years. He finally understood, but his entire first term was wasted.

[mcar]

18. K&R

[AgingAmerican]

19. Hillary shill article says she "only" took $4.5 m?

From the fossil fuel industry?

[oasis]

30. 4.5 million does less damage than 3 pinocchios on Bernie's spotless image.

[dana_b]

38. right?

And then discounted it because it's only 2% of her donations. That's actually significant. Out of ALL of the lobby money in addition to regular contributions, 2% is a significant amount.

[Skwmom]

26. Corporate Tabloid Trash. Propaganda tool for the Amazon's Sweatshop King

[Armstead]

27. One Giant Pinnochio for Clinton's followers

Naw, the presence of lobbyists and Big Corporate backers and Donors make no difference. Our system is totally clean.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511630233#post4

[KPN]

46. How about we modify that -- 4.5 Million Giant Pinnochio's for Clinton's followers

[Sheepshank]

28. It's not the first time he has lied and it will continue

Bernie has been feeding false campaign finance info since day one of his campaign The campaign finance smears all started with the false talking point that he doesn't have a Super PAC.

[dana_b]

37. oh, so they didn't "give" her the money. Was it loaned to her then?

Maybe at $300% interest (Hi Debbie!!)? Or do they just like the word "raised" better than "given"? How about "provided", "donated" or "bestowed"? "The lobbyists bestowed upon her, this amount of money" - there. Is that better?

"So that adds up to more than $4.5 million. That’s certainly a bigger number than $333,000, but it’s still only 2 percent of the total contributions received by Clinton and outside groups backing her. Indeed, the Center for Responsive Politics does not list oil and gas as one of top 20 industries contributing to Clinton’s campaign."

So she still took 4.5M dollars from them. Sorry, WaPo - that's a shitload of money. And don't discount it because it's "only 2%". Considering all of the lobby money out there in addition to regular people contributions, 2% is actually a fair amount of money.

WaPo has it's nose so firmly up her butt that anything that they say/write should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[belcanto]

39. Great News

Hen, thanks! Now if only THIS could dominate some of the media attention instead of news stations zeroing in on Bernie to hear his expert 'take' on Clinton's funding sources. He is infuriating me with his hostile attacks to discredit her before everyone goes to the polls.

Why doesn't someone demand to hear how his Medicare For All and Free College plans are going to work, given what is already in place. HOW, not just cost estimates which don't mean much to the average consumer, like me, who lives and budgets on a week to week or month to month basis. We don't think in billion and trillion dollar figures!

Just joined this site because I noticed that someone has already started a thread about this, but couldn't resist opening yours first! Thanks again!

[djean111]

48. Yes, that is a problem, the media paying too much attention to Bernie. Not.

Looks like your problem is that any attention is paid to Bernie.
'bye!

[Henhouse]

56. Thanks Belcanto....

I've been lurking here for years but I usually don't post but, I have not been able to sit on my hands for the last few months with so much dishonesty and negativity coming out of the Sanders campaign.

I think the media has held their fire on Sanders until his campaign went negative. Maybe now we will actually look at where he is on the issues.

[belcanto]

61. Accidently (dishonestly? LOL) lost long response...

in answer to first crit of my post here Henhouse, but something else I just read says it far better than I ever could. You'll like this:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/02/stop-parroting-gop-lies-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html

[KPN]

47. The Clinton smear-Bernie machine has been working in high gear the past 24 hours.

Which is it? panic or desperation?

[noretreatnosurrender]

51. A Badge of Honor

This is a badge of honor if it's coming from WaPo.

[SHRED]

52. Here is a Hillary NO PINOCCHIOS

The State Department under Hillary's leadership promoted hydraulic fracking worldwide while working closely with big oil interests.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511630955

http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

..

[dana_b]

53. posted already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1630479

And it's still crap.

[oasis]

57. Kick

[DesertRat]

58. k&r

[snowy owl]

60. Don't care. Record: flipped sort of on fracking;flipped sort of on TPP;flipped sort of on Keystone

Sort of? Because she changed as Bernie advanced. Who can trust her?

[SHRED]

64. Important points...thanks

[Lucinda]

63. TY ~ KNR

[Number23]

65. Proving that she was 100% justified in her anger. Not that it will mean anything to the people

who's hobby seems to be to tear her down at all costs, even if they have to lie to do so.

[wildeyed]

66. "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions."

AKA "mostly false".

Yep, that is #berniemath for you.... Inconvenient facts that don't fit the narrative get twisted or ignored.

[HumanityExperiment]

67. Can't explain this away.. but go ahead and try HRC supporters

HRC is republican light and liberals / progressives know this... so her pushing fracking as SoS goes against those liberal / progressive ideals

She's is bought and paid for fossil fuel shill and this election cycle and her recent outburst just further validates that fact

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2016/march/pavillion-fracking-water-032916.html

[Gothmog]

68. And yet Sanders wants an apology for being caught in a lie