2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFossil fuels - Sanders 4 100ths of 1%, Clinton 15 100ths of 1% of total donations.
"Totally bogus charge against Hillary Clinton" says Mark Shields.
Sorry that I couldn't paste "URL at current time". It defaults to the start, but go to 39:17 for the Democratic discussion.
GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)Hillary Clinton has SuperPacs and Dark Money groups... Did you include donations to those?
She also has her Clinton Foundation did you include all the millions that oil companies have donated to that?
Arneoker
(375 posts)I don't often agree with Ted Cruz, but he was right that Trump couldn't pin that ad showing Melania on him. Same thing applies here.
The Clinton Foundation pushes charitable causes, and is no way a PAC.
revbones
(3,660 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)need a bridge?
George II
(67,782 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Clinton derangement syndrome.
George II
(67,782 posts).........doing a great job as President, which I'm sure Clinton will do from day 1.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Since you include the Clinton Foundation how about all that money Jane Sanders has squirreled away somewheres.
When will the Sanders release more of their tax information. They make/made WAY more money than they show in last years short form.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Now y'all are just flinging lies about his wife at the wall and hoping it will stick.
WTF?!
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)You guys are trying to a use a small technicality to hide a lie ...
... when that lie is an elephant in the room.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's illegal for them to try to tell them what to do
think
(11,641 posts)GeorgiaPeanuts
(2,353 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,374 posts)SBS knows exactly what he is saying and that what he is saying is a lie.
You have to try to deflect with your SuperPACS remarks, of course. But that begs the question. If there is any obfuscation, deflection, or failure to recognize what is happening here, it is not coming from stating facts about donations to the SBS and HRC campaigns.
Period. But please proceed.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Or is it just argue anything never surrender?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It is illegal for Clinton to try to tell Priorities what to do or not to do. Do you at least acknowledge that very basic fact?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)Hand signals?
--imm
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Amazing what 25 years of right-wing smears will do
AzDar
(14,023 posts)Koinos
(2,792 posts)Just curious:
https://gobling.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/new-fec-tells-bernie-2016-to-account-for-10m/
Full text of the letter from the FEC to Bernie's campaign can be found here:
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/542/201603300300040542/201603300300040542.pdf
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Please continue to believe that SuperPACs don't work with the candidate in many ways.
Citizens United vs Government thanks you.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Again, pretty basic stuff for people who claim to care about this
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Citizens United vs FEC and Speechnow.org vs FEC both thank you
SuperPACs are working on behalf of the candidate they support even if there is no legal control and we all know that they co-ordinate strategies and have found loopholes like the Internet loophole.
I've seen David Brock on CNN a lot in the last day and he sounds like he is in lock step with the Clinton campaign.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)I don't even know what you are talking about now.
Now some will reply, "What about the oil lobbyists, and their bundling?" What about them? I suspect most of the "oil lobbyists" are typical K Street, hired gun lobbyists, who will work for whomever. Perhaps not the people a progressive feels swell about associating with, but their support doesn't indicate that the politician benefitting is a pawn of Big Oil.
As is so often the case, I think that there is lot less here that the hype would seem to indicate.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)The full sentence is clearer.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It's making lose respect for people I really WANT to respect.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Won't make a dent in her campaign if its is so insignificant?
Arneoker
(375 posts)Bottom line, Hillary is 99.9% certain to be much better on climate change than Trumpo the Clown or ly'in Ted. And I believe that she is considerably likelier to get some real results than Sanders, whose crusades would be countered powerful, and no less fervent, counter-crusades, with the fence-sitters reluctant to go on board with Bernie.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Politicians promises inevitably get sucked down the rathole of corporate influence. If tghat were not the case, we'd already have been much more proactive on making progress.
Bernie at least is cutting off thecorruption at the source.
That's why it matters.
Arneoker
(375 posts)You really think Bernie getting into the WH means that the big corporations are going to lose their considerable influence? The only realistic hope, for the next four to eight years, is that a President might incrementally minimize it. Or at least hold the line. (Now maybe those could be big increments, but I wouldn't count on it.)
It's so much more than campaign contributions. Think about it.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And if the Democratic Party would end its recto-cranial inversion of the last 35 years, it would be a huge step
Arneoker
(375 posts)You might check with one of the millions of those who previously lacked health insurance, for example. (Not saying that ACA can't be improved upon, obviously it can.)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I wish I found that surprising, but the fact is I don't.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Much more could have been accomplished -- or at least the stage set for much more, if the Democrats had weaned themselves from the corporate straight-jacket and more aggressively fought from a clearly liberal perspective.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)or WJC's or any two terms of FDR's.
The blinders alleged progressives put on to refuse to simply admit that are staggering.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)Nor, as someone said above, do they HAVE PACs.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)uponit7771
(90,367 posts)Thus would be closer
MADem
(135,425 posts)It seems like they're getting desperate in the final days. Any old falsehood to generate ire, even if it's just not true. Sad. It looks like they're going out on a very low and ugly note.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)HillareeeHillaraah
(685 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,230 posts)betsuni
(25,690 posts)Very useful.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)And don't tell me she and her staff aren't coordinating directly with the SuperPAC's. To ignore the SuperPAC money is entirely disingenuous.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... and the far left and far right are both out for blood to find any infraction they can. They haven't found it because it isn't there.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)lostnfound
(16,193 posts)The point isn't whether or not the superpac-supported ads coordinate or even whether they succeed in helping her win the election.
These lobbyists contribute to help specific candidates win because they believe those candidates are more likely to help their cause.
So WHY do they believe that she would help their cause?
Gothmog
(145,667 posts)SunSeeker
(51,745 posts)He appears to want to defeat her at all cost and has forgotten about the issues.