| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 1/31/2012
Posts: 19,942
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Y'all can shut up now, thank you.
 |
Clock it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Y'all can shut up now, thank you.
|
Quote:
|
Hillary takes more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate
|
LOL
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 3,624
|
Yay! It's april 1st, New York primary in just 18 days. Lets have early predictions!!!
Hillary: 59%
Bernie: 41%
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Y'all can shut up now, thank you.
|
If they wanted to talk about lobbyist, then they should have talked about lobbyists. Lobbying isn't new. It predates Citizens United. Of course that doesn't make it right or moral. I would be in favor of legislation drastically limiting lobbyists' power; however, that would risk being struck down by the SCOTUS.
Anyways, as HeyMrDJ's article states...
Quote:
Those lobbyists, though, are a much stronger representative of the way money influences politics than are campaign contributions. It is literally a lobbyist's job to build relationships with elected officials that can then be leveraged by clients to influence policy. It's relationships, not money, that drive politics in Washington. Yes, money helps build relationships, which is why the lobbyists are bundling. But they aren't just doing so for Chevron, Exxon, et al. The link is murkier than that. The system is often ugly and frequently questionable, but it's usually not as ugly and obvious as quid pro quo.
Greenpeace's understanding of money, oil and the presidential race was simplistic -- as if nuance played any real role in presidential politics. Clinton was justified in being annoyed. A narrower focus on Clinton's fundraising from lobbyists would be much harder to brush off.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...l-fundraising/
Edit: They cite Center for Responsive Politics, yet the number Greenpeace states is coming from "total lobbyists" not "fossil fuel lobbyists". You know solar and wind industry have lobbyists too? They're just far out numbered.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
If you don't get it now you're either trolling or you won't get it. Whatever Javan  |
This is one thing I can't stand about Hillary supporters, cos much like the candidate they support they are constantly deflecting with vague statements like this.
Get what? What is there to get? If there is something I've overlooked, if there is misinformation, EXPLAIN it to me. Cackle emojis, and statements like this doesnt resolve your position at all.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Washington Post is one of the most biased sources. They published 16 negative Bernie articles in the span of 24 hours.
Bye 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TheLastChord
The Bernie fumes all over the internet
Seriously, there was no need for any of this. The problem is Bernie is cheating his followers making them think he has a realistic shot. He doesn't and he knows that. So either he is just interested in money or he lowkey wants Trump as a president if his strategy is to hurt Hillary as hard as he can. It's not like that has worked for him at all up to this point. |
He does have a shot which is why he's still in it 
I'll say it again: Bernie is the most electable candidate.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Does getting more money from lobbyists inherently make you bad? You know Bernie Sanders gets more from lobbyists than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. I guess Trump and Cruz are more "anti establishment" than Sanders is.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/se...2&type=f&src=c
The difference is negligible, so best case scenario Cruz and Trump are equal to Sanders when it comes to being influenced? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Marvin
Washington Post is one of the most biased sources. They published 16 negative Bernie articles in the span of 24 hours.
Bye |
They use the same source as Greenpeace, Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). Attack CRP then not Washington Post. Also, dismissing a news source because of its bias would mean I could dismiss anything from Huffingtonpost, USUncut, TYT, etc. I know some people here do dismiss those, but I don't.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 3,624
|
Quote:
Originally posted by HeyMr.DJ
Yay! It's april 1st, New York primary in just 18 days. Lets have early predictions!!!
Hillary: 59%
Bernie: 41%
|
Guys??? Come onnnnn
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RatedG²
|
YIKES @ you misquoting the article lol, it says "it",
"She obviously doesn't like IT". get it together baby
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Benzene
You can't be serious. All they'd have to say is that "he can't manage his own money, how can he manage the country's?" Throw in a quip about how he spends with reckless abandon and how he'll increase the federal deficit and it'll be all she wrote. EASIEST attack ad of all time.
These are people who made WAR HERO John Kerry look weak, yet y'all think welfare collecting, accomplishment-less, socialist, illegitimate child-having grumpy old man Bernie is teflon? WaiT. Hillary really has been too nice. |
Federal debt has increased under Obama but he has favorable ratings... still not understanding the connection.
The second paragraph is embarrassing. So now people who ever collected welfare shouldn't be president? Why should it matter if people have had hardships in the past? Not everyone is born into a wealthy family. He has accomplishments. Obama was called a socialist. An "illegitimate child" as in out of wedlock? Tons of people voting for Hillary (and the others) have "illegitimate children" also 
This is honestly just DISGUSTING, and all are horrible reasons to attack anyone. Trying to act better than someone for what, you seem like a very judgmental person 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Does getting more money from lobbyists inherently make you bad? You know Bernie Sanders gets more from lobbyists than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. I guess Trump and Cruz are more "anti establishment" than Sanders is.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/se...2&type=f&src=c
The difference is negligible, so best case scenario Cruz and Trump are equal to Sanders when it comes to being influenced? |
but who sits pretty at the top of that list? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Hilary Shmilary PAC
Women Against Hillary
It's About Killary
Dick Morris' Just Say no to Her!
No to HRC 2016
|
Wait at all these being official PACs.   They're raising like no money though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
but who sits pretty at the top of that list? |
Please, see my other posts.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
The attempt to imply that someone who's ever collected welfare, or someone that's ever had a hard time in their life, isn't fit to be president is just... pathetic. Not everyone gets it right their first time.
And that has NOTHING to do with their ideas and leadership skills... a mess.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
oh and
Quote:
|
If a guy who runs the commissary at Chevron in California gives $27 to Bernie Sanders, that's counted as "oil and gas industry" money.
|
54,000 is perfectly divisible by 27 obviously that's where the $54,000 came from
and that's from the washington post article lol
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
oh and
54,000 is perfectly divisible by 27 obviously that's where the $54,000 came from
and that's from the washington post article lol
|
Welp 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/3/2010
Posts: 71,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Andres
YIKES @ you misquoting the article lol, it says "it",
"She obviously doesn't like IT". get it together baby
|
Whoops 
Though to be fair I got that headline straight from The Hill. So... 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
What I don't understand is, isn't Greenpeace an environmental organisation. If Hillary was going to make good on environmental issues why would they attack her? 
I think I'll trust their word over ATRLers, as they genuinely care about these issues 
|
|
|
|
|
|
