| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MiaBella
Where is the dirty money though? Dirty money implies that she's receiving money from mob bosses or some mess. It implies that she's receiving money that was made from illegal activities.
|
Thats why people use those loaded terms, because of the connotations attached to them. I mean of course, HILLARY CLINTON IS A CROOK!!!
Like they're legit taking so many pages out of GOP's playbook when it comes to Hillary and its so sad.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 26,816
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Giselle
A bad corporation makes a charitable donation and somehow that equates to "dirty money"? Is there a missing link here? Or did you just find an article and run with it? |
What charity??
I get that "dirty" might be an extreme term...but when we're living in a world that needs to be phasing out fossil fuels because of our current climate status, taking a ton of money from fossil fuel lobbyists isn't a good look.
And I never claimed Hillary was a crook......
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
What charity??
|
Um... The Clinton Foundation  Do you mean to tell me you came in here posting about The Clinton Foundation and didn't even know what it was?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 26,816
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Giselle
Um... The Clinton Foundation Do you mean to tell me you came in here posting about The Clinton Foundation and didn't even know what it was? |
I just knew of it as a "foundation" and wasn't sure of its charitable specifics.
And hey, I'm here to learn things too! I'm not a know-it-all (unlike many HRC/Bernie supporters).
The Clintons should use that money to fight fossil fuel and climate change.
But I'm sure the reasoning behind these lobbyists' donations is because of the Foundation's great charity work. 
IMO, Taking money from that industry for anything right now is not good for America.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 26,816
|
4 Myths Keeping Clinton Afloat
SOURCE
Myth #1 – Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans in the general election
Myth #2 – Hillary knows how to get things done
Myth #3 – Sanders isn’t a real Democrat and he isn’t doing anything to help the Party’s downballot candidates
Myth #4 – Her experience gives her an edge
My fave part:
Quote:
But if you believe that being a Democrat is about values, not labels, then Sanders is doing a tremendous amount to help the Democratic Party at all levels of government.
The fact of the matter is, the Democratic Party left the people behind decades ago, when they embraced the pay-to-play political model that now dominates our elections and our governance.
Hillary helps status quo Democrats who wear the label, without necessarily embracing the values that once defined the Party as the Party of the people.
So what is Sanders doing to help Democrats?
He’s making it safe run on the New Deal values that defined the Party for much of the 20th Century. That’s the Party that brought unprecedented prosperity to our country from the end of World War II until the 1980’s.
Since then, the Party has been running from the notion that government can be a force for good; that it could and should assure a level playing field for all, both economically and socially; that capitalism was in need of strong regulation and restraint if it was to serve the masses rather than the few; that our planet was worthy of protection and preservation.
|
Any thoughts from the HRC clan??
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
IMO, Taking money from that industry for anything right now is not good for America.
|
I'm really curious as to why? So, if you started a charity to help homeless people and a fossil fuel company was wanting to donate a million dollars, you would reject it? That makes no sense.I don't understand the notion that fossil fuel companies are evil. I'm all about climate change and wanting to push for renewable energy sources, but—fact is—we still need fossil fuel because haven't transitioned to other energy sources. I don't see how demonizing those companies to that level is beneficial, in any way.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/17/2011
Posts: 987
|
So according to that Quinnipiac poll that came out today, Hillary's lead in NY is increasing. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
4 Myths Keeping Clinton Afloat
SOURCE
Myth #1 – Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans in the general election
Myth #2 – Hillary knows how to get things done
Myth #3 – Sanders isn’t a real Democrat and he isn’t doing anything to help the Party’s downballot candidates
Myth #4 – Her experience gives her an edge
My fave part:
Any thoughts from the HRC clan??
|
Simple, this opinion piece doesn't mean much. First of all, the use of GE polls this far out to attempt to debunk myth #1 doesn't hold much weight. Myth #3 is actually pretty factual, especially when you put him next to Hillary. Myth #4 is true, it's not a deciding factor edge, but she does have an edge. Experience is never a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
4 Myths Keeping Clinton Afloat
SOURCE
Myth #1 – Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans in the general election
Myth #2 – Hillary knows how to get things done
Myth #3 – Sanders isn’t a real Democrat and he isn’t doing anything to help the Party’s downballot candidates
Myth #4 – Her experience gives her an edge
My fave part:
Any thoughts from the HRC clan??
|
LOL, god bless! <3
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/20/2012
Posts: 27,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
4 Myths Keeping Clinton Afloat
SOURCE
Myth #1 – Hillary is more likely to beat Republicans in the general election
Myth #2 – Hillary knows how to get things done
Myth #3 – Sanders isn’t a real Democrat and he isn’t doing anything to help the Party’s downballot candidates
Myth #4 – Her experience gives her an edge
My fave part:
Any thoughts from the HRC clan??
|
My favorites are #2 and #3 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 26,816
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
I'm really curious as to why? So, if you started a charity to help homeless people and a fossil fuel company was wanting to donate a million dollars, you would reject it? That makes no sense.I don't understand the notion that fossil fuel companies are evil. I'm all about climate change and wanting to push for renewable energy sources, but—fact is—we still need fossil fuel because haven't transitioned to other energy sources. I don't see how demonizing those companies to that level is beneficial, in any way.
|
Ok, I stand corrected, point has been proven. I like posts like this because it's a discussion rather than a "LOL, god bless! <3"
To me discussions like this are important. I want to express my views/thoughts/what I like that I've read to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
But I still hate that she has a Super PAC of FF lobbyists though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/25/2001
Posts: 26,816
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloo
Simple, this opinion piece doesn't mean much. First of all, the use of GE polls this far out to attempt to debunk myth #1 doesn't hold much weight. Myth #3 is actually pretty factual, especially when you put him next to Hillary. Myth #4 is true, it's not a deciding factor edge, but she does have an edge. Experience is never a bad thing.
|
You left out Myth #2.
Quote:
[Hillary] only sponsored 3 Bills that became law during her 8 year tenure. One established an historic site in New York, another renamed a Post Office, and the third named a portion of a highway in New York after Timothy J. Russert.
How about her claim of being able to work with Republicans?
Politifact, which normally finds at least a little truth in just about any statement, rated her claim that “…every piece of legislation, just about, that I ever introduced had a Republican co-sponsor” as flat out false.
Ms. Clinton also didn’t rank as particularly progressive, according to GovTrack.us, a non-partisan organization which has been keeping stats on legislators for several decades.
And while she introduced a lot of Bills, she had a very low rate of getting them to become law, relative to the average Senator over the years.
Bottom line: She didn’t get a whole hell of a lot done, and she wasn’t particularly progressive.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Does anyone have that one graphic or knows who posted that one graphic with the math on how the delegate allocation worked out in Wyoming?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
Ok, I stand corrected, point has been proven. I like posts like this because it's a discussion rather than a "LOL, god bless! <3"
To me discussions like this are important. I want to express my views/thoughts/what I like that I've read to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
But I still hate that she has a Super PAC of FF lobbyists though.
|
Hillary and Bernie practically have the exact same approach to FF money, though. The dispute that Sanders started was over the amount Hillary gets in comparison to him:
Quote:
It’s important to distinguish here between the different ways the candidates (their affiliated Super PACs aside) can accept money from fossil fuel interests, however.- Neither campaign accepts money directly from fossil fuel companies (that wouldn’t be legal).
- Neither campaign takes money from fossil fuel-affiliated SuperPACs funded by individuals in the industry.
- At the same time, neither campaign rejects contributions from workers in the fossil fuel industry.
- And neither campaign rejects money from lobbyists who represent the industry.
The central dispute between the two camps, then, appears to be about the volume of money Clinton gets from or through fossil fuel lobbyists.
|
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/01/...just-not-much/
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
You left out Myth #2.
|
Sorry, to counter, Bernie has only passed 3 pieces of legislation he authored in the past 25 years, two of which were the renaming of post offices. So, using simple math (number of passed authored legislation / number of years), then it's objective to conclude that Hillary is more effective at getting **** done.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 2,514
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
Ok, I stand corrected, point has been proven. I like posts like this because it's a discussion rather than a "LOL, god bless! <3"
To me discussions like this are important. I want to express my views/thoughts/what I like that I've read to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
But I still hate that she has a Super PAC of FF lobbyists though.
|
Because I believe you're purposely posting skewed opinions and biased sources to incite reactions! I'm a firm believer in discussion as well, but not when I don't feel like either party involved in said discussion will get something out of it.
Also its not my job to persuade you on a stance! Do your research and come to your own conclusions!
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
I just knew of it as a "foundation" and wasn't sure of its charitable specifics.
And hey, I'm here to learn things too! I'm not a know-it-all (unlike many HRC/Bernie supporters).
The Clintons should use that money to fight fossil fuel and climate change.
But I'm sure the reasoning behind these lobbyists' donations is because of the Foundation's great charity work.
IMO, Taking money from that industry for anything right now is not good for America.
|
The Clinton Foundation actually does wonderful, wonderful work. It's one of the top foundations in the world and one of it's five branches is dedicated entirely to Climate Change 
Don't try it. They are accepting charitable donations, not giving the fossil fuel industry money Not to mention Exxon is one of hundreds of companies to donate. It's not some special entity. The conspiracy theories have got to stop.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,477
|
GE election polls are so pointless imo
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 4,477
|
Exxon probably donates to the Clinton Foundation to make themselves look better
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 33,811
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bad Wolf
Ok, I stand corrected, point has been proven. I like posts like this because it's a discussion rather than a "LOL, god bless! <3"
To me discussions like this are important. I want to express my views/thoughts/what I like that I've read to people who don't necessarily agree with me.
But I still hate that she has a Super PAC of FF lobbyists though.
|
Here's the problem, though. You come in here with posts that obviously have certain implications and a certain tone, and then you don't think people should get a tone back with you because you want to be "educated" 
If you don't want a bitchy response, rethink your own approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
