Clinton Snaps..

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I already posted it. Look in the first page of this thread. I'm not going to go into the Greenpeace article and break it down. I'll add to what I brought forward yesterday with some stuff from here: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/clinton-and-fossil-fuel-money/

Clinton’s 2016 campaign has not accepted any direct contributions from any corporation, oil and gas companies included. That would violate election law. Nor has her 2016 campaign accepted any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry.

So far in the 2016 campaign, Clinton has received about $160,000 in contributions from people who work for oil and gas companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But those contributions would not run afoul of the group’s pledge.

A Republican super PAC, America Rising, scoffed at Clinton’s response, claiming that she has “literally taken millions of dollars from the oil and gas industry.” But the PAC is including money oil companies donated to the Clinton Foundation — which is a charitable foundation that is unaffiliated with the Clinton campaign and would have no bearing on the pledge.

Later in the article, I get this breakdown:

According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton 2016 campaign has received about $160,000 to date from oil and gas company employees. That’s the third highest among presidential candidates — Republicans Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush top the list with $499,000 and $273,000, respectively. (Democrats Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both of whom agreed to the pledge, have received $13,000 and $6,200, respectively, from employees of the oil and gas industry.)

For some context, the Clinton campaign raised more than $77 million as of Sept. 30, and the fossil fuel industry did not rank among her top 20 donors by industry.

Again, you are quoting something from Greenpeace and I'm quoting from articles posted by factcheck.org and Center for Responsive Politics. I'm guessing Greenpeace is in rubber stamping their number by using the right wing Super PAC America Rising who laughingly lump in contributions to a foundation of Hillary's with her campaign contributions.

I'm not saying Clinton's hands are clean. I'm saying the claims of millions given to her campaign are mostly false. Let's let the Republicans smear this site with false claims. I'd prefer if we could at least post factual articles when comparing the two democratic party candidates. You seem attracted to the dark side. Is it fear that is driving you?

In any case, the tar from Wall Street sticking to Clinton ought to be enough to convince anybody that Bernie is the best candidate.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by dark side? example?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I already posted it. Look in the first page of this thread. I'm not going to go into the Greenpeace article and break it down. I'll add to what I brought forward yesterday with some stuff from here: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/clinton-and-fossil-fuel-money/

Clinton’s 2016 campaign has not accepted any direct contributions from any corporation, oil and gas companies included. That would violate election law. Nor has her 2016 campaign accepted any money from PACs tied to the oil and gas industry.

So far in the 2016 campaign, Clinton has received about $160,000 in contributions from people who work for oil and gas companies, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But those contributions would not run afoul of the group’s pledge.

A Republican super PAC, America Rising, scoffed at Clinton’s response, claiming that she has “literally taken millions of dollars from the oil and gas industry.” But the PAC is including money oil companies donated to the Clinton Foundation — which is a charitable foundation that is unaffiliated with the Clinton campaign and would have no bearing on the pledge.

Later in the article, I get this breakdown:

According to records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton 2016 campaign has received about $160,000 to date from oil and gas company employees. That’s the third highest among presidential candidates — Republicans Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush top the list with $499,000 and $273,000, respectively. (Democrats Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, both of whom agreed to the pledge, have received $13,000 and $6,200, respectively, from employees of the oil and gas industry.)

For some context, the Clinton campaign raised more than $77 million as of Sept. 30, and the fossil fuel industry did not rank among her top 20 donors by industry.

Again, you are quoting something from Greenpeace and I'm quoting from articles posted by factcheck.org and Center for Responsive Politics. I'm guessing Greenpeace is in rubber stamping their number by using the right wing Super PAC America Rising who laughingly lump in contributions to a foundation of Hillary's with her campaign contributions.

I'm not saying Clinton's hands are clean. I'm saying the claims of millions in oil money given to her campaign are mostly false. Let's let the Republicans smear this site with false claims. I'd prefer if we could at least post factual articles when comparing the two democratic party candidates. You seem attracted to the dark side. Is it fear that is driving you?

In any case, the tar from Wall Street sticking to Clinton ought to be enough to convince anybody that Bernie is the best candidate.
Click to expand...
this was also included in the article:

At an event in Iowa, Hillary Clinton and a man from an environmental group sparred about whether she had taken money from the fossil fuel industry. “You have,” the man said. Campaigns are prohibited from taking money directly from corporations, but Clinton has received donations from employees of oil and gas companies.

The issue arose at an Iowa event on Dec. 16 when Steve Patterson, a leader of local group 350 Iowa, asked Clinton about pledging not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry. 350 Action, according to its website, is “working in primary states to urge candidates for president to take bold action on climate change by pledging to keep fossil fuels in the ground and support a just transition to a 100 percent renewable energy.” Here’s how the exchange played out.


Steve Patterson, Dec. 16: Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have both committed to not take money from the fossil fuel industry. I’d like to know if you’d be willing to sign a pledge that you will not take money from the fossil fuel industry.

Hillary Clinton: Well, I don’t know that I ever have. I’m not exactly one of their favorites.

Patterson: You have.

Clinton: Have I? OK, well, I’ll check on that. They certainly haven’t made much of an impression on me if I don’t even know it. Look, I am committed to moving away from fossil fuels toward clean, renewable energy. … I am not in favor of drilling off of our coasts. I was out there first, before even the president, saying no drilling the Arctic. … Everybody knows where I stand. …

Individuals who might have some connection to whatever industry, I’m not going to do a litmus test on them. I don’t think that there’s a lot who support me, but the companies don’t, because they know I’m going to be very adamant about moving us towards clean renewable energy and I think that’s the way it should be. They should know where we’re going and how I’m going to try and get you there.

anyone know how Clinton voted on the clean, renewable energy of Keystone XL?..anyone?:lol:
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
what do you mean by dark side? example?
Click to expand...
You are posting a mostly false campaign smear. The dark side of politics. Just like Annakin, whose fear drew him to the dark side of the force.

When Hillary wins the White House, the rational side of the Democratic party will have to oppose her when she rejects financial reform measures and obstructs efforts to extend health care coverage. Its not at all clear to me that she's on the side of the fossil fuel industry's efforts to delay action on human caused global warming. Also, her relationship with workers in the form of unions seems to be pretty good.

But I admit that I'm not completely convinced on any of this yet. What I think right now is,

Bernie's better but Hillary is healthier for this country than the GOP.

Edit: Or to reference an argument with NLX where you were clearly confused about the greater than sign:

In terms of how I rank the candidates:

Bernie >> Hillary > Cruz >>>>> Trump
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
this was also included in the article:

At an event in Iowa, Hillary Clinton and a man from an environmental group sparred about whether she had taken money from the fossil fuel industry. “You have,” the man said. Campaigns are prohibited from taking money directly from corporations, but Clinton has received donations from employees of oil and gas companies.

The issue arose at an Iowa event on Dec. 16 when Steve Patterson, a leader of local group 350 Iowa, asked Clinton about pledging not to accept money from the fossil fuel industry. 350 Action, according to its website, is “working in primary states to urge candidates for president to take bold action on climate change by pledging to keep fossil fuels in the ground and support a just transition to a 100 percent renewable energy.” Here’s how the exchange played out.


Steve Patterson, Dec. 16: Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have both committed to not take money from the fossil fuel industry. I’d like to know if you’d be willing to sign a pledge that you will not take money from the fossil fuel industry.

Hillary Clinton: Well, I don’t know that I ever have. I’m not exactly one of their favorites.

Patterson: You have.

Clinton: Have I? OK, well, I’ll check on that. They certainly haven’t made much of an impression on me if I don’t even know it. Look, I am committed to moving away from fossil fuels toward clean, renewable energy. … I am not in favor of drilling off of our coasts. I was out there first, before even the president, saying no drilling the Arctic. … Everybody knows where I stand. …

Individuals who might have some connection to whatever industry, I’m not going to do a litmus test on them. I don’t think that there’s a lot who support me, but the companies don’t, because they know I’m going to be very adamant about moving us towards clean renewable energy and I think that’s the way it should be. They should know where we’re going and how I’m going to try and get you there.

anyone know how Clinton voted on the clean, renewable energy of Keystone XL?..anyone?:lol:
Click to expand...
What's wrong with this: I am committed to moving away from fossil fuels toward clean, renewable energy. … I am not in favor of drilling off of our coasts. I was out there first, before even the president, saying no drilling the Arctic

I can read. None of this indicates she is lying about campaign contributions. So, what's your point?

I get it. Anything with Hillary's name associated with it draws your fire. The problem is, when compared to each other, Hillary and Bernie agree on about 93% of all topics. You can reject this by saying she is a liar. But then you'd sound like Red or NLX. In other words you'd be using the same logic as dumbasses. Not that I'm calling you a dumbass, just that you are starting to sound like one.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Ted Cruz will rip Sanders a new asshole.
But that Is irrelevant
This year it will be Cruz vs. Clinton with Trump 3rd party
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Would you consider Bernie a "bank coddler" when he voted to raise the debt ceiling ?

Or do your blinders only come off when the Wicked Witch Hillary "coddles banks" ?
Click to expand...
As I've told you before, you don't know what "raising the debt ceiling" means. It does not "help the banks", it helps poor people from being thrown off social safety net programs, why do you think Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and every other republican in government wants to enact shit like a balanced budget amendment and cap the debt ceiling under federal law? Because they believe in an obsolete system of economics that has proven to be a failure the past 40 years.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
this was also included in the article:


Steve Patterson, Dec. 16: Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have both committed to not take money from the fossil fuel industry. I’d like to know if you’d be willing to sign a pledge that you will not take money from the fossil fuel industry.

Hillary Clinton: Well, I don’t know that I ever have. I’m not exactly one of their favorites.

Patterson: You have.

Clinton: Have I? OK, well, I’ll check on that. They certainly haven’t made much of an impression on me if I don’t even know it. Look, I am committed to moving away from fossil fuels toward clean, renewable energy. … I am not in favor of drilling off of our coasts. I was out there first, before even the president, saying no drilling the Arctic. … Everybody knows where I stand. …

Individuals who might have some connection to whatever industry, I’m not going to do a litmus test on them. I don’t think that there’s a lot who support me, but the companies don’t, because they know I’m going to be very adamant about moving us towards clean renewable energy and I think that’s the way it should be. They should know where we’re going and how I’m going to try and get you there.
Click to expand...
I just replied to this a couple of hours ago and here you are repeating it. Look up a few posts. Are you OK?
 
Jimdamick

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
to which I say..citation on 'mostly false'..?

AND

The Sanders campaign is standing by the Greenpeace analysis, which examines almost $1.5 million bundled for the campaign by lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry and over $3.2million from "large donors" with fossil fuel interests for the Clinton backingSuper PAC, Priorities USA.

your turn..
Click to expand...
Cry me a river
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Then why doesn't he accept Sanders invitation to debate?
Click to expand...
Because at this time it is a lose/lose scenario
Cruz knows his debate skills. And that is why I say in Debates Sanders would get slaughtered by Cruz. I know in your mind it Makes Sanders look tough. But to the rest of the crowd it makes him look desperate.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
You are posting a mostly false campaign smear. The dark side of politics. Just like Annakin, whose fear drew him to the dark side of the force.

When Hillary wins the White House, the rational side of the Democratic party will have to oppose her when she rejects financial reform measures and obstructs efforts to extend health care coverage. Its not at all clear to me that she's on the side of the fossil fuel industry's efforts to delay action on human caused global warming. Also, her relationship with workers in the form of unions seems to be pretty good.

But I admit that I'm not completely convinced on any of this yet. What I think right now is,

Bernie's better but Hillary is healthier for this country than the GOP.

Edit: Or to reference an argument with NLX where you were clearly confused about the greater than sign:

In terms of how I rank the candidates:

Bernie >> Hillary > Cruz >>>>> Trump
Click to expand...
Clinton is for universal health care.
You would know that if you are old enough
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Because at this time it is a lose/lose scenario
Cruz knows his debate skills. And that is why I say in Debates Sanders would get slaughtered by Cruz. I know in your mind it Makes Sanders look tough. But to the rest of the crowd it makes him look desperate.
Click to expand...
How would it be a lose/lose for Cruz if he "slaughtered" Sanders in a debate?

Maybe you and I have a different idea of what "winning" means in this context

Cruz can act tough all he wants, his rhetoric, his beliefs/opinions and his policy positions are all incredibly weak against Sanders'. I couldn't give a shit less how someone looks during the debate, what I care about are sound policy positions of which Cruz has zero, not even a single one that I would call good. For example, he want's to ban abortion, overturn Obergfell v. Hodges, reinstate the religious liberty's act, end dozens of important federal agencies and a whole host of other outlandish shit. Bernie Sanders would tear his ass to shreds on all of them, and that's before he would even get into campaign finance reform, Wall St. regulation and income and wealth inequality
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Clinton is for universal health care.
You would know that if you are old enough
Click to expand...
Well, maybe I'm not old enough. But I'm old enough to read. And this is what I saw when I looked up Hillary's views on healthcare:

Hillary Clinton: Single-payer health care will "never, ever" happen
January 29, 2016
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

Just a few days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stressed to voters in Des Moines just how unfeasible she considers her opponent Bernie Sanders' plan to pursue a single-payer health care system.

"I want you to understand why I am fighting so hard for the Affordable Care Act," she said at Grand View University after hearing from a woman who spoke about her daughter receiving cancer treatment thanks to the health care law. "I don't want it repealed, I don't want us to be thrown back into a terrible, terrible national debate. I don't want us to end up in gridlock. People can't wait!"

She added, "People who have health emergencies can't wait for us to have a theoretical debate about some better idea that will never, ever come to pass."

I don't think she's wrong in this but I also don't agree that now is the time to abandon the idea of single payer healthcare. Anyway, Hillary is talking about extending the reach of the ACA. Which is a step in the right direction. So, fact check on Hillary supporting universal healt care: mostly false.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Well, maybe I'm not old enough. But I'm old enough to read. And this is what I saw when I looked up Hillary's views on healthcare:


I don't think she's wrong in this but I also don't agree that now is the time to abandon the idea of single payer healthcare. Anyway, Hillary is talking about extending the reach of the ACA. Which is a step in the right direction. So, fact check on Hillary supporting universal healt care: mostly false.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993


Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act and unofficially nicknamed "Hillarycare" (after First Lady Hillary Clinton) by its detractors,[1][2] was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993


Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act and unofficially nicknamed "Hillarycare" (after First Lady Hillary Clinton) by its detractors,[1][2] was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on health care in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. The task force was created in January 1993, but its own processes were somewhat controversial and drew litigation. Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. A major health care speech was delivered by President Clinton to the U.S. Congress in September 1993. The core element of the proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees
Click to expand...
That was then, this is now. Hillary is a pragmatist. Hill and Bill were pummeled in this attempt and she's not repeating her stance this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top