Clinton Snaps..

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...

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...

schuylaar said:

what do you mean by dark side? example?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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...

ChesusRice said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

Padawanbater2 said:

Ted Cruz would get slaughtered against Sanders, what the fuck are you smoking today?

Click to expand...

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...

ChesusRice said:

Sanders would get totally massacred in any debate with Cruz

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

You let us know when Ted decides he's ready then, k?

Sanders wants to debate Republicans

Click to expand...

ChesusRice said:

Ted really wants to debate a socialist.
Know of any?

Click to expand...

Padawanbater2 said:

Then why doesn't he accept Sanders invitation to debate?

Click to expand...

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...

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...

ChesusRice said:

Clinton is for universal health care.
You would know that if you are old enough

Click to expand...

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...

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...

ChesusRice said:

Clinton is for universal health care.
You would know that if you are old enough

Click to expand...