OK Democrats! It's Time To Back Up Your Words

[JakeStarkey]

jc456, study up on the battering the Utah party caucus system took in the legislature the last two years. Surprisingly, the Dems were OK with it, but the hard right liners fought it tooth and nail from putting the selection more in the hands of the voters.

I think you will pleased in that it has opened up the candidate selection process to the electorate more easily.

 

[Faun]

And then conservatives deemed campaign donations are protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

Hazzah!

Say that for what ? To protect Hillary trying to buy the presidency ?

Umm... everyone is protected by the First Amendment. Including Hillary.

 

[Faun]

Since so many people are entering the thread blind, it is imperative to repeat some of the earlier postings >>

Big Corporate donations >>

$117 Million for Hillary, (73% of her financing)

$45 Million from Bernie, (33% of his financing)

$2 Million for Trump. (7% of his financing)

Summary data for Hillary Clinton, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Summary data for Bernie Sanders, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

Summary data for Donald Trump, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

I read your OP and explained it to ya. Why are you still screeching? Do you not understand?

 

[protectionist]

I read your OP and explained it to ya. Why are you still screeching? Do you not understand?

I understand the OP and the article supporting it. I don't what else you're talking about. And I'm not "screeching". I'm merely informing those who are UNinformed. To them, you're welcome.

 

[Faun]

I read your OP and explained it to ya. Why are you still screeching? Do you not understand?

I understand the OP and the article supporting it. I don't what else you're talking about. And I'm not "screeching". I'm merely informing those who are UNinformed. To them, you're welcome.

You should read up then on Citizens United. Maybe then you'll understand my answer to your question.

 

[protectionist]

You should read up then on Citizens United. Maybe then you'll understand my answer to your question.

Speaking of reading up, did you read this ? >>> Party Of The Rich? Not The One Most Think It Is

And I don't need to understand anything in this thread, more than the OP and links I presented, and I understand them completely.

 

[Picaro]

Something else to consider is foreign money pouring into American Parties and candidates, while everybody is sniveling over this stuff. As for 'who is getting the most', that is just another distinction without a difference, regardless of the amounts.

This joint claims the GOP takes in 'twice as much as Democrats'. I guess we're supposed to jump up and down and cheer Democrats or something, never mind they're both scum and that 'talking point' is silly on its face, except maybe to amoral tards and loons.

Foreign-connected PACs | OpenSecrets

then there are all those foreign donations to the Clinton's 'Foundation' farce, but we're supposed to pretend 'that doesn't count' as buying influence for some magical reason or other.

A hit piece on Republicans, which of course portrays the Democrats as just wonderful and innocent, total bullshit, but that's what ideologies and hackery are all about.

How Secret Foreign Money Could Infiltrate US Elections

The real truth is only truly retarded morons play these silly ass astro-turfing thread games as if they're serious stuff.

And in case you aren't' aware of who policing this stuff, why it's the Parties themselves, and we all know they're totally trustworthy, right? ...

FITTON: Obama campaign’s illegal foreign donations

The report’s authors, Peter Schweizer and Peter Boyer, noted the key finding in a recent article in the Daily Beast: “With millions of online campaign donations ricocheting through cyberspace, one might think the Federal Election Commission would have erected serious walls to guard federal elections from foreign or fraudulent Internet contributions. But that’s far from true. In fact, campaigns are largely expected to police these matters themselves.”

To repeat: The FEC provides virtually zero oversight for Internet contributions. The political campaigns are responsible for policing themselves.

The prospect of illegal foreign donations is an especially thorny problem for the Obama campaign. Here’s why: The Internet site Obama.com isn’t owned by the Obama campaign. It’s owned by China-based American businessman Robert Roche, CEO of Acorn International, a large media company. As Mr. Schweizer and Mr. Boyer note, 68 percent of the some 2,000 visitors each day on Obama.com are foreign in origin.

The fact is many of these noncitizens could very easily make an illegal contribution to the Obama campaign. Visitors to Obama.com are redirected on the site to a donation page on the campaign’s official website, BarackObama.com, and reportedly receive campaign solicitations as well.

This mixing and mingling between the Obama.com website’s large foreign following and the Obama campaign website is problem No. 1. Here’s problem No. 2: Internet donations continue to flood into the Obama campaign, creating a rich environment for campaign finance fraud.

Former Bill Clinton campaign consultant Dick Morris described the scope of the problem in a recent column: “In September, the Obama campaign got 1.8 million donations from small contributors who did not break the $200 threshold requiring that their information be reported to the Federal Election Commission. They gave the campaign 98 percent of the $181 million it raised that month, a figure vastly higher than its take in any previous month.”

Not only is there a lack of strict separation between Obama.com and Obama’s official campaign website, but the issue is magnified by the amount of funds raised by the Obama campaign over the Internet.

 

[protectionist]

Something else to consider is foreign money pouring into American Parties and candidates, while everybody is sniveling over this stuff. As for 'who is getting the most', that is just another distinction without a difference, regardless of the amounts.

This joint claims the GOP takes in 'twice as much as Democrats'. I guess we're supposed to jump up and down and cheer Democrats or something, never mind they're both scum and that 'talking point' is silly on its face, except maybe to amoral tards and loons.

Foreign-connected PACs | OpenSecrets

then there are all those foreign donations to the Clinton's 'Foundation' farce, but we're supposed to pretend 'that doesn't count' as buying influence for some magical reason or other.

A hit piece on Republicans, which of course portrays the Democrats as just wonderful and innocent, total bullshit, but that's what ideologies and hackery are all about.

How Secret Foreign Money Could Infiltrate US Elections

The real truth is only truly retarded morons play these silly ass astro-turfing thread games as if they're serious stuff.

And in case you aren't' aware of who policing this stuff, why it's the Parties themselves, and we all know they're totally trustworthy, right? ...

FITTON: Obama campaign’s illegal foreign donations

Foreign money pouring into US elections is ONE of a number of foreign influence problems. Some of the others are just as bad, and some are much worse.

For example the $123 Billion/year being lost from the US economy (American businesses being denied sales$$), in remittances$$$, as foreign countries raid the US economy, and tens of Billions$$ more lost from tax revenues, in welfare (via the anchor baby racket & false documentation).

Another is the lopsided balance of trade, heavily favoring foreign countries, but fixable by Trump's proposals to tariff them.

Yet another is the horrendous foreign ownership of US ports, taking security power away from America, in perhaps its most vulnerable entry way from overseas. Last I heard, only 5% of shipping containers were being inspected here. That's like telling ISIS, hey you want to ship some nuclear bombs here. You got a 95% chance of success.

As for American corporations' contributions to political campaigns, of course it makes a difference. It is flat out special interests buying the candidates, for their own personal gain, which could easily be big trouble for the public. Want to give big Pharma control of the presidency and the Congress ? If that were true, Vioxx (formerly made by Merck) would still be legal, and killing people all over the country (just one example)

 

[Faun]

You should read up then on Citizens United. Maybe then you'll understand my answer to your question.

Speaking of reading up, did you read this ? >>> Party Of The Rich? Not The One Most Think It Is

And I don't need to understand anything in this thread, more than the OP and links I presented, and I understand them completely.

If you actually understood, you would understand Citizens United is the answer to your question in your OP.

 

[protectionist]

If you actually understood, you would understand Citizens United is the answer to your question in your OP.

The question in the Op was >> "in this campaign season, it clearly is Hillary Clinton who is the big corporate $$$ recipient ($117 Million so far), so shouldn't Democrats be repelled by that ?"

The question is a rhetorical one, and I'll supply the answer. YES, they should, and they ARE being repelled by it as evidence by the large crowds appearing at Bernie Sanders' rallies, and by this >>

Sanders supporters shower Clinton car with dollar bills - CNNPolitics.com

But these Sanders supporters might also take not that their guy Bernie is also taking a lot of monery from big fat cat corporations (although not nearly as much as Hillary)

 

[Faun]

If you actually understood, you would understand Citizens United is the answer to your question in your OP.

The question in the Op was >> "in this campaign season, it clearly is Hillary Clinton who is the big corporate $$$ recipient ($117 Million so far), so shouldn't Democrats be repelled by that ?"

The question is a rhetorical one, and I'll supply the answer. YES, they should, and they ARE being repelled by it as evidence by the large crowds appearing at Bernie Sanders' rallies, and by this >>

Sanders supporters shower Clinton car with dollar bills - CNNPolitics.com

But these Sanders supporters might also take not that their guy Bernie is also taking a lot of monery from big fat cat corporations (although not nearly as much as Hillary)

Lemme get this right.... you create a rhetorical OP where only you answer your own questions?



Putz, on top of that idiocy, you don't even know WTF you're talking about. For one thing, Bernie ($138m) has collected almost as much as Hillary ($154m). So trying to make a point off of deranged Bernie supporters who are almost as deranged as you doesn't actually make a point.

And regardless of your wishes to make rhetorical points where others are not considered -- the answer remains, no, Citizens United dispels of that.

 

[protectionist]

Lemme get this right.... you create a rhetorical OP where only you answer your own questions?



Putz, on top of that idiocy, you don't even know WTF you're talking about. For one thing, Bernie ($138m) has collected almost as much as Hillary ($154m). So trying to make a point off of deranged Bernie supporters who are almost as deranged as you doesn't actually make a point.

And regardless of your wishes to make rhetorical points where others are not considered -- the answer remains, no, Citizens United dispels of that.

Sorry idiot, the OP beat you to the information. It's there. Nobody needs your apples & oranges Now go home and bake cookies.

But before I let you go, I'll point out the fallacy of your dumb post. If you look back at the OP and READ IT (and thereby know what this thread is talking about), you will see the words "big corporate donors". And if you look at the link I provided >>
Summary data for Bernie Sanders, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets (so you wouldn't make the dumb mistake you did), you'll see that it says >>

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions - $138,095,654

- Small Individual Contributions - $92,598,033 (66%)

- Large Individual Contributions - $45,497,620 (33%) (99%)

PAC Contributions $3,637 (0%)

Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)

Federal Funds $0 (0%)

Other $1,711,550 (1%)
Got all that so far ?

OK. Now notice that the 138,095,654 is the same as the "138m" (your word) you mentioned. Yeah, that is ALL of Bernie's contributions (all added up together). So there's just one little problem, genius. The OP and thread ISN'T TALKING ABOUT all of his contributions. It is only talking about the ones from "big corporate donors$$" (my words), as stated in the OP.

So the correct number for Bernie is not the $138m you incorrectly posted. It is the ($45 Million) that I correctly posted in the OP, and again in posts throughout the thread, which matches up with the Large Individual Contributions shown in the list above (and in the OP link). Got it right, now ?

 

[Faun]

Lemme get this right.... you create a rhetorical OP where only you answer your own questions?



Putz, on top of that idiocy, you don't even know WTF you're talking about. For one thing, Bernie ($138m) has collected almost as much as Hillary ($154m). So trying to make a point off of deranged Bernie supporters who are almost as deranged as you doesn't actually make a point.

And regardless of your wishes to make rhetorical points where others are not considered -- the answer remains, no, Citizens United dispels of that.

Sorry idiot, the OP beat you to the information. It's there. Nobody needs needs your apples & oranges Now go home and bake cookies.

LOL

You can wish all you want that it isn't so, but Citizens United changed campaign finances.

 

[frigidweirdo]

For all my life, I have been hearing Democrats railing that the the voters should vote for them, because they supposedly are not pressured by big corporate donors$$, as they have always claimed Republicans are. Well, in this campaign season, it clearly is Hillary Clinton who is the big corporate $$$ recipient ($117 Million so far), so shouldn't Democrats be repelled by that ? Hillary has gotten 73% of her donations (legal bribes) from the BIG bucks.

Summary data for Hillary Clinton, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

And Bernie, while not as bad as Hillary, still has taken in 33% of his money from the big boys ($45 Million). That's a ton of money to have to pay back favors for.

Summary data for Bernie Sanders, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

In contrast to the big corporate donations flowing in for the Democrats, Donald Trump has had relatively nothing from the big donors. Only 7% of his donations have been in the large category, adding up to only $2 Million. That is a measly 1/23 of what Bernie has taken, and 1/59 as much as Hillary's corporate grab. Relatively to Hillary and Bernie, Trump has gotten nothing from the big bribers.

Summary data for Donald Trump, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets

So what do the Democrats have to say about this ? Speak up Democrats. Let's hear it.

This is the problem with the US system, unless you get loads of money from somewhere, you won't win. Which means you need to go for the big money.

People should vote for some party that says it will change the way people vote.

 

[protectionist]

LOL

You can wish all you want that it isn't so, but Citizens United changed campaign finances.

By the incomplete quote you posted, it looks like you didn't read the complete Post # 72. So go back and read it, so you'll know your mistake, and not make it again.

And you shouldn't be inserting LOLs, when you just made a complete fool out of yourself, as Post # 72 explained.

 

[protectionist]

This is the problem with the US system, unless you get loads of money from somewhere, you won't win. Which means you need to go for the big money.

People should vote for some party that says it will change the way people vote.

Perhaps that may happen eventually. For now, the message of the OP is that sure isn't the Democratic Party, much to the surprise of most people who have got it wrong.

 

[Faun]

Lemme get this right.... you create a rhetorical OP where only you answer your own questions?



Putz, on top of that idiocy, you don't even know WTF you're talking about. For one thing, Bernie ($138m) has collected almost as much as Hillary ($154m). So trying to make a point off of deranged Bernie supporters who are almost as deranged as you doesn't actually make a point.

And regardless of your wishes to make rhetorical points where others are not considered -- the answer remains, no, Citizens United dispels of that.

Sorry idiot, the OP beat you to the information. It's there. Nobody needs your apples & oranges Now go home and bake cookies.

But before I let you go, I'll point out the fallacy of your dumb post. If you look back at the OP and READ IT (and thereby know what this thread is talking about), you will see the words "big corporate donors". And if you look at the link I provided >>
Summary data for Bernie Sanders, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets (so you wouldn't make the dumb mistake you did), you'll see that it says >>

Source of Funds

Individual Contributions - $138,095,654

- Small Individual Contributions - $92,598,033 (66%)

- Large Individual Contributions - $45,497,620 (33%) (99%)

PAC Contributions $3,637 (0%)

Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)

Federal Funds $0 (0%)

Other $1,711,550 (1%)
Got all that so far ?

OK. Now notice that the 138,095,654 is the same as the "138m" (your word) you mentioned. Yeah, that is ALL of Bernie's contributions. So there's just one little problem, genius. The OP and thread ISN'T TALKING ABOUT all of his contributions. It is only talking about the ones from "big corporate donors$$" (my words), as stated in the OP.

So the correct number for Bernie is not the $138m you incorrectly posted. It is the ($45 Million) that I correctly posted in the OP, and again in posts throughout the thread, which matches up with the Large Individual Contributions shown in the list above (and in the OP link). Get it now ?

Imbecile....

Clinton

Individual $143,597,967

PAC $1,024,553

Party $1,000

Candidate $560,983

Sanders

Individual $136,590,191

PAC $3,637

Party $0

Candidate $

 

[Faun]

LOL

You can wish all you want that it isn't so, but Citizens United changed campaign finances.

By the incomplete quote you posted, it looks like you didn't read the complete Post # 72. So go back and read it, so you'll know your mistake, and not make it again.

And you shouldn't be inserting LOLs, when you just made a complete fool out of yourself, as Post # 72 explained.

Liar. I quoted your entire post. I deleted nothing You added more after I replied.

Which I just answered in post #77

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is the problem with the US system, unless you get loads of money from somewhere, you won't win. Which means you need to go for the big money.

People should vote for some party that says it will change the way people vote.

Perhaps that may happen eventually. For now, the message of the OP is that sure isn't the Democratic Party, much to the surprise of most people who have got it wrong.

It's not the democrats or the republicans. The two of them are in it to keep their control. They play the partisan team game, but they will always scratch each other's backs.

 

[protectionist]

Imbecile....

Clinton

Individual $143,597,967

PAC $1,024,553

Party $1,000

Candidate $560,983

Sanders

Individual $136,590,191

PAC $3,637

Party $0

Candidate $

I accept your surrender. Post # 72 defeated you. There is no recourse. Being dishonest only harms you still more. The Large Individual Contributions = the "big corporate donors". Simple as that.