[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Gray_Matter]

Clinton’s top campaign financiers are linked to Big Oil, natural gas and the Keystone pipeline.

The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively.

Are you seriously saying that $54400 which is something like 0.033% of the total money she has raised makes them her top financiers?

[Shadowferal]

Are you seriously saying that $54400 which is something like 0.033% of the total money she has raised makes them her top financiers?

Gee, taking two selective sentences out of context...

[Matchles]

She said it herself:

Fucking videos ads are really shitty today...wtf...

“I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it,” the visibly angry Democratic presidential hopeful said, pointing a finger in a woman’s face, in a video posted by Greenpeace.
The exchange came as the woman pressed Clinton on taking donations from the fossil fuel industry and asked if she would reject their campaign contributions in the future.

“I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton responded, before calling the rival campaign's claims lies.
Clinton’s campaign has accepted sums from fossil fuel companies. According to a Huffington Post report from July of last year, most of her campaign’s largest bundlers at the time were lobbyists for the industry.


-----

She says one thing, then turns around 180 and says differently.
.

What are you talking about? She didn't contradict herself. Getting a donation from someone who works at Shell Oil doesn't mean she got a donation from the company. Or are you saying when the McDonald's employee donates to Sanders that means he is in the pocket of the fast food industry?

[Gray_Matter]

Gee, taking two selective sentences out of context...

I read the article, it's something like $1 million from lobbyists who have had links to fossil fuel companies in the past. Even if you assume that that's who they are only working for now then it's still about 0.5% of her total donations. I quoted the two because they are intrinsically linked. Their best example is $54k odd. I am not saying that there is or isn't something to be said for it but saying "top campaign financiers" with, at most, 0.5% of your total contributions is a bit absurd.

[Matchles]

I read the article, it's something like $1 million from lobbyists who have had links to fossil fuel companies in the past. Even if you assume that that's who they are only working for now then it's still about 0.5% of her total donations. I quoted the two because they are intrinsically linked. Their best example is $54k odd. I am not saying that there is or isn't something to be said for it but saying "top campaign financiers" with, at most, 0.5% of your total contributions is a bit absurd.

Turns out Oil and Gas doesn't even make the top 20 industries donating to her campaign.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/i...0000019&type=f

[Shadowferal]

What are you talking about? She didn't contradict herself.

Maybe English isn't your language but;

“I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton responded..

Reads contradictory here.

I read the article, it's something like $1 million from lobbyists who have had links to fossil fuel companies in the past. Even if you assume that that's who they are only working for now then it's still about 0.5% of her total donations. I quoted the two because they are intrinsically linked. Their best example is $54k odd. I am not saying that there is or isn't something to be said for it but saying "top campaign financiers" with, at most, 0.5% of your total contributions is a bit absurd.

So...if you're a hillary supporter then you're against the TPP, the oil industry and believe that Wall Street needs additional regulation?

Interesting.

[Gray_Matter]

So...if you're a hillary supporter then you're against the TPP, the oil industry and believe that Wall Street needs additional regulation?

Interesting.

Where did I say anything like that? I was just trying to show how people are blowing things way out of proportion with this election. Perhaps they have in the past too I just haven't followed those ones as closely. There are so many things that astound me (in my country people vote for a party and the party elects the president) with this election. People supporting Bernie and then deciding that if he doesn't get in then they will support Trump. They are like polar opposites. The way all parties manipulate things (including Bernie). It's fascinating. I try to argue against the extreme views from all sides. e.g. Saying that Clinton tried to fix Arizona or the recent thread when they said the DNC went out of their way to sabotage Bernie in DC. Why attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. I do think it was a bti of a silly comment from Clinton when she is trying not to upset Bernie's supporters.

[Shadowferal]

Where did I say anything like that? I was just trying to show how people are blowing things way out of proportion with this election. Perhaps they have in the past too I just haven't followed those ones as closely. There are so many things that astound me (in my country people vote for a party and the party elects the president) with this election. People supporting Bernie and then deciding that if he doesn't get in then they will support Trump. They are like polar opposites. The way all parties manipulate things (including Bernie). It's fascinating. I try to argue against the extreme views from all sides. e.g. Saying that Clinton tried to fix Arizona or the recent thread when they said the DNC went out of their way to sabotage Bernie in DC. Why attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. I do think it was a bti of a silly comment from Clinton when she is trying not to upset Bernie's supporters.

Fair enough.

However, those that do support Clinton...
I did pose that question before, and I believe that Clinton supporters refused to respond.

[Gray_Matter]

Fair enough.

However, those that do support Clinton...
I did pose that question before, and I believe that Clinton supporters refused to respond.

I think the problem is that people who support Clinton might be supporting her for various reasons. They might support her because she is a woman or because she is moderate. They might support her because of her voting record or any number of reasons. Those could all be valid reasons. They might not like everything she stands for. A lot of people will support someone because they don't like the policies of anyone else. Bernie's policies mean a very large government and are likely, if the majority of economists are to be believed, to result in big tax increases. Personally, I don't think he would be able to implement any of them at all, even if he did get in, which is impossible from what I can see. It's easy for liberal democrats to support him because he speaks their language. The problem is that they make up at most 40% of the voters. While his message of a corrupt system are universal, his message of free education and free healthcare are in direct contradiction to the republican ideals which are for a small government. The GOP has the same problem with their core. Someone like Cruz is very popular with them but is almost hated by the democrats.

Things like free trade are already out of the bag. You can't put them back in.

Let me also add, first and foremost, the DNC want to win the general. They will back whoever they think will get them that win. There are a lot of groups (e.g. unions) that stand to lose a lot if the GOP get in.

[Matchles]

Maybe English isn't your language but;

“I do not have — I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies,” Clinton responded..

Reads contradictory here.

No that isn't. Getting money from an industry and getting money from people who happen to work in the industry are two different things. My wife is a huge environmentalist. In the past she happened to work in the library for one of the largest oil companies on the planet. If she donated to the campaign during that time it would've shown up as a donation from the oil industry using the twisted logic of Greenpeace.

[Deleted]

What's your number, pal?

Well let's look at it. You said "10% of the voting age population".

Currently 29% of Americans identify as Democrat, 26% identify as Republican, and 42% identify as independent. In all primaries and caucuses where independents have gotten to vote, those independents who voted for a Democrat instead of a Republican voted for Sanders in a landslide, even if Hillary has won the actual state; Bernie takes around 70-80% of Democrat-voting independents every time.

It's hard to say how many of the independent voters will actually vote for a Republican, and how many for a Democrat, but, let's say Sanders is the nominee, and let's be fair about it and divide them up in the same ratio as those who actually identify as one or the other. 29+26=55. 29/55*100=52.7272...% and 42%*0.527272=22.145424%, so let's assume that 29%+22% (rounding down) of the voting age population will vote for a Democrat. I believe this to be a low number if Sanders is the nominee, in fact. All polls have always showed him being a much more electable candidate than Hillary, and him beating every single Republican candidate with a much larger margin than Hillary. Something the bought and paid for network TV channels and newspapers won't keep telling you, of course.

However, let's go with 51%. So, how much of the vote has Bernie gotten? Well, we can't look at the delegate counts, because they're not divided up logically. It would be the easy way to go about it, but also the dumb way. So, let's rather just look at the exact percentage of the vote in each state. We get those numbers from nytimes.com. Add the percentage of votes Sanders has gotten in each state together and divide by the number of states, and you get the percentage of all the votes;

(0,192+0,816+0,399+0,297+0,59+0,333+0,282+0,698+0,78+0,487+0,496+0,677+0,232+0,643+0,487+0 ,498+0,616+0,165+0,494+0,571+0,473+0,604+0,408+0,427+0,519+0,26+0,324+0,332+0,793+0,861+0, 352)/31=0,48729.

So, Bernie has gotten 48.73% of all the votes cast on the Democrat side so far. The trend as we know shows that number might actually grow from hereon forward, but let's be fair and use that number for now. So, what is 48.73% of 51? 24.85% And that's the minimum percentage of the voting age people who want Bernie to be the president. And that's right now, before the primaries are over, and before the general election.

But, more importantly, look at the current identifying demographics... 29% Democrat, 26% Republican and 42% independent, and Bernie sweeps the independent vote? How could you possibly not say that Bernie is the candidate for the majority of the people?

[Leobald]

So your argument goes that Sanders is more popular among independents than Democrats. Why doesn't he run then as an independent?

Because he needs the media access, the money, the brand value and everything else that running under the Democrat label provides him. But if he chooses to run as a Democrat, he has to except the Democratic party's rules, and those include not only superdelegates, but - oh horror! - also that those voters registered as Democrats have a say in who their party's candidate will be. Even those she live in the red South. (Although surprisingly Sanders supporters seem to have no problem with those Democratic voters living in deep red Utah or Idaho.)

[Deleted]

So your argument goes that Sanders is more popular among independents than Democrats.

Well, no. My "argument" was simply that Sanders supporters do not represent only 10% of the voting population.

Because he needs the media access

Quite honestly, the media is in the pocket of the establishment, so whatever access he's gotten is no thanks to the DNC or him running as a Democrat.

the money

The money he has is from his supporters, who would've given that $27 a pop to him in either case.

everything else that running under the Democrat label provides him

Such as having the DNC chair be Hillary's old campaign co-chair, and the DNC establishment being against him in every way possible, such as not providing a debate before New York. All those kinds of nice things.

But if he chooses to run as a Democrat, he has to except the Democratic party's rules

Which he has, and despite having to run against the DNC supported establishment candidate, he's done an amazing job; being down over 60 points in the polls and nobody knowing about him, to getting almost 49% of the vote so far.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently Hillary is getting frustrated with people confronting her with the truth about who she really is, a corporate shill;



https://news.vice.com/article/fossil...ntons-campaign

[Pterodactylus]

Well let's look at it. You said "10% of the voting age population"

Yes, not percentage of votes cast. I am talking percentage of total population that voted.

[Deleted]

Yes, not percentage of votes cast. I am talking percentage of total population that voted.

Well that's just a dumbass cop out, and a claim you can't possibly back up. But, since you made it, go ahead and do so; give proof that the people who voted aren't a representation of all the people who will vote in the general. Otherwise, you said nothing.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Apparently Hillary is getting frustrated with people confronting her with the truth about who she really is, a corporate shill;



https://news.vice.com/article/fossil...ntons-campaign

Her supporters will find some nonsensical way of defending her statement. Come on, Skroe, get to it.

[Deleted]

Her supporters will find some nonsensical way of defending her statement. Come on, Skroe, get to it.

Skroe thinks whoring yourself out to Wall st is a good idea in principle. I'm not sure he'd have anything to say.

[Matchles]

Her supporters will find some nonsensical way of defending her statement. Come on, Skroe, get to it.

I'll defend it. They are saying the industry supports her because employees at a corporation have donated to her campaign. That is ridiculous. Let me show you using Sanders. Here is his contributions by employer for March.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres//2016/M...C00577130.html

Oh my God, Goldman Sachs supports him! Look at that money from Bank of America and Citigroup! What a shill! Shell Oil and a dozen other oil companies! He must be funded by big oil! Now we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel, look at that money from Comcast! Verizon, At&T, T-Mobile?

So at least we've come to an agreement, Sanders is in the pockets of big banking, oil, investment, telecoms, and cable. Who isn't he beholden to?

[Zeth Hawkins]

I'll defend it. They are saying the industry supports her because employees at a corporation have donated to her campaign. That is ridiculous. Let me show you using Sanders. Here is his contributions by employer for March.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres//2016/M...C00577130.html

Oh my God, Goldman Sachs supports him! Look at that money from Bank of America and Citigroup! What a shill! Shell Oil and a dozen other oil companies! He must be funded by big oil! Now we are scrapping the bottom of the barrel, look at that money from Comcast! Verizon, At&T, T-Mobile?

So at least we've come to an agreement, Sanders is in the pockets of big banking, oil, investment, telecoms, and cable. Who isn't he beholden to?

nonsensical

Called it.

[Matchles]

Called it.

Then all I'm hearing is you only find it a problem when you think it does damage to Clinton. You aren't even trying to understand the issue. The donations by employer information is the EXACT information Greenpeace is using to attack Clinton. It is stupid, but it unfortunately plays well with the uninformed.

Here are the top industries donating to Clinton, maybe you can show me where the oil and gas industry is.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/i...0000019&type=f