Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 02:41 AM Mar 2016

A critical thinking response to "Hillary is a corporate shill" memes.

This is a diary from Dailykos.

Now let’s break this all down. This is for over 17 years running 2 US Senate races in one of the largest states with the most expensive media market, and 2 Presidential campaigns in which she’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Because corporations cannot directly donate to a candidate, this is looking primarily at what organizations a donor like me actually works for. When I donate to a candidate, I have to report who I work for and then that corporation appears to be the donor in these type of tallies, even though they aren’t. The GDP of New York is 48 times that of Vermont. So for any source of funds for any statewide race in NY vs. VT $48 donated in NY is equivalent to $1 donated in VT.

So who is the largest evil corporation that donated to her campaigns? Emily’s list-A feminist organization with the mission of electing women.

2nd is not Citigroup itself, but people who work for them. Let’s imagine incorrectly that Citigroup itself actually donated $850,000 over 17 years. That would mean the largest financial donor gave about $50,000 per year. Remember though, that isn’t true, it’s people that work for Citigroup and they are a huge employer and are based in the state she represented in the Senate. In the current race she’s raised $188 million, and Sanders has raised close to $100 million. The argument that she is owned by Citigroup, or Goldman Sachs, or any other is a joke. Let’s imagine Citigroup actually gave her or her PACs $850,000 this cycle. That would be a whopping 0.45%! But remember, the real percentage is a very small fraction of that because it’s from Citigroup employees to all her campaigns over 17 years.
....

And that video of Elizabeth Warren saying she changed her vote on a bankruptcy bill because of Wall Street? Dig deeper, (http://billmoyers.com/story/just-how-cozy-is-hillary-clinton-with-wall-street/) as there is a lot more to that story and Clinton voted the same as that far-right extremist Barbara Boxer.


http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/6/1497214/-A-critical-thinking-response-to-Hillary-is-a-corporate-shill-memes

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A critical thinking response to "Hillary is a corporate shill" memes. (Original Post) Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 OP
I don't read crap from that site 2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #1
So Daily Kos is officially under the bus now? NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #3
Well let me explain my bus 2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #4
! ebayfool Mar 2016 #7
I think you could have narrowed it down ... NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #8
Yep up til the bus starts to roll. 2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #11
You don't seem to be a fan of the vast majority of Americans oberliner Mar 2016 #14
Nope, not when they either don't care about the not so rich, 2pooped2pop Mar 2016 #18
Yes, the post title no doubt warns many away. LOL. Hortensis Mar 2016 #17
K & R SunSeeker Mar 2016 #2
Observe: longship Mar 2016 #5
Read: Nonhlanhla Mar 2016 #6
That information is not accurate oberliner Mar 2016 #16
I see a lot of use of Obama as a protective wall for why Hillary is not corrupt JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #9
Shocking that a "critical thinking response" makes no mention of super PAC money JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #10
Yep. RiverLover Mar 2016 #15
Thank you very much. NurseJackie Mar 2016 #12
KNR Thank you! Lucinda Mar 2016 #13

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
3. So Daily Kos is officially under the bus now?
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 02:49 AM
Mar 2016

Sorry for having to ask - but with all the people being thrown under there these days, it's hard to keep up.

 

2pooped2pop

(5,420 posts)
4. Well let me explain my bus
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 02:58 AM
Mar 2016

Its a very big bus so room is not a problem. I have seats available now. I don't put them under the bus anymore. I put them on the bus ( nice seats too) then the entire bus is pushed over the cliff. Who goes on the bus? All republicans, of course. In addition anyone and everyone that is contributing in any way to further fuck up this country and the american people by buying congress, promoting lies in the media, manipulating the vote with lies, manipulation, and underhanded tricks, anyone promoting more of the same policies that have come to a full head and are causing the non well off to live in poverty, without hope, in constant fear of bullshit arrest, unable to care for their families and living without joy in their lives.
Its a very big bus. Seating is now available

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
8. I think you could have narrowed it down ...
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:15 AM
Mar 2016

... by simply stating the obvious: Anyone who doesn't worship Bernie is going under the bus.

At least the under-the-bus folks have great company: Howard Dean, Al Franken, Gabby Giffords, John Lewis, Sybrina Fulton, EVERY Democrat who has endorsed HRC, EVERY journalist/blogger who has said anything positive about HRC, etc.

Must be quite the party going on under that bus (or ON that bus of yours), what with all that great company to keep!

 

2pooped2pop

(5,420 posts)
11. Yep up til the bus starts to roll.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:17 AM
Mar 2016

Then its less fun with lots of pant shitting, screaming, and the ol gnashing of teeth. Then the party really gets fun for everyone else.

 

2pooped2pop

(5,420 posts)
18. Nope, not when they either don't care about the not so rich,
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:41 PM
Mar 2016

Or are so easily fooled to work to keep the rich in charge. If that's a majority then so be it. Over the cliff with them. The sooner, the better. Buy bye, and all that.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
17. Yes, the post title no doubt warns many away. LOL.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 08:51 AM
Mar 2016

Under the bus is definitely looking like the place to be. Of course, in spite of pooped's gory imaginings, it would have been disabled long ago. We are not even a tenth as stupid as the righteous ones need us to be.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)
6. Read:
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:02 AM
Mar 2016

See link in OP. Just repeating the kind of meme that is being debunked on that diary, is kind of useless.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
9. I see a lot of use of Obama as a protective wall for why Hillary is not corrupt
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:15 AM
Mar 2016

Problem is, why should Obama be free of criticism. I like how Chrysos puts it in the comment section:

Chrysos Mar 06 · 08:29:55 PM

If Hillary is not at least soft corrupt, who is? What is the threshold for being a ‘corporate politician’? If Hillary doesn’t meet that threshold, then most people in DC probably don’t. If they don’t why does big money have such a stranglehold on politics?

At least for me, the criticism of HRC’s contributions are not about her individually. I condemn Obama for his and his work on the TPP, and I condemn all politicians for soliciting bribes from big money. Doesn’t mean I don’t think he’s done good things, as has HRC. I think they’re both good people, and I like them. But am I going to pretend that they are not in some way, shape or form corrupt? Of course not. They are. The vast majority of Democrats are. It’s the nature of the system. That’s why I support Bernie, because I feel our only recourse is to radically change the system. I’m not convinced we can survive(climate change, etc.) without that kind of change. This is a much bigger issue than in 2008 because we actually have someone working outside that system. It’s not Hillary’s albatross alone, but that doesn’t mean she can’t be criticized for it.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
10. Shocking that a "critical thinking response" makes no mention of super PAC money
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 03:16 AM
Mar 2016

Corporate super PAC money, literally fundraised from corporations, which she is now using to fight a primary battle against a candidate of the people. But no, no "critical thinking response" to that point, because there is none.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
15. Yep.
Mon Mar 7, 2016, 08:45 AM
Mar 2016

I read this at open secrets~

Not that you saw it or anything, but OpenSecrets.org got a pretty big shout-out over the weekend. When presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wants to get her facts about campaign finance straight, at least she knows where to come.

“I think it’s important to point out that about 3 percent of my donations come from people in the finance and investment world,” Clinton said during Saturday’s Democratic debate. “You can go to OpenSecrets.org and check that. I have more donations from students and teachers than I do from people associated with Wall Street.”

Well, alright, Madam Secretary — we’ll go to OpenSecrets and check that. Spoiler: Clinton is technically right, but there are some important caveats. Like super PACs. But we’ll get to that.

First, let’s look at her campaign contributions. For what Clinton is trying to show, she’ll want a numerator that includes how much she has received from the securities and investment industry plus the commercial banking industry — combined, that’s what most people think of as “Wall Street,” and in her case, it comes to just about $2.5 million. Her denominator should be her total amount of individual contributions from people who gave more than $200 plus her PAC receipts, which adds up to $63.4 million.

.......snip.........

But Clinton’s statement ignores how dominant super PACs have become in the campaign finance picture. And donors in the securities and investment and commercial banking industries have given the super PACs backing Clinton more than $3.5 million out of the $20.3 million they’ve raised overall from individuals, unions and other entities — a healthy 17.2 percent. Virtually all of that $3.5 million came from the securities and investment industry rather than commercial banks, putting Wall Street at second place on Clinton’s list of top industry donors to her super PACs.

Bottom line: Taking into account donations to both outside groups and the Clinton campaign itself, Wall Street has provided about 7.2 percent of the funds backing Clinton — more than double what she said on Saturday.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/12/actually-hillary-clintons-wall-street-money-more-than-double-that-3-percent/


Plus, the industry has already given her million$ in soft contributions via one hour speeches on nothingness.
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A critical thinking respo...