The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[lwien]

I find it odd how we rail against human right issues that exist in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc, but yet we totally accept and support Saudi Arabia, whose human rights issues are atrocious, and how we rail against the concept of dictatorships unless it's the dictatorships that we support.

Our projection of being altruistic is really nothing more than a facade. It's all about self-interest. Always has been and always will be, but again, it's nothing new and has everything to do with our human nature's prime desire to survive.

 

[Derrrpp]

It's all about self-interest. Always has been and always will be, but again, it's nothing new and has everything to do with our human nature's prime desire to survive.

Kinda ironic that some actions taken out of this same "self-interest" would directly harm humanity's chances of survival, eh?

 

[lwien]

Kinda ironic that some actions taken out of this same "self-interest" would directly harm humanity's chances of survival, eh?

I should have added "short term" in front of "self-interest", eh.

 

[grokit]

Kinda ironic that some actions taken out of this same "self-interest" would directly harm humanity's chances of survival, eh?

But not entirely unexpected for hairless apes fighting over dwindling resources on a burning planet

 

[cybrguy]

Our relationship to Saudi Arabia AND our relationship with Iran have always been difficult to manage and hard to understand.

I don't know if we have ever really been friends with the Saudi people. As far as I know our relationship has always been with the royal family. And I don't recall a time when it was really a healthy one. It has always been about the oil and about a presence (other than Israel) in the Middle East. The US has never been able to get the royal family do do anything about the Wahhabi schools that preach that modernity is evil and anti Islam. They have a tenuous relationship with the mullahs at best and are afraid to do anything that might turn them against them. They are extremely unlikely to risk their own control of their nation for us or anyone else. That shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Our influence on them is quite limited. However the BILLIONS they spend on military gear keeps moneyed interests in this country happy.

When we supported the Shah in Iran who was a terrible despot (but he was our despot) who terrorized his people with a secret police squad, I don't think THAT could be considered a healthy relationship and we know very well how that turned out.

All of that lends itself to the argument the citizens of the middle east make that America is not their friend. It's hard to blame them for feeling that way. Yet, as a nation and as the only remaining superpower (sorry Russia, you just aren't) we can't just walk away from the ME, apologize for our bad behavior, and move on. We have seen what will happen if their anger and hostility towards the west, legitimate or not, is ignored. They are bringing it to Europe, and if allowed to, they will bring it here. If we ever did, we no longer have a choice on whether or not to engage them. The only question is "How do we engage them?"

This post would be off topic except for the fact that who we choose for President next November will make a HUGE difference in how this all works out. It is pretty fucking obvious (to me at least) that the worst possible alternative for our relationship with the world would be Donald Trump. He clearly hasn't a clue on getting along with people here, let alone friends and enemies around the world. His latest argument that we should "nuke up" South Korea and Japan is all one really needs to read to make THAT point pretty obvious, but there is plenty of other utterances and behaviors to choose from. Ted Cruz, while a better choice just because he is a little less of an asshole, would not be a huge improvement on the Donald. Take his suggestion that we should carpet bomb Syria as an indicator of how he is likely to respond to international challenges.

Either of the Democrats would be a better choice, but I worry about Bernie's lack of international chops. While I appreciate his pacifistic views, I worry that he might be too squeamish when faced with international emergencies that require decisive action that may involve a military response. It is critically important to hold back your military from acting unnecessarily, it is also critically important to USE them when necessary, often in an effort to PREVENT escalation. The THREAT of military action may well be all that is needed in certain circumstances, but if your opposition doesn't believe you will act, your threats are useless...

Hillary is the only candidate running for President that I believe has the requisite experience and skill set to handle POTUS at this time. All Presidents learn on the job, but Hillary already has many of the skills most new presidents need time to build. I think her core beliefs match better with the American people than any of the other candidates, and I feel she has a better relationship with congress than an "independent" is likely to have or be able to build. I don't expect the Republicans to magically fall in line or even cooperate in a meaningful way if they still have a majority, but I DO believe she would have a much better chance of that than someone claiming to be a Socialist.

 

[grokit]

^ I agree with most of what you said, except of course regarding bernie. He has been in congress for over 25 years now, which does give him a solid perspective on foreign policy. And he's really no more of a socialist than fdr was, who did well enough in international affairs to be elected to a third term. By definition bernie is more of a new-deal democrat than he is a socialist, but labels and their meanings have morphed these days; the democratic party has been to the right of reagan's policies for a solid generation now.

 

[Magic9]

 

[GetLeft]

...but I worry about Bernie's lack of international chops. While I appreciate his pacifistic views, I worry that he might be too squeamish

This is exactly my quandary. Of course, Bernie's domestic policies would point us in a desirable, progressive direction, and I subscribe to many aspects of his platform. But I've seen in him the occasional lack of foundation (not quite squeamishness), as it were, which, in this day and age, is not an advantage. Not in a presidential campaign against one of the least moral persons on the planet (take your p, trump or cruz), nor in a political stand off with experienced rivals.

Hillary is the only candidate running for President that I believe has the requisite experience and skill set to handle POTUS at this time.

Agreed. But it's a little sad that I'm leaning to H for these qualities rather than B for his qualities...

I think her core beliefs match better with the American people than any of the other candidates,

...especially since I don't believe she has a core belief other than to say and do what she needs to to get elected.

 

[Magic9]

"The Sanders campaign is exaggerating the contributions that Clinton has received from the oil and gas industry. In the context of her overall campaign, the contributions are hardly significant. It’s especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money “given” by the fossil-fuel industry."

Above quote from the WaPo Fact Checker. I'm not sure how they are "exaggerating" the contributions. Some of the (outside) lobbyists may have worked for multiple companies at one point, but all lobbyists being referred to have lobbied for this industry during the current election cycle (since Jan. 2015).

The fact that they decided $1.4 million (excluding superPAC donations, and excluding 309k from employees.) directly to her campaign from 58 registered lobbyists is insignificant does not make what Sanders has said any less true.

One Clinton superPAC (Priorities USA) received $3.2m.

"But it’s a stretch to draw a direct line between those super PAC donations and Clinton’s campaign. Under federal law, the candidates have no control over super PAC spending."

Above quote from Politifact. It is true that candidates have no control over the spending under federal law. In fact, there is supposed to be no coordination.

Prorities USA Action is led by Guy Cecil, the campaign director from her 08 bid. On the board of Priorities is David Brock. Her current campaign director, John Podesta, has joined Cecil in superPAC activities in September 2015.

"That’s why top campaign official Podesta has joined Priorities staffers, including Cecil, on the road, meeting with prospective PAC contributors in New York on Wednesday and Los Angeles on Friday."

David Brock founded the American Democracy Legal Fund along with Brad Woodhouse.

David Brock also founded the Clinton superPAC Correct the Record. The president of Correct the Record is his ADLF partner Brad Woodhouse.

Correct the Record "coordinates directly with the Clinton campaign though a novel legal arrangement."

Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record corroborate together themselves.

"Unlike other independent-expenditure only super PACs, which are prohibited by the Federal Election Commission from coordinating with campaigns or political parties, Correct the Record plans to work closely with the Clinton campaign. That’s because, the group says, it does not plan to spend money to run ads. Instead, the PAC intends to use its website and social media platforms to counter claims made about Clinton."

"In July, the New York Times reported that the super PAC, Action, would team with Correct the Record, another pro-Clinton super PAC, to create a fundraising committee called American Priorities ’16.

American Priorities 16 does not seem to do much fundraising.

(Side note: Correct the Record went negative against Sanders in September.)

Politifact says "it's a stretch to draw a direct line", but I'd disagree. The brother of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, along with his ex-wife, are responsible for $416k of the currently registered lobbyist donations.

Now, it's all (quasi) legal, and she has every right to keep every penny. Even if Obama (and the DNC) were once against accepting money from registered lobbyists.

She does not have the right to accuse the Sanders campaign of lying about her without being specific about what she is referring to. Again, it's not about the money. It's about a primary candidate explicitly calling another candidate a liar without backing it up.

---

Greenpeace has updated their info.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campa...byists-contributions-to-the-clinton-campaign/

"All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry."

"First, there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of March 21, 2016; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors."


"Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,465,610 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number."


"Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign."

 

[howie105]

Till there is full disclosure and verification of the total amounts and sources of campaign funding we will never know the truth about which candidates are selling us out and which are not. As usual in the absence of fact we often have to go with our guts and that is a sad, sad way of picking a President.

 

[Gunky]

One more recap:

1) Bernie took 54K from fossil fuel industry employees. Therefore he has no right whatsoever to criticize Clinton for receiving 308K. To do so is total hypocrisy. Therefore this part of his criticism is completely and utterly without basis and he should be ashamed to make it. Possibly he should apologize .

2) Hillary is not allowed to control which donations a Super Pac supporting her accepts. Invalid criticism. As for the contention that the Clinton campaign is coordinating with the Super Pac. Total bs! Examine the facts yourself. The accusation is total bullshit, beyond tenuous. They tried to throw people under a bus with no compunction. It shows a side of Bernie that plays hardball and is quite different from the vague avuncular figure on TV who refers to himself as "we".

3) Greenpeace and Bernie accuse Clinton of accepting over a million from lobbyists. As the WA Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler said: "It's especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money "given" by the fossil-fuel industry". In other words, Green peace and Bernie are lying.

There’s a further problem with this calculation. Greenpeace counts all of the money raised or contributed by lobbyists as “oil/gas industry” funds, but these lobbyists have many other clients besides the oil industry. Ben Klein, one of the lobbyists highlighted in the Greenpeace report, also lobbies for American Airlines, Cigna, and Hearst, according to the lobbying disclosure database, so in theory his contributions to the Clinton campaign could also be labeled as funds for airline, insurance or media industry.

4) Bernie has now started demanding that Clinton apologize for saying his campaign is lying about Hillary's fund raising. What an outrage. With that he really lost me. I have unliked him on facebook. (On another note, Bernie's campaign emails are truly excessive - 2, 3, 4 emails per day. I thought Obama was bad but Bernie is a real nuisance). This is Trump style campaigning: when proven wrong, double down.

As our colleague Philip Bump noted, about 0.15 percent of Clinton’s campaign and outside PAC money is from the “oil and gas industry,” compared to 0.04 percent of Sanders’s contributions. So it’s pretty hard to describe that as “significant,” as Sanders did in his interview.

Charitably, that's a vast exaggeration. Many would say it's just a lie. It is certainly an untrue calumny of which Bernie should be ashamed. On the PBS news hour last friday Mark Shields described Sanders' claims about Clinton fund-raising as "bogus".

 

[grokit]

Bernie Sanders Fires Back Against Hillary Clinton’s False Accusations


Sanders’ campaign is responding to Clinton’s accusations that they lied about her receiving money from the fossil fuel industry.

After losing her temper and suddenly lashing out against a Greenpeace activist on Thursday, Hillary Clinton accused Sen. Bernie Sanders of lying about political contributions that she currently receives from the fossil fuel industry. Instead of reverting to childish insults, Sanders’ campaign supported their claims with evidence that Clinton has accepted more than $4.5 million from lobbyists and super PACs within the fossil fuel industry.

During a rally in New York on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Clinton if she would reject future fossil fuel donations to her campaign. Aggressively shoving her finger in Resnick-Day’s face, Clinton irritably responded, “I have money from people who have worked for fossil fuel companies. I have never… I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I am sick of it.”

On Friday, Sanders’ campaign responded to her false allegations by pointing to evidence that she has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists and individuals within the fossil fuel industry. At least 57 oil, gas, and coal industry lobbyists have contributed to Clinton’s campaign. And according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Clinton campaign has accepted over $160,000 from employees of fossil fuel companies.

“It is disappointing that Secretary Clinton has leveled an accusation that just isn’t true,” Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver announced on Friday. “It’s very clear from research done by Greenpeace that she’s not just receiving money from ‘individuals’ who happen to work in the oil, coal, and gas industry. Fifty-seven lobbyists from the industry have personally given to her campaign and 11 of those lobbyists have bundled more than $1 million to help put her in the White House. If you include money given to super PACs backing Clinton, the fossil fuel industry has given more than $4.5 million in support of Clinton’s bid.”

Weaver continued, “Bernie believes it is critical that the next president acts to curb the worst effects of climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels. He also believes you cannot take on an industry if you take their money. If the Clinton campaign wants to argue that industry lobbyists giving thousands of dollars to her campaign won’t affect her decisions if she’s elected, that’s fine. But to call us liars for pointing out basic facts about the secretary’s fundraising is deeply cynical and very disappointing.”

According to the video of the incident, Clinton clearly lost her temper when questioned by the Greenpeace activist and ended up launching false accusations against Sanders. Ironically, Resnick-Day is a self-proclaimed undecided voter who was not supporting Sanders when she questioned Clinton’s stance on climate change while continuing to accept money from the fossil fuel industry.

Clinton was reportedly rattled a few minutes before the encounter with Resnick-Day when she heard roughly 20 Bernie supporters shouting, “If she wins, we lose!”


http://www.nationofchange.org/news/...ires-back-hillary-clintons-false-accusations/

 

[His_Highness]

One more recap:

1) Bernie took 54K from fossil fuel industry employees. Therefore he has no right whatsoever to criticize Clinton for receiving 308K. To do so is total hypocrisy. Therefore this part of his criticism is completely and utterly without basis and he should be ashamed to make it. Possibly he should apologize .

I have no problem conceding the point made above about the 54k from the employees. That's the only point I see worth conceding.

Wonder if anyone would be satisfied if Bernie made the statement that the 54k and 308k are a grey area but the LOBBYISTS and the rest of the 4 MILLION PLUS DOLLARS aren't grey at all?

 

[Magic9]

1) Bernie took 54K from fossil fuel industry employees. Therefore he has no right whatsoever to criticize Clinton for receiving 308K. To do so is total hypocrisy. Therefore this part of his criticism is completely and utterly without basis and he should be ashamed to make it. Possibly he should apologize .

Nobody is criticizing her for the employee data. The issue is currently registered lobbyists (that have lobbied for the oil & gas industry this campaign cycle) data.

Clinton did launch an attack on Obama over employee (not lobbyist) contributions from that industry in 2008.

2) Hillary is not allowed to control which donations a Super Pac supporting her accepts. Invalid criticism. As for the contention that the Clinton campaign is coordinating with the Super Pac. Total bs! Examine the facts yourself. The accusation is total bullshit, beyond tenuous.

I provided the links and quotes above (from mainstream sources, NYT, Politico, MSNBC, Factcheck.org). Here is a link to Correctrecord.org stating, "Correct The Record, though a SuperPac, will not be engaged in paid media and thus will be allowed to coordinate with campaigns and Party Committees."

I already linked to some others above, but google has plenty more. The ties between Priorities USA Action and Correct the Record aren't hard to find. These aren't accusations. What I posted above is a matter of public record. Facts.

3) Greenpeace and Bernie accuse Clinton of accepting over a million from lobbyists. As the WA Post fact checker, Glenn Kessler said: "It's especially misleading to count all of the funds raised by lobbyists with multiple clients as money "given" by the fossil-fuel industry". In other words, Green peace and Bernie are lying.

All lobbyists counted are currently registered and have lobbied for this industry in this election cycle. Since it's hard to divide up lobbyist money, they did count the total amount. They disclosed this though on their report.

Interesting note, the multi-industry lobbyist the WaPo mentioned (Ben Klein), is an employee at Heather Podesta and Associates. Heather Podesta is the biggest lobbyist bundler for the Clinton campaign this year.

-----

Obama rejected federal lobbyist money.

The DNC also rejected lobbyist money until recently.

Clinton even recently rejected federally registered lobbyist money directly to her campaign. (It was only $8,600, but she donated/got rid of it anyway).

This article has some good info.

It's weird seeing Democrats argue the nuances of lobbyist money.

Here is the video of Clinton attacking Obama for accepting $200K from employees. Here is another one.

Here is the video of Obama responding.

"Eleventh hour smears. Paid for by lobbyist money. Isn't that exactly what we need to change?"

 

[CarolKing]

Bernie got $54K - seems like nothing in the compared to Clinton's huge amount. It seems like we're picking fly shit out of pepper. Once the next 2 states are over, that will tell us a lot more.

I will stand by who ever the democrats winner is. If Clinton wins that's who I will vote for in Nov. I don't agree with Clintons ideas about foreign affairs far as getting too much involved.

I'm hoping too that there will be election reforms. I don't agree with millionaires and big business buying elections. Hopefully the American people will continue to be fired up about it, sometimes they have a short memory.

Bernie's ideas are extremely important and I hope he stays in through the summer. You never know maybe he will win. Anything can happen between now and November. i can be optimistic.

My girl Susan Sarandon will vote for whatever democrat is on the ballot in November too.

Edit
Donald Trump shows the American public over and over again he doesn't have the balls, integrity, intelligence or know how to be president.

 

[His_Highness]

Donald Trump shows the American public over and over again he doesn't have the balls, integrity, intelligence or know how to be president.

I can't wait till the general election...maybe the same people who don't seem to care about his lack of balls, integrity and intelligence will finally wake the F up. If I'm being honest....I'm sure he loses in the end but I'm not sure the same people who support him will wake up.

 

[Derrrpp]

I think on this issue of the money from fossil fuels, we're kinda just quibbling over a relatively unimportant thing. I understand where both sides are coming from. But is this particular argument really that important in the long run? And I say this as a staunch Bernie supporter, who hates the fossil fuel industry and our addiction to it as much as anyone. We already know the differences and similarities between Clinton's and Sanders' policy stances. We know that they both accepted personal donations from people employed by the fossil fuel industry. We know that Sanders isn't taking money from Super PACs, and Hillary is. And we know that these committees took money from the fossil fuel industry, and also that they are technically prohibited from communicating with the Clinton campaign. And yes, lobbyists also gave money to Clinton, but as has been pointed out, they have multiple clients besides just the fossil fuel industry.

It's certainly a gray area, and what it all means is up to each individual; only you can decide how important this is to you. But for me personally, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's more important things to focus on right now.

 

[cybrguy]

Donald Trump shows the American public over and over again he doesn't have the balls, integrity, intelligence or know how to be president.

The one thing that the Donald is NOT lacking is balls. But he uses them in place of brains, and that doesn't serve him or his campaign very well.

 

[Magic9]

It's certainly a gray area, and what it all means is up to each individual; only you can decide how important this is to you. But for me personally, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's more important things to focus on right now.

She openly accused Sanders of lying. He didn't. She has accepted $1.4 million from registered lobbyists (excluding employee data and superPAC donations) that have lobbied for this industry this current election cycle.

The most important thing, to me, is getting money out of politics. That is one of the reasons I support Sanders.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/

It was an important issue to Clinton in 08 when she attacked Obama for the employee donations made to him. While at the same time collecting more than he did.

The contrast (and similarities) between her 08 and 16 campaign are fascinating.

I'll quit posting about it, but I will respond to any accusation that Sanders is lying about this with accurate and factual links.

Edit*

Just when I think I'm done, she pulls me back in.

HILLARY CLINTON: When people make these kinds of claims, which now I think have been debunked --Actually the Washington Post said "Three Pinocchios"-- and the New York Times analyzed it. Independent analysts have said that they are misrepresenting my record.

I'm just not going to --

I feel sorry sometimes for the young people who believe this, they don't do their own research. I'm glad we can now point to reliable, independent analysis to say: No. It is just not true.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...i_feel_sorry_for_young_bernie_supporters.html

I've done my research (see above posts) and she definitely accepts direct contributions to her campaign from lobbyists. Just like she did in 08.

 

[CarolKing]

That's what I meant @cybrguy, thank you. He's a loud mouthed bafoon that acts like a spoiled adult.

I was reading about the head guy who takes care of things at the Trump mansion in Florida. He's been there s long time. It was an interesting read. He said wonderful things about his boss. It was easy to read between the lines though. I wish I could remember who the guy was and where the article was. It was a month or so ago since I read it.

Edit
It's from the NY Times, this is just part.

You can always tell when the king is here,” Mr. Trump’s longtime butler here, Anthony Senecal, said of the master of the house and Republican presidential candidate.

The king was returning that day to his Versailles, a 118-room snowbird’s paradise that will become a winter White House if he is elected president. Mar-a-Lago is where Mr. Trump comes to escape, entertain and luxuriate in a Mediterranean-style manse, built 90 years ago by the cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post.

Few people here can anticipate Mr. Trump’s demands and desires better than Mr. Senecal, 74, who has worked at the property for nearly 60 years, and for Mr. Trump for nearly 30 of them.

He understands Mr. Trump’s sleeping patterns and how he likes his steak (“It would rock on the plate, it was so well done”), and how Mr. Trump insists — despite the hair salon on the premises — on doing his own hair.

Photo

Anthony Senecal, a longtime butler to Donald J. Trump, at the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., this month. CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times
Mr. Senecal knows how to stroke his ego and lift his spirits, like the time years ago he received an urgent warning from Mr. Trump’s soon-to-land plane that the mogul was in a sour mood. Mr. Senecal quickly hired a bugler to play “Hail to the Chief” as Mr. Trump stepped out of his limousine to enter Mar-a-Lago.

Most days, though, he greeted Mr. Trump with little fanfare, taking the suit he arrived in to be pressed in the full-service laundry in the basement.

The next morning, before dawn and after about four hours’ sleep, Mr. Trump would meet him at the arched entrance of his private quarters to accept a bundle of newspapers including The New York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post and the Palm Beach papers. Mr. Trump would emerge hours later, in khakis, a white golf shirt and baseball cap. If the cap was white, the staff noticed, the boss was in a good mood. If it was red, it was best to stay away.

On Sundays, Mr. Trump would drive himself to his nearby golf course, alternating each year between his black Bentley and his white Bentley.

Mr. Senecal tried to retire in 2009, but Mr. Trump decided he was irreplaceable, so while Mr. Senecal was relieved of his butler duties, he has been kept around as a kind of unofficial historian at Mar-a-Lago. “Tony, to retire is to expire,” Mr. Trump told him. “I’ll see you next season.”

Why would Trump want to be Prez? He must be bored.
CK

 

[cybrguy]

I have to ask a question. Do you (@Magic9 ) or anyone else actually believe that Hillary Clinton as POTUS would abandon the push towards alternative energy in this country and start sucking up to Oil, Gas, and Coal? Really?

As has been said, The President took a lot of money from this industry and wall street, and then did everything he possibly could to control them and then defeat them. Does anyone remember Dodd-Frank? How bout the CFPB? How bout fuel economy standards and CAFE? How bout killing Keystone.

For some of you taking money from an industry means they own you. I think Obama AND Clinton have both shown that that isn't necessarily the case. I understand that the Bernie people are feeling desperate and want to throw as much shit as they can while still claiming the moniker of the "Moral" or "Ethical" candidate, but shit stinks no matter who throws it, and its not possible to keep from getting some on ya.

 

[His_Highness]

I think on this issue of the money from fossil fuels, we're kinda just quibbling over a relatively unimportant thing. I understand where both sides are coming from. But is this particular argument really that important in the long run? And I say this as a staunch Bernie supporter, who hates the fossil fuel industry and our addiction to it as much as anyone. We already know the differences and similarities between Clinton's and Sanders' policy stances. We know that they both accepted personal donations from people employed by the fossil fuel industry. We know that Sanders isn't taking money from Super PACs, and Hillary is. And we know that these committees took money from the fossil fuel industry, and also that they are technically prohibited from communicating with the Clinton campaign. And yes, lobbyists also gave money to Clinton, but as has been pointed out, they have multiple clients besides just the fossil fuel industry.

It's certainly a gray area, and what it all means is up to each individual; only you can decide how important this is to you. But for me personally, I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill. There's more important things to focus on right now.

I agree with your sentiments. We all have to decide what's important to us as individuals when it comes to policy stances and the candidate's actions.

Where this gets elevated in this forum and strays from the actual points at hand is when the candidate or the candidates supporters escalate the debate beyond mere fact. Then it becomes something else entirely and emotions run high.

Which candidate is attempting to deny himself or herself circumspect funding is not up for debate. Whether a candidate has gone negative or is lying is up for debate and the flame throwers get brought out.

The one thing that the Donald is NOT lacking is balls. But he uses them in place of brains, and that doesn't serve him or his campaign very well.

Gotta disagree here....using balls in place of brains shouldn't serve him or his campaign well .... but it actually is. Balls aside....(pun intended) he has stepped on his purportedly tiny dick so often you would think it would have fallen off by now and yet he continues to do great. If anything the balls over brains seems to be enhancing his lead. I am hoping the 'women need to be punished over abortion' is the straw that'll break his back but I'm not sure what will if this doesn't.

For some of you taking money from an industry means they own you. I think Obama AND Clinton have both shown that that isn't necessarily the case. I understand that the Bernie people are feeling desperate and want to throw as much shit as they can while still claiming the moniker of the "Moral" or "Ethical" candidate, but shit stinks no matter who throws it, and its not possible to keep from getting some on ya.

Proves my point perfectly.....Your issue isn't the facts with regard to who is taking the money. That's irrefutable. It's how it paints your candidate that bothers you and requires you to turn the fact into something debatable. EDIT: I'm not saying she is bought and paid for. I am saying she is open to funding that Bernie is not. It just looks bad in comparison. Doesn't mean there is any impropriety. Also doesn't mean the difference isn't worth highlighting.

 

[cybrguy]

Proves my point perfectly.....Your issue isn't the facts with regard to who is taking the money. That's irrefutable. It's how it paints your candidate that bothers you and requires you to turn the fact into something debatable.

No, my issue in that post was not about the facts. My issue in that post is that trying to tar Hillary will do nothing for your guy and will only hurt your own interests when it comes to the general. And that Bernie's methods are just as stinky as anyone else s.

And as regards your belief that Trumps big balls are what got him here, you are wrong. What got him here is that he pushes hate out in front of him like a shield, and when people are afraid, hate is a kind of release.

But in actual fact, nobody has voted for Donald Trump for President yet. They are only selecting the Republican candidate. I think all the folk who think he will get a "huge" number of votes in the general are gonna be in for quite a shock. Donald Trump is beloved by a relatively small segment of the Republican base who are very loud and aggressive just like him, but they are nowhere near a large enough group to win a National election.

 

[His_Highness]

But in actual fact, nobody has voted for Donald Trump for President yet. They are only selecting the Republican candidate. I think all the folk who think he will get a "huge" number of votes in the general are gonna be in for quite a shock. Donald Trump is beloved by a relatively small segment of the Republican base who are very loud and aggressive just like him, but they are nowhere near a large enough group to win a National election.

I absolutely agree. Once we get past the primary and voting numbers are no longer held to party lines he will lose. Until then....I'd still like to see something, anything, that would reduce his popularity with those who support him. It would give me cause to believe that the veil is being lifted. I just don't want to believe that the hearts and minds of so many are this hate based or in such desperate need for political 'entertainment'.

 

[cybrguy]

I know. It is disheartening. It points out how much work we have ahead of us in moving our nation forward. Fortunately, we have a LOT of people who are in the game and want to help. On all sides, btw. And if we can get to the point where we are addressing things that help EVERYONE, we can succeed.

I refuse to lose hope. Thanks, Barack. You have helped me with that.