General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDear Bernie one way to make yourself insignificant is lumping in
Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
the Clinton Foundation with the Koch brothers.
Ridiculous, untrue, and truly makes you look sad and desperate.
Updated with the transcript that inspired this OP:
What are those concerns exactly?
SANDERS: Well, it's not just The Clinton Foundation. Here are my concerns, George, and it should be the concern of every American.
And this is, in a sense, what my campaign is about -- can somebody who is not a billionaire who stands for working families actually win an election in which billionaires are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the election?
It's not just Hillary. It is the Koch Brothers. It is Sheldon Adelson.
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- with them.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-fallout-baltimore/story?id=30757510&page=10
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Guess we will have to wait for the transcript/video.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)and Bernie veers off that it's not just about the Clinton Foundation.
It was pretty clear.
If he thinks a philanthropic organization, is anything even close to what the Koch brothers do, he is out of depth.
Gothmog
(145,303 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)As I said Mediaite has some of it up.
But we already discussed this down thread...
boston bean
(36,221 posts)is not related to what is stated in the OP.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Gothmog
(145,303 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Mianthropic Sycophant Monster .
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... who take money from the Kochs to the politicians who take money from other billionaires.
At least that's the way I heard it.
cali
(114,904 posts)he's been very delicate about that big stinking mess Bill and Hillary have created- it's going to blow up because of their carelessness.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)He leaves it hanging there and most assuredly does compare them as one in the same.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)whenever a reporter asks him to comment on Hillary. I just ignores the question and goes on to talk issues. Why would he suddenly change that approach on an issue he does not even care about?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)In response to Bernies criticism (which is RW pablum) about the Clinton Foundation.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are grasping at straws
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I made a valid and accurate post.
You call that freaking out... well, we have different definitions of freaking out.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You are misinterpreting what was said, either intentionally or unintentionally, then freaking out about it. It's pretty sad when crap like this is all you have. It's going to be a looong primary....for you.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)emulatorloo
(44,131 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)expect questions about it.
He is after all, running against Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. When one attacks, expect to be questioned on it.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)However, factors like priming and high sensitivity to potential attacks can sometimes cause people to misinterpret or even mis-hear things.
It pays to be gentle. We're gonna need all of us when this shakes out.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)I support a different candidate and may have a different outlook than you, but that doesn't make this OP biased. It is based in fact.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I don't think he meant they are equivalent in every respect. I think he was trying to shift the conversation to the right-wingers and point out that money has too much power. Which it does.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)If he is going after the 1%, SOS Clinton can not be left out.
But I understand your concern.
It is a fine line to walk.
demmiblue
(36,864 posts)Because it wasn't what he said.
demmiblue
(36,864 posts)I have no idea what this poster is referring to.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)demmiblue
(36,864 posts)I will watch when it gets posted online (no cable here).
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)If I am mistaken, I will gladly apologize.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)but alas, millions of dollars always has strings attached...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But I'll wait and see, my whole family was yelling about it so I'll have to read it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)oh never mind.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)her for 25 years and liked her and some other nice stuff and moved it on.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Anyone else find that strange?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)about this primary. it has been educational.
i also addressed the "fool" thread and saw you and your pals, nowhere around.
i have been consistent in my condemnation. how about you?
they are both democratic candidates. i am thrilled with both of our candidates and excited for both. you have an issue with me supporting our democratic candidates?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)That's what we're talking about. Casting aspersions about having a trickle down agenda that ignores social issues? It's like an bizarro world and the only thing I can figure is that you you harbor some really negative feelings about him for reasons I cannot fathom.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am not surprised you can create your own story.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and pat you and your guy pals on the back
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Guy friends patting backs has nothing to do with anything.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)not the same thing at all. but wtf, when one can continually making up his own story, regardless
now done playing your game
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)seems to be a two way street, IMHO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Anyone who says anything you disagree with on pretty much any subject is 'one'.
lol
Response to seabeyond (Reply #62)
Caretha This message was self-deleted by its author.
cali
(114,904 posts)passive aggressive.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)It's possible to honestly like someone and disagree with their political philosophy.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i called it out. asking if that is what happened.
from transcripts it APPEARS what happened. nothing is wrong with that. and no since making it something it isnt, or acknowledging a truth.
it sounded like, hence me ask....
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)back at you, probably tenfold.
crazy what something like this does with us, with people we have chatted with a decade.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)review is here, and the vid is short.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026595115
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)He asks Bernie why he's running, Bernie answers, and Stephanopolous immediately turns the conversation to Hillary. Where were the follow-up questions to the reasons Bernie actually gave? Where were the follow up questions about the wealth disparities between the 1% and the rest of Americans?
The media wants a dog fight.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)I would assume that questions about how his views are different than Hillary's would be expected.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)But that's not what Stephanopolous asked.
"Is Hillary a member of the billionaire class?" is not a question about how their views differ.
If he were actually interested in their views, he could have asked "is Hillary a member of the billionaire class, and if so, how might that affect how she addresses economic issues vs how you how address them?"
As it was, Stephanopolous was clearly asking a gotcha question.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)you thought ones opponent was a part of that class.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)they have to beaten on the head with a stick to get them talking.
If this shakey parallel of thermonuclear armed fascist Koch's versus Kalishnikov armed pacifist Clinton Foundation is what it takes, so be it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The election campaign industry never stops anymore, and there's no end to the money.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Make them give free ads for their free FCC licenses. They do nothing to earn them these days.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)You are being ridiculous, untruthful, and truly making yourself look sad and desperate.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)This is exactly what he said:
"It's not just Hillary it's the Koch Bros and Sheldon Adelson."
In a response to something he said to Georges peer about the Clinton Foundation.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)and yes, the Clinton Foundation, Koch Brothers, AIPAC, Adelson, and others are guilty, so this what you call "lumping in" may not seem so bad to the general public who sees no difference between them.
It's not as if I saw him lumping them in together. I saw the point as being one of money in politics.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)... into stupidity is needlessly slinging mud.
Adelson and The Kock brothers represent only the 1% for the 1% and hate the "others"...
Those who lump Hillary in that lose credibility right off the bat... no use in wasting time on that stupid crap
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Then you got nothing.
"He vaguely lumped! He vaguely lumped! eeeevviilll!! Auuuurrrrggggghhhhhaaaayyyyy!!"
It will be a loooong primary...for you.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Bernie is one of a very few who do not take big corporate money.
To put the organizations who donate this money in a group is perfectly feasible.
So you are saying that Hillary does not take large amounts of money from corporate donors?
I don't think so.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)rather than just pushing the Clinton narrative and ignoring the bigger picture.
I'd think you'd be happy about that.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)good luck trying to sell that meme. Best go back to conference and look for something tangible...if you can actually find it.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)regarding Bernies recent concerns about "money made by the Clinton Foundation"
Bernie said, "It's not just Hillary, it is the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson."
If that aint lumping the Clinton foundation in with the Koch's......
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's disappointing.
still_one
(92,217 posts)Citizens United. He is not attacking the Clinton Foundation, he is attacking big money in politics
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And yes, he lumps it in with the Koch's.
It is not the even close and he needs to stop with using right wing smear tactics.
Hillary has called for a constitutional amendment against Citizens United. In fact, the decision was regarding a smear movie made about her in which she was on the side against MONEY in POLITICS.
So he is making a huge mistake here, and sounds utterly ridiculous.
Whoosh...
That was your credibility going out the window.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)What makes you think you know anything about my credibility taking that into consideration.
Even your family members, as you state above, heard the same thing.
So, please stop...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Fla Dem
(23,690 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Go Boston!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I think you need to re-evaluate that statement, or tell me what statements Bernie has made, using what right wing smear tactics?
Otherwise, I will take it as hyperbole.
still_one
(92,217 posts)absolutely no evidence that the Clinton Foundation is involved in financing any political campaigns, and that is straight out of the republican play book.
In fact that is what political right wing hack Schweizer has been doing, pimping his new book based on innuendoes and not facts, yet outlets like the NY Times and other shows give him free reign:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209
boston bean
(36,221 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)It's amazing how Bernistas are twisting themselves into pretzels to deny he said what he said. Honestly, the Hillary trashing has been a dominant theme on DU for a good while. Bernie is not perfect- he made a mistake-it probably won't be the last. Hopefully he misspoke. And BTW, all rich people are not evil. There a plenty of wealthy people who vote Democratic.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)look stupid.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Seriously.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)If you think I am freaking out, I will ask you to stop freaking out about my alleged freaking out.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping! Lumping!
I can't begin to imagine how you might react to an actual issue~!!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lets all go back to middle school
still_one
(92,217 posts)"troubling" with the "Clinton Foundation", were also intentionally misleading, no surprise from our wonderful media.
What Bernie's point was is that the big money involved in campaigns was obscene, and he was referring to ALL of it, not singling out anyone.
Now I didn't hear todays interview, but based on previous days reports, and what Bernie actually said sure doesn't sync up with what he has been saying about big money distorting our system of Democracy, verses going after the Clinton Foundation. Not sure if I buy that
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)The way to insignificance is to pretend the truth doesn't exist.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)The Clinton foundation has made life saving changes in the world. To lump that foundation in with Koch is purposeful, dishonest, and playing the usual politics. He is no different than any lying politican.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Is mentioning them both in the same paragraph this 'lump' of which you speak?
Is 'lumping' going to be the main 'issue' the Hillary camp will use? Does any of this matter at all?
Is a mountain being made out of a sand pit?
Is it worthy of running around with hair aflame?
If this is the reaction we are to expect from this sort of vague nonsense, what will be the reaction when actual issues come up?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)...in an attempt to deny what Sanders has said--twice now.
He is indeed stating (not even suggesting) that they are in the same category.
I know: lets pretend that Clinton something equally suggestive and inaccurate. Lets say she used Sanders, Lieberman, Nader in the same sentence regarding liberal sell-outs. I am certain you would not be giving her the same deference that you are giving Sanders.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You cannot answer my questions, so you project.
Film at 11
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Nice deflections however.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)So why would'nt he say it again?
It cracks me up that you all are attempting to recreate his meaning giving it the best possible interpretation. When Clinton says something, you turn yourselves into pretzels to give it the worst meaning possible.
He mentioned Clinton, Koch in the same sentence and then lies when asked point blank. He should at least be honest about what everyone know he is insinuating.
iPad make it easy to misspell
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Is Hillary Clinton part of the billionaire class? Stephanopoulos said. The putative Democratic frontrunner has amassed a decent fortune in speaking fees, including to such institutions as Goldman Sachs.
It means that Hillary Clinton has been part of the political establishment for many many years, Sanders said. I have known Hilary for 25 years. I respect her and I like her. But I think what the American people are saying is that at a time when 99% of all new income is going to the 1%, and when the top one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, maybe its time for real political shake-up, and go beyond establishment politics.
We need a political revolution in this country, Sanders added.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But trust me I am watching.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)You want to try and make this seem like I am lying... well, I guess your family would be too from your posting up thread where you state they heard it too.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)boston bean
(36,221 posts)Then you question my credibility....
I can read and follow along in threads.
Now you are back tracking a bit... good and thank you.
djean111
(14,255 posts)So it's all good!
Interviewer are going to fold the Clinton stuff in. That's politics. And that's the down side to huge money.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)other Democratic candidate's positions and statements.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)He was asked about Clinton and he tried to change the focus to the Koch Bro and Adelson.
You appear to be trying to distract from the main issue of big money in politics. Sen Sanders and Clinton are miles apart on that issue.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Why is he using RW smear tactics regarding the Clinton Foundation to try to make it seem as though Hillary is one in the same with the Koch Bros?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The Republicons don't like anything about Clinton, so if Sen Sanders doesn't see eye to eye, you will claim he is siding with the Right Wing.
If Clinton is concerned about getting big money out of politics she hasn't walked the walk. Sen Sanders refuses to take money from the billionaires. Can Clinton match that?
I am not speaking for Sen Sanders but I think the Clinton Fdn getting large contributions from foreign sources is a conflict of interest at best.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)He wasn't asked about Sheldon and the Koch Bros and then decided to toss the Clinton Foundation under the bus. Other way around.
I read it as Bernie basically answering a bad question with 'if you want to talk big political donations, look at Adelson and The Koch Bros.'
The question singled out the Clinton Foundation, not Sen Sanders. He should be commended for pointing out there are also many fund-raising organizations for the GOP, but alas ...
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)And how I think he meant it.
randome
(34,845 posts)Far too much attacking going on in both directions, leaving a very muddled crossfire that makes it impossible to see much of anything clearly.
If Sanders ends up pulling an upset over Clinton, there will be joy from the fringe-groups that thrive on "We told you so!" Which simply points to their small-minded concerns of wanting to be right.
If Clinton beats back Sanders, we'll be treated to a different flavor of "We told you so!" but it will be just as annoying and solidify that group's status as pragmatists when actually, anything could have happened to throw the race one way or the other and it's out of anyone's control.
I think most DUers -the vast majority who don't post much- are content to wait it out and see what happens and won't take a stand when it's FAR TOO FUCKING EARLY TO TAKE A STAND!
They're the smart ones.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Is today your day to beat on Bernie?
Why are you making shit up? Snufleufagus lumped them together, not Bernie.
Fail.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I guess that was lie number one!
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Stephanopolous asked Bernie why he's running for president, and Bernie gave an answer about standing up for working people, taking on the billionaire class, and leading an effort by the people to stand up and say enough is enough.
Stephanopolous immediately then asked if Hillary is a member of the billionaire class. THAT is what he got out of Bernie's reply?
There are a surely more relevant questions Staphanopolous could have asked, but he went straight for the "let's see if we can get Bernie to attack Clinton" line of question.
And during Sanders's reply, where he mentioned that Hillary is part of the political estsblishment - but went on to discuss the issue of the 1% vs the 99% - the video clip showed a Hillary photo montage through his entire response.
The media is trying to make this a contest between personalities instead of issues. We should be better than that here.
The video clip is here:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephanopoulos-to-bernie-sanders-is-hillary-part-of-the-billionaire-class/
boston bean
(36,221 posts)And he answered as I have stated.
What is being discussed here in this thread, is not relative to what you just posted.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It means that Hillary Clinton has been part of the political establishment for many many years, Sanders said. I have known Hilary for 25 years. I respect her and I like her. But I think what the American people are saying is that at a time when 99% of all new income is going to the 1%, and when the top one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, maybe its time for real political shake-up, and go beyond establishment politics.
We need a political revolution in this country, Sanders added.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Claiming that Sanders supporters are mean fools dammit! I guess it's a way for a tiny minority to attempt to stay relevant. Because the issues in this post do not make Bernie look insignificant at all.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)the OP?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Aw jeez.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)threw quite a hissy, letting me know for sure, that was not relevant to the campaign.
right
coy.
where did you get that
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You are a great poster.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Sanders didn't lump them together, he redirected Stephanopoulos and the viewers toward the real sources of oligarchy.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)supporters do not feel that is significant.
you all showed me well.
so.... i think if clinton were smart, she would grab on to that one.
while i was only allowing sanders campaign to be more inclusive, too many supporters said no, and shut the fuck up. without asking, thinking, conversing, otherwise.
so you coming in this thread, to let all us know, that it is merely, women supporting women, silly women, surely puts us in our place. as women. not a supporter to a group.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Why should those of us who don't hold "women supporting women" as a prime directive, support Clinton instead of Sanders?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)What is it, other than your stated belief in the importance of women supporting women, that recommends Clinton?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Did you pull the "aside from the color of his skin" shit during the last primary? This is just as insulting and rude as hell.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)You stand by that shitty post?
You are long overdue for my ignore list. No one should be subjected to such hatred here.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Why should someone support Clinton instead of Sanders?
The answers I've heard
1) money
2) "electable"
3) grooming
5) "women supporting women"
Are there others?
At risk of understatement, I find only answer #1 to be even the tiniest bit compelling... albeit cynical.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)if you cannot even acknowledge the significance of a need for a woman advocate, why would any of us bother with your demand.
you immediately dismiss women with your first comment then demand they accommodate you and play your game.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)on social issues?
Because that is the implication. ie, what I hear when I see that question is.... Why would those issues matter to you and you are stupid if that has any bearing on your vote.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we have had the displeasure of doing this dance with for the last 3 yrs.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... in his generalized observation that money has damaged our democracy.
If your real gripe is a difference in social policy, what policies do you (and Clinton) disagree with?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and to supporting the people instead of the wealthy.
And you think this is Sanders attacking Clinton.
Good job dragging the debate down to where the lazy media wants it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)Otherwise he is spouting rw pablum.
The Clinton Foundation is not the Kochs or Adelsons.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We won't get vapid personality coverage all by itself!!
Now, who would you prefer to have a beer with? That's clearly far more important to discuss.
Golly, if only it was clear he was not saying they were the same in his response. Say, by making it pretty obvious he was changing the subject towards the wealthy.
Now, is it OK for us to talk about Sander's hair? Or is that only horribly wrong when talking about Clinton?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)There are huge problems of wealth in our democracy and the media shouldn't hyper-focus on the Clinton foundation.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That is also true. So please stop lying. The Girl is going to win the nomination and the WH and the corporate juggernaut will continue to roll over the citizenry. So cheer up.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We all know the answer to that question ... We may not like the answer; but, we do know it.
boston bean
(36,221 posts)He is conflating her and the foundation for maximum effect.
None of it is true.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)this later.
If he is lumping Clinton Foundation with the scum, then that is wrong and I dont think he did.
He will clarify
I am still not sure what Clinton Foundation and campaign donations have to do with each other, is the allegation that she is getting donations to her campaign from the people who already donated to the foundation?
Bernie also is aware of how ugly the money deal is in DC, and as he is not part of it so he can and should sit outside of it and criticize
Hillary is in the middle of it and CANT Win the election without the big money, without it the ASSHOLE RACISTS win...
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)What do you mean by 'lumping'?
pa28
(6,145 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)by inclusion? lol
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)but the last time he made that mistake he roped in $1.5 million in 24 hours.
Apr 30, 2015, 7:18 AM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One of the things you have to watch out for especially in local elections is the rich person who has a foundation, gives a donation to a very needy charity and then receives an endorsement from the director of the charity. A lot of people will vote for the rich person because they see that the director of the charity endorsed him, not knowing that there was a sort of tacit, silent understanding that the donation would be followed by the endorsement.
Not all gifts to charities are selfless or disinterested.
And Bernie is talking about having elections that are not dominated by the rich oligarchs. Nothing wrong with rich oligarchs, but you don't have a democracy or even a democratic republic when very rich people have so much influence over the news feed and the decision about what topics are discussed and what topics are not discussed.
Bernie is the only candidate who is not groveling to the rich for donations. He is the only candidate who will spend very little buying TV time. He will be making no deals with the networks to buy ad time and then get coverage.
Hillary has lots of money to buy all the ads and employees she wants. Her foundation is just a proof of the Clinton's ability to raise a lot of money from very rich people. Nothing wrong with what the foundation does. But why are the rich people giving to it? We cannot know. They donors probably have a variety of motivations.
TerrapinFlyer
(277 posts)And for anyone here on DU that thinks Bernie's statement was not a mistake, then they are blinded from the facts. The statement he made was very clear. He compared Hillary to the Koch Brothers.
If you defend that statement, you need to leave DU.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...important phrase/word when you're in the national spotlight.
A COMBINATION of many statements can seal the mindset of the person speaking...not just a very few.
or "One action does not constitute a Universe"
william cail
(32 posts)Is it too soon for Bernie to change his mind and endorse Hilary for 2016? He won't get pass Iowa or New Hampshire. Bernie should just stick to being a good senator from Vermont. He'll be more useful there.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14
Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haitis business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levis, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour 100 gourdes daily to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haitis garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haitis export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohls, Levis and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haitis post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haitis minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Parkthe U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investmentis systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)And, the grim reality is that Clinton is getting a lot of corporate money.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Bernie should not have lumped the Koch Brothers in with the Clinton Foundation. There are real differences. Of course, it seems like he wasn't trying to do that; he seemed to be trying to segue the conversation to denounce republican megadonors like odious Adelson and the Kochs.
Instead, we can just look at some of the Clinton Foundation contributors, which is a laundry list of large corporations, Wall Street firms, superrich moderates and liberals, few of whom have income inequality on their list of concerns. You know the likes of the Gates, Exxon, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Haim Saban, Coca Cola, Goldman, Morgan Stanley and on and on it goes. All folks who thrive under the current system of income inequality and return a pittance as their penance.
Nothing is for nothing, brothers and sisters.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do, newly announced Clinton primary opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders told ABC on Thursday. But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. Im concerned about the Koch brothers and their billions. Were looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clintons-big-money-dilemma-117559.html#ixzz3Z6IZ0nak
Caretha
(2,737 posts)with the Kochs & Adelson then
GOOD
I'm sure he is much more circumspect than me, but I mean that with all my dirty fucking hippie heart.
Have a good day.