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
119 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I just found this on the AFSCME FaceBook page (Original Post) Omaha Steve Oct 2015 OP
excellent sleuthing, steve restorefreedom Oct 2015 #1
I hope this means that individual AFSCME members will be voting for Bernie and NOT Hillary. eom a kennedy Oct 2015 #2
this one will. :D roguevalley Oct 2015 #74
Well since the picture was posted by two members, that's at least two... George II Oct 2015 #77
Bernie folks have been posting on this page ever since the endorsement. Anyone can post anything. upaloopa Oct 2015 #3
Explain this then pinebox Oct 2015 #6
I already did in my post upaloopa Oct 2015 #11
No you didn't pinebox Oct 2015 #13
Heyyyyyyyyy...... Plucketeer Oct 2015 #32
Yes they posted it... Agschmid Oct 2015 #37
NO, it wasn't posted by AFSCME...it was posted by Unions4SWorkers... brooklynite Oct 2015 #52
Clarification. Chan790 Oct 2015 #104
It appears that graphic was posted by two members of AFSCME, not the union itself. George II Oct 2015 #54
I don't care who posted it. this AFSCME member is voting for bernie. roguevalley Oct 2015 #75
No, see my explanation in post #54. Chan790 Oct 2015 #105
Post #54 is mine. George II Oct 2015 #111
You're right. It's #104. Chan790 Oct 2015 #116
So, what's your comment on the fact in the meme? marym625 Oct 2015 #113
Post removed Post removed Oct 2015 #16
It says November 2014. JaneyVee Oct 2015 #43
Anyone can log in as AFSCME, with their email and password, and post on the page? arcane1 Oct 2015 #28
Says a busy typist on a forum. artislife Oct 2015 #58
Oh snap. 99Forever Oct 2015 #80
Govt. employees see slick, lying politicians ALL the time. Divernan Oct 2015 #4
Good post. We all know the top gov't jobs go to the friends of politicians erronis Oct 2015 #20
As a 26 year civil servant RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #107
yeah, that was Mrs Clinton's biggest whopper of the night. Doctor_J Oct 2015 #5
Rank and file likely support Bernie in much greater numbers PowerToThePeople Oct 2015 #7
It's sad pinebox Oct 2015 #8
Meaningless as the union as a whole decided to endorse Hillary treestar Oct 2015 #9
As Madame Secretary rises in the polls I expect the attacks on her to become increasingly... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #10
Your saying this isn't correct info? Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #12
Text without context often become pretext for an assault. DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #14
Bernie Sanders rejects donation from drug company CEO Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #17
Nobody is disputing the independent senator from Vermont eschews donations from ... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #18
They don't tend to give money out of a spirit of civic responsibility Armstead Oct 2015 #21
US News: Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’ Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #22
It seems Madame Secretary is already putting the proverbial "fear of God" in the pharmaceutical DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #25
Did Hillary tell them to cut that out? Left Coast2020 Oct 2015 #38
I hope they were wearing Depends because Madame Secretary likely made them wet themselves... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #48
Yes she is a tough cookie like Madam Thatcher. Too bad she won't be fighting for the 99%. rhett o rick Oct 2015 #81
She sure made that pharmaceutical company bend to her will... DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #84
I doubt she will tax the billionaires. I doubt she will do anything to control the banks or Wall rhett o rick Oct 2015 #86
Really? nuxvomica Oct 2015 #99
Really DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #100
No. You said that Turing was made to "bend to her will" nuxvomica Oct 2015 #101
"What people say and what they do are two different things." To the conservative mind rhett o rick Oct 2015 #102
This message was self-deleted by its author Maineman Oct 2015 #89
This message was self-deleted by its author Maineman Oct 2015 #90
What did Hilary have to do with that? arikara Oct 2015 #91
I already explained it. My remarks require no further elucidation./nt DemocratSinceBirth Oct 2015 #98
Ignoble? I say it's corrupt bread_and_roses Oct 2015 #53
Spin it as you might, the fact is that HRC is accepting campaign money from rhett o rick Oct 2015 #78
deflection/dodging is the strong suit of many around here stupidicus Oct 2015 #19
If you're referring to the OP, technically it is "correct info", but it's incomplete and misleading. George II Oct 2015 #59
Of course it's incorrect. Companies aren't legally allowed to donate to candidates mythology Oct 2015 #68
It's simple for corporations to get around the requirement that they can't donate to candidates. rhett o rick Oct 2015 #92
People keep saying that but can't seem to come up with any real information to "confirm" that. George II Oct 2015 #115
I think what he meant to say Steve is that you are lying davidpdx Oct 2015 #94
Yeah, when we speak about issues RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #108
Just check their contributors. It's public FACT. DrBulldog Oct 2015 #15
Here is the 2016 info Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #23
You conveniently left out the separate columns designation contributions from INDIVIDUALS... George II Oct 2015 #26
Better? Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #30
No Steve, that still combines Corp donations with individual donations emulatorloo Oct 2015 #33
Steve imho it is a mistake to conflate individual donations with corporate donations emulatorloo Oct 2015 #31
Here it is Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #34
Yes. Individual contrib = $76,0077,856. PAC contrib = $638,460 emulatorloo Oct 2015 #35
Same page Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #46
Thanks, saw that. emulatorloo Oct 2015 #47
Yes, you're correct, thanks.... George II Oct 2015 #49
Too bad it's false. Clinton didn't accept a PENNY from "various pharmaceutical Co.'s", or any... George II Oct 2015 #24
She hasn't? pinebox Oct 2015 #40
Read the details - corporations and unions are forbidden from contributing to candidates... George II Oct 2015 #51
That is what the PACs are for Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #60
Excellent work, Steve Thespian2 Oct 2015 #27
I think Hillary has more power over them that's why they feel the need to contribute. Bernie is no kelliekat44 Oct 2015 #29
Part 2 :) pinebox Oct 2015 #36
I love how Bernie always says "we". progressoid Oct 2015 #67
Again, I say: How can ANYONE trust her? AzDar Oct 2015 #39
I ask myself that question every day pinebox Oct 2015 #41
Free pass at least from the lame Media, Banksters and Billionaires. SoapBox Oct 2015 #45
Only Time Will Tell... From All I've Seen Regarding ChiciB1 Oct 2015 #42
Actually 98% of HRCs contributions are from individuals... brooklynite Oct 2015 #55
OOPS Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #62
Steve, the campaign is not a PAC. emulatorloo Oct 2015 #64
Speaking of trust... SoapBox Oct 2015 #44
When a candidate needs the money for public exposure and getting out the message, how much Fred Sanders Oct 2015 #50
Yeah. Those pesky pharmaceutical companies just can't wait for.... Duckfan Oct 2015 #56
That's a happy little graphic. PatrickforO Oct 2015 #57
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Oct 2015 #61
Also Hillary's Top donors INdemo Oct 2015 #63
And Now A Sample Of Bernie's Top Supporters Duckfan Oct 2015 #65
and a sample of Hillary's... brooklynite Oct 2015 #88
HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Oct 2015 #66
K&R liberal_at_heart Oct 2015 #69
Didn't AFSCME just endorse HRC? AllyCat Oct 2015 #70
Posted by a member or the public Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #71
They did, but maybe that was a decision by the higher ups TexasBushwhacker Oct 2015 #87
Right....the general membership hates her....I don't get it. Pauldg47 Oct 2015 #95
Kicked and recommended! Enthusiast Oct 2015 #72
K&R. A picture worth a thousand words! Says it all. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #73
Excellent sleuthing! zappaman Oct 2015 #76
Thank you Steve. sadoldgirl Oct 2015 #79
We haven't heard from the 800 lb gorilla yet Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #83
Here's how those "individual donations" from corporations work NJCher Oct 2015 #82
. Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #85
You got it. And every shareholder of those corporations raouldukelives Oct 2015 #97
Hillary is amazing in her ability to say anything or be anything just to win Bernblu Oct 2015 #93
Did we forget? Half-Century Man Oct 2015 #96
Where is the link for this vote? I googled it sufrommich Oct 2015 #103
I find it questionable that my union AFSCME RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #106
Be sure this AFSCME retiree gets a copy Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #109
Will do! n/t RoccoR5955 Oct 2015 #110
K&R marym625 Oct 2015 #112
Exactly which Pharmaceutical Companies has Hillary received $$ from? boston bean Oct 2015 #114
The Hill: Clinton tops 2016 field in drug industry donations Omaha Steve Oct 2015 #118
What drug company gave Hillary's campaing money? boston bean Oct 2015 #119
If anyone is interested, here is the AFSCME Endorsement Announcement... George II Oct 2015 #117

George II

(67,782 posts)
77. Well since the picture was posted by two members, that's at least two...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:40 PM
Oct 2015

....leaves only 1,299,998 more.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
3. Bernie folks have been posting on this page ever since the endorsement. Anyone can post anything.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:31 PM
Oct 2015

Kind of like the inter web polls after the debate and after the Rep. Elijah Cummings endorsement. Key board warriors are busy.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
13. No you didn't
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:46 PM
Oct 2015

because you said "anybody can post anything on facebook" while not realizing that graphic was posted by AFSCME it very self on THEIR page by the union.

That was posted BY THE UNION.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
32. Heyyyyyyyyy......
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:40 PM
Oct 2015

You're not gonna whack ol' upaloo with EVIDENCE, are ya??? That's not fair at all.

Agschmid

(28,749 posts)
37. Yes they posted it...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:59 PM
Oct 2015

They posted it November 2014, and they probably meant it. I don't see it as an endorsement but more of a "hey we agree" which is how I feel about Bernie. But he's not my pick.

I'm not sure how a picture from a year ago, means an endorsement from yesterday is invalid?

brooklynite

(94,352 posts)
52. NO, it wasn't posted by AFSCME...it was posted by Unions4SWorkers...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:21 PM
Oct 2015

..."a virtual community of workers, union members, leaders & activists"

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
104. Clarification.
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:33 AM
Oct 2015

The Facebook header in that image said it was posted to AFSCME by whoever administrates the AFSCME Facebook page (which is to say "AFSCME (or their authorized representative) posted it to AFSCME's page&quot and that person tagged two other people named John Rogers and Linda Smith. It's a repost of an image originally posted by Unions4Workers but it was AFSCME--not John Smith, Linda Rogers or Unions4Workers--that posted it to the AFSCME page.

I'm not calling you out specifically. I just know that not everybody knows how to read those headers to understand who posted what versus liked or reposted or whatever, especially if they're not a Facebook user.

I don't think it nullifies their formal endorsement but it does suggest it's not as deep or complete of an endorsement as some people might interpret it to be initially. They endorsed Hillary but they seem to really like Bernie too. That suggests a weak preference or ambivalence.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
105. No, see my explanation in post #54.
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:37 AM
Oct 2015

It was posted by whoever administrates the AFSCME page and they tagged those two people on the post. It was factually posted by the union itself or someone authorized to post on their behalf.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
113. So, what's your comment on the fact in the meme?
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:19 AM
Oct 2015

Rather than making up something because of people tagged in it?

Response to upaloopa (Reply #11)

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
4. Govt. employees see slick, lying politicians ALL the time.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:36 PM
Oct 2015

We know what they promise to get elected, and we see the lobbyists, quid pro quos, etc. daily slithering in and out of their offices after they're elected, and how those campaign promises are quickly and conveniently ignored. I was a state employee the last 10 years before I retired. It was my first time working for a governmental entity (legislature) and I learned and observed more than enough to see what a rare, honest politician Sanders is. Neither Clinton is in his league.

I found my fellow employees on both sides of the aisle were quite realistic and astute at evaluating candidates. One candidate has a decades old revenge list; the other is above petty revenge. Who the union bosses publicly endorse can be quite different from whom they or their members vote for in the privacy of the election booth.

erronis

(15,181 posts)
20. Good post. We all know the top gov't jobs go to the friends of politicians
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:06 PM
Oct 2015

who run their departments/agencies for their own agenda - usually involves some personal gain, sooner or later. And then the favorite target of politicians are the career and professional employees.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
5. yeah, that was Mrs Clinton's biggest whopper of the night.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:36 PM
Oct 2015

I don't think even the new web site's members believed that one.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
7. Rank and file likely support Bernie in much greater numbers
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:39 PM
Oct 2015

The establishment is about to get de-established.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
8. It's sad
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:40 PM
Oct 2015

that people give her a pass on all this shit. This is far and I mean FAR from the first time she's done this sort of crap. Why are Dems allowing this to happen? Our candidates, no matter who they are, no mater what side they are on, along with our reps, need to be held accountable for what they say and what they do.
Enough with the horseshit!

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
10. As Madame Secretary rises in the polls I expect the attacks on her to become increasingly...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:43 PM
Oct 2015

As Madame Secretary rises in the polls I expect the attacks on her to become increasingly more untethered from reality as they grow exponentially.

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
12. Your saying this isn't correct info?
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:45 PM
Oct 2015

I'll self delete if it is. Those offers don't happen in GD-P often.

OS

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
14. Text without context often become pretext for an assault.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:53 PM
Oct 2015

It's as instructive as suggesting Abraham Lincoln was a murderer because his actions resulted in the death of over 600,000 Americans... That only leaves out the fact that 360,000 brave Americans died defending the Union and opposing slavery while 260,000 Americans died trying to dissolve the Union and preserve slavery.




Text without context often become pretext for an assault. In that vein your calumny should stand.

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
17. Bernie Sanders rejects donation from drug company CEO
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:59 PM
Oct 2015

Anybody care to look up Hillary or Bernie donations from drug companies?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-rejects-ceo-martin-shkreli-campaign-donation/FcSKxu1VIr7pubg9cI3CQN/story.html



WASHINGTON — The man who has become the public face of rising drug prices says he has donated to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders — who has been bashing Big Pharma on the campaign trail — to try to get a meeting so the two can talk it out.

Sanders isn’t interested. His campaign said Thursday that he’s giving the money to a Washington health clinic instead — and the drug executive isn’t getting the meeting.

Martin Shkreli, chief executive officer of Turing Pharmaceuticals, became one of the Democrats’ favorite villains after raising the price of the only treatment of a rare parasitic infection by 4,000 percent. He’s an unlikely supporter of the Vermont senator, a self-described socialist who has proposed letting people import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada and requiring Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices.

In an interview with Stat on Thursday, however, Shkreli confirmed that he’d donated $2,700 to the Sanders campaign — the maximum individual contribution — on Sept. 28.

FULL story at link.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
18. Nobody is disputing the independent senator from Vermont eschews donations from ...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:03 PM
Oct 2015

Nobody is disputing fact that the independent senator from Vermont eschews donations from pharmaceutical companies. Some of us are disputing the calumny that accepting any donation from a pharmaceutical company is inherently ignoble.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
21. They don't tend to give money out of a spirit of civic responsibility
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:07 PM
Oct 2015

They expect repayment through the installment plan.

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
22. US News: Hillary Takes Millions in Campaign Cash From ‘Enemies’
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:14 PM
Oct 2015

She has a long history with her enemies?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies


By Kimberly Leonard Oct. 14, 2015 | 4:25 p.m. EDT

When asked during the Democratic presidential debate what enemies she was most proud to have made, Hillary Clinton named pharmaceutical and health insurance companies at the top of her list. But that hasn’t stopped the Democratic front-runner from accepting millions of dollars in campaign cash from both industries in the course of her political career, financial disclosure records show.

Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July.

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year.

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006.

FULL story at link.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
25. It seems Madame Secretary is already putting the proverbial "fear of God" in the pharmaceutical
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:27 PM
Oct 2015

It seems Madame Secretary is already putting the proverbial "fear of God" in the pharmaceutical companies. Being an enemy of the strongest woman in the world this side of Ronda Rousey is not a good place to be:



The Daraprim scandal exploded this week for several reasons. An odious pharma executive straight out of central casting. Hillary Clinton’s speech, further calling attention to the problem. And — by Google GOOGL +5.30% News’ count — more than 3,600 articles dedicated to the controversy.

But the Daraprim scandal is now over. Two days after the story detonated in the pages of the New York Times, Turing Pharmaceuticals will dramatically reduce its planned price hike to Daraprim, Shkreli told NBC News on Tuesday night. He didn’t make clear what the new price would be, only that it would be lowered to a level for Turing to make a “small profit.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/09/22/greedy-pharma-executive-cancels-5000-price-hike-but-he-didnt-fix-the-real-problem/


Hillary Clinton might not be the leader America deserves but she is the leader America needs.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
48. I hope they were wearing Depends because Madame Secretary likely made them wet themselves...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:17 PM
Oct 2015

I hope they were wearing Depends because Madame Secretary likely made them wet themselves with fear.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
81. Yes she is a tough cookie like Madam Thatcher. Too bad she won't be fighting for the 99%.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:29 PM
Oct 2015

She is clearly beholden to the billionaires who recognize her pandering to the masses is necessary for getting elected, ala. Obama.

We need change from the corrupt politics of Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Bankster Gangsters.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,708 posts)
84. She sure made that pharmaceutical company bend to her will...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:35 PM
Oct 2015

When she becomes POTUS dirty pants will be attire of the day for those who stand in the way of progress.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
86. I doubt she will tax the billionaires. I doubt she will do anything to control the banks or Wall
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:39 PM
Oct 2015

Street. Quid pro quo. Why would billionaires give her soo much money if they didn't know she would do their bidding. I assume that's ok with you because she is tough. American Exceptionalism needs tough leaders. The hell with those living in poverty.

nuxvomica

(12,411 posts)
101. No. You said that Turing was made to "bend to her will"
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 08:56 AM
Oct 2015

By "promising" to lower the price, which they never did. What people say and what they do are two different things.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
102. "What people say and what they do are two different things." To the conservative mind
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 09:09 AM
Oct 2015

what people say is more important. They love promises.

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #81)

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #81)

bread_and_roses

(6,335 posts)
53. Ignoble? I say it's corrupt
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:22 PM
Oct 2015

It's corrupt, we all know it's corrupt, everyone knows it's corrupt. That (almost) everyone does it makes it no less corrupt.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
78. Spin it as you might, the fact is that HRC is accepting campaign money from
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:49 PM
Oct 2015

big corporate donors. It's absurd to try to sell that there are not strings attached. So, assuming you know that, it must be concluded that you don't care if her first allegiance is to the big corporations. And since the big corporations not only don't care about gains in social justice, somethings are actually against the, it's absurd to expect their puppet politician to actually do anything they don't approve of.

There are two sides to the class war and Goldman-Sachs is not on ours (meaning the 99%, not sure which side you are on).

Not only does she accept campaign donations from the billionaires, she accepts many millions donated to her foundation and even some "donated" to her personal account. Quid pro quo.

 

stupidicus

(2,570 posts)
19. deflection/dodging is the strong suit of many around here
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:04 PM
Oct 2015

the only thing they have for some

Obviously she could refuse their money as she recently announced she would that coming from private prisons.

As I recall, she's getting more money from interests any "dem" should question than most of the repug clown care are...

George II

(67,782 posts)
59. If you're referring to the OP, technically it is "correct info", but it's incomplete and misleading.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:27 PM
Oct 2015
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
68. Of course it's incorrect. Companies aren't legally allowed to donate to candidates
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 05:08 PM
Oct 2015

Look at the wording. For Sanders they talk about a pharmaceutical mogul, but with Clinton they talk about pharmaceutical companies donating. It's designed to give an intentionally misleadingly scary impression.

What they are referring to is that people who work for pharmaceutical companies have donated. That could be the CEO or it could be an office manager or a chemist. It is factually inaccurate to say that a pharmaceutical company has donated to Clinton's campaign.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
92. It's simple for corporations to get around the requirement that they can't donate to candidates.
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:02 AM
Oct 2015

So let's say that Goldman-Sachs gives all of their executives big bonuses. And lets say that the execs and their wives all donate to HRC's campaign. Bingo-Bango I guess they fooled you.

George II

(67,782 posts)
115. People keep saying that but can't seem to come up with any real information to "confirm" that.
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:24 AM
Oct 2015

Most likely because it's not true.

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
94. I think what he meant to say Steve is that you are lying
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:31 AM
Oct 2015

You posted something factual and he simply changed the subject to how much poor Hillary Clinton is being bashed by those dreaded haters.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
108. Yeah, when we speak about issues
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 10:04 AM
Oct 2015

Many of you supporters call them "attacks." These discrepancies shall perpetuate. They are not attacks, they are facts.

 

DrBulldog

(841 posts)
15. Just check their contributors. It's public FACT.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 12:54 PM
Oct 2015

Most of the top ten contributors for Hillary are large corporations, pharma, and banks.

Most of the top ten contributors for Bernie are UNIONS!!!

Now why do you think THAT is?

George II

(67,782 posts)
26. You conveniently left out the separate columns designation contributions from INDIVIDUALS...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:28 PM
Oct 2015

...and the companies' PACs.

If you had included them they would have shown that a huge % of the contributions on that page are from individuals and NONE of them are from the companies themselves.

emulatorloo

(44,066 posts)
33. No Steve, that still combines Corp donations with individual donations
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:40 PM
Oct 2015

See the quote on the page:

"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2016 cycle. The money came from the organizations' PACs; their individual members, employees or owners; and those individuals' immediate families. At the federal level, the organizations themselves did not donate, as they are prohibited by law from doing so. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."

emulatorloo

(44,066 posts)
31. Steve imho it is a mistake to conflate individual donations with corporate donations
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:38 PM
Oct 2015

Believe it or not there are liberal Democrats who work for corporations.

Breakdown of individual versus Corp donations here, lower down on page:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

emulatorloo

(44,066 posts)
35. Yes. Individual contrib = $76,0077,856. PAC contrib = $638,460
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:52 PM
Oct 2015

Appreciate you following my link.

I get frustrated because my contribs are my own yet they are reported under my employer's name. I am not a clone of where I work. For what it is worth I've been lucky as most of the places I've worked didn't have a political PAC.

I have been a Union member and I have been management but my political views haven't changed. Happily I am retired now so I just report that.

emulatorloo

(44,066 posts)
47. Thanks, saw that.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:14 PM
Oct 2015

Somehow it just doesn't surprise me her campaign has received donations.

Does surprise me open secrets lists the campaign with pacs.

I will say I'm rather underwhelmed by the donations made by the pacs listed. Not sure I view them as nefarious either.

I see Bernie's campaign donations are listed with Pacs as well, seems odd to me. Not sure what the reasoning is to do so but oh well.

My ultimate point Steve is that someone can use OpenSecrets data to smear Bernie if they are willing to twist the data, especially if they conflate individual donations with corporate ones.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

Here I see people from Google, Microsoft, Kaiser Permanente, Amazon, Federal Coal, The US Navy and so on have donated to Bernie. Again I can imagine people who would twist this to claim nefarious things about Bernie.

George II

(67,782 posts)
49. Yes, you're correct, thanks....
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:17 PM
Oct 2015

If the same chart was posted for Sanders' "donors", the top is Google, the third is Microsoft, the fifth is Apple. Also in the top 10 are Amazon, IBM, and Boeing.

The fact is that 98% of all of Clinton's contributions came from individuals. On the other hand 96% of Sanders' contributions came from individuals.

Sanders:

Individual Contributions $39,953,544 (96%)
- Small Individual Contributions $30,652,976 (74%)
- Large Individual Contributions $9,300,567 (22%)

PAC Contributions $200 (0%)
Candidate self-financing $0 (0%)
Other $1,510,040 (4%)

Clinton:

Individual Contributions $76,077,856 (98%)
- Small Individual Contributions $13,292,382 (17%)
- Large Individual Contributions $62,785,473 (81%)

PAC Contributions $638,460 (1%)
Candidate self-financing $278,821 (0%)
Federal Funds $0 (0%)
Other $476,466 (1%)

George II

(67,782 posts)
24. Too bad it's false. Clinton didn't accept a PENNY from "various pharmaceutical Co.'s", or any...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:25 PM
Oct 2015

....company at all.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
40. She hasn't?
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:02 PM
Oct 2015

Hmmm.....fascinating.
You may wish to rethink that stance.


Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. While the analysis did not include campaign finance figures for the 2016 cycle, some of the same donors and patterns can be seen in Clinton’s lone financial disclosure filed in July. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/718/201507159000204718/201507159000204718.pdf#navpanes=0

Contributions tied to some of the same firms that gave to her 2008 presidential campaign appear in the latest disclosure, including donations connected to pharmaceutical companies Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.; and insurers Aetna Inc., MetLife Inc. and Centene Corp., the latter of which is among Clinton’s largest donors this year. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2016&type=f

In the course of her 2008 presidential bid, records show that Clinton was the third-largest recipient of campaign donations from drug and health product companies, receiving $738,359 in donations. The industry also contributed $86,875 to her 2000 Senate run, and spent $157,015 supporting her re-election in 2006. http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=h04&cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&mem=Y&sortorder=U and http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=h04&cycle=2006&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies

George II

(67,782 posts)
51. Read the details - corporations and unions are forbidden from contributing to candidates...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:21 PM
Oct 2015

....for Federal office.

Fascinating.

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
60. That is what the PACs are for
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:29 PM
Oct 2015

Citizen's United. It was in all the papers. Koch Bros etc.

Almost $100 million on September 30th for Hillary while Bernie says no PACs.

Thespian2

(2,741 posts)
27. Excellent work, Steve
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:28 PM
Oct 2015

about sums up the real choices Dem voters have to make...a revolution or the same old shit, only worse...

 

kelliekat44

(7,759 posts)
29. I think Hillary has more power over them that's why they feel the need to contribute. Bernie is no
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:33 PM
Oct 2015

threat to them.

My question is who is likely to have more influence.???

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
41. I ask myself that question every day
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:04 PM
Oct 2015

and honestly, I don't have an answer. Because she's Hillary, she gets a free pass apparently.
Not me with, not with millions of others and if Bernie had this sort of baggage, I wouldn't be supporting him either.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
45. Free pass at least from the lame Media, Banksters and Billionaires.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:09 PM
Oct 2015

Perfect description, "free pass".

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)
42. Only Time Will Tell... From All I've Seen Regarding
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:06 PM
Oct 2015

contributors, PEOPLE are contributing to Bernie, PACS for the mot part are contributing to Hillary.

SADDEST fact here is that so many people are so easily fooled. Political junkies like us here understand this much better. People who don't follow closely vote for those who "seem" to get all the money! THIS, is the main reason we're in the mess we are today.

There's NO WAY I believe Hillary is for THE Unions! This country simply goes along to get along!
JMHO!

brooklynite

(94,352 posts)
55. Actually 98% of HRCs contributions are from individuals...
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:25 PM
Oct 2015

Whew! It took me all of 30 seconds to look that up on the FEC website.

BTW - when I clicked on the PAC contributions list, one of the first that came up was AMALGAMATED BANK ("Founded on April 14, 1923 by the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, Amalgamated Bank is the largest union-owned bank and one of the only unionized banks in the United States. -- wikipedia). How "thoughtless" of them.

emulatorloo

(44,066 posts)
64. Steve, the campaign is not a PAC.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:46 PM
Oct 2015

Neither is Bernie's

I am voting for Bernie. I want you to understand that people can also play games with open secrets data to claim Bernie is in the pocket of Kaiser Permanent, The Coal Industry and the US Navy. Link to Open Secrets page:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000528&type=f

As a Bernie supporter this is a game I'm not going to play.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
50. When a candidate needs the money for public exposure and getting out the message, how much
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:18 PM
Oct 2015

will each candidate be able to spare to spend getting the favor of "the last name I heard in the media low information voter" voter that is the most important demographic that will decide this election?

Duckfan

(1,268 posts)
56. Yeah. Those pesky pharmaceutical companies just can't wait for....
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:26 PM
Oct 2015

...Hillery's lower drug price negations to get underway.

PatrickforO

(14,559 posts)
57. That's a happy little graphic.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:26 PM
Oct 2015

In spite of rhetoric, I confess to a continued concern that if elected, Clinton will continue with oligarchic policies that don't help me or the rest of the American people at all. Unfortunately.

INdemo

(6,994 posts)
63. Also Hillary's Top donors
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 02:33 PM
Oct 2015

The ones that will call in her markers if she is elected
Top Donors data for Hillary Clinton, 2016 Cycle | OpenSecrets
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=All&id=N00000019&type=

Morgan & Morgan 277,326
Corning Inc $209,100
EMILY's List $187,927
DISH Network $183,446
DLA Piper $171,200
Sullivan & Cromwell $156,350
Akin, Gump et al $133,756
Morgan Stanley $133,424
Time Warner $132,710
University of California
$127,924
Google Inc $105,720
Harvard University $102,671
Yale University $101,604
Latham & Watkins $99,030
JPMorgan Chase & Co $96,803
Creative Artists Agency $95,951
Munger, Tolles & Olson $94,900
Bank of America $89,809
Steptoe & Johnson $89,343
Skadden, Arps et al $81,962

TexasBushwhacker

(20,144 posts)
87. They did, but maybe that was a decision by the higher ups
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:43 PM
Oct 2015

and not the rank and file. That's what happened with the AFT and NEA endorsements.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
79. Thank you Steve.
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:01 PM
Oct 2015

The question I have is why in this primary
the Unions come out so early with their
presidents' support?

It used to be much later. Political
pressure perhaps?

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
83. We haven't heard from the 800 lb gorilla yet
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:34 PM
Oct 2015

The AFL-CIO is an umbrella group of 56 unions representing more than 12.5 million workers.

NJCher

(35,620 posts)
82. Here's how those "individual donations" from corporations work
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:31 PM
Oct 2015

At the time of bush v. Gore, I was the webmaster for one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

Before the election, they sent me a graphic that I was supposed to put up on the company's intranet. It was a bush v. Gore comparison on how the two stood on issues that affect the pharmaceutical industry.

Reading down the graphic, it became apparent what the real message was: vote for bush because if you don't, we may be laying people off.

Your job is at stake: donate to bush.



Cher

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
97. You got it. And every shareholder of those corporations
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 07:33 AM
Oct 2015

Directly contributes to and assists in the election of more and more conservatives and outright sociopaths to public office.

Some even have the gall to wonder why things keep getting worse as they daily assure nothing will get better.

Bernblu

(441 posts)
93. Hillary is amazing in her ability to say anything or be anything just to win
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:09 AM
Oct 2015

It's getting to the point where i just can't believe anything she says. I would respect her much more if she stood up and explained what she really believes in instead of pretending to be a progressive on economic and environmental issues like TPP and Keystone. I do not like Republicans and will never vote for them but at least most of them stand up and tell you whatever crap they're for. And you can believe them and vote against them. If Hillary stood and said I am for TPP and here's my reasons, I would respect her more. Perhaps she could even win me over to her position. Instead she uses weasel words like "I cannot support it at this time" after she said it was the gold standard for all trade agreements. She reminds me more and more of Mitt Romney.

 

RoccoR5955

(12,471 posts)
106. I find it questionable that my union AFSCME
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 10:00 AM
Oct 2015

is backing Clinton, so I sent them an email asking them how they can expect Clinton to be for unions as well as banks and large corporations. I haven't gotten a response yet, but when I do, I shall share it.

Omaha Steve

(99,497 posts)
118. The Hill: Clinton tops 2016 field in drug industry donations
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:36 AM
Oct 2015

Notice all the crap I took in 24 hours about how this isn't true!



http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/257234-clinton-brings-in-most-big-pharma-money-of-2016-field

By Sarah Ferris - 10/17/15 09:51 AM EDT
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton has received more campaign cash from drug companies than any candidate in either party, even as she proudly declares the industry is one of her biggest enemies.

Clinton accepted $164,315 in the first six months of the campaign from drug companies, far more than the rest of the 2016 field, according to an analysis by Stat News.

Cash from drug companies poured in despite Clinton’s tough public stance on the industry. Last month, she unveiled a plan to combat rising drug prices by clamping down on the rules for pharmaceuticals. In last week’s Democratic debate, she listed off drug companies among the enemies she is most proud to have made in politics.

Clinton has taken a harder stance on drug companies than any other candidate besides Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has also skewered “Big Pharma” as he seeks the Democratic nomination.

FULL story at link.

George II

(67,782 posts)
117. If anyone is interested, here is the AFSCME Endorsement Announcement...
Sun Oct 25, 2015, 11:31 AM
Oct 2015

...not from some open Facebook page that anyone can post to:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) announced today that Hillary Clinton has earned the 1.6 million member union’s endorsement in the 2016 presidential contest.

AFSCME’s 35-person International Executive Board voted overwhelmingly today to follow the guidance of members based on feedback collected over the past six months, including polling data showing nearly two-thirds of AFSCME members would vote for Clinton in the Democratic primary. “The next president will make decisions that could make or break the ability of working people across America to sustain their families. That’s why we spent the last six months engaged in the most member-focused, in-depth, and transparent endorsement process AFSCME has ever undertaken,” said AFSCME Pres. Lee Saunders.

“What we heard throughout our endorsement process is that AFSCME members want a candidate who is committed to fixing our out-of-balance economy and raising incomes for hardworking people who are still struggling to make ends meet. Members want a candidate who will make it easier instead of harder to join together in strong unions and stand together for wages and benefits that can sustain our families,” President Saunders added. “What we also heard was AFSCME members want the candidate who will be the most effective champion for working families, and who will be able to deliver a victory in this critically important election. AFSCME members believe that candidate is Hillary Clinton.”

AFSCME members know grassroots organizing is the only answer to the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be poured into this election by the same CEOs and corporations that rig economic rules in their favor. Members felt strongly that it was time to begin turning out friends and neighbors to cast a ballot for Clinton and get involved in the 2016 elections.

Hillary Clinton will tackle the issues that affect ordinary Americans’ quality of life, like paid family and sick leave, the crushing burden of student loan debt, and retirement security. While there are several excellent candidates who share AFSCME’s values, Clinton is a proven champion for working families, and with the grassroots support of AFSCME members, she is the candidate who can deliver on our hopes and hard work next November.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I just found this on the ...