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

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:18 PM Apr 2016

FACT CHECK: Sanders' prevarications about Clinton earn him 3 pinocchios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions

“I have money from people who work for fossil-fuel companies. I am so sick — I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.”

— Hillary Clinton, to a Greenpeace activist, March 31, 2016

“The fact of the matter is Secretary Clinton has taken significant money from the fossil fuel industry. She raises her money with a super PAC. She gets a lot of money from Wall Street, from the drug companies and fossil fuel industry.”

— Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), interview on ABC’s “Good Morning, America,” April 1

(Analysis removed as per four paragraph citation rule.)

The Pinocchio Test

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.

Sanders: Three Pinocchios

And now, having pulled this, he's trying demand an apology for her calling out his lies.

I guess the one good thing about Sanders is that, in acting like Trump and Cruz, he's giving her practice on how to deal with this kind of reprehensible behavior.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FACT CHECK: Sanders' prevarications about Clinton earn him 3 pinocchios (Original Post) ConservativeDemocrat Apr 2016 OP
So much for a "positive" campaign. That was a lie, too lunamagica Apr 2016 #1
Bernie's been lying about her campaign donations for a while. DanTex Apr 2016 #2
This misleading nonsense has already been posted like five or six times today Armstead Apr 2016 #3
But has it included the extra flame bait bullshit comparing Bernie to trump and Cruz? morningfog Apr 2016 #5
That was an added bonus I guess Armstead Apr 2016 #6
Have you looked at the money her SuperPACS get from Big Oil? EndElectoral Apr 2016 #4
Keep trotting that garbage Hillary Uponthegears Apr 2016 #7
This smells like desperation. Desperation and soiled underwear. cherokeeprogressive Apr 2016 #8
how many times will this be posted today?? dana_b Apr 2016 #9
And my fact checker says that the WaPo lies as badly as Clinton. 200 pistachos rhett o rick Apr 2016 #10
Lying comes naturally to Bernie and his crew. nt LexVegas Apr 2016 #11
WaPo thinks lobbyists money doesn't count? Are they ignorant? Ash_F Apr 2016 #12
Ah - so there is an issue with the Sanders statement being misleading... jmg257 Apr 2016 #13
Glad you got it... ConservativeDemocrat Apr 2016 #17
Analysis removed because it was a load of dung BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #14
K&R betsuni Apr 2016 #15
This finally made my roommate switch to Hillary! anotherproletariat Apr 2016 #16
You must have got the memo late. This about #6 today since this morning. hobbit709 Apr 2016 #18
Has Sanders given up asking for an apology for being caught in a lie? Gothmog Apr 2016 #20
Sanders lied and got caught Gothmog Apr 2016 #19

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
2. Bernie's been lying about her campaign donations for a while.
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:21 PM
Apr 2016

He knows that corporations don't donate to political campaigns, but he's still been throwing around baseless accusations that "drug companies" and the "fossil fuel industry" have been funding her. It's been part of his whole stump speech.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
7. Keep trotting that garbage Hillary
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:35 PM
Apr 2016

And Bernie will keep answering with TRUTH.

Here's a little bit more from the "Factcheck" article from the newspaper that has already endorsed Clinton

So that adds up to more than $4.5 million. That’s certainly a bigger number than $333,000, but it’s still only 2 percent of the total contributions received by Clinton and outside groups backing her.


$4.5 million is "hardly significant" only in a post-Buckley v. Valeo world where a millionaire has a million times more "free speech" than a worker.

Oh, and saying that funds donated by bundlers representing multiple clients DON'T come from one client without PROOF is as much a Pinocchio as saying that they DO. Maybe a little more "fact-checking" should have been done before calling that "misleading."

Btw, do I need to mention that the fact Hillary might be getting big donations from CIGNA (one of the biggest vultures using loopholes in the ACA to rip-off consumers) instead of the oil and gas industry is not much of a defense?

Bottom line is Hillary had the opportunity to swear off sipping from the oil industry Camelback and chose to side AGAINST GREENPEACE.

Her choice, her consequences.

dana_b

(11,546 posts)
9. how many times will this be posted today??
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:41 PM
Apr 2016

we are up to 3, maybe 4.

And it's still B.S.!!

WaPo - no better than Daily News Bin or the National Enquirer.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
10. And my fact checker says that the WaPo lies as badly as Clinton. 200 pistachos
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:44 PM
Apr 2016

for them.

WaPo did some pretty fancy footwork but I believe Green Peace over the WaPo.

I am guessing you don't care for Green Peace cause they got "Peace" in their name.

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
12. WaPo thinks lobbyists money doesn't count? Are they ignorant?
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 02:49 PM
Apr 2016

The money flows like this: corporations->Lobbyists->politicians


What do they think would happen to the lobbyists' careers if they did not give money to politicians?


Hint: They would not have paying jobs.


I have lobbied legislators without donating large sums to them and their PACs, nor 'bundling' millions of dollars.

No corporation/groups have ever offered to pay me to to do this kind of work. I always did it on behalf of volunteer driven community organizations that had little money.


Why aren't these lobbyists are willing to this kind of work for free, like myself and other volunteers?

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
13. Ah - so there is an issue with the Sanders statement being misleading...
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 03:03 PM
Apr 2016

The statement:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), interview on ABC’s “Good Morning, America,” April 1

“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.”

...

no problem here...

"As noted in the campaign statement, the Sanders campaign is counting money raised by lobbyists with ties to fossil-fuel companies.
Greenpeace tracked nearly $1.5 million in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil-fuel industry. (Lobbyists who directly work for such companies would have been counted in the direct contributions of $308,000.)"


not here...
"Then another $3.25 million donations were directed by such lobbyists to Priorities USA, a Super PAC backing Clinton, Greenpeace claimed. So that adds up to more than $4.5 million"


But here!..
"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".

It was not just oil lobbyists that made millions in donations!
Got it. Thanks!

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
17. Glad you got it...
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 04:52 PM
Apr 2016

A lobbyist who passes on 1 million from the hospitality industry, and 100,000 from oil and gas industry, isn't passing on 1.1 million dollars worth of oil and gas related money.

This is why Sanders deliberate confusion earned him the rating it did.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
14. Analysis removed because it was a load of dung
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 03:40 PM
Apr 2016

Yeah, it was $4.5 million of special interest money, but when you look at it in the context of over $200 million in total special interest money raised by the Clinton campaign, it is virtually meaningless!

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
16. This finally made my roommate switch to Hillary!
Sat Apr 2, 2016, 04:22 PM
Apr 2016

I've been telling her for the last couple of weeks that Bernie was going against his own pledge of running a clean campaign. There have been lots of small things that bugged her, like the fact that he had no real substance behind any of his ideas, and that he just kept repeating the same one liners. (She herself compared him to Trump in this regard). But thanks to a major news organization calling out Bernie's lies, Hillary has another voter in New York! I feel a bit sorry for the corner Bernie has painted himself into. By running as the 'principled' candidate with the fresh ideas, he has to really stay above the fray to keep his image clean. However, as a poli sci major, I know enough about history to see that this type of candidate comes up at least once every 16-20 years, and excites all the young people with thoughts of new and different roles for government. The older, more seasoned voters have realized from seeing it all before that the system doesn't allow for a quick transition to such ideas, and know that there needs to be substance behind all the dreaming.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»FACT CHECK: Sanders' prev...