2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFACT 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-contributionsI 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 ABCs 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. Its 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
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)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.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/
Suggest you read them. More interested in actual reality than Capehart's band of awarding pinnochios.
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)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
$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.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)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)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.
LexVegas
(6,080 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)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)The statement:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), interview on ABCs 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 Clintons 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!..
"Theres 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)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)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!
betsuni
(25,582 posts)anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)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.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Gothmog
(145,433 posts)Gothmog
(145,433 posts)I am amused that Sanders wants an apology for being caught in a lie