Hillary donor fact check of the fact check part 3: Parts 1 and 2 meant zilch

[Android3.14]

With all respect to DanTex, who has been attempting to debunk the rather obvious conclusion that having Citigroup as your largest donor raises doubts on whom Clinton actually represents, he makes a point that Investment and Securities "only" provided 3.4% of Clinton's funding in previous elections.

Only 3.4 %, and therefore she is clean? I think not.

Please allow me to direct your attention to this: Banker Boy Romney's contributers

Romney's total raised $446,135,997

Amount from securities and Investment $23,047,500

Romney percentage of total is 5.1 % compared to Clinton's 3.4% a difference of a mere 1.7%

If Romney was working for Wall Street at 5.1%, then Clinton is almost certainly working for it at 3.4%.

"It's only 3.4%" is a poor response at best. Her record speaks for itself, as does her support of TPP and opposition to Glass Steagal. She has never lead on any progressive legislation.

The banks bought her just as much as they bought Romney.

[kenfrequed]

1. It is just too much.

I cannot accept the idea that a candidate that takes money from the Banks and Wallstreet on Tuesday is going to stand up to them properly on Thursday. It just does not work for me.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. It is not just the money you take to get elected

but the money guaranteed after you do their bidding. The huge book advances, the six figure speaking fees, the cushy board jobs.

Bill Clinton walked from massive debt to massive fortune after he left the White House. Getting rid of Glass-Stegall was worth seven figures annually to him as far as Wall Street was concerned. George W. Bush gets to charge six figures to raise money for soldiers he is responsible for maiming. Obama will enjoy and even richer reward for TPP.

[Doctor_J]

4. I'm not sure how this doesn't compute with the fan club

It's as plain as that stupid hair do on trumps head. Suppose that Dimon does something prison worthy. How can you believe that a Clinton doj would prosecute him?

[HooptieWagon]

6. Well, Obama had Holder aggressively prosecute criminal banksters...

...he even slapped them with a strongly worded letter. I'm sure Clinton will be just as forceful.

[Maedhros]

7. It causes cognitive dissonance.

In their minds Hillary is a progressive warrior. Confronting the reality of her Wall Street puppet strings makes their brains hurt. Therefore - abracadabra! - the strings don't exist.

[awake]

2. 3.4% of how much

3.4% of $500,000 = $17,000
3.4% of 45,000,000 = $1,530,000

do you know the answer?

[Doctor_J]

5. it will be more than rmoneys 2012 rake by the end.

What it is now is of no import whatsoever

[awake]

9. My point was if it is only $17,000 then it will not buy as much of a candidate

as $1,530,000 would.

[Android3.14]

14. It was over $11 million

[Historic NY]

8. Your talking about Hillary but produce Romney's ....

what your point...as a Senator from the banking state of NY its expected she would receive contributions. No matter how they are bundled.

[frylock]

10. Gee, I wonder why she chose a banking state for her Senatorial career?

[Sancho]

12. Maybe the same reason Bernie picked gun country and represents gun nuts?

In other words, it's a silly debate.

Even though there is too much lobbying influence in Washington and also in most state capitals, the SC has spoken so we're stuck with PACS for now. Candidates will not win without money. That's true of all candidates from all parties.

If people want to show a direct connection between politicians and money like the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington do ( http://www.citizensforethics.org/pages/under-investigation/ ), then let's see the cause and effect. Other than that, all the speculation is just as irrelevant as Obama being born in Kenya. Things that people "imagine" that Hillary "will do" because some "3.4%" of New Yorkers that she used to represent like her is pure BS.

Hillary (and Bill) have been living in a fishbowl for many decades. You may not like Hillary's positions, but if there is a link from a pot of $'s to her it would have been revealed.

Bernie may not get contributions from Wall Street, but that's likely more because of who he represents than anything else. He has his issues too, but on a smaller scale and not with Wall Street.

[frylock]

15. Yes, yes. As we know, Sanders has built entire career around the 2nd Amendment.

[DanTex]

19. At least as much as Clinton and banks.

He first got elected by pandering for gun votes, by opposing the Brady Bill, the most significant piece of gun control legislation in recent decades, while the NRA was attacking his opponent for his gun control stances. In congress, he supported the NRA's top legislative priority, voting to give the gun industry legal immunity.

Who's Afraid of the NRA? Vermont's Congressmen, That's Who.

[Historic NY]

17. Please......

she had a distinguished career and so did RFK. FYI NY is the Empire state and its banking enterprises paid off this fledgling nations debts. Its Bank of NY is the oldest in the nation. Now go find something else to carp about.

[Android3.14]

11. Nope

DanTex made a point that Clinton's official numbers from bankers was only 3.4% of her fundraising and that meant she was not beholden to bankers. Romney's percent of bank money was was so close to hers that if we were rounding to the nearest 5 percent they are essentially equivalent.

And we all know who Romney served.

[Motown_Johnny]

13. Since women only make about 3/4 compared to men

Then Hillary's number is pretty much in line with Mitt's.

You can't expect bankers to pay her as much as a man, now can you?

[Android3.14]

16. The campaign version of the Devil's Arithmetic

Sounds about right, though.

[DanTex]

18. Getting closer to factual. At least you now admit it's only 3.4%.

But you're still pretending that "Citigroup was her largest donor" when in fact Citigroup contributed nothing to her campaign. It was employees of Citigroup, whose contributions, when totaled, exceeded the total contributions from employees at any single other corporation. Which, as I explained, is mainly because Citi is one of if not the largest private employers in the state of NY.

And hopefully I don't need to explain to anyone here what the difference is between a corporation and persons who work for that corporation.

It goes to show: if there were really anything to this smear, you'd be able to simply state things factually. But there isn't, so you can't.

[Android3.14]

20. Good try, but no point

"Employees of Citigroup" aren't the same as Citigroup?
That's as silly as saying that the KKK doesn't support David Duke. It was only members of the KKK that supported him, which is...you know...different and all.

[DanTex]

21. Really? Citigroup is the same as the KKK now?

Learn something every day. I was under the impression that it was a company that employed thousands of different people, who hold a variety of political beliefs.

I guess next we're gonna be told that all WalMart employees support every WalMart policy, and we should be wary of any politician who raises money from people who work at WalMart

[Android3.14]

23. Right

Whatever, DanTex. If you want to approach this in a reasonable fashion, then do me the courtesy to refrain from intentionally misconstruing my words.

Any reasonable person would recognize that Citigroup execs are supporting HRC for the same reason they supported Romney. They expect her to represent their monied interests.

Unless, of course, you believe it was rank-and-file employees, like the janitors, bank tellers and such that donated those maximum personal donations.

But I doubt you will stretch our credibility that far.

[DanTex]

25. You were the one who drew the analogy between the KKK (an ideological group) and Citibank (a

profit-driven corporation that employs thousands of people). This was to come to the preposterous conclusion that Citi employees would be just as devoted to the politics of the organization that employs them than people who belong to an ideological group.

And now you're accusing me of not approaching this in a "reasonable fashion"? Do you really think that members of ideological groups and employees are equally dedicated to the political views of their respective organizations? I can't believe that you do.

I would venture to guess that you know exactly zero people in the financial industry who are liberals. Well, I do, and the reason that they support people like Hillary is the same as anyone else: because they think she will do right for the country.

Moreover, the idea that individual bankers would "invest" $2700 in a campaign contribution in order to later see bigger a bigger bonus is thoroughly idiotic. Bankers, for all their flaws, know how to calculate returns on investment, and there's no way that a $2700 contribution is going to sway either a candidate or an election anywhere near enough to result in an average $2700 in compensation.

[Android3.14]

26. Let's stick to the argument

The example, as opposed to an "analogy", was useful in showing the fallacy of your "they are all only employees" response. It is silly to think that I was comparing the KKK to Citigroup for any other reason. Your displeasure at the method someone uses to accurately reveal the error in your argument is never an effective refutation of the argument.

Let's, please, stick to the original argument you made, rather than playing games of misdirection. You said we know Clinton is not beholden to the bankers because she only accepted 3.4% of her donations from that sector. Yet Romney "only" accepted 5.1%.

It is laughable to think that a 1.7% difference between the two politicians crosses the threshold between representing the people or the corporations.

Your argument is weak.

Look, Dantex, I've been in your seat before. An honest discussion means that if your opinion crumbles within the crucible of rhetoric, then you should change your opinion. I've changed my opinion on a variety of topics for this very reason. Winning an argument on the Internet is rarely something that reinvigorates my self esteem, nor does losing one make me feel weak. All it does it help me to hone in on my defensible stances.

It is incredibly easy to make effective arguments that Hillary represents the wealthy, provides at best lip service to progressive economics, and has never lead the charge on any progressive legislation (though she certainly does change her stance as soon as public opinion moves).

The takeaway in these threads is for you. Ms. Clinton is less awesome than you would like to think.

Sorry, DanTex.

[DanTex]

27. Yes, let's drop the dumb analogy and get back to the 3.4%.

Romney is easy on Wall-Street because he is a right-winger. Hillary is not, because she is a progressive. It's not because Romney got more money from people employed in the financial sector. That's a total straw argument that you made up. I never said anything of the sort.

No, I don't imagine you've been in my seat -- the seat of having all the facts on your side -- very often at all. People with facts on their sides don't have to resort to hopeless analogies, pretending corporations are the same as their employees, pretending that the firm-employee relationship is the same as the relationship between an ideological group and its members, and then the blatant Romney straw argument.

The facts here are simple. Banks donated zero money to Hillary. Bank employees donated a very small fraction of her money. So any "Hillary owned by the banks" meme is totally false. On top of that, Hillary has a highly progressive platform which wins praises from the likes of Joe Stiglitz.

Sorry, she's not the evil bank lackey that you wish she were. And, judging by the polls, Democrats are by a large margin not buying into this or any of the other lies that the FOX News/far left crowd are trying to sell. Maybe the Hillary bashers should try saying something factual once in a while. After all, it can't possibly work out any worse for them then the current strategy of lying constantly.

[Android3.14]

28. This is sad

Judging by the emotion in your post, it sounds like you might have too much invested in this one. I've presented a strong refutation of your argument by showing Hillary is just as owned by the banks as Romney, for which you offered an emotional yet ineffective response, erroneous math, and flawed logic.

The numbers in her financials being similar to Romney's, her voting record, and her lack of leadership on progressive economic issues all lend support to the rather blatant observation that Hillary Rodham Clinton represents corporate interests rather than America's.

Look at it this way. With all that corporate cash going her way, she might just receive her coronation, and then she might even win the election (though it is also obvious that the bile so many people have for Clinton represents the only hope the Republicans have at the White House. They want her to run almost as much as you. Maybe more.).

If that happens, we'll see if she raises taxes on the rich.

I'm not holding my breath.

If you want the last word, please be my guest.

[DanTex]

29. It is a little sad, I agree. Now you're accusing of becoming emotional. Anything to dodge the facts.

It's too bad you want to get personal. I'm not into that, more of a facts guy. And numbers. Like 3.4%. And the fact that corporations and their employees are very different things. I find that facts are very elucidating. I guess your less fact-based and more personal approach is why we come to different conclusions.

I still don't know how Romney made it into this, but what Hillary and Romney stand for are opposites. He's a right-winger and she's a progressive. She wants to raise the minimum wage, he doesn't. She supported ACA, he didn't. And so on and so on. It has nothing to do with the professions of the people who donate to either campaign. Across professions, the liberals will donate to Hillary and the conservatives to Romney. You're right that people who work for banks donated more to Romney, but that's not the real problem with Romney, the problem is his policies. A right-winger could take no donations from bank employees at all and still be a right-winger.

Anyway, hopefully, as you say, Clinton will become elected president, because the other option is a Republican, and we can probably both agree that that would be a disaster.

[bobbobbins01]

22. His number is wrong anyway.

His math was flawed. I'm hoping he will admit his mistake.

[bobbobbins01]

24. 3.4 is a bogus number...try 9.6%

DanTex is making shit up.