Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-23-2019, 05:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sanders followers are accusing Biden of being a creepy pedophile.

We need to keep this Issue based and Sanders needs to keep a leash on his supporters.

All he needs to do is make a public statement to that effect.
Oh yeah, still waiting for that cite of someone connected to the Sanders campaign using the phrase "creepy pedophile" in regard to Biden.
  #152  
Old 04-23-2019, 06:33 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So how would you feel about a Democratic candidate taking money from, say, the Russian government? We know GOP voters don't seem to have a problem with that sort of thing...does that make it OK as far as you're concerned?

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars obfuscating the science on climate change, sacrificing the future of our world for their short-term profits. They are as much the enemy of the American people as Putin or ISIS are.
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
  #153  
Old 04-23-2019, 09:22 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
Well, your own cite says that the Foundation decided that if Hillary Clinton won the election, the Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate donations.

Heh. Remember back then when it was considered normal and necessary for a sitting President to cut any possible financial ties with business or foreign governments that might personally influence the President's policy choices? Seems so quaint these days.
  #154  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
Wwo, the GOP still hammering on Hillary, eh?

She didnt get a nickel of that.

It's a charitable foundation.
  #155  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
it's pointless to try and advocate that very progressive folks stop trying to make the party more progressive.

That would be pointless, wouldn't it? But that's not, I believe, what Obama was talking about. It's certainly not what I'm talking about. The problem is when the far left of the party gets full of self-righteousness and declares that any position slightly closer to the center is (fill in the blank: misogynistic, reeks of white privilege, corporate sellout, etc.). Take national health care for instance. I generally advocate for a less transformative, patchwork method of making sure everyone has basic coverage. Universal coverage by filling in the gaps. But still universal! The reaction I inevitably get from the Medicare For All crowd is invariably the same: intense hostility, combined with strawmanning my position as though I'm saying people who don't have the money to pay for their own health care should be thrown in the street to die. There's no nuance, no flexibility.

Worst of all, there is no recognition that "hey, we may love our principles and proposals, but we are in the minority so we need to work with a coalition of interest groups and compromise". They think they are the white knights in shining armor, who have the perfect solutions to every issue, and anyone with a slightly different view is either stupid or corrupt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Oil companies have spent billions of dollars obfuscating the science on climate change, sacrificing the future of our world for their short-term profits. They are as much the enemy of the American people as Putin or ISIS are.

Okay, but if a candidate from Texas gets a good number of contributions from people who work in the oil industry, that's just to be expected because it's a big industry in the state. It's a very conspiratorial "Manchurian Candidate" notion to think it means there's a secret plan for him to support the fossil fuels agenda, when he makes it clear that his position is the opposite.

In 2017, in reaction to Trump's pulling out of the Paris climate accords, Beto wrote the following:

https://medium.com/@RepBetoORourke/o...t-f38c520d3de8
Quote:
Removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement makes us one of only three countries, along with Syria and Nicaragua, to not join ó even North Korea is part of the agreement. Historically, the U.S. has put more carbon into the atmosphere than any other country, so we must be a leader in curbing worldwide emissions.
Beto's lifetime League of Conservation Voters environmental score is 95 percent:

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/beto-orourke

(Bernie's is 92 percent.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #156  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:59 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
I don’t mind if a lot of working and middle class people who happen to work in the oil industry support him. If he has taken large sums from the oil companies themselves— and again, I don’t know if he has or hasn’t— that’s a problem. Not necessarily an absolute disqualifier, but a serious problem.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 04-23-2019 at 10:59 PM.
  #157  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I donít mind if a lot of working and middle class people who happen to work in the oil industry support him. If he has taken large sums from the oil companies themselvesó and again, I donít know if he has or hasnító thatís a problem. Not necessarily an absolute disqualifier, but a serious problem.
It's actually a Good Thing. Especially if the candidate is a known voted to reduce Global warming. Remember, Oil companies spend billions on solar, etc now.

But let us say it comes down to Beto vs Trump- who would you rather win?

I hope it's Beto.

But without massive campaign funds, Beto (or any other Dem candidate) can't win. Period. No chance. Hobbling them by a Purity test is a certain way for Trump to win.

I want to see Oil companies donating to the guy working to end Global warming.
  #158  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:16 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
You are under the impression that it is illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates? That is not my understanding. Please explain.
Yes, it's illegal* for corporations to donate to political candidates. The only partial loophole is "corporate PACs" that pass money on to candidates, but even then, the corporation can only donate to cover the costs of operating the PAC; donations to candidates must not exceed the amount of money given by qualified donors. Lots of Democratic candidates have recently started pledging not to accept money from corporate PACs, but I don't know who has made that pledge this time around.

*Cite:

Quote:
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-24-2019 at 12:20 AM.
  #159  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:29 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Yes, it's illegal* for corporations to donate to political candidates. The only partial loophole is "corporate PACs" that pass money on to candidates, but even then, the corporation can only donate to cover the costs of operating the PAC; donations to candidates must not exceed the amount of money given by qualified donors. Lots of Democratic candidates have recently started pledging not to accept money from corporate PACs, but I don't know who has made that pledge this time around.

*Cite:
Iím not sure if you are being disingenuous here or if you actually believe that American law substantially restricts corporations from donating to their preferred candidates. Anyway, youíre wrong, and getting into a detailed discussion of campaign finance law would derail this thread.
  #160  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:41 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It's actually a Good Thing. Especially if the candidate is a known voted to reduce Global warming. Remember, Oil companies spend billions on solar, etc now.

But let us say it comes down to Beto vs Trump- who would you rather win?

I hope it's Beto.

But without massive campaign funds, Beto (or any other Dem candidate) can't win. Period. No chance. Hobbling them by a Purity test is a certain way for Trump to win.

I want to see Oil companies donating to the guy working to end Global warming.
Of course I will unconditionally support ANY Democratic candidate against Trump, and I hope you can say the same.

I think you are being very naive about the motives of Big Oil, and are overvaluing the importance of massive campaign funds. Clinton outspent Trump by a huge margin, and it didn’t help. Not going to look it up right now but IIRC Trump also made fools of several better funded Republicans. Sanders funded his campaign entirely through grassroots contributions; he didn’t win, but I haven’t heard anyone arguing that he would have won if he’d only had a few more tens of millions to spend.

Many voters today regard a refusal to accept corporate donations as a badge of honor, and That trend IMO is a very good sign for our democracy.

In fact, I’m not sure, but I believe Beto is refusing corporate PAC donations for his Presidential run.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 04-24-2019 at 12:42 AM.
  #161  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:46 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
So, for like the nineteenth time, does anybody have any factual information speaking to whether it is actually legitimate to accuse Beto of being “in the pocket of Big Oil”?
  #162  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:03 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
Open Secrets doesn't list any petroleum business as a significant donator for his Senate campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...=CAREER&type=I
  #163  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
I just offered you some, which you are ignoring. Of course, if the implication is that he is operating under deep cover, that’s basically unfalsifiable.

And yes: Beto does not accept PAC money.
  #164  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:19 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Open Secrets doesn't list any petroleum business as a significant donator for his Senate campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...=CAREER&type=I
Thanks! That site is a bit baffling to navigate, but it appears that he has not received any significant funding from oil industry PACs. I declare him pure.

He must shave his head and wash his clothes, and after sundown he may return to the camp. (Biblical humor)
  #165  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:23 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I just offered you some, which you are ignoring. Of course, if the implication is that he is operating under deep cover, thatís basically unfalsifiable.

And yes: Beto does not accept PAC money.
Well, you offered some inspiring quotes, but talk is cheap. Iím much more interested in following the money. The LCV rating was useful information, but although I generally have a positive impression of that organization, I have no idea how they calculate their ratings, so that was only marginally useful to me.
  #166  
Old 04-24-2019, 09:32 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, for like the nineteenth time, does anybody have any factual information speaking to whether it is actually legitimate to accuse Beto of being ďin the pocket of Big OilĒ?
You were the one that brought this up. People have provided info that sez No, now you are asking for proof he didnt?
  #167  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
No, you were the one who brought it up. You accused unnamed pro-Bernie parties of "claiming that Beto is in the pocket of Big Oil", and that was how this whole sidetrack got started. And unless I missed it, at the time I posted what you quote, nobody had in fact offered any useful information as to whether that accusation was true. Unless maybe you count cites that he says global warming is bad as useful information, which I don't.
  #168  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Anyway, I assume this whole conversation is now beside the point for you. You've surely ruled out voting for Beto now that you know he has voluntarily hobbled himself by rejecting PAC donations, right?
  #169  
Old 04-24-2019, 02:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No, you were the one who brought it up. You accused unnamed pro-Bernie parties of "claiming that Beto is in the pocket of Big Oil", and that was how this whole sidetrack got started. And unless I missed it, at the time I posted what you quote, nobody had in fact offered any useful information as to whether that accusation was true. Unless maybe you count cites that he says global warming is bad as useful information, which I don't.
No, I did not.

You did:

Thing Fish
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.
  #170  
Old 04-24-2019, 04:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,239
Which was a response to...uh, Slacker, not you. Apologies.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017