2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"The lobbyists who love Bernie Sanders"
Nearly two-dozen professional influencers have donated to anti-lobbyist candidate
Sanders has painted himself as a different kind of politician, running a different kind of campaign.
When he launched his presidential bid last May, he proclaimed: Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their super PACs and their lobbyists.
Its a theme Sanders has revisited time and again on the campaign trail, in advertisements and during debates against front-runner Hillary Clinton.
But unlike President Barack Obama, who refused campaign contributions from registered lobbyists, Sanders campaign confirmed it does not ban lobbyists from making contributions even as Sanders has called on the Democratic Party to maintain a ban, implemented by Obama, on lobbyists giving to the Democratic National Committee.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/03/09/19405/lobbyists-who-love-bernie-sanders
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)"To be sure, lobbyist donations about $3,200 overall"
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its bad enough our "frontrunner" is currently under criminal investigation, but her campaign is being run by some deviously underhanded & corrupt people. Reflective of their candidate.
Trying to deflect the million$ given to the ultimate Wall Street, MIC candidate.
Not proud to be a Democrat with this crap.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)it's positively laughable to talk about the "tone" of the Bernie campaign when every day we see a new low from the Clinton campaign.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)riversedge
(70,214 posts)BainsBane
(53,032 posts)So we'll assume the lobbyists funds weren't part of the $23 million in illegal contributions the FEC cited the Sanders campaign and affiliated PACS for, but considering people here assumed that Hillary Clinton had bought the Human Rights Council for a $5K donation, $3200 is enough to buy influence under that same criteria.
It's also $3200 more than Obama took.
And then we have Bernie's superpac: http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)This no a big money PAc - it's a handful of folks registering people to vote.
This isn't the tens of millions funneled by bundlers for Hillary buying positions on legislation. Neither is the $3,200 from lobbyists spread over several people.
What the article more likely is: a contracted Clinton piece for suckers of false equivalence who can't join enough brain cells together to get past the headline.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)If one says "I will not rob banks", the act of robbing is forbidden. Saying, "but ... but ... I only took $5 from the teller" doesn't count.
Great OP exposing Sanders' hypocrisy.
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)In one case, we're talking about a tiny PAC in Alaska that hopes to register a few Sanders voters for the general election independent of his campaign.
In the other case, were talking about lobbyists and corporate donors buying influence with candidates like Hillary with millions of dollars to their (Clinton) Foundation or their campaign to get them to flip-flop on free trade, fracking, etc.
Those of us who can join more than two brain cells together at the same time can figure out the difference. Unfortunately, there are some who cannot do that who fall prey to false equivalencies.
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)You make a big deal about a bunch of lobbyists giving $500 or so donations to total $3,200 for all lobbyists and then try to equate that to what Hillary collects from lobbyists:
Hillary Clinton Leads in Fund-Raising From Lobbyists
they report $2.2 mil as of Feb 1, 2016 so she's way past that now.
Then you whine about the kids Alaska Voter Registration Super PAC that raised $1,400.
Hillary's seven Super PACS
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00000019
have pulled in $62,676,002 ... just a wee bit more than the kids in Alaska
Then you make the bogus claim : "the $23 million in illegal contributions the FEC cited"
that's BS. The letter asked the Sanders campaign to amend their report providing voter details on some of the $23 million where cumulative contributions for the donors exceeded $200.
http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/988/201602110300034988/201602110300034988.pdf
That is NOT "$23 million in illegal contributions"
As the NY Times reported on these kinds of letters "Such glitches are common in political campaigns"
Nothing sinister is going on with the Sanders campaign here.
frylock
(34,825 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)global1
(25,246 posts)lobbied for Bernie by donating $27 a couple of times and phone banking for him. And yes I have to admit - I Love Bernie Sanders!!!
Go Bernie!!!
Feel the Bern!!!!
Can't wait to 'Feel The Bern' of Bernie's Fireside Chats when he becomes our President!!!!!!
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)[IMG][/IMG]
nc4bo drops the mic and receives a standing ovation.
BB slinks away.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)I will bookmark this post because of your amazing montage. Thanks
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)I did however take my time to find just the right rebuttal to this asinine OP and this fit the bill, perfectly!
We ARE his lobbyists, End. STOP.
Senator Sanders is bought and paid for by his supporters in a way HRH, her rabidest supporters and failed fourth estate will never understand.
#FeelTheBern, I know I am!
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Hillary supporters try to stay away from REAL ISSUES and stick with "inevitability," "Bernie so white," "Bernie violated the party loyalty oath," and "Look at the (barely a roomful of) great people who love Hillary, you should love her too."
Talking issues just doesn't work for them.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)know it and acknowledge it.
Avalon Sparks
(2,565 posts)Not from what I've seen...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Cha
(297,207 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)Without this discussion, how would we have known that Hillary supporters are trying to claim that the $3200 Senator Sanders has received from lobbyist donors is, IN THEIR MINDS, the moral (practical, whatever) equivalent of the MILLIONS of dollars from lobbyists received by Hillary's campaign and lobbyists' heavy presence among her super delegates? How would we have known what Hillary supporters mean when they try to claim that Hillary is a "progressive?"
You are truly a font of information.
Jarqui
(10,124 posts)Open Secrets records for America's Youth PAC
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2016&strID=C00574475
Sit down ok, ... so you don't hurt yourself ...
... Total Receipts $1,494!!!!!!!
That buys you about 30 seconds at a Clooney-Clinton fundraiser!!!
The lobbyist contributions get you about 60 seconds at a Clooney-Clinton fundraiser!!!
Wow!!! You really got Bernie with this nonsense!!
Make sure to tweet the thread to all your friends to show them how smart you are!
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has called her support for gun control laws a key differentiator from her opponent Bernie Sanders, who she claims isnt tough enough on the industry. But in mid-March, a Clinton campaign fundraiser will be co-hosted by a lobbyist whose clients have included the National Rifle Association (NRA).
As David Sirota reported Monday in the International Business Times, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is a co-host and the guest of honor at a fundraising lunch in the nations capital on March 21.
One of the other co-hosts is Jeff Forbes of the lobbying firm Forbes-Tate.
Forbes has represented the NRA since 2009 and as of the last quarter of 2015 was still registered to lobby for the organization. On his lobbying disclosure, Forbes wrote that he was signed up to lobby for Issues related to 2nd Amendment rights, regulation and gun control, and tax and appropriations related to same; issues related to corporate tax reform.
During the 2013 push for universal background checks, Forbes was one of a phalanx of Democratic Party lobbyists employed by the NRA to kill that legislation.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
....However, the Nation and the other reports like it dont shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They dont explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if theres a consistency to Sanders positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernies position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.
Yet there is an explanation. Its consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And its in Bernies own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. Housein 1990where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.
In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmens groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle baneven bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmens Clubs.
I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidatesas the Sanders campaign press secretaryand recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in huntinghe previously was mayor of Vermonts biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nations characterization, isnt open-minded.
As you can see, Berniewho moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960shas an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. Hes not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jockbeing captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.
I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.
That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. Its also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980sbefore he was in Congresswhich he reiterated to the moderator.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/
WASHINGTON, April 17 Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.
Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities, Sanders said. There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others, Sanders added.
The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories, Sanders said.
Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales up to 40 percent of all gun transfers at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between family, friends, and neighbors.
In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban
Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:
A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."
Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just dont think the state itself, whether its the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/
LexVegas
(6,060 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Like I said, you're not very good at this, I doubt Brock would even want you helping him.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #37)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claims-about-bernie-sanders-gun-record/
Did you miss this the first time I posted it?
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
I wouldn't quit your day job, Politfact would have a field day with you.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #41)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And I'm not a bro but don't stop now, you're not done making a fool out of yourself yet.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)As much as you would love to go a 1,000 rounds I don't. Cheers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Get the lSt word if you need to.
bobbobbins01
(1,681 posts)On one flight, one way...as long as its under 500 miles and he promises not to order the hot meal or use the bathroom. He's totally in their pocket now.
riversedge
(70,214 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)And they are all in it for results of influence that go against the public good. HA HA
This is too funny.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)The OP that is.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)"And remember, my love, any secrets we have we're honor-bound to keep"