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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)190. Dunno. First term rhetoric was very different from post 2014 mid term rhetoric.
But it's moot now, anyway.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
217 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America [View all]
Ichingcarpenter
Feb 2015
OP
Hillary Inc is living proof of that, though her poll-tested personality is majorly lacking.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#63
Do they want Campaign Finance Reform, specifically: publicly financed elections, too?
Octafish
Feb 2015
#87
I suppose the only if is -if- there is such a thing as a non-governing oligarch
HereSince1628
Feb 2015
#18
Yea, but to be a real Player you buy Republicans and Democrats! A Democrat can get you
Dustlawyer
Feb 2015
#192
The ones spreading the corporatist Third Way gospel or the Party uber alles gospel
merrily
Feb 2015
#174
A lot of the governing elite were once the non-governing elite. If not, many sure made money
merrily
Feb 2015
#182
Do you believe that a person can run a serious and credible national camapaign
cheapdate
Feb 2015
#52
I believe it's a social truth that accepting a gift creates a bond or an obligation,
cheapdate
Feb 2015
#81
If Warren Buffet contributed $10 BILLION to a candidate he still gets only one vote.
George II
Feb 2015
#194
Warren gets lots of donations from ordinary people. The corporate dollars add up faster, but
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#165
Why should we bother to vote if the candidates are bought by corporations before we have any
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#164
How about Hillary giving her campaign funds to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#168
Do Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer serve the interests of the 1%? /NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#144
You do know the dissenters were Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#155
No, they decided that certain private property rights outweight other private property rights
hatrack
Feb 2015
#159
Actually Bush issued an executive order restricting the use of eminent domain...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#160
So the best we can hope for is the status quo and we can have that only provided that we behave
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#167
And I believe that Democrats can and must do much better than Hillary Clinton.
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#210
How much more irrelevant will Democrats be if Republicans win the White House?
cheapdate
Feb 2015
#212
If you live in a red state, you are partly responsible for changing that red state blue.
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#213
Do you believe a person can accept limitless corporate donations and remain a "credible" candidate?
hatrack
Feb 2015
#147
At the end of the Gilded Age, after the horrific corruption, the vote-selling, the cnadidate-buying,
JDPriestly
Feb 2015
#169
Obama outspent McCain by a lot. By the time he ran against Romney, he was a wiar time incumbent and
merrily
Feb 2015
#175
I replied to your comment and made an observation of my own. If you don't believe that, oh, well.
merrily
Feb 2015
#206
Does anyone else remember when the Democratic Party wasn't controlled by corporatists?
Broward
Feb 2015
#14
Google the headline and you'll see the other "news" outlets that have jumped on this...
George II
Feb 2015
#46
Do you and Sid not see reply #10, with links to opensecrets.org? That's the source of the data.
Electric Monk
Feb 2015
#64
I did see that, later on. But the way the numbers are presented here is misleading...
George II
Feb 2015
#67
In addition, you can see the breakdown of where the contributions came from on opensecrets...
George II
Feb 2015
#72
The point is that Hillary Clinton is being criticized for the (misleading) sources....
George II
Feb 2015
#104
I think that HRC will be influenced by corporate money more than either Sen Sanders or
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#107
It's names and numbers, ffs, not commentary. Disprove the info, if you think it's wrong.
merrily
Feb 2015
#176
I'm torn-votin 4 a warmonging corporatist just doesn't appeal. Wud hate 2 have that on my conscience.
InAbLuEsTaTe
Feb 2015
#90
Reminds me of when Stalin wouldn't let the Communists in Germany work with the Socialists...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#20
It's called "maximizing the contradictions" or the "worse the better"
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#143
You mean the Left wants a candidate that will represent the people and not the Big Banks.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#100
Yes the fringey Left believes that money has too much influence in politics.
rhett o rick
Feb 2015
#105
Even more than that, FDR, Truman and JFK were plain ole Democrats, not even liberal Democrats.
merrily
Feb 2015
#184
Well individuals are not corporate donors and the poll is lifted right from the harris pdf.
Rex
Feb 2015
#113
Carping over the source as a means to derail discussion is always malignant. [n/t]
Maedhros
Feb 2015
#121
There is not enough money to defend this nationwide, along with the Epstein crapola.
TheNutcracker
Feb 2015
#17
Well isn't this a nice piece of Republican garbage... surprised they didn't list labor unions
OKNancy
Feb 2015
#30
That OUGHT to make her one of the most hated candidates among Democratic voters
FiveGoodMen
Feb 2015
#36
Warren refused to speak at a Koch Foundation (Heritage) event for phasing out Ex-Im bank
RiverLover
Feb 2015
#83
Those contributions/contributors go back to 1989 (!!!), 26 years. How about current numbers only...
George II
Feb 2015
#42
And some who consider themselves "the left" or "progressive" lap it up like crazy.
George II
Feb 2015
#48
A lot of those companies got US taxpayer bailouts in the Great Looting of 2008.
Octafish
Feb 2015
#53
You have posted the standing membership of the US Central Committee, The US is an industry run state
whereisjustice
Feb 2015
#56
As long as the other side is raising tons of dough don't you think it's incumbent on us to raise...
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#58
If I have a bug up my ass it's people who don't judge other people by the same standards, ergo:
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#60
Misleading tripe. Those companies did not contribute; People WORKING FOR those companies did.
NYC Liberal
Feb 2015
#73
Yep, some haters can't see a few inches ahead of their noses. Makes me want to vote HRC now...
freshwest
Feb 2015
#156
Yes, I'm sure it was only the poorest of the poor at those companies too
NorthCarolina
Feb 2015
#189
It is but I notice a big difference. Obama doesn't really have any big liabilities.
Rex
Feb 2015
#117
The selective outrage would be comical if the stakes weren't so high./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Feb 2015
#79
The conclusion one draws will indicate more about their effort to understand than about Hillary
BootinUp
Feb 2015
#106
Warren admitted she has taken Wall Street Money, she understands financing a campaign.
Thinkingabout
Feb 2015
#110
So, we are talking the Herbert Hoover section? Would they put a chicken in every pot, too?
freshwest
Feb 2015
#158
Obama received a lot in '08 but hardly any support from Wall Street in 2012.
Drunken Irishman
Feb 2015
#172
Wall Street probably did prefer Romney. Also, Obama didn't need as much in 2012 as in 2008.
merrily
Feb 2015
#179
Dunno. First term rhetoric was very different from post 2014 mid term rhetoric.
merrily
Feb 2015
#190