2016 Postmortem

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

91. Manny can speak for himself.

Mon Jul 13, 2015, 09:52 PM

Jul 2015

If you could reverse ONE election outcome, which would it be?

2008.
Edited on Mon Mar-28-11 06:18 PM by MannyGoldstein
In the prior elections, people got what they wanted, whether it was good or bad, perhaps with the exception of the stolen 2004 election (which was close, anyway). So, no matter who won, things would have generally gone the way they did. For example, Al Gore was an active participant in Clinton's development of the outsourced-torture "extraordinary rendition" program.

In 2008, people voted overwhelmingly for hope and change, but we got much other, for examples:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/resp...

This is an enormous problem. We've had almost 20% real unemployment for years, and more shoveling of worker's cash to the wealthiest. So now the Democratic brand is badly damaged, and the people have returned even-crazier Republicans to office in a desperate attempt for actual, helpful change. It's like the poor souls who leaped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 to avoid the fire. Awful, awful choices.

Would McCain's policies be much different? I don't see how. In addition, at least we'd have a chance for bringing in people with Democratic ideals in 2010 and 2012 - 2010 was a disaster, and 2012 is unlikely to see a good outcome at the Presidential level.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=761367&mesg_id=761480

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

143 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Looks like the "Hillary's top donors are banks" meme needs to be debunked for the 200th time... [View all] DanTex Jul 2015 OP

I'm recing this 'debunking' for exposure. PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #3

The "debunk" is bunk. It's the same difference if Citibank writes the checks or gives bonus to rhett o rick Jul 2015 #16

Really? You have evidence that Citibank gives bonuses to people in order to get them to write DanTex Jul 2015 #19

What difference does it make if Citibank writes the check or all of it's exec's write the checks? rhett o rick Jul 2015 #21

OK, so no evidence. Another conspiracy theory. Good to know. DanTex Jul 2015 #22

"Banks are corporations that care about nothing but profit." < Which would give them the best motive jtuck004 Jul 2015 #42

If they do it what possible evidence would there be? zeemike Jul 2015 #48

It's the best kind of conspiracy theory... impossible to prove! DanTex Jul 2015 #63

It's also the best kind of conspiracy...one impossible to prove. zeemike Jul 2015 #79

Your pushing the meme that it isn't the big banks that support Clinton but just their rhett o rick Jul 2015 #112

During my 45-year working career, I worked for several large corporations, I was never asked... George II Jul 2015 #83

Well there you have it then, anecdotal evidence it never happens. zeemike Jul 2015 #87

Let's see the breakdown of Sanders' contributors employers for his NATIONAL contributions... George II Jul 2015 #100

Well what you see as a problem I see as a solution zeemike Jul 2015 #108

A candidate without a national presence will only win 3 electoral votes. George II Jul 2015 #109

You mean like Carter, Clinton, and Obama did? zeemike Jul 2015 #113

pretty much stupidicus Jul 2015 #45

However, it�s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s... AlbertCat Jul 2015 #55

Funny how republican arguments such as these tymorial Jul 2015 #58

Those numbers are for ALL employees, not just executives. George II Jul 2015 #81

Yes, Hillary gets campaign contributions from companies headquartered in NY Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #2

Huge sums, actually. Bubzer Jul 2015 #62

Well that's not based in reality... Agschmid Jul 2015 #94

Allow me to clarify Bubzer Jul 2015 #129

What difference does it make?! I'm sure all those very well paid individuals brewens Jul 2015 #4

. Agschmid Jul 2015 #95

Well aware of that. And of what it really says. Wilms Jul 2015 #5

Well, most Democrats period prefer Hillary to Sanders. DanTex Jul 2015 #20

Straight up. Wilms Jul 2015 #27

...now tell me... DanTex Jul 2015 #31

Great song. Agschmid Jul 2015 #96

So, then, all bankers are Democrats? Bubzer Jul 2015 #65

Some are. For example, the ones that donated to Hillary. DanTex Jul 2015 #70

I'd venture an easy majority of Banksters are conservative (if not 3 out of 4). Bubzer Jul 2015 #80

Some are Dems on social issues Depaysement Jul 2015 #71

Of course the banks themselves don't cut big donation checks. Avalux Jul 2015 #6

How does this improve the situation for Clinton? OpenSecrets, Bernie Sanders: Jefferson23 Jul 2015 #7

What situation needs improving? DanTex Jul 2015 #8

Ok. n/t Jefferson23 Jul 2015 #25

Oh, of course. And most people in Vermont must work for unions, right? Makes sense! senz Jul 2015 #43

My neighbor who works for the Bank of New York is a huge Hillary fan! Walk away Jul 2015 #9

Many years ago I worked for the Bank of New York and was never "asked" to contribute... George II Jul 2015 #52

The Bank didn't ask for anything. Walk away Jul 2015 #116

No they didn't. In fact in 43 years of working not a single employer asked me... George II Jul 2015 #118

Of course. But good luck convincing the folks wearing those tin foil hats.... Walk away Jul 2015 #126

Since we're talking millions and millions of dollars, that's got to be thousand and thousands.... George II Jul 2015 #127

Or just the fringe element of our party who suspect conspiracy.... Walk away Jul 2015 #128

I am puzzled CTBlueboy Jul 2015 #10

Exactly. London Lover Man Jul 2015 #12

You can debunk this type of crapola 2,000,000 times ... NanceGreggs Jul 2015 #11

It's called BUNDLING. In 2008, the HRC campaign called their bundlers "Hillraisers" progressoid Jul 2015 #13

The "debunk" is bunk. While Citibank doesn't write the checks themselves, their employees rhett o rick Jul 2015 #14

Aha. So the new meme is that all 25,000 Citibank employees in New York state are DanTex Jul 2015 #18

... Phlem Jul 2015 #54

Can I second your plonk? Depaysement Jul 2015 #73

! Phlem Jul 2015 #74

You are just stating a bunch of jibberish. The bottom line is that the big banks rhett o rick Jul 2015 #110

It's still very telling when so many of your donors work for banks. HappyPlace Jul 2015 #101

You are exactly correct. The working people support Sen Sanders while the banksters support rhett o rick Jul 2015 #111

It also doesn't include money given to the candidates' Super-PACs. arcane1 Jul 2015 #15

So it's bankers, and not banks, that are going to run her white house. Well in that case Doctor_J Jul 2015 #17

No, Hillary Clinton is going to run her White House. George II Jul 2015 #104

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Jul 2015 #24

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2015 #28

It also is a reflection of campaign donations from 1999 to 2016. sufrommich Jul 2015 #26

How's this thread working out for you, DanTex? Scootaloo Jul 2015 #29

Well, the Hillary bashing swarm is here, of course. A conspiracy theory here, willful ignorance DanTex Jul 2015 #32

Gotcha. Facts counter to yours are "bashing' and "conspiracy theory" Scootaloo Jul 2015 #34

The conspiracy theory is that the banks are coercing the contributions with financial DanTex Jul 2015 #37

You're sounding kind of like Mitt Romney there, DanTex Scootaloo Jul 2015 #39

The exact opposite, in fact. I'm kind of disappointed in you here. DanTex Jul 2015 #41

So, what, all this money comes from tellers and janitors? Scootaloo Jul 2015 #44

It comes from individuals employed at the corporations. DanTex Jul 2015 #46

If you are as naive (which is unlikely) as your posts indicate, I have the deed to a bridge.... HERVEPA Jul 2015 #90

Actually, it's math. Banks don't hire people so bad at it that they can't figure out that DanTex Jul 2015 #93

It is when it's given through a corporate bundle.Any lobbying for pro-corporate interests thereafter ancianita Jul 2015 #134

The money is not given in a corporate bundle. It's being given by individuals. Not corporations. DanTex Jul 2015 #136

Most people don't know what you know, and I can tell you that it happens way more than any of ancianita Jul 2015 #137

Citibank execs know what I know, though. And can afford lawyers. DanTex Jul 2015 #138

Are their names on any "real" donor list you insist the OP chart doesn't represent? ancianita Jul 2015 #139

I don't understand the question. The OP chart represents donations from employees DanTex Jul 2015 #140

You don't distinguish the interests of the bundlers's names from those individuals within it. That's ancianita Jul 2015 #142

Oh, bundlers. No it doesn't list bundlers and it doesn't show what fraction of the contributions DanTex Jul 2015 #143

Fox news wants their saying back. HERVEPA Jul 2015 #88

So let me get this straight - bank executives are Exilednight Jul 2015 #30

I'm pretty sure the bank employees that donated to Hillary support her. DanTex Jul 2015 #33

According to the records, those "employees" are mostly executives. Exilednight Jul 2015 #92

A lot of those folks are contributing to other candidates too. Organizations typically Hoyt Jul 2015 #35

*facepalm* Man from Pickens Jul 2015 #36

"the fact that bankers overwhelmingly choose HRC is no accident - she's their candidate" Bubzer Jul 2015 #72

kicking frylock Jul 2015 #38

Gee, it's so interesting .... senz Jul 2015 #40

See below...... George II Jul 2015 #49

People don't understand that according campaign finance law, contributions over a certain amount.... George II Jul 2015 #47

Sure. Phlem Jul 2015 #61

Yes. George II Jul 2015 #69

Good luck with that! Phlem Jul 2015 #76

None of "the friends she keeps" can contribute more than $2700. George II Jul 2015 #77

You are completely missing my point. Phlem Jul 2015 #84

The geographic distribution of Hillary donors by zip code is interesting. senz Jul 2015 #50

Here's something else from that site, which explains how they know who the employers are.... George II Jul 2015 #51

BOOM! As always, the LEFT needs to lie to score points! MannyGoldstein Jul 2015 #53

Funny, isn't it? I thought the "left" would know the difference between corporations and people. DanTex Jul 2015 #60

Dude, do your self a favor and take a breath. Phlem Jul 2015 #85

You might not, but Manny does... DanTex Jul 2015 #86

While I can't speak for Manny Phlem Jul 2015 #89

Manny can speak for himself. DanTex Jul 2015 #91

Read it. Phlem Jul 2015 #98

I did. It says "2008". DanTex Jul 2015 #99

alright then. Difference of opinion. Valid. Phlem Jul 2015 #103

NOWHERE did he say he wished McC had won. kath Jul 2015 #105

Question: if you could reverse one election, which would it be. Answer: 2008. DanTex Jul 2015 #107

Possibly the most damming thing I've ever seen on DU MannyGoldstein Jul 2015 #114

Clarifying is the word that I'd use. DanTex Jul 2015 #122

Nah, we pretty much all know. zappaman Jul 2015 #123

Are you referring to Hillary preferring McCain over Obama? Ino Jul 2015 #120

No. Hillary endorse Obama and campaigned for him, in case you forgot. DanTex Jul 2015 #121

Only after she was eliminated. Ino Jul 2015 #124

Not as clearly as Manny. And I suspect many others on the far left. DanTex Jul 2015 #125

I hate when I agree with one of your posts. bravenak Jul 2015 #115

lol tymorial Jul 2015 #56

KnR and good luck. All they want is truthiness, not actual facts. Hekate Jul 2015 #57

Bankers... Not Banks. BANKERS Motown_Johnny Jul 2015 #59

so the gaping differences in "who" and "how much" are all good to go, then? MisterP Jul 2015 #64

Well, the difference in total fundraising is one of the reasons that Hillary is much better DanTex Jul 2015 #68

Her foundation accepted $81m from tax cheats and sex offenders, OnyxCollie Jul 2015 #66

I see banksters on one side and unions on the other Feeling the Bern Jul 2015 #67

Surely you're not that naive, but just in case ... GeorgeGist Jul 2015 #75

Corporations and people are different. I was under the impression that people DanTex Jul 2015 #78

KnR for clarity and exposure Sheepshank Jul 2015 #82

What manner of foaming self delusion be this? whatchamacallit Jul 2015 #97

Absolutely true HassleCat Jul 2015 #102

As as seasoned "donation getter" I have devised a counter argument to this thought Capn Sunshine Jul 2015 #106

I didn't realized that Bernie Sanders rejects all money from anyone who works at a bank. DanTex Jul 2015 #119

Maybe Bernie Sanders should take out an ad stating that anyone working for a bank.... Walk away Jul 2015 #117

Recent donor breakdowns show HRC's 17% are $200 or less, while Bernies' are 75% at $200 or less. ancianita Jul 2015 #130

That's because Bernie raised hardly any money from donations of over $200. DanTex Jul 2015 #131

All factually true, but my RECENT numbers undergird the OP chart's use in calling out union PACs ancianita Jul 2015 #132

The chart is most definitely not a "visual representation of corporate PACs for Hillary". DanTex Jul 2015 #133

Okay,I'll study it. Hill's hard put to erase the names that are the corporate aegis for individuals. ancianita Jul 2015 #135

You're not going to convince right wingers. It isn't even worth the time. NCTraveler Jul 2015 #141