Top Ten Donors: Hillary versus Bernie (Hillary Clinton, Obama, Reed, Sanders)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This lie by the Trump campaign has already been debunked. The loan was against the Cruz' own assets that were accounts held at GS. So if Cruz is beholden to anyone, it is to himself and to his wife.
AND THAT LOAN WAS PAID OFF IN 2014!!!!
If you want to lie about Cruz, at least try using one that hasn't been debunked. Of course, we know that won't be easy, since every one of them have been, so far!
This lie by the Trump campaign has already been debunked. The loan was against the Cruz' own assets that were accounts held at GS. So if Cruz is beholden to anyone, it is to himself and to his wife.
AND THAT LOAN WAS PAID OFF IN 2014!!!!
If you want to lie about Cruz, at least try using one that hasn't been debunked. Of course, we know that won't be easy, since every one of them have been, so far!
Not that I don't trust your word, but don't you at least have a reputable link?
Is deliberately posting an incorrect link a TOS violation? I would think so since it means the OP did not correctly provide the source for what might be a copyrighted graphic.
Even if not a TOS, it's deceptive.
The information shown for Clinton is cherry-picked from data that's not been updated since 2008,
Is deliberately posting an incorrect link a TOS violation? I would think so since it means the OP did not correctly provide the source for what might be a copyrighted graphic.
Even if not a TOS, it's deceptive.
The information shown for Clinton is cherry-picked from data that's not been updated since 2008,
Um, The source is in the OP, which I stated a second time in post #9. It is from a politifact article which proved that the meme in question is correct. Not sure how you missed that.
It's not that my info is "deceptive", it is just much more comprehensive than what you linked (1989-2016). Comprehensive is not "cherry picked"-quite the opposite actually- and your insinuations are quite rude.
Don't attack the messenger because you don't like the honest message. Reconcile your own discrepancies with the candidate you are supporting.
Hillary is beholden to nationless banks, detached corporations and the corrupt/colluded media.
Bernie is beholden to the people and labor unions.
Take your pick. If you are a person, you should probably vote Bernie.
If you are a corporation or bank (which are now counted as 'people' and possess all the rights that come with it according to the SCOTUS) you should probably vote Hillary.
Please don't try to make the argument that the donors of a candidate do not matter. These are businesses that would not spend money if they weren't getting a return on their investment.
As Bernie put it, it's an insult to the American people to suggest that it doesn't matter.
Internet Meme says Hillary Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions.
Um, The source is in the OP, which I stated a second time in post #9. It is from a politifact article which proved that the meme in question is correct. Not sure how you missed that.
The politifact article is dated July 2015 and does not include any data since then. Clinton's list of top 10 donors has changed dramatically since then. (I didn't check Bernie's.)
Well, goodness. Is Bernie going to take all my investment money and give it to the union bosses? He MUST be because they gave him money.
BTW - Bernie took DNC money. He took Wall street money.
Conservative SCOTUS is the reason that 'corporations are people too'. We can look forward to more of that if a Republican is elected.
You are seriously trying to equate American labor unions with nationless banking institutions, which hold allegiance to no nation on the face of the planet?
Unions are made up of American workers. Corporations only owe allegiance to majority shareholders-many not American, and do not care one way or another if our nation goes down the gutter, so long as they have their middle class consumers ready to spend in India and China, whom they will also ditch for other developing countries decades later. It is exploitation and modern day piracy.
I agree on your last point, but it is getting very hard to tell the difference between Clinton supporters and NeoCons, especially considering your attempt at demonizing American workers and unions.
I would MUCH rather my President be beholden to American labor unions versus detached nationless entities that have no stake in the direction of our country; They are just trying to squeeze all they can in profit, evade as much as possible in taxes and exploit workers the globe over as much as humanly possible-Americans included-on the road to their ultimate goal, global economic hegemony.
You are seriously trying to equate American labor unions with nationless banking institutions, which hold allegiance to no nation on the face of the planet?
Unions are made up of American workers. Corporations only owe allegiance to majority shareholders-many not American, and do not care one way or another if our nation goes down the gutter, so long as they have their middle class consumers ready to spend in India and China, whom they will also ditch for other developing countries decades later. It is exploitation and modern day piracy.
I agree on your last point, but it is getting very hard to tell the difference between Clinton supporters and NeoCons, especially considering your attempt at demonizing American workers and unions.
I would MUCH rather my President be beholden to American labor unions versus detached nationless entities that have no stake in the direction of our country; They are just trying to squeeze all they can in profit, evade as much as possible in taxes and exploit workers the globe over as much as humanly possible-Americans included-on the road to their ultimate goal, global economic hegemony.
Most Bernie supporters on this forum spend the majority of their time demonizing Hillary and her supporters.
Do I feel guilty about commenting that Bernie could be swayed by union money?
Nope. Not at ALL. Beholden is beholden. Then point out to me where I 'demonized American workers and unions'. Hyperbole much?
Besides, if we leave it up to the righties - unions are on their way out the door. I imagine they would do just about anything to stop that hemorrhage.
Social media memes say that Clinton’s top 10 donors are mainly "banks, corporations and media," while Bernie Sanders’ top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, it’s worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.
Another couple of points. The cumulative figures are based on all contributions from a particular employer's employees and their families not the firm themselves. Also because the refer to total amount can't be considered as a measure of support. For example, is the argument that a particular unions should be able to match dollar for dollar with a major investment firm an accurate measure of support. Does such an argument figure in the significant on the ground support that unions provide a candidate? I don't think so. In 2008 Clinton had as much union support as Obama, in fact she had the support of two more unions than Obama.
I believe the majority of the labor unions that are supporting Sanders, requested their members to vote on candidates before backing them.
My union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers sent me a survey asking me who I supported in various match ups but have been clear they were not going to endorse any candidate until after the primary, which would obviously be whichever democrat it happens to be.
Now, I will say, that while in a sense Citizens United has given unions equal right to dump money in politics, I would still be happy to see it overturned. The whole system of buying favors needs to go away.
Quote:
What does the Citizens United decision mean for labor unions?
Prior to Citizens United, the funds that unions collected from union dues could not go to political spending that expressly advocated for the election or defeat of a candidate. That funding could, however, still go to other “political activities.” These include informational and educational materials that are distributed to members.
Under Citizens United, unions can take member dues and spend the money on materials in support or in opposition to a candidate for office. This is problematic because union members are not asked for permission before this money is spent, and it is often difficult to ask for a refund.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
