Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

Wouldn't make any difference. None of his sources mentioned that GS owns Drummond. Guess he read a bit wrong somewhere or was doing a metacommentary about conspiracy theories.

GS does own a mining company calledCNR, tho, but that's neither here nor there.

That's interesting all by itself.

 

[gcubed]

Barney Frank on Bernie Sanders:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...frank_is_not_impressed_by_bernie_sanders.html

Another? Frank has no love lost for Sanders

 

[Bowdz]

Oh: https://twitter.com/SusanPage/status/715898183742840832

If Hillary doesn't win 100% of the NY primary, it proves she is a weak front runner and all of the superdelegates should vote for Bernie.

 

[Diablos]

Oh: https://twitter.com/SusanPage/status/715898183742840832

What a fucking troll.

 

[Basileus777]

Thank god Bernie lost because it would be terrifying if the future of this country was going to be dependent on a Weaver and Devine campaign.

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh: https://twitter.com/SusanPage/status/715898183742840832

Weaver remains an idiot.

Barney Frank on Bernie Sanders:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...frank_is_not_impressed_by_bernie_sanders.html

Another one? Damn dude.

 

[royalan]

It's not my goal to change your or anyone's views on the candidates royalan. Hills is better than anyone in the GOP, whether she is corrupt or not is irrelevant to me in the grand scheme of things if she becomes the nominee.
But this is not the general, this is the primary and Hillary is the candidate who has decided not to sign the pledge which GreenPeace has been advocating, Martin and Bernie both signed it no questions asked.
The criticism from Green Peace is valid, her platform not being aggressive enough on environmental issues is also valid, her decision to lead from behind is also a valid issue, her lack of commitment on carbon taxes is also a valid issue, her position and selling fracking to the World is also a valid issue, her flipflopping on Keystone is a valid issue, her history working with Republicans on offshore drilling is also a valid issue, being pro-ethanol production is also a valid issue.

I wouldn't list Bernie Sanders' propensity for diving into campaign promises as a positive at this point.

And you're right, everything you listed are valid issues worth discussing. What they don't do is paint a picture of a Hillary Clinton that is corrupt. They paint a picture of a world that's not as black and white as some would like it to be.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Another? Frank has no love lost for Sanders

You can see why in his comments. He's been doing the work and getting things passed as a reformer, and then Bernie claims to the reformer we've all been waiting for without having done nearly as much.

 

[HylianTom]

Oh: https://twitter.com/SusanPage/status/715898183742840832

In the expectations game, that's a tell.

 

[Holmes]

In the expectations game, that's a tell.

I was about to say this. Forget Quinnipiac, their own numbers are leading him to say stupid shit like this and the 40% thing.

 

[Macho Madness]

That's the same Frank interview from a few days ago.

Barney Frank doesn't like Bernie Sanders. And it appears he hasn't for a long time: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...qJJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Xg0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=4293,3641940

 

[pigeon]

I like playing AAA games, I like to eat at PF Chang's and dammit I dont change my underwear often. Its who I am. Cant we all just get along?

The majestic glory of American democracy is that even this guy gets a vote.

 

[gcubed]

You can see why in his comments. He's been doing the work and getting things passed as a reformer, and then Bernie claims to the reformer we've all been waiting for without having done nearly as much.

Whew, strong words on Scalias grave by Frank too.

 

[B-Dubs]

I was about to say this. Forget Quinnipiac, their own numbers are leading him to say stupid shit like this and the 40% thing.

I imagine internal numbers must have him around 30% if they're saying shit like this.

 

[gcubed]

I imagine internal numbers must have him around 30% if they're saying shit like this.

I refuse to believe this. A 60/40 win by her should be followed by a congratulatory speech and ending his campaign because you are basically mathematically eliminated

 

[Box of Kittens]

But that Brooklyn connection.

 

[pigeon]

I refuse to believe this. A 60/40 win by her should be followed by a congratulatory speech and ending his campaign because you are basically mathematically eliminated

Weaver/Devine already told Politico that a 60/40 loss represents victory for Bernie by meeting the "credibility threshold," whatever that means.

 

[PBY]

How the hell did Bernie raise 44 million in March.

 

[pigeon]

How the hell did Bernie raise 44 million in March.

He's a true capitalist.

 

[B-Dubs]

Weaver/Devine already told Politico that a 60/40 loss represents victory for Bernie by meeting the "credibility threshold," whatever that means.

Between that comment and Weaver's recent verbal idiocy, they must think they're in the 30's somewhere. If hitting 40% is a win and Hillary has to hold him below 20%, they have to be somewhere in-between. Likely closer to 40% than 20%, otherwise the first comments make no sense.

 

[Armaros]

How the hell did Bernie raise 44 million in March.

Lots of begging on Reddit.

His campaign has directly asked for donations on /s4p multiples times in the month.

 

[nocturnalis]

I like Arrow. 😞

I was about to very upeet, then I remembered that it's April Fools Day. I see you Adam.

 

[Anoregon]

Man, that 9/11 spike.

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Man, the last few pages were a bummer. PoliGAF just seems to hate everything I like. What do you guys think about Catch-22? Because that's like the best book ever.

Although, not like I have any say on what books are good. The only other book I've ever read in my life is Mr. Nice.

 

[B-Dubs]

Man, the last few pages were a bummer. PoliGAF just seems to hate everything I like. What do you guys think about Catch-22? Because that's like the best book ever.

Although, not like I have any say on what books are good. The only other book I've ever read in my life is Mr. Nice.

Love that book and I will fight anyone who doesn't.

 

[Ophelion]

(b) Being female alone is not sufficient to be at a disadvantage, but there is a property Clinton has and Merkel does not that is negatively judged and somehow associated to the question.
One option would be that a question concerning money could also trigger associations to the establishment, so people might not only be primed to sex, but also perceived closeness to establishment. Another one would be that Merkel maybe is less associtaed with her sex than Clinton, but I don't know what could cause this effect.

There are many traits that Hillary Clinton possesses that add to her dislike outside of any legitimate policy problems with her people may have (and I tend to assume is the case of regular GAF posters until proven otherwise.)

First, she's Ivy League and it shows. She's got that upper class education in her bearing. It makes her seem smart, but it also makes her seem as close to aristocratic as you can get in America. Americans long for class, but they hate aristocrats. Because we make no sense, essentially. We're nouveau riche: the country. That's to say nothing of the deep veins of anti-intellectualism that run through this country and have slowly been poisoning us for decades. It's part of the reason Bill comes off so charismatic in comparison. They have a very similar background, but Bill can pull of that "Gee golly, I'm just a regular ol' fella you could have a beer with!" crap that sells so well to a trashy certain kind of person.

Beyond that, Hillary is a glorified wonk. As much as geek might be chic, most people still aren't into the idea of a dork as president. As someone whose first major campaign was Obama '08, I have never pushed for anything but dork presidents. Still, at large the opinions remain on dorks. Especially a dorky grandma. Especially especially a dorky grandma who they think is a liar for a multitude of reasons valid and paranoid shadow-boxing in nature.

Honestly, I think what all this pontification boils down to is Hillary just isn't cool. Obama was cool. Bill was cool. Cool is an important PR factor in becoming a Democratic president. Personally, I think that being intelligent, capable and enduring is more than enough to make up for not being cool, but it does start one on the back foot.

 

[Macho Madness]

It's like I said, the Bernie campaign dies when he says it does. Not because he's out of money.

There were rumors his fundraising was drying up earlier in March and what did that mean? Nothing.

We don't know what he's spending (probably still a high burn rate) and the NY media market is expensive but he can still keep going easily with the kind of money he's raising.

And right now, he's got the easiest fund raising line there is: "The two most populous states have yet to vote and the evil Democratic establishment wants us to drop out!"

 

[Box of Kittens]

They're really going to try and convince their supporters that it was really a moral victory when they get crushed in NY, huh? And, yes, as others have pointed out, this says a lot about what their internals are telling them.

 

[Drek]

My posts, as they pertain to you, are designed to show that your views of the republican base are incorrect. This has been done.

i've also never said the bolded.


(gee, it is almost as if, much like democrats, the republican base runs on some sort of bizarro pragmatism where they are willing to ignore some things in favour of [sometimes just lip service paid to] others)

So lets recap here:
1. you responded to a post about the problems with party purists on the left in general, but more specifically referenced to campaign financing with:
"Which completely ignores that republicans have become massively successful at the local level while pushing consistently more Xtreem Purity candidates, but hey."

2. I then point out that the GOP platform is not opposed to literally any vehicle for campaign finance reform, and that they are not violating the notion of party purity in any form with their views on campaign finance.

3. You responded with a poll showing that most Americans, including most Republicans, feel there is too much money in politics. Not only does this misappropriate polling data into being some form of party platform litmus test (it isn't), you effectively disproved your own argument as the statements:

A. Tea Party candidates win elections as party purists.

B. Republicans oppose unfettered campaign finance contributions and this is at the core of party politics.

Can't both be true if:

C. Republicans have elected a multitude of Tea Party candidates who support unfettered campaign finance.

You have constructed a logical fallacy in your posts. You did this by conflating ambiguous polling results with actual political sentiment and then ran with it to assume it was part of party ideology. Wrong on both counts.

 

[gcubed]

So what happens after a 60/40 loss in NY then another drubbing in PA, MD, DE?

As long as he gets a few votes he hits the credibility threshold and should get the nomination?

 

[Macho Madness]

So what happens after a 60/40 loss in NY then another drubbing in PA, MD, DE?

As long as he gets a few votes he hits the credibility threshold and should get the nomination?

Someone should do the math but I think he'd need to basically make Hillary non-viable in California at that point.

 

[Box of Kittens]

So what happens after a 60/40 loss in NY then another drubbing in PA, MD, DE?

As long as he gets a few votes he hits the credibility threshold and should get the nomination?

Lots of maps show up on social media with those states shaded in as "ties."

Talk of "momentum." Poised for a big win in California.

Strategies that revolve around superdelegates handing the nomination to Sanders become even more prominent.

 

[B-Dubs]

So what happens after a 60/40 loss in NY then another drubbing in PA, MD, DE?

As long as he gets a few votes he hits the credibility threshold and should get the nomination?

If that happens there is no path left.

 

[Y2Kev]

Even a 53/48 win for Bernie isn't great in ny. He really needs like an 8-10 point win. Still I am impressed at how people contribute.

I just can't buy that he would win outright in ny. That's a massive failure for Clinton. She should be seriously ashamed if she loses ny.

 

[Macho Madness]

Even a 53/48 win for Bernie isn't great in ny. He really needs like an 8-10 point win. Still I am impressed at how people contribute.

I just can't buy that he would win outright in ny. That's a massive failure for Clinton. She should be seriously ashamed if she loses ny.

That line from Weaver suggests they don't think he can win either and they don't think it'll be close.

 

[superdeluxe]

They're really going to try and convince their supporters that it was really a moral victory when they get crushed in NY, huh? And, yes, as others have pointed out, this says a lot about what their internals are telling them.

They will just convince their supporters that they just need more money to fight harder.

 

[superdeluxe]

So what happens after a 60/40 loss in NY then another drubbing in PA, MD, DE?

As long as he gets a few votes he hits the credibility threshold and should get the nomination?

Clinton is going to clobber Sanders in teh Acela corridor.

 

[Macho Madness]

They're really going to try and convince their supporters that it was really a moral victory when they get crushed in NY, huh? And, yes, as others have pointed out, this says a lot about what their internals are telling them.

Anything can be spun into an easy fundraising tactic.

Win: "We need your donation to continue the momentum!"

Lose: "something something Democratic establishment something Hillary something KITCHEN SINK"

Either way, it's easy 💰💰💰

 

[Holmes]

That line from Weaver suggests they don't think he can win either and they don't think it'll be close.

I mean they're begging for a debate in New York because they want him to have all the exposure he can get. If he's only winning open primary upper Midwest liberal Wisconsin by 4-5%, then closed primary upstate New York probably isn't looking as good as it needs to for Sanders.

 

[Y2Kev]

That line from Weaver suggests they don't think he can win either and they don't think it'll be close.

A lot can change in a couple Of weeks. I dunno. He has money to spend obviously. the recent lopsidedness of the caucuses is making me queasy.

Weaver is an idiot so why believe anything he says?

 

[noshten]

I wouldn't list Bernie Sanders' propensity for diving into campaign promises as a positive at this point.

And you're right, everything you listed are valid issues worth discussing. What they don't do is paint a picture of a Hillary Clinton that is corrupt. They paint a picture of a world that's not as black and white as some would like it to be.

Part of the things I listed are Green Peace's call for Clinton to stop accepting money from corporate lobbyist and bundlers and call out her Super PAC to do the same.


Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists(07/17/2015)

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. The two bundled Clinton contributions of $24,700 and $29,700, respectively. They have helped Chevron over the years resist efforts to eliminate oil and gas tax breaks and to impose regulations to reduce carbon emissions.

The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing.

One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG terminals.

Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton’s campaign.

The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of U.S. free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.

ML Strategies’ David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company’s reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years.

ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton’s campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700.

Clinton also got contributions from others involved in the fossil fuel business. Her campaign received $2,700 from BP America’s Mary Streett, formerly the top lobbyist for the nuclear power utility Exelon. Anadarko Petroleum lawyers Amanda McMillan and Richard Lapin each gave $2,700. Sarah Venuto and Martin Durbin, both lobbyists for America’s Natural Gas Alliance, the top gas industry lobbying group, gave $2,910 and $1,000, respectively. Celia Fischer, an America’s Natural Gas Alliance representative who is not a lobbyist, gave $2,700.

Aside from lobbyists currently working to advance fossil fuel interests, there is one Hillblazer bundler — the name for Clinton boosters raising more than $100,000 — who stands out.

Bundler Gordon Giffin is a former lobbyist for TransCanada, the company working to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Giffin sits on the board of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, an investor in the pipeline. The Canadian bank paid Clinton $990,000 for speeches in the months leading up to her presidential announcement. Another Canadian financial institution with an interest in Keystone XL, TD Bank, paid her $651,000 for speaking engagements.

Clinton’s position on Keystone XL — or lack thereof — may prove the biggest challenge for her in gaining support from progressive activists. Whether to grant a permit for the leg of the pipeline that crosses the Canadian border into the U.S. is up to the State Department, which has been considering it since Clinton’s time as secretary of state. In October 2010 remarks, Clinton said the department was “inclined” to sign off on the pipeline, a statement that enraged environmental groups working to stop it. On the campaign trail, Clinton has largely evaded questions about the pipeline.

But the issue has dogged Clinton. The speaking fees from Canadian banks came to light in May. In June, Clinton’s campaign announced the hiring of former TransCanada lobbyist Jeff Berman as a consultant.

The issue of campaign donations from fossil fuel interests has become a topic in the Democratic Party primary, as both Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have pledged they will not accept contributions from oil, gas or coal companies. Clinton has not signed that pledge.

Fossil fuel campaign contributions came up at a town hall event Clinton hosted in New Hampshire on Thursday.

“I’m disappointed about the answer you gave to climate change,” Giselle Hart, an activist with 350 Action, told Clinton. I’m wondering if your answer ... is due to contributions from the fossil fuel industry to your campaign.”

Activists unfurled banners and demanded that Clinton support a ban on fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Clinton responded that she would phase out extraction over time, though not immediately. “We still have to run our economy, we still have to turn on the lights,” she said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

 

[Macho Madness]

A lot can change in a couple Of weeks. I dunno. He has money to spend obviously.

Weaver is an idiot so why believe anything he says?

He's the campaign manager for the Bernie Sanders for President campaign. If he doesn't know anything then who does

 

[B-Dubs]

A lot can change in a couple Of weeks. I dunno. He has money to spend obviously. the recent lopsidedness of the caucuses is making me queasy.

Weaver is an idiot so why believe anything he says?

Clinton know how to run a NY campaign, she'd really have to fuck up to lose.

 

[Y2Kev]

He's the campaign manager for the Bernie Sanders for President campaign. If he doesn't know anything then who does

Millionaires and billionaires

 

[T'Zariah]

If that happens there is no path left.

Like I think if that happens Sanders could literally win 100% of the delegates in Cali and still lose

 

[Drek]

The criticism from Green Peace is valid

There is literally nothing valid about Greenpeace. They're an eco-terrorism organization masquerading as people who know what they're talking about. They cause orders of magnitude more harm than good and are the environmentalist equivalent of PETA.

We're talking about a group who damaged part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site to push their agenda, lied about the extent, and shielded the people who did the actual destruction when Peru wanted to press charges.

 

[Fenderputty]

He's a true capitalist.

lol trollface.jpg

 

[Bowdz]

There is literally nothing valid about Greenpeace. They're an eco-terrorism organization masquerading as people who know what they're talking about. They cause orders of magnitude more harm than good and are the environmentalist equivalent of PETA.

We're talking about a group who damaged part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site to push their agenda, lied about the extent, and shielded the people who did the actual destruction when Peru wanted to press charges.

Yep.

People like Elon Musk and Lyndon Rive have done more tangible good to combat climate change than Greenpeace ever have and oh yeah, Clinton was at Rive's this weekend for a fundraiser and Musk maxed out his campaign donation at the beginning of the campaign.

 

[Box of Kittens]

Like I think if that happens Sanders could literally win 100% of the delegates in Cali and still lose

I really do think that even then his campaign is going to try pushing the idea that they'll still get the nomination by convincing superdelegates to flip based on GE polls or momentum or only looking at "contested" states or whatever. It doesn't matter that it won't ever happen, they seem determined to keep up the appearance of a campaign that can win the nomination as long as possible.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Hillary Clinton’s Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists(07/17/2015)


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel_us_55a8335ee4b04740a3df86c5

This doesn't get fixed until campaign finance gets fixed. That successful lobbyists have been employed by what it most likely the largest industry for lobbying is hardly a surprise.

Are suggesting such people bring with them obligations to the energy industry? Or is this just more guilt by association?