OK Democrats! It's Time To Back Up Your Words

[protectionist]

Liar. I quoted your entire post. I deleted nothing You added more after I replied.

Which I just answered in post #77

No, I was continuing to post, while you were posting too early, before I had finished posting. That however is irrelevant. What matters is you tried to refute me by changing the subject of the topic of the thread from "big corporate donations", AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE OP, to all donations. Nice try - blew up in your face. Now you can wear all those names you called me.

Another lesson you should learn from this, is to not post too quickly.

And your stupid Post # 77 does nothing more than repeat your earlier mistake, which my Post # 72 illustrated/confirmed.

Once again > The Large Individual Contributions = the "big corporate donors" (some people have to be told twice - or is it 3 times now)

LEARN BABY LEARN!

 

[Faun]

Imbecile....

Clinton

Individual $143,597,967

PAC $1,024,553

Party $1,000

Candidate $560,983

Sanders

Individual $136,590,191

PAC $3,637

Party $0

Candidate $

I accept your surrender. Post # 72 defeated you. There is no recourse. Being dishonest only harms you still more. The Large Individual Contributions = the "big corporate donors". Simple as that.

That you see surrender where there is none only reflects on your dementia. Your own link in your OP does not equate large individual contributions with big corporate donors. It defines large individual contributions as any individual's contribution of more than $200.

It also shows Bernie is not far behind even in large individual contributions Bernie's 66% to Hillary's 73%.

And again, the answer to your question in your OP, nothing since Citizens United changed campaign financing.

 

[protectionist]

That you see surrender where there is none only reflects on your dementia. Your own link in your OP does not equate large individual contributions with big corporate donors. It defines large individual contributions as any individual's contribution of more than $200.

It also shows Bernie is not far behind even in large individual contributions Bernie's 66% to Hillary's 73%.

And again, the answer to your question in your OP, nothing since Citizens United changed campaign financing.

Dude, you are looking very silly. What do you think large individual contributions means ? I don't know where you came up with this $200, but I can tell you where I found big corporate donors in Bernie's donations, and they're a WHOLE LOT MORE than $200

1. 1. Alphabet Inc (Google) - $255,814

2. University of California - $151,633

3. Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union - $105,000

4. Microsoft Corp - $96,446

5. National Education Assn - $94,861

6. Teamsters Union - $96,393

7. Apple Inc - $85,576

8. Kaiser Permanente - $58,313

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

Bernie IS Taking Big Corporate $$ Too

 

[Faun]

Liar. I quoted your entire post. I deleted nothing You added more after I replied.

Which I just answered in post #77

No, I was continuing to post, while you were posting too early, before I had finished posting. That however is irrelevant. What matters is you tried to refute me by changing the subject of the topic of the thread from "big corporate donations", AS CLEARLY STATED IN THE OP, to all donations. Nice try - blew up in your face. Now you can wear all those names you called me.

Another lesson you should learn from this, is to not post too quickly.

And your stupid Post # 77 does nothing more than repeat your earlier mistake, which my Post # 72 illustrated/confirmed.

Once again > The Large Individual Contributions = the "big corporate donors" (some people have to be told twice - or is it 3 times now)

LEARN BABY LEARN!

Are you fucking insane?? (now that's rhetorical)

How the fuck can I reply "too early" to your post before you're finished posting?? If I see your post -- (are ya sitting down to hear this revelation?) -- it means you've already posted it.

Not to mention, my post was more than 20 minutes after yours. If that's "too quickly" for ya, maybe you're just too old and slow?

So you claiming I didn't post you're entire post is just another lie from you. I posted everything you posted -- before you edited your post and added more.

.... which I responded to in another post.

 

[protectionist]

Are you fucking insane?? (now that's rhetorical)

How the fuck can I reply "too early" to your post before you're finished posting?? If I see your post -- (are ya sitting down to hear this revelation?) -- it means you've already posted it.

Not to mention, my post was more than 20 minutes after yours. If that's "too quickly" for ya, maybe you're just too old and slow?

So you claiming I didn't post you're entire post is just another lie from you. I posted everything you posted -- before you edited your post and added more.

.... which I responded to in another post.

Since I'm about to retire for the night, I'll make this brief. I don't give a rat's ass how you see this posting thing. Just stop trying to contradict an OP by changing the subject of it, as your did. You might get away with a ploy like that with some posters. Not me. And all those names you called me, fit very well on you. Wear them in good health. Good night.

 

[Faun]

That you see surrender where there is none only reflects on your dementia. Your own link in your OP does not equate large individual contributions with big corporate donors. It defines large individual contributions as any individual's contribution of more than $200.

It also shows Bernie is not far behind even in large individual contributions Bernie's 66% to Hillary's 73%.

And again, the answer to your question in your OP, nothing since Citizens United changed campaign financing.

Dude, you are looking very silly. What do you think large individual contributions means ? I don't know where you came up with this $200, but I can tell you where I found big corporate donors in Bernie's donations, and they're a WHOLE LOT MORE than $200

1. 1. Alphabet Inc (Google) - $255,814

2. University of California - $151,633

3. Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union - $105,000

4. Microsoft Corp - $96,446

5. National Education Assn - $94,861

6. Teamsters Union - $96,393

7. Apple Inc - $85,576

8. Kaiser Permanente - $58,313

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

Bernie IS Taking Big Corporate $$ Too

You don't know where that $200 figure comes from??

Just how retarded are you, gramps? It comes from your source from your OP.

opensecrets.org

About the breakdown of contributions size

The breakdown of large and small individual contributions comes directly from the candidate campaign's FEC filings. The FEC requires that the campaigns itemize contributions of $200 or more, and this is what the vast majority of campaigns do. Smaller contributions are usually summarized in a single line item and reported as "unitemized contributions". CRP uses the "unitemized contributions" total as the "Small Individual Contributions" figure. A few candidates, in an effort to completely disclose their donors, are itemizing all contributions, including those below the reporting threshold of $200. When they do this, the Large Individual Contributions figure listed actually includes both Large and Small Contributions.​

... don't you even know what you post?

 

[Faun]

Are you fucking insane?? (now that's rhetorical)

How the fuck can I reply "too early" to your post before you're finished posting?? If I see your post -- (are ya sitting down to hear this revelation?) -- it means you've already posted it.

Not to mention, my post was more than 20 minutes after yours. If that's "too quickly" for ya, maybe you're just too old and slow?

So you claiming I didn't post you're entire post is just another lie from you. I posted everything you posted -- before you edited your post and added more.

.... which I responded to in another post.

Since I'm about to retire for the night, I'll make this brief. I don't give a rat's ass how you see this posting thing. Just stop trying to contradict an OP by changing the subject of it, as your did. You might get away with a ploy like that with some posters. Not me. And all those names you called me, fit very well on you. Wear them in good health. Good night.

I didn't change the OP -- I answered it.

You opined, "for all my life, I have been hearing Democrats railing that the the voters should vote for them, because they supposedly are not pressured by big corporate donors$$, as they have always claimed Republicans are."

And ultimately asked, "So what do the Democrats have to say about this ? Speak up Democrats. Let's hear it."

And I gave you the answer.... Citizens United changed that. It established campaign donations constitute free speech, protected by the First Amendment. While I don't like that, it is what it is -- and everyone, Democrats as well as Republicans -- are protected under the First Amendment.

I don't expect you to understand -- you're too senile.

 

[protectionist]

That you see surrender where there is none only reflects on your dementia. Your own link in your OP does not equate large individual contributions with big corporate donors. It defines large individual contributions as any individual's contribution of more than $200.

It also shows Bernie is not far behind even in large individual contributions Bernie's 66% to Hillary's 73%.

And again, the answer to your question in your OP, nothing since Citizens United changed campaign financing.

Dude, you are looking very silly. What do you think large individual contributions means ? I don't know where you came up with this $200, but I can tell you where I found big corporate donors in Bernie's donations, and they're a WHOLE LOT MORE than $200

1. 1. Alphabet Inc (Google) - $255,814

2. University of California - $151,633

3. Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union - $105,000

4. Microsoft Corp - $96,446

5. National Education Assn - $94,861

6. Teamsters Union - $96,393

7. Apple Inc - $85,576

8. Kaiser Permanente - $58,313

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

Bernie IS Taking Big Corporate $$ Too

You don't know where that $200 figure comes from??

Just how retarded are you, gramps? It comes from your source from your OP.

opensecrets.org

About the breakdown of contributions size

The breakdown of large and small individual contributions comes directly from the candidate campaign's FEC filings. The FEC requires that the campaigns itemize contributions of $200 or more, and this is what the vast majority of campaigns do. Smaller contributions are usually summarized in a single line item and reported as "unitemized contributions". CRP uses the "unitemized contributions" total as the "Small Individual Contributions" figure. A few candidates, in an effort to completely disclose their donors, are itemizing all contributions, including those below the reporting threshold of $200. When they do this, the Large Individual Contributions figure listed actually includes both Large and Small Contributions.​

... don't you even know what you post?

Some people need to be told twice >>

As was stated in Post # 83 >> (have I ever done this much reposting ?

I can tell you where I found big corporate donors in Bernie's donations, and they're a WHOLE LOT MORE than $200

1. 1. Alphabet Inc (Google) - $255,814

2. University of California - $151,633

3. Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union - $105,000

4. Microsoft Corp - $96,446

5. National Education Assn - $94,861

6. Teamsters Union - $96,393

7. Apple Inc - $85,576

8. Kaiser Permanente - $58,313

Sen. Bernie Sanders: Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - Senator Career | OpenSecrets

Bernie IS Taking Big Corporate $$ Too

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

Democrats: The Real Party Of The Rich | Stock News Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Party Of The Rich? Not The One Most Think It Is

 

[protectionist]

I didn't change the OP -- I answered it.

You opined, "for all my life, I have been hearing Democrats railing that the the voters should vote for them, because they supposedly are not pressured by big corporate donors$$, as they have always claimed Republicans are."

And ultimately asked, "So what do the Democrats have to say about this ? Speak up Democrats. Let's hear it."

And I gave you the answer.... Citizens United changed that. It established campaign donations constitute free speech, protected by the First Amendment. While I don't like that, it is what it is -- and everyone, Democrats as well as Republicans -- are protected under the First Amendment.

I don't expect you to understand -- you're too senile.

YOU CHANGED IT! Once again, (some people need to be told 5 times) >> The OP was talking about big corporate donors, not ALL donors (as you changed it to). Post # 72 refuted you, let's move on. As for buying elections, and turning them into AUCTIONS, only a complete idiot would classify that as "free speech"

NO, it is NOT free speech. It is CONTROL of other people, by a small plutocracy. LEARN BABY! LEARN!

 

[protectionist]

So, despite the laughable attempts of some to falsify the record, Hillary is, by far, the top corporate lap dog in the 2016 presidential race. FACT, not opinion. And since Democrats, for years, have been ranting and railing about corporate control over politics, why are many (actually MOST) Democrats still backing her, and voting for her in the primaries, and vowing to vote for her in the general election. There can be only one conclusion >> HYPOCRISY!! - as bad as it gets And we haven't even mentioned her criminal lying, damaging national security, violating numerous US LAWS, etc.

 

[protectionist]

What's truly stunning about this election is that one of the two major political parties is prepared to nominate a criminal for the office of president of the United States. Think about that while you're getting agitated over whom the Republican nominee should be.

That shouldn't be forgotten as we examine the amazing aspect of Democrats accepting a big business flunky-puppet, to be their presidential candidate.

 

[Faun]

I didn't change the OP -- I answered it.

You opined, "for all my life, I have been hearing Democrats railing that the the voters should vote for them, because they supposedly are not pressured by big corporate donors$$, as they have always claimed Republicans are."

And ultimately asked, "So what do the Democrats have to say about this ? Speak up Democrats. Let's hear it."

And I gave you the answer.... Citizens United changed that. It established campaign donations constitute free speech, protected by the First Amendment. While I don't like that, it is what it is -- and everyone, Democrats as well as Republicans -- are protected under the First Amendment.

I don't expect you to understand -- you're too senile.

YOU CHANGED IT! Once again, (some people need to be told 5 times) >> The OP was talking about big corporate donors, not ALL donors (as you changed it to). Post # 72 refuted you, let's move on. As for buying elections, and turning them into AUCTIONS, only a complete idiot would classify that as "free speech"

NO, it is NOT free speech. It is CONTROL of other people, by a small plutocracy. LEARN BABY! LEARN!

You're too fucking senile.

Again.... read up on Citizens United.

Campaign contributions are now considered free speech.

I don't like that. I don't agree with it. But regardless of what I think, campaign contributions are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

Therefore, Hillary ... and Bernie ... and every other candidate are merely exercising their First Amendment privileges.

And again... THAT is the answer to your question. The answer you still don't understand.

 

[Faun]

So, despite the laughable attempts of some to falsify the record, Hillary is, by far, the top corporate lap dog in the 2016 presidential race. FACT, not opinion. And since Democrats, for years, have been ranting and railing about corporate control over politics, why are many (actually MOST) Democrats still backing her, and voting for her in the primaries, and vowing to vote for her in the general election. There can be only one conclusion >> HYPOCRISY!! - as bad as it gets And we haven't even mentioned her criminal lying, damaging national security, violating numerous US LAWS, etc.

Imbecile... it's not hypocrisy. It's free speech.

And everyone is entitled to their First Amendment rights.

... including Hillary.

 

[Faun]

What's truly stunning about this election is that one of the two major political parties is prepared to nominate a criminal for the office of president of the United States. Think about that while you're getting agitated over whom the Republican nominee should be.

That shouldn't be forgotten as we examine the amazing aspect of Democrats accepting a big business flunky-puppet, to be their presidential candidate.

Trump may be a lousy husband, but I don't think he's committed any crimes?

 

[protectionist]

You're too fucking senile.

Again.... read up on Citizens United.

Campaign contributions are now considered free speech.

I don't like that. I don't agree with it. But regardless of what I think, campaign contributions are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

Therefore, Hillary ... and Bernie ... and every other candidate are merely exercising their First Amendment privileges.

And again... THAT is the answer to your question. The answer you still don't understand.

"Considered" > Oh is that so ? Well, if I was too agree with everything liberal "consider" I think I'd have to commit myself to a nuthouse (where they all ought to be).

As for whether Hillary of Bernie is "exercising their First Amendment privileges", I'm not interested in that, and neither is this thread. The TOPIC here is the longtime hatred that Democrats have expressed toward big business control over politicians, by campaign contribution (AKA legal bribery), and now their hypocritical dismissing of just that in Hillary's campaign

 

[protectionist]

Imbecile... it's not hypocrisy. It's free speech.

And everyone is entitled to their First Amendment rights.

... including Hillary.

I just refuted this assininity. No need to do it again.

 

[protectionist]

Trump may be a lousy husband, but I don't think he's committed any crimes?

:"Lousy husband" ? I thought I'd already heard every half-ass attack on Trump his bashers cold dredge up, but I don't think I heard this one before. I sense it's probably about as dumb and baseless as most of the rest, so no, I won't bother to ask.

As for crimes, that's Hillary's department (big time).

 

[Faun]

You're too fucking senile.

Again.... read up on Citizens United.

Campaign contributions are now considered free speech.

I don't like that. I don't agree with it. But regardless of what I think, campaign contributions are still protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

Therefore, Hillary ... and Bernie ... and every other candidate are merely exercising their First Amendment privileges.

And again... THAT is the answer to your question. The answer you still don't understand.

"Considered" > Oh is that so ? Well, if I was too agree with everything liberal "consider" I think I'd have to commit myself to a nuthouse (where they all ought to be).

As for whether Hillary of Bernie is "exercising their First Amendment privileges", I'm not interested in that, and neither is this thread. The TOPIC here is the longtime hatred that Democrats have expressed toward big business control over politicians, by campaign contribution (AKA legal bribery), and now their hypocritical dismissing of just that in Hillary's campaign

Dumbfuck.... it wasn't Liberals who established campaign donations are protected as free speech. That would be the result of conservatives like you. Don't you know anything??

 

[Faun]

Imbecile... it's not hypocrisy. It's free speech.

And everyone is entitled to their First Amendment rights.

... including Hillary.

I just refuted this assininity. No need to do it again.

You refuted nothing as campaign donations are still protected by the First Amendment.

 

[Faun]

Trump may be a lousy husband, but I don't think he's committed any crimes?

:"Lousy husband" ? I thought I'd already heard every half-ass attack on Trump his bashers cold dredge up, but I don't think I heard this one before. I sense it's probably about as dumb and baseless as most of the rest, so no, I won't bother to ask.

As for crimes, that's Hillary's department (big time).

The guy cheated on his wife. She left him over that. That makes him a lousy husband. As far as Hillary being a criminal -- you can't prove she committed a crime.