George Clooney: Money raised for Clinton 'obscene'

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

George Clooney, who hosted big-money fundraisers for Hillary Clinton in California this weekend, has called such fundraising “obscene”.

In response Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic nomination, said he respected Clooney’s “integrity and honesty on this issue” and added: “One of the great tragedies is that big money is buying elections.”

Speaking to NBC’s Meet the Press, the actor was asked by host Chuck Todd whether the sums involved in his events, such as $353,400 a couple to be a “co-chair”, were, as critics and protesters have said, obscene.

“Yes,” he said. “I think it’s an obscene amount of money. I think – you know that we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right, it is an obscene amount of money.

“The Sanders campaign when they talk about it is absolutely right. It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree, completely.”

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/george-clooney-hillary-clinton-fundraiser-obscene-money

 

 

[ctherainbow 3,162]

Giving me reverse "music not the bling" and then releasing 2,000 signed copies last-minute anyway for the #1 teas.

[Jed 7,716]

So true. Fifteen million raised so she could be president. Fifteen million that could've gone to literally any other issue that Clinton and Clooney say they care about. Good on him acknowledging all of this

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

I saw this on the news earlier today.  I actually thought this was going to be a post about the protesters who threw dollars bills at Hillary's motorcade and all on the way to his house.  Smh 🙄   So my simple question for George is, then why even have them then?!  Why has he hosted these events, if this is the the way he really feels about the fundraising for them & all...?!?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

9 minutes ago, Jed said:

So true. Fifteen million raised so she could be president. Fifteen million that could've gone to literally any other issue that Clinton and Clooney say they care about. Good on him acknowledging all of this

With the exact way you just put it, then the same can be said for Senator Sanders, Barack Obama, and any other politician raising money to be present.  Running for president isn't free, unlike everything that Senator Sanders is "promising"...  Smh   He could also take all the money he has raised right now & spend it on something he believes in as well...

[Bt1 5,213]

8 minutes ago, Jed said:

So true. Fifteen million raised so she could be president. Fifteen million that could've gone to literally any other issue that Clinton and Clooney say they care about. Good on him acknowledging all of this

And? Hillary and Bernie spend 100 milion each on their campaigns. His money could have also go to any other issue he cares about, but he spend it on ads and other stuff like Hillary did.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Misleading title.

He is saying that the AMOUNT of money raised for Clinton is obscene. It's not just semantics. When referring to quantity, obscene is a synonym for massive. In the title, the implication is that the donation in itself is obscene and this is a synonym for disgusting or lewd.

Sensationalism 101 lol

Well that's his opinion really, but last I checked Hillary was a Democrat, so if wealthier people who had not donated yet for one reason or another chose to donate that night, then that is their prerogative.

Implying that one donation from Mrs. Royal Hamptons is going to buy the election is also hilarious.

It is continuously funny to see people so bitter about the mere existence of wealthy people. Richer people can donate more money for elections. Who knew? Similarly, rich people can donate more money for cancer research. I don't see people bitching about how unfair that is.

I wonder why?

In any case his comment was regarding fundraisers in general. So I don't see the point of this article.

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

8 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

I saw this on the news earlier today.  I actually thought this was going to be a post about the protesters who threw dollars bills at Hillary's motorcade and all on the way to his house.  Smh 🙄   So my simple question for George is, then why even have them then?!  Why has he hosted these events, if this is the the way he really feels about the fundraising for them & all...?!?

I made a thread about that incident too lol. 

And maybe because he HAS to. This is how the system works. He supports Hillary and this is the way he is helping her as a wealthy person with influence. 

Same reason Bernie is running as a Democrat (because it's the only way of him even getting close to getting a lot of support), but a lot of the Clinton supporters just call him a hypocrite. (Which they are free to do so if that's how they feel)  

 

[Jed 7,716]

3 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

With the exact way you just put it, then the same can be said for Senator Sanders, Barack Obama, and any other politician raising money to be present.  Running for president isn't free, unlike everything that Senator Sanders is "promising"...  Smh   He could also take all the money he has raised right now & spend it on something he believes in as well...

Uh but senator sanders can pull in 6 million donations with the average contribution being 27 dollars. Sorry, I'll take the old guy with 0 Super PAC money over Goldman Sachs Barbie any day of the week

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

2 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Misleading title.

He is saying that the AMOUNT of money raised for Clinton is obscene.

 

This is the title in the article: 

George Clooney admits money he raised for Hillary Clinton is 'obscene'

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

This is the title in the article: 

George Clooney admits money he raised for Hillary Clinton is 'obscene'

Then their title is misleading. Still sensationalism and taking his words out of context.

He is simply commenting on the nature of fundraisers.

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Then their title is misleading. Still sensationalism and taking his words out of context.

He is simply commenting on the nature of fundraisers.

Not really. That's what he said. The money involved in politics is obscene. If you read the text in the article that's what he explains. He is mentioning Clinton because that's the event he was specifically part of. 

[Jed 7,716]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Then their title is misleading. Still sensationalism and taking his words out of context.

He is simply commenting on the nature of fundraisers.

But again when Bernies largest donations come from teachers unions and the bulk of them come from every day Americans he isn't beholden to big money interest groups and political lobbies, he's beholden to the people who elected him. The people who are helping Hillary get elected in the largest sense are companies and interest groups that benefit from having a president in their pocket. Bernie, if he gets elected, will have gotten there without taking obscene, massive amounts of money from the wrong places

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Not really. That's what he said. The money involved in politics is obscene. If you read the text in the article that's what he explains. He is mentioning Clinton because that's the even he was specifically part of. 

The implication of the title is that the money raised for Clinton is disgusting.

A more fitting title that fits the context of his quote would be

"George Clooney: Amount of Money Raised for Clinton Obscene"

Even then raising Clinton as an exception makes no sense at all. A lot of the public donations done for ANY candidate including Bernie is established via fundraising events. How else would Bernie have won his Vermont seat for example?

So no this is a sensationalist title. I'm not claiming that you have an agenda here, but it is very much sensationalist.

[Jed 7,716]

10 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

With the exact way you just put it, then the same can be said for Senator Sanders, Barack Obama, and any other politician raising money to be present.  Running for president isn't free, unlike everything that Senator Sanders is "promising"...  Smh   He could also take all the money he has raised right now & spend it on something he believes in as well...

By having such small number contributions he can spend the money knowing that these families want him to keep going. Contrast that with these big companies that want Hillary to keep going. Out of those two candidates which of the two do you think would be tougher on big banks if they get us into trouble again?