George Clooney: Money raised for Clinton 'obscene'

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

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.

I do have an agenda though 

Lol, jk. But, eh I don't see it as a big deal. Maybe you're just interpreting it that way because you're a Hillary supporter, which I understand. 

This could've been about any candidate. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

10 minutes ago, Jed said:

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

You're implying that rich people haven't donated to Bernie.

You're also implying that there's some massive difference in how much individuals have donated.

Hillary has made 72% of her finances from public donations. The rest come form one Super PAC which also receives the majority of its donations from public donations.

So all in all it comes to around 85%-90% of her donations from individuals. If a 10% difference is all it takes in winning an election, then your candidate must seriously suck.

That rich people coordinate their donations through interest groups is natural. It's simply the simplest way to manage their resources. They may share goals after all, which by the way, are not always in conflict with less fortunate individuals.

That these function as pools as opposed to independent contributions is merely circumstance.

There's this continuous implication in your post that receiving money from wealthy people is wrong, as if they have no right to voice their own influence, especially since they already inherently hold more influence than individuals.

Shockingly, wealthy people don't want to support someone who will forcefully bludgeon them into giving away their money rather than cooperate willingly. It's not about corruption.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

14 minutes ago, Jed said:

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

Well I hope you never supported President Obama then, since he did the exact same thing & accepted money from the exact same places that Hillary has...

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

In case anyone is interested this is the simple breakdown of the two Democratic candidate's campaign funds: 

Clinton: 72% campaign donations, 28% Super PACs and other groups, Total: $222.4 million

Sanders: 99.98% campaign donations, 0.02% Super PACs and other groups, Total: $139.8 million 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

9 minutes ago, Jed said:

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?

And how exactly is he going to break the big banks up again?!  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

In case anyone is interested this is the simple breakdown of the two Democratic candidate's campaign funds: 

Clinton: 72% campaign donations, 28% Super PACs and other groups, Total: $222.4 million

Sanders: 99.98% campaign donations, 0.02% Super PACs and other groups, Total: $139.8 million 

Accurate.

Still, 222.4*0.72 = 161 million.

So she still makes more money from campaign donations than Bernie does.

All this shows is prove that more people support Hillary

[elijahfan 27,562]

Yet, running a campaign ain't free. Also, would you consider the money you make as an actor obscene, Mr Clooney? When you're throwing millions of $ for your wedding in Venice with your rich-ass lawyer girlfriend, do you find it obscene?

Literally the most hypocrite thing I've read in a while.

[Whispering 18,865]

9 minutes ago, Jed said:

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

If Bernie gets to the general election, he will have to raise close to a billion dollars to compete with the Republicans. Just like Obama, he will have to take money from wealthy people at fundraisers and from Super Pacs, if he really wanted to become President. He won't "get there" without hundreds of millions of more dollars.

Meanwhile, he will also need to be raising hundreds of millions of dollars for downticket candidates, so that they can get more Democrats into Congress and retain the seats they do have. Otherwise, nothing he wants to do will happen and he will end up hurting the human rights movement and minorities as a whole. Hey, but at least he will have his "integrity". 

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

Accurate.

Still, 222.4*0.72 = 161 million.

So she still makes more money from campaign donations than Bernie does.

All this shows is prove that more people support Hillary

Well, it would be tragic if people supported Bernie more. She's been in the public light for like 30 years. 

[Whispering 18,865]

3 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

And how exactly is he going to break the big banks up again?!  

He will just "break em up....yada, yada, yada" lol 

(from SNL last night) 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Well, it would be tragic if people supported Bernie more. She's been in the public light for like 30 years. 

Right, but this also makes any claims of unfairness pointless. Adding to the winner only reinforces the winner.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Otherwise, nothing he wants to do will happen and he will end up hurting the human rights movement and minorities as a whole. Hey, but at least he will have his "integrity". 

Honestly, while I believe (or rather hope) it wasn't Sander's intention, his supporters are already doing a lot of damage.

[Morphine Prince 109,984]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Right, but this also makes any claims of unfairness pointless. Adding to the winner only reinforces the winner.

Only Obama humiliated her in 2008 lol. 

It sounds so embarrassing when a Senator no one really knew about beats Hillary CLINTON. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

6 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Only Obama humiliated her in 2008 lol. 

It sounds so embarrassing when a Senator no one really knew about beats Hillary CLINTON. 

... but he didn't humiliate her. It was pretty close. He just won the swing states and that cost her superdelegates. That she IMMEDIATELY switched to supporting him throughout his entire campaign speaks greatly about where her priorities lie, something that many Bernie supporters love to gloss over.

When you're being smeared by the Republican party for decades, you're bound to lose credibility among people who don't bother to do their research. (Bernie bots).

You're implying that knowing someone better should make them more likely to win when it's the total opposite.

You're suffering from a case of "Grass is Greener".

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

Honestly, while I believe (or rather hope) it wasn't Sander's intention, his supporters are already doing a lot of damage.

THIS!  They TRULY are!!!   They make anybody who is thinking about voting for him, want to turn around and just say forget it!  Their extreme tactics & rhetoric is becoming so atrocious lately, that what they are doing is obscene in & of itself.  Smh 

I'm also sick of being told by "Bernie Bros" that the only reason I support Hillary is because I'm black, and black people ALWAYS support criminals!!!  Smh   Just disgusting rhetoric!  And I have been told this exact same thing more than several times now already...