Shaun King: I'm Leaving the Democratic Party

[Eighteen 5,430]

i still say hillary and bernie for veep. idealism and pragmatism will walk hand-in-hand! 

[Bebe 17,289]

1 hour ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

...And so how do you propose to ultimately get money out of politics then??

 

Right now I think this is the best bet: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

[mcoop 628]

The guy is a liar anyways. BYE. Guy claims he's black, then backtracks and says he's 25% black because he doesn't know who his dad is. He's mad that black voters aren't falling in line behind him, like they owe him something. He's a white man who thinks we don't see him using his privilege.

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Well, good for him. When you no longer feel comfortable being part of a party, you leave.

This is why although I'm only 21 and my political opinions have changed since I was a younger teen (when I started getting into politics) I still can't consider myself a Democrat. I think I'll stick to independent. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

I can't with the Bernie Bros. You know the cost of Public Univerties are determined by the state? Why is it that in Vermont the Universities aren't free. They aren't even cheap. They are expensive compared to other states. There are many things that he is promising that he will never accomplish. He can't even accomplish those things in his home state where he has been elected and re-elected a billion times. Get over it already. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Sounds like a bunch of Bernie bro posts collated into one, complete with delusions of grandeur and moral righteousness  Why would anyone be surprised he's leaving? Good for him. I hope he finds happiness in the tender, loving arms of Bernard.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, just4fun said:

I can't with the Bernie Bros. You know the cost of Public Univerties are determined by the state? Why is it that in Vermont the Universities aren't free. They aren't even cheap. They are expensive compared to other states. There are many things that he is promising that he will never accomplish. He can't even accomplish those things in his home state where he has been elected and re-elected a billion times. Get over it already. 

Let them vent. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 hours ago, Bebe said:

It appears to be a money laundering scheme. Do you remember when George Clooney said that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right to be disgusted by the fact that some seats at the fundraiser cost $353,400 per couple, but that he could live with it because the money was mainly going to help smaller candidates win local elections?

He was wrong.

According to Politico, "The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88%) was quickly transferred (back) to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO's analysis of the FEC records found."

Who really got the money? The Clinton campaign pocketed almost all of it and state parties were left with one penny on the dollar."

That's a specific critique of one of the current nominees. 

If campaign finance had been an issue relevant in any other election cycle, and if there was a viable candidate on one of the major parties that wasn't involved with money in politics then we would have more room for discussing his past discussion of it (or lack of discussion on it). 

The problem with that is that this movement is just in its infancy, this election cycle has been the only election cycle where this issue has actually been seen as a major issue.

I'm reading this and I see a very clear flaw in your rationale.

Where in this entire justification does it say how much the DNC has spent on the down-ticket candidates?

All the transfers mentioned are part of the victory fund. Nobody is mentioning anything about the DNC's own funding and fundraising from other events. It doesn't mention whether or not the DNC has already allocated its own funds for the down-ticket personnel. 

Do you honestly believe no funding was allocated for other positions? Unless you have proof otherwise, the DNC would have focused on transfering its funding to the down-tickets, while using the money gained from the Victory Fund for Clinton. Without that funding, the DNC would have have had to allocate some of its own funding to Clinton instead. So basically by supporting the Victory fund, you are supporting the down-ticket by increasing the capacity of the DNC to distribute funding appropriately.

Furthermore, why are you assuming that the funding won't be filtered down the line later? Why are you assuming that the money in the Victory fund is the only one at hand?

Furthermore, why are you implying that this election cycle is unique in this? Obama did the same exact thing in 2012. 

Making claims that it is a money laundering scheme is beyond the pale really. The money is raised for the DNC and the money is allocated according to what they believe is appropriate at the time. Money that would supposedly go to Clinton went to the down-tickets only because the Victory fund is present. 

If this is being seen as a major issue, it's nothing more than whining to use scapegoats to justify failures. Sanders lost. Get over it.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

You know he makes some valid points and I'll give him credit for that, but the misrepresentation of the Politico piece bugs the hell out of me. 

According to Politico, "The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88%) was quickly transferred (back) to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO's analysis of the FEC records found."

 

I mentioned in a previous thread how very little money has been delivered to the Dem state treasuries at this time because THE ELECTION IS IN NOVEMBER so it's a bit counter-productive to send the money out now. I mentioned how as the election nears, once the fundraising process is pretty much done with, the DNC will use their formula that they have and allocate the resources appropriately.. just like Obama did with his fund. More money will delivered to the more competitive states (NC, VA, OH, PA, FL, etc.) of course. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

You know he makes some valid points and I'll give him credit for that, but the misrepresentation of the Politico piece bugs the hell out of me. 

I'd like to know what good points he made  

It's just a bunch of whining and he's framing everything in negative context, failing to say how Sanders is doing the same thing (or worse).

One only need to look at one of his closing remarks:

Clinton's refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Her indignant and irrational excuses made no sense — particularly in light of the reports stating that the transcripts would ruin her campaign and made her sound like an executive at the company.

---

How is he excusing Sanders' indignant and irrational excuse for his tax returns that actually demonstrate financial integrity? Everyone knows public speeches always praise the host. Since when are words more important than actions?

He's a fool. The bias in this article is clearer than some posters here.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

9 hours ago, Bebe said:

Right now I think this is the best bet: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

You get money out of politics when you are in a position to do so.

[Redstreak 6,653]

3 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

Let them vent. 

And this is why the Clinton campaign is having such a difficult playing outreach to Sanders supporters. You take legitimate concerns and treat them with such contempt.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

And this is why the Clinton campaign is having such a difficult playing outreach to Sanders supporters. You take legitimate concerns and treat them with such contempt.

Wait what? This is the post that you comment on after dozens of posts and replies go ignored by you?.

And stop collectivizing yourself as "Sanders supporters". The people who are still dissenting are a minority.

[thefamebitch 834]

Welcome to the real world, Shaun King. A world where one candidate claims to be against the rich using loopholes on their taxes, yet uses tactics to accumulate over $60,000 in deductions that the average American simply cannot. The same world where a similar candidate, with a similar message, makes plenty of dough through generous contributions from high earning entities. And it's even the same world where a billionaire, who probably pays next to nothing in tax, is trying to pass himself off as a candidate who genuinely cares about the average American and their income. 

Just about everyone in the United States is money hungry.  Hell, I am too. We all are. We are a materialistic culture that values more about what's in our pocket than what's in our mind and heart. If this moron thinks it's just the democrats who pull this ****, then he still has a lot of waking up to do. 

[Bebe 17,289]

6 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I'm reading this and I see a very clear flaw in your rationale.

Where in this entire justification does it say how much the DNC has spent on the down-ticket candidates?

All the transfers mentioned are part of the victory fund. Nobody is mentioning anything about the DNC's own funding and fundraising from other events. It doesn't mention whether or not the DNC has already allocated its own funds for the down-ticket personnel. 

Do you honestly believe no funding was allocated for other positions? Unless you have proof otherwise, the DNC would have focused on transfering its funding to the down-tickets, while using the money gained from the Victory Fund for Clinton. Without that funding, the DNC would have have had to allocate some of its own funding to Clinton instead. So basically by supporting the Victory fund, you are supporting the down-ticket by increasing the capacity of the DNC to distribute funding appropriately.

Furthermore, why are you assuming that the funding won't be filtered down the line later? Why are you assuming that the money in the Victory fund is the only one at hand?

Furthermore, why are you implying that this election cycle is unique in this? Obama did the same exact thing in 2012. 

Making claims that it is a money laundering scheme is beyond the pale really. The money is raised for the DNC and the money is allocated according to what they believe is appropriate at the time. Money that would supposedly go to Clinton went to the down-tickets only because the Victory fund is present. 

If this is being seen as a major issue, it's nothing more than whining to use scapegoats to justify failures. Sanders lost. Get over it.

The joint financing scheme is problematic as it can get and the way Clinton supporters twist it 

"Do you honestly believe no funding was allocated for other positions? Unless you have proof otherwise, the DNC would have focused on transfering its funding to the down-tickets, while using the money gained from the Victory Fund for Clinton. Without that funding, the DNC would have have had to allocate some of its own funding to Clinton instead. So basically by supporting the Victory fund, you are supporting the down-ticket by increasing the capacity of the DNC to distribute funding appropriately."

That's not what I'm claiming? This is so convoluted it's laughable. funds provided to the state parties were often immediately transferred to the DNC and that "less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers.

According to Hillary Clinton’s website, the first $2,700 from an individual is allocated to Clinton’s campaign, while the next $33,400 is given to the Democratic National Committee. Any additional amount is then supposed to be split equally among the Democratic state parties. That's not what is happening.

Over $300,000 that was transferred from Hillary Clinton’s joint fundraising venture to state Democratic parties is unaccounted for.

The claim is that this funding, so early, was to help build the infrastructure of the DNC on a state level early, but only 1% of the money is going to them?

Why exactly does the DNC need to spend so much money on Hillary in a Democratic Primary? 

"Both Holman and Larry Noble with the Campaign Legal Center emphasized that it’s extremely unusual and possibly unprecedented for a party to raise so much money for a candidate before the general election.

“It shows the DNC has clearly taken sides before they even have a nominee,” said Holman. “There’s an obvious bias.”

Noble agreed. “They really are throwing their weight behind a particular candidate,” he said. “Their argument is usually that it helps the party generally, but the practical and legal reality is that it benefits Hillary Clinton. You just don’t expect this kind of thing to happen in the primaries.”"

 

"why are you implying that this election cycle is unique in this? Obama did the same exact thing in 2012. "

Wrong.

"The Hillary Victory Fund, the campaign’s joint effort with the DNC and 32 state Democratic parties, is swimming in uncharted legal waters. This type of fundraising only became legal in 2014, when the Supreme Court eliminated some of the few remaining protections in our campaign finance system in McCutcheon v. FEC, allowing wealthy individuals to pour an unlimited amount of money into a single campaign cycle."
 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/04/19/3770542/bernie-hillary-dnc-fundraising/

"If this is being seen as a major issue, it's nothing more than whining to use scapegoats to justify failures. Sanders lost. Get over it"

This isn't even about Sanders at this point

This is about the bigger picture of establishment politics.