Shaun King: I'm Leaving the Democratic Party

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 hours ago, Bebe said:

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.

How did you manage to write so much and say so little? You didn't even address what I wrote. You just rehashed the same argument.

Why are you still discussing the victory fund only? You said nothing about overall funding. Is the concept of transitive resource allocation so difficult to understand?

I understand the ethical questions regarding the money raised itself, but does it really make a difference when the effect is the same? There is also a clear lack of context. Were people promised a quota for how much would go to down ticket? I would hope they allocated appropriate resources to down tickets. I'd be irritated too if they didn't. You aren't giving me proof outside one fund though.

How should we know why Hillary needs that money? General election I assume? How is this relevant? She's clearly not pocketed it for her own personal use.  They're out there for everyone to see. How do you even know what will happen to the funds down the line?

And Obama's own victory fund which was advertised in the same manner funneled the cash flow to the presidential race. Does it matter how the money was raised when you are questioning the  behind the usage? You're mixing your arguments here. Are you against how the money was raised for what the raised money was used? You're trying to argue both when each merits its own discussion.

And why is it suddenly a big deal to you? Fighting the establishment I suppose? Wonderful. 

Don't  accuse me of spinning anything. These are logical questions which you are dismissing or misdirecting when I'm trying to understand your stance. If you have no answers, then you are misinformed and are forming opinions out of context. In that case. I'd have nothing to gain from talking to you. 

[Bebe 17,289]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

How did you manage to write so much and say so little? You didn't even address what I wrote. You just rehashed the same argument.

Why are you still discussing the victory fund only? You said nothing about overall funding. Is the concept of transitive resource allocation so difficult to understand?

How should we know why Hillary needs that money? How is this relevant? She's clearly not pocketed it. How do you even know what will happen to the funds down the line.

And Obama's own victory fund which was advertised in the same manner funneled the cash flow to the presidential race. Does it matter how the money was raised when you are questioning the ethics behind the usage?

 

I did address what you wrote. I'm not saying anything about overall funding because it's irrelevant. 

"Is the concept of transitive resource allocation so difficult to understand?" No it's not... What you seem to be missing in this is that the victory fund is supposed to allocate certain funds in a certain way. As I said, the first $2,700 from an individual is supposed to be allocated to Clinton’s campaign, while the next $33,400 is supposed to be given to the Democratic National Committee. Any additional amount is then supposed to be split equally among the Democratic state parties. That's how it is supposed to work, that's not how it's working. 

The DNC has said that the victory fund was set up so early to help build the infrastructure for state elections. You can say that they are allocating different funds to the states and argue that this fund allows them to do so - but it makes no sense. They are transferring 99% of the money back to Hillary Clinton which just means the Victory fund is set up for her.... 

The joint fundraising structure allows Clinton to accept much larger individual donations than her campaign is legally allowed to receive, and that money is then being used to send out mailers and online ads to raise money from smaller donors who can contribute directly to the campaign multiple times.

In comparison, Sanders created a similar joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, but has hardly dipped into funds from that - relying on his own massive database of small donors. He has sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast, allows the Clinton campaign to maintain tight control over the cash it raises and spends.

"How should we know why Hillary needs that money? How is this relevant? She's clearly not pocketed it. How do you even know what will happen to the funds down the line."

You're smarter than this. Like I quoted in my last post "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.”"

The Clinton campaign is using this money in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES. The DNC is funneling money into the Clinton campaign to use in the Primaries - Not the General election which is a completely different story.

"most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for ‘salary and overhead’ and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion."

That is unprecedented. As has been stated numerous times, this is clearly the DNC favouring the establishment candidate. In a primary the party is supposed to be impartial, it's not supposed to funnel money into the campaigns of one of the candidates which they can spend on advertisements and campaign ads.

This money is supposed to support the nominee and states. It's supposed to help win the GENERAL election.

"And Obama's own victory fund which was advertised in the same manner funneled the cash flow to the presidential race."

In a general election  and with a lot of caps. Not to say there were not also problems with the way that Obama's victory fund was funded.


The problem with this Victory fund is that it is supposed to be used to support the nominee and the state parties in the general election. As of now Hillary is effectively receiving all of the money because the DNC, run by the 2008 co-chair of Clinton's campaign, is transferring 99% of the funds to her and it is being used against another democratic nominee to give her an edge in the primaries when the DNC is supposed to remain impartial. 
 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

16 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I did address what you wrote. I'm not saying anything about overall funding because it's irrelevant. 

"Is the concept of transitive resource allocation so difficult to understand?" No it's not... What you seem to be missing in this is that the victory fund is supposed to allocate certain funds in a certain way. As I said, the first $2,700 from an individual is supposed to be allocated to Clinton’s campaign, while the next $33,400 is supposed to be given to the Democratic National Committee. Any additional amount is then supposed to be split equally among the Democratic state parties. That's how it is supposed to work, that's not how it's working. 

The DNC has said that the victory fund was set up so early to help build the infrastructure for state elections. You can say that they are allocating different funds to the states and argue that this fund allows them to do so - but it makes no sense. They are transferring 99% of the money back to Hillary Clinton which just means the Victory fund is set up for her.... 

The joint fundraising structure allows Clinton to accept much larger individual donations than her campaign is legally allowed to receive, and that money is then being used to send out mailers and online ads to raise money from smaller donors who can contribute directly to the campaign multiple times.

In comparison, Sanders created a similar joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, but has hardly dipped into funds from that - relying on his own massive database of small donors. He has sent out appeals to his vaunted email list that helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for a trio of progressive House candidates, who got to keep all the cash.The Hillary Victory Fund, by contrast, allows the Clinton campaign to maintain tight control over the cash it raises and spends.

"How should we know why Hillary needs that money? How is this relevant? She's clearly not pocketed it. How do you even know what will happen to the funds down the line."

You're smarter than this. Like I quoted in my last post "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.”"

The Clinton campaign is using this money in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES. The DNC is funneling money into the Clinton campaign to use in the Primaries - Not the General election which is a completely different story.

"most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for ‘salary and overhead’ and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion."

That is unprecedented. As has been stated numerous times, this is clearly the DNC favouring the establishment candidate. In a primary the party is supposed to be impartial, it's not supposed to funnel money into the campaigns of one of the candidates which they can spend on advertisements and campaign ads.

This money is supposed to support the nominee and states. It's supposed to help win the GENERAL election.

"And Obama's own victory fund which was advertised in the same manner funneled the cash flow to the presidential race."

In a general election  and with a lot of caps. Not to say there were not also problems with the way that Obama's victory fund was funded.


The problem with this Victory fund is that it is supposed to be used to support the nominee and the state parties in the general election. As of now Hillary is effectively receiving all of the money because the DNC, run by the 2008 co-chair of Clinton's campaign, is transferring 99% of the funds to her and it is being used against another democratic nominee to give her an edge in the primaries when the DNC is supposed to remain impartial. 
 

Oh ok. You're concerned about the money being part of the Democratic race.

Well Hillary is sitting on 30million. She hadn't used any of the money yet, so I don't see how it could constitute unfairness. She hasnt spent a dime on the last few states. If anything Bernie has an "unfair" advantage as he blows his entire funding as Hillary eyes the general. 

The money was routed well after Hillary had an insurmountable lead in delegates. Argue about possibilities all you want. The outcome has been clear for a while now.

I won't address the rest of the post because you are still criticizing the fund out of context, when I'm telling you that the money raised by the Victory fund still helps down tickets by allowing the DNC to fund them through other means rather than use them to fund her. So this disagreement is a question of subjective ethics. 

[Bebe 17,289]

13 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh ok. You're concerned about the money being part of the Democratic race.

Well Hillary is sitting on 30million. She hadn't used any of the money yet, so I don't see how it could constitute unfairness. She hasnt spent a dime on the last few states. If anything Bernie has an "unfair" advantage as he blows his entire funding as Hillary eyes the general. 

The money was routed well after Hillary had an insurmountable lead in delegates. Argue about possibilities all you want. The outcome has been clear for a while now.

I won't address the rest of the post because you are still criticizing the fund out of context, when I'm telling you that the money raised by the Victory fund still helps down tickets by allowing the DNC to fund them through other means rather than use them to fund her. So this disagreement is a question of subjective ethics. 

"Well Hillary is sitting on 30million. She hadn't used any of the money yet, so I don't see how it could constitute unfairness."

"And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for ‘salary and overhead’ and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.""

"when I'm telling you that the money raised by the Victory fund still helps down tickets by allowing the DNC to fund them through other means rather than use them to fund her."

I thought it was clear how absurd that statement is when Sanders isn't dipping into this fund for the primaries while Hillary's victory fund is being spent on her primary race. If 99% of the money from this Victory fund is being re-directed back to her then they might as well just call it the Hillary fund.

The reason this is being called a laundering scheme is because the joint fundraising structure allows Clinton to accept much larger individual donations than her campaign is legally allowed to receive, and that money is then being used to send out mailers and online ads to raise money from smaller donors who can contribute directly to the campaign multiple times. 

The Victory fund is essentially being used as a Hillary fund - the joint fundraising structure allows her several loopholes to jump through so that she can receive more money then she would otherwise legally be able to.

I've already quoted the campaign finance experts multiple times who have stated how unusual, unprecedented and bias this DNC activity is, but it's something you are ignoring so I'll take a leaf from your book and say it's pointless to have a discussion because your conversation is out of context and is ignoring the points I have made.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

28 minutes ago, Bebe said:

"Well Hillary is sitting on 30million. She hadn't used any of the money yet, so I don't see how it could constitute unfairness."

"And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton's campaign, including $2.8 million for ‘salary and overhead’ and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.""

And once again why is it being implied that Hillary had no funds of her own? This text makes an implication that the money from the Victory fund was used to fund those expenses when she has her own funds to work with. Were the transfers done in cash? That's the only way to justify this statement from the article. It's clearly trying to establish false correlation. It's implying that the money gained was the money used. What about the money already there? The fact that she's sitting on 30 million when the victory fund made less than 1/3 of that should tell you how absurd this argument is. 

28 minutes ago, Bebe said:

"when I'm telling you that the money raised by the Victory fund still helps down tickets by allowing the DNC to fund them through other means rather than use them to fund her."

I thought it was clear how absurd that statement is when Sanders isn't dipping into this fund for the primaries while Hillary's victory fund is being spent on her primary race. If 99% of the money from this Victory fund is being re-directed back to her then they might as well just call it the Hillary fund

So now you're misdirecting the conversation to what the name of this fund should be? It's actually called the Hillary Victory fund so what are you even trying to say here? The fund goes for the general elections not the primaries. Both Hillary and Sanders do not get to use that money for their own expenses just yet. Refer to the previous argument. Also calling it to the Hillary fund is intentionally dismissive of the benefits brought up to all involved.

I'll even quote the same article:

"even if state parties aren’t getting to keep the victory fund cash, they benefit from money spent to enhance the DNC’s data, research and design services, said Jeremy Kennedy, the executive director of the Maine Democratic State Committee, which is a victory fund participant."

Clinton’s campaign and the DNC argue that all Democratic politicians and state parties — even those that aren’t enrolled in the victory fund — will benefit from its fundraising. That’s because the cash will go toward enhancing national voter data, and research and communications efforts that all state parties are entitled to

If you're underestimating the expenses of polling, research, and communication  then I suggest you look at Trump to see how he's struggling to raise the millions he needs to conduct them. So not only are you intentionally framing the usage of the money incorrectly, you're also implying they're for Hillary alone.

In fact these two paragraphs alone completely demolish any argument that the down-tickets are not being benefited.

28 minutes ago, Bebe said:

The reason this is being called a laundering scheme is because the joint fundraising structure allows Clinton to accept much larger individual donations than her campaign is legally allowed to receive, and that money is then being used to send out mailers and online ads to raise money from smaller donors who can contribute directly to the campaign multiple times. 

No you have no right to call it a money laundering scheme because that has several negative connotations that do not apply. Furthermore, you are continuing to correlate the money used as part of the primary against Sanders. 

28 minutes ago, Bebe said:

I've already quoted the campaign finance experts multiple times who have stated how unusual, unprecedented and bias this DNC activity is, but it's something you are ignoring so I'll take a leaf from your book and say it's pointless to have a discussion because your conversation is out of context and is ignoring the points I have made.

As if I've said dozens of times, the bias in the operations is completely understandable given the context. Never has the DNC allowed an independent to run for the presidency. I'm fairly certain they only did so in order to give him a platform to prevent another Nader situation. Sanders is an independent opportunist who, to his credit, has risen far and beyond what they expected from him.

That they are rerouting funds to Hillary at this point in the election is not the problem. If Sanders wants to keep going, that's great. Meanwhile everyone has known since April that Hillary was going to win, especially after her insurmountable lead became apparent. She's sitting on 30 million right now. She didn't even need the victory fund money to handily beat Sanders throughout the entire season.

Stop using it as a scapegoat. I'm so tired of these misdirection tactics.

[Economy 53,131]

On May 21, 2016 at 4:01 AM, FATCAT said:

Before realizing that the OP started with his letter, I assumed you were a preacher @Redstreak

 

Very well put. I've considered leaving the party as well, but I'll come to that decision after the convention. 

Ur in the Government?

[FATCAT 60,968]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Ur in the Government?

No, I mean my registration.

[Economy 53,131]

30 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

No, I mean my registration.

Oh. So how does it work there?

 

are u registered to automatically count as a vote to a party?

[FATCAT 60,968]

Just now, Economy said:

Oh. So how does it work there?

 

are u registered to automatically count as a vote to a party?

When you register to vote, you usually choose a party. This is only useful in primaries, but since the next one is in four years, I'll update my registration to no affiliation until I make a choice of the candidates.

[Economy 53,131]

5 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

When you register to vote, you usually choose a party. This is only useful in primaries, but since the next one is in four years, I'll update my registration to no affiliation until I make a choice of the candidates.

Oh ok.

 

Here in Canada we only vote once and we dont pick nominees, the party selects who will lead them and represent

 

we only vote once for the party. The leader of the party in power becomes Prime Minister

 

The advantage if this tho is you never get idiots running. The party picls the smartest and brightest among them to represent the party

 

No offence but debates here are deep. But In the US sometimes debates seem like a comedy show especially in Republican party this year