Policy wise I don’t see a huge difference between Pete and like, Harris or Beto. But he seems 100x faker than either of them and that’s saying something.
1 Like
What? How is Harris distancing herself from her tough-on-crime past not the fakest? I basically like both of these candidates fwiw.
Yeah, I have Harris at least as fake as Pete. That said, I also like both, but I like Pete more and Warren more than Pete. Pete has a white Obama air about him, in a good way.
1 Like
“The Monmouth poll released Thursday had Mr. Biden in the lead with 28 percent of likely Iowa caucusgoers selecting him as their first choice for the nomination. Ms. Warren finished next with 19 percent support, followed by Ms. Harris with 11 percent and Mr. Sanders with 9 percent.”
1 Like
I fully understand that I may appear biased here, but so is Common Dreams, so we’ll start there.
These articles that stir up democrats are just as disingenuous as stuff from Breitbart. They play on buzzwords and peoples’ lack of understanding of campaign finance to make it sound like everyone but Bernie is in the pocket of corporate interests, when it just isn’t true.
First, they never state how much money these particular American citizens gave to the candidates. It would blow up their narrative if they explicitly stated that each of these billionaires gave $2800 each, because then they can’t make gullible readers think that these people have donated millions of dollars to the campaigns.
Guess what? Bill Gates (who gave to Cory Booker, oddly enough) has the same donation limit you do. That means, at most, 23 different people, at most, gave $2800 each to Pete. That’s $64,400.
Before you scream about super PACs and corporate PACS…all but Biden, I think, have pledged not to take corporate PAC money, and super PACs don’t give to nor interact with campaigns in any way, so the ONLY WAY these names are out there floating around for Common Dreams to spin into a narrative is via the FEC filings, which means individual donations, which means $2800 each.
So now the real questions, which I always want to know because I’m digging into the motivations for this narrative, are these: If I max my donation to Pete, is my money better or worse than the $2800 given by David Geffen? If I write one $2800 check, is that better or worse than reaching the limit via monthly donations + merchandise purchases? Also, when I donate via actblue, they ask my profession but not my net worth. Should they? So what is the net worth line under which I can still donate to a candidate without getting pilloried by the far left?
1 Like
I agree Harris is extremely fake, at least with regards to criminal justice and healthcare. I don’t know, Pete just rubs me the wrong way. His insistence early in the campaign on harping on his Christianity and his military record, plus his questionable record as mayor, contribute to that a lot. I am also inherently suspicious of someone who joins the military as a grown working adult. That was opportunistic and, given our foreign policy track record that he was no doubt fully aware of, an immoral thing to do imo.
I know about the personal donation limit. In my opinion it’s still an extremely bad look. Warren, who wasn’t listed in the initial tweet for whatever reason, had two, fwiw.
Saying super PACs have no coordination with campaigns is both naive and besides the point.
A.) why are the extremely wealthy donating to super PACs associated with Pete rather than Bernie/Warren?
B.) what impact might those donations have on how a hypothetical mayor Pete governs as president? It’s not like he would be unaware that there were corporate funded super PACs that helped elect him, or that he might need that assistance again for a reelection campaign
are they? where does that article say that they are? That article, and the forbes one it quotes, are solely about individual donations.
If you have a source for people giving to super PACs, i’d love to see it.
but why? these are people with the same rights you and I have.
It’s only a “bad look” if you buy into this narrative that’s being pushed here.
I don’t know. You brought up super PACs not having coordination a campaigns so I responded to it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5cbe09d6e4b0f7a84a73681d/amp
This article from this spring does not speak glowingly of Pete wrt campaign donations but I’ll admit this isn’t a subject I’ve paid a ton of attention to.
Sorry to pummel you with comments, but I’m on lunch so I have free time.
You have to realize the “it’s their right to donate” is a bad argument right? Like, bundling of individual corporate donations is a thing and it can absolutely influence policies. And $2800 is a lot of fucking money to be donating to a campaign to most normal people.
I was looking at Biden’s campaign wiki last night and noticed that he promised that his administration would find the cure for cancer.
Aim high and everything but to promise the cure for cancer is bananas, especially when the same dude is like “UHC like every other country on earth has is a pie in the sky dream”.
2 Likes
I don’t have a problem with any candidate taking individual donations from billionaires for the reasons skydiver laid out. I don’t think that gives the billionaires power over them, not for a few grand a year. The PAC and SuperPAC money is a different story.
But the question that Pete getting money from so many billionaires makes me ask is why do they think he’s the best one for them? I like Pete but it’s giving me pause.
as a veteran myself, I’ll go ahead and choose not to be personally offended by your insinuation, but if you’re willing to also listen with an open mind, let Pete tell you himself why he joined. He has consistently said this for months, if not years, every time he’s asked.
1 Like
yeah, he gave it back to those lobbyists, and that’s another area of contention i have with the rabid far left mob. Once again, these are individual donations, and now John doe who lobbies for Sierra Club or Jane Doe who lobbies for Planned Parenthood are no longer allowed to exercise their right to give $300 or whatever to the campaign of their choice. BTW, it was like, $30k total
Most of those people who gave to Pete who happened to be lobbyists are LGBT people excited to support the first LGBT candidate. but he had to send it back.
why? why is that a bad argument? I thought we were about protecting individual rights?
I may get a lot of hate, but I’m going to come out and say it. I think a lot of this narrative springs from jealousy. Maybe not you personally, but the bernie bros I see elsewhere who scream this to the high heavens. If someone has $2800 to give to their candidate, for fucks sake, let them!
Would you give $2800 to Bernie if you had it just laying around?
What about the billionaires listed in that Forbes article who gave $2800 to seven candidates? (lol) How do you feel about them?
And out of $20 million, $2800 is closer to nothing than it is to anything influential.
The ones giving it to 7 candidates are a big part of our problem, and that certainly comes off as an attempt to buy a seat at the table with whoever wins.
yeah, I am not sure how to feel about it.
Honestly, i guess I’m just not as fundamentally cynical as all of you are. I never even considered that to be a possibility (probably because I feel like $2800 is a laughably small amount in these campaigns that raise millions).
This is entering silly levels of gatekeeping. Only commie larpers and chapocels would care if billionaires like Buffett were donating to candidates. From reading the article it doesn’t specify who the billionaires are or why they chose who to donate to. It would be more enlightening to find out who the billionaires actually are that are donating to the candidates.
Elizabeth Warren apparently has two. I’m gonna go on a whim that those billionaires who donated to her do understand wealth inequality to a degree and aren’t truly enemies.
It’s why people are getting super tired of the “left” on the internet and are starting to push back. Left in quotation because my view of what is left is a bit wider than Democratic Socialists, Social Democrats, socialists and commies.