That’s some pretty lame fact checking. Basically they gave a pass to Bernie, and attempted to highlight what Hillary said in a negative light…even though she didn’t lie.
What about his claims to have raised millions and millions of dollars for Democrats…this year?
What about his repeated refusal to release his taxes? Saying that he is too busy, is not even laughably close to the truth. He says Jane does them online…great, she can access the completed forms from anywhere with an internet connection and print them out.
He claimed at least twice that Hillary voted for the 1994 Crime Bill. She didn’t…First Ladies don’t get to vote on bills, which might come as a shock to Bernie and Jane.
Those are just the outright lies I can remember. Bernie’s main instrument however, is the implied smear, and he had plenty of those tonight.He will release his transcripts of his speeches to wall street. Well, considering that nobody on Wall Street cares to hear what a loud mouthed back bencher from Vermont has to say…he hasn’t been invited.
But it would be very interesting to see him release the transcripts of his closed door meetings in Nicaragua and Cuba. The entire transcript of his interview on Soviet television praising the Castro regime. He seems a lot more hesitant to release those. Like his taxes.
Or how about his half hearted claim to be a Democrat, and wanting to support Democrats…at a debate where he demanded that both the state and national Democratic party be excluded from? The irony alone on that one is worth mentioning.
Her statement about being the only one on stage not voting on derivatives is absolutely true. The derivitive issue was hugely responsible for the mortgage market collapse. To harness her with her husband’s votes is so out of line.
Her statement on the minimum wage was also correct. She did not change a thing. Frankly, even if a candidate changes their mind on an issue it can be argued as a plus. If they do it consistently, it is problematic.
Nuances matter but this article can not seem to sort through the facts.
On a given year these corporations have not paid taxes but on more years they have. They should every year.
LOL, the press gave Senator Sanders a pass?
Not.
Secretary Clinton was booed for several of her less than forthright responses. Hopefully she will learn from that.
Wait… Seriously? Hillary says she didn’t vote for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and the AP responds that it “was signed into law by President Bill Clinton”. Thanks for the fact check there, I feel enlightened.
Despite the possible manipulations of the truth, it was refreshing to see an actual debate over issues instead of a school yard argument.
Who was the loudest Woooohooooo!!! . Reminds me of going to cas a kid and hearing my mom and her friends talk about how the preacher was so loud ,why, he’s a man of god. Always judging and pointing finger. What a man of god.
Sanders reminded me of those days in church.
Yeah, when he could get a word in edgewise?
Anyone look at the speaking times?
LOL, how about a word count?
Check those facts, davey.
That the best you got? LOL
No - she implied that her stance was essentially the same as Sander’s. It’s not. You see her mincing of words is why people think she’s dishonest.
You should, because her statement that she never voted for it implies she had an opportunity. It’s deceitful.
I think what the Sander’s folks are implying and the fact checkers tried to push is that Ms. Clinton is going to give it all to the “big banks”. They base that on the actions of her husband , the fact that she’s given speeches to financial sector big wigs and that she’s received campaign donations from them.
She’s never said she’d do that nor do any of her policy proposals provide for that. And although the fact checkers and the Sanders folks would like it to go unmentioned…Ms. Clinton is the likely winner in 2016 and she’s going to get a shitload of money from everyone NOW because of that. It’s always been that way. If she kisses financial sector ass after November she’s a 1 term POTUS. If she kicks it they may amend the Constitution to make her a 3 term one. She knows that.
I’ve reviewed some of her speeches to the Wall Street crowd and they’re mostly generic “we need to grow”, “we need to get America on its feet again” and “this is the greatest country on earth” boilerplate. In none of them does she say she’d be “good to them” or does she propose policies that would give the big banks more power or leniency. In most speeches since 2008 she’s had some chiding words for them.
There is no evidence from Clinton’s policy proposals or her speeches to the “big banks” she’d so anything alleged of her by Sanders. That she would fuck over the American people for the big banks. Sanders is a lot of things…most good…but he’s got a healthy dose of odious politician in him and we’ve been seeing more and more of it lately.
He doesn’t really need to. Your “facts” don’t support what your implying: Hillary Clinton is going to set the big banks up to fuck over the American people with impunity. You don’t support that point with your “facts”. You just fact based lie with a guilt by association fabrication.
Actually just about everyone’s given Sanders a pass. His big bank ambush is premised on a falsehood: That the relationship between the big banks and the American people is a zero sum one. If the banks make gains they are doing so at the expense of the American people or if the American people make gains they do it at the expense of the big banks. They can’t both do well at the same time. And that argument is bullshit.
Clinton has never said she’s kiss big bank ass but I’ve seen no one in the media call down the Sanders folks for implying, incessantly, that she would. Sanders is advancing his campaign almost entirely on insinuation that Clinton is in the pockets of the big banks. There is no evidence that she is. Nor has there been any effort by the media to get Sanders to address that.
To be fair…no one voted for any banking legislation…Sanders or Clinton…because they thought it was going to fuck over the American people. They’ve both voted for legislation packaged in rosy pink rhetoric that went horribly wrong. They’ve both said they regret the hell out of voting for that crap. But insinuating Clinton knew the Iraq war was going to go like it did and voted for it anyway or that Sanders knew the crime and financial legislation he voted for would in the end really fuck the American people right up the ass…and voted for it anyway is bullshit.
The Democrats don’t need this crap. The GOP’ers are going to lay that shit on thick enough.
Her statement is not deceitful…even through you want it to be. It was truthful and pointed out the deceit in implying she’s on board with the legislation because her husband was. Anyone up on the issue knows exactly what she was doing.
The thing is, she would probably have voted in favor of it. Who honestly believes she wouldn’t have? I say this because her record has been pretty consistent with her husband’s on economic issues. She, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, whatever their other qualities, are members of the establishment club. Their beliefs about economic policy are influenced by their huge donors like a comet’s orbit is perturbed by Jupiter’s pull. I don’t want to put them in the same class as the Republicans, who are like captured moons, but they are definitely bent by the powerful pull of that corporate cash, and what’s more, they think that’s okay. They delude themselves into believing that it’s okay because they are Democrats who will do the “right thing”, but the gravitational pull of all that money skews the whole concept of what is right for the country toward what is right for GE and Chase until eventually those under its influence can no longer tell the difference. It all boils down to this: Hillary is a member of that corporate club, Bernie is not.
Wow has this site gone into the tank for Hillary. I’m no Bernie super-fan, but the coverage of Bernie and his slips/falls is 100x those of Clintons mistakes/non-answer/dodges. Clinton is better at turning a dodge into an assault when she doesn’t want to answer (making Bernie want to answer the assault), but zoinks.
To me the debate was 2 hours of yelling by people who mostly agree. One that wants to (plan or no) change things dramatically, and one who wants us to believe she will be more liberal than her entire career points to.
I felt like Hillary was mostly talking to her deep support in the African American community all night, while trying to triangulate with Bernie’s more liberal positions. Bernie was talking to liberal folks who are sick of double-talk (“I’m sorry, there is must be a reason the financial industry is giving your super pac $30M” rings very true to that crowd), while trying to actually show a difference which is getting harder and harder as Clinton triangulates.
I found the NRA stuff particularly off-putting. Bernie’s position on the Brady Bill was clearly wrong, but his position on holding gun makers and stores liable for the actions of consumers is 100% correct. If we want movement on guns, we need to be talking more like Obama did during his town hall thing, engaging with common sense, not bragging about who has the lowest rating with the NRA. We don’t hold beer manufacturers and super markets liable for the actions of drunk people (with the exception of those that serve already drunk people).
As for Bernie not finding a smoking gun about Hillary doing things for Wall Street - he doesn’t need to for his supporters. When Eric Cantor lost his seat, he got a multi-million $ job on Wall Street that he wasn’t even licensed to hold. That was a “thank you” for his service on financial committees and a reminder to everyone in congress that if you want to make money when you leave, be nice to banks. When Hillary left office, she got a similar treatment with big checks for speeches. That SYSTEM is terrible, and Hillary seems to want to defend it. Her unwillingness to release that speech to me is way more damning than Bernie’s slowness on taxes (if his taxes show that he made money by investing in say “big oil” it will be rounding error of how much Hillary made from Wall Street.)
SANDERS: "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let’s raise it to $12. There’s a difference
Goddamn 12 vs 15…this is the all or none bull shit that I hate that seems be all you hear from Bernie’s followers. And now it seems like he’s starting to spout it too. For the first time I’m almost worried a bit about what his election might mean.
This is about their proposals for the future, not past legislation. Sanders-break up banks and pass Glass Steagle. Clinton use, enforce and expand DoddFrank. Sanders proposals deal with size; Clinton’s deal with leverage. That is the issue. Which works? We know Glass Steagle failed in the savings and loan crisis and Dodd Frank, a newer, more comprehensive law is being tested now. Both in the courts and practically.
Important to stick with actual statements and their accuracy, not implications. Rabbit Hole!