is that called hitting a nerve?
It’s called having a Democratic candidate being a Republican shill.
edited: To clarify, I was indicating that Bernie and his supporters keep throwing Republican talking points at Hillary and pretending as if they’re true. I was not calling Hillary Republican lite.
Yeah, I wish Sanders would lay off the conspiratorial ad nauseum Clinton attacks
Yep. Bernie’s attacks on Clinton are rather Republican shill like.
Hit’er again, hit-er again, harder harder. Bernie has infinite ammunition. I’m glad he’s using it. I’m glad Hillary is pissed off about it, but has nowhere to go but empty, sleazy vituperation.
People are corporations, my friend.
You go, Girl. It’s about time.
Regardless of whether Sanders’ allegation is true or not, this wasn’t a good response by Clinton. Makes her sound weak and exasperated, neither of which is good “optics.”
Wow. Check out the violent rhetoric from this Bernie Bro.
Slight tweak.
[
Really? Kind of creepy sounding. And not really in keeping with the “civil primary” idea/
How about if we stick to what the candidates themselves are saying. There are enough irresponsible supporters to go around for all the candidates.
Her response seems out of proportion to the question. What does she think Trump or Cruz is going to throw at her?
It is sort of unfair because for as long as I can remember no leading candidate for president could point out that the other took money from the big banks, the drug companies, big oil, wall street, because they all took money from them. It sort of changes the rules now, if you have a candidate who doesn’t.
No one is allowed an off moment? This is the kind of thing that people claim they’re tired of, but instantly say that “it’s all bad, it’s over now!”
Same thing happened in 2008, when after a debate, she visibly tired and gave an answer about civil rights that didn’t genuflect to the (rotten, stinking) Kennedy family. Man, how they all pounced!
I think her point is that she did not take money from entities. She accepts contributions from people who indicated they work in those fields. I think that’s an important distinction. Should she have rejected money from individuals in certain industries?
Unhinged much? Get some help, you psychopath.
Bernie supporters, if you want to know why so many of us have had it up to our tits with your campaign, it’s because there’s too many people like this representing you.
She’s making a distinction between taking money from people who work in particular industries and taking money from the industries (which might still be illegal, I haven’t checked this week) or their PACs or trade associations. And on one hand, that’s a fair gripe and on the other it isn’t.
The reporting sites do tend to just aggregate all the money by the contributor’s employer and report as money from that industry. And in some cases, at some companies, with regard to certain employees, that’s true–a hat gets passed among executives at some totally not mandatory cocktail party fundraiser the CEO just happens to be holding to which his senior executives just happen to be invited, and it’s understood that the check will be written or the Company will be very unhappy.
But it’s also unfair to assume that everyone who writes a candidate a check is doing it on behalf of, or because of, who he or she works for. Plenty of people write campaign checks because they support positions contrary to the wishes or interests of their employers. If some oil employee believes greenhouse gases are destroying the planet and cuts a check to Hillary or Bernie, it’s crazy to think they should send that money back because of who the check writer works for. And I’m not seeing any sign that Bernie does that, btw.
no, corporations are people. If you want to use a Republican talking point, at least get it right…