2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTime to debunk the "Hillary takes cash from private prison corps" nonsense
Last edited Wed Aug 19, 2015, 10:59 AM - Edit history (2)
This talking point originated from Right Wing libertarian Glen Greenwald's site. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/23/private-prison-lobbyists-raising-cash-hillary-clinton/
Again, I am very disappointed that right wing talking points are being used here, but I guess that's just normal now.
In any case, the crux of this fake talking point is that some lobbyists and lawyers that have Geo or CCA as clients are also bundling donors for Hillary. But it's ridiculous on its face to claim that translates into her taking money from for profit prisons. Nonsense.
Lawyers and Lobbyists have dozens of clients. Every interest group that can raise cash has lobbyists and lawyers. That includes teachers, unions, Latino groups, the NAACP, LGBT organizations, environmentalists, physicians, hospitals, planned parenthood, NARAL and on and on. That's how the system works.
The fact that a lobbyist represents a group you don't like out of the dozens of clients they represent, AND also bundles donations for a Democrat does NOT equate to that group you don't like making a contribution to a candidate. Talk about playing the 6 degrees of separation game! It's just silly, and sadly, a perfect example of how right wing news media operates.
Believe it or not, lawyers and lobbyists are allowed to make their own personal choice of which candidate they want to help get donations for. Obama was awash in bundlers, some of whom are lawyers and lobbyists. If any of you think we can win this election without taking money I would like you to explain how.
But the bottom line is that because a bundler has a client that Democrats don't like does NOT equate to that corp we don't like donating to her campaign. And in fact, Open Secrets clearly shows that prison corps give 80% of their donations to rethugs, and 20% to Democrats (and none, as far as I can tell, to HRC).
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to use it repeatedly as an attack. good for you by simply putting up an op. i have not wanted to call bullshit on every accusation and too busy doing it on other issues, as it is. lol
good for you. thanks. hey.... and i am not even a clinton supporter. but, fair is fair.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)why am i not surprised this man is considered rw libertarian.
I wish folks would quit with the right winger stuff here. I've been reading here 14 years and never thought I'd see that here. Just makes me want to shake my head.
I don't care for Bernie, but I can damn well tell you I would not even consider using a right wing talking point to smear him. Out of the question, IMO.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and will just be easier to link it to the article instead of typing out an explanation. and the very souls using it are not gone walk in this thread and get enlightened. that is not the purpose of the use.
benghazi!!
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Lee Fang
July 22 2015, 9:53 a.m.
Just how incestuous is the small world of big money politics? The leading Democratic candidate and at least three major Republican candidates are all relying on members of the same lobbying firm to help them raise presidential campaign cash: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.
Akin Gump is hardly a household name, but the law and lobbying firm is famous in Washington for its ability to sell access to those in power. Akin Gumps employee roster is filled with former members of Congress, and its client list is a veritable whos who of elite interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto, Boeing, Chevron, Gilead Sciences, Pfizer and AT&T. The United Arab Emirates and Japan are among the foreign governments represented by the firm.
snip
Last week, the Clinton, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio campaigns filed reports with the Federal Election Commission to list their lobbyist bundlers, revealing that all three have relied on Akin Gump for campaign cash. In Clintons case, her campaign not only used Akin Gump lobbyists as bundlers, but the Clinton campaign treasurer, Jose H. Villarreal, works for Akin Gumps lobbying division, though he is not registered as a lobbyist. In addition, former Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., who is now employed by Akin Gump, has been tapped to raise money for the presidential campaign of Gov. John Kasich, R-Ohio, who kicked off his candidacy on Tuesday.
snip
As a result of the breadth and depth of our experience and relationships, our firm is well positioned to represent its clients regardless of which party controls the legislative or executive branch, boasts the Akin Gump website, touting the firms lobbying practice.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/22/top-fundraisers-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-work-lobbying-firm/
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Fine. It doesn't change my point.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)In fact, your point is a talking point. The linked articles provided information I was unaware of. Is any of it, to your knowledge , untrue?
Let's be reasonable.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Last edited Tue Aug 18, 2015, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)
ETA to add correct post number.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Perhaps a tutor?
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Any site or writer who doesn't worship HRC, and dares to point out the truth about her, and her policies, has got to be right-wing.
artislife
(9,497 posts)The media is right wing, so they want a republican. They will definitely question her.
The DNC is her own cheering section, she has two media outlets that are run by associates, so they aren't going to probe her.
Bernie Sanders hasn't paid for focus groups to find out about her---he is running on his issues only
So who is left? O'Malley.--No
--So all we have is the internet. Supporters may know of every person who crossed Hillary because they have been there every step of the way, rooting for her.
I followed her briefly in 2008, but jumped on the Obama train early. I didn't pay attention.
I mainly read local, Huffington Post, Common Dreams, AJ4 and the Guardian as far as main stream media. I follow links and surf out the waves in what I find through those sites, this site and a few more.
Do they ask probing questions, do they make their case, does this fit ?
So the cry that the rw is out to get Hillary to me sounds like anyone can be considered rw if they question Hillary.
YMMV, of course.
Back to your amazing ability not to be bothered that the same bundlers are buying---er --donating politicians on both sides of the fence.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)In fact, they have the journalist who broke the story on the Koch Brothers and their tea-party connection.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/staff/leefang/
Think I just found another news site to check out. Thanks!
840high
(17,196 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But I sure see lots of right sources used against HRC. I am sure the same thing happens at DKos.
The bottom line is this story is BS.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz they don't fit your narrative?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Yes. Just like posters here have done in the past.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But people do it here so it wouldn't surprise me if they do it there as well.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Why do you keep asking the same thing? I've given you two identical responses already. Why ask a third time?
Yes, so called liberals use right wing talking points there just like they do here. One would hope they are not astroturfing right wingers engaging in that, but we have no way of really knowing. Also, again, I do not read DKos.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They expose government overreach and spying no matter who is in office. Period.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)All she is doing is shining sunlight on it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And yes, I'm calling it out.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You say the article is inaccurate, so you should be able to point out the inaccuracies, one would guess. Let's hear them.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You did not. You said something vague about inference. You said NOTHING specific. Get quoting or get laughed at.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)In the OP and again in post #13.
And what do you mean when you state I'm "not a serious person."? Are you trying to marginalize me because you approve of these kind of ridiculous smears on her? Or is it just because I don't support your favorite candidate? Or something else?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)If you want to be taken seriously, you will quote from the article the part you find inaccurate, and you'll explain why you feel it's inaccurate. That is all.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks for catching that. It's difficult on an IPAD sometimes. However my point remains.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Have a good evening.
PS: here's how you could have played this. You could have acknowledged that the article itself was correct (and yes, it was), but that some people have twisted the report in order to claim that Hillary was taking direct donations from private prison companies. You would have been onto something there, but it seems like your obsession with Greenwald blinded you to where the actual word twisting was happening.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The whole point is how those at DU have turned that article into the specious claim that HRC is funded by prison corps. It's a bullshit inference by Greenwald and a false accusation in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526601
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And no, your OP isn't what you claim it is. Sure, you're pissed at a lot of DU--you have been since you re-joined. But right out of the gate, you made accusations about the accuracy of the article in the Intercept. You've done absolutely nothing to prove it was inaccurate in any way. And that is what I asked you about. And you took the bait and talked about the Intercept article. But you can't back up your claim. Your post is a (disruptive) meta thread. It's not really about the Intercept at all, except that you want to throw them into the mix for a twofer it won't work.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Call me up once you do the 6 degrees of separation nonsense on Bernie's donations.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But now you're here. And you see the inaccuracy too. Surely you'd be kind enough to point it out for me in the article. If not, gosh, what are the odds that two strident Hillary supporters in a row can't back up their impassioned accusations. But I know that won't be the case with you, if you'll just go through the simple process of quoting the inaccurate parts of the article below. Thanks.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's a bullshit inference by Greenwalds crew, and people have used it here to make a very specious argument. Not sure how I can be more clear.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=526601
George II
(67,782 posts)....in the article that there is a link between some of the bundlers' clients and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Those implications are totally false.
There is also the hint (maybe less than vague) that the companies the bundlers' also represent are contributing money to the Clinton campaign. That is not only false but to do so would be illegal.
840high
(17,196 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It makes the claim that HRC takes money from for profit prison corps by inference. Lobbyists work for all kinds of different clients, and as I said in the OP, that doesn't translate into her being a supporter of or taking money from prison corps.
Bernie gets a lot of money from Act Blue. Have you investigated everyone that donated and where they work in order to smear him with the 6 degrees of separation nonsense?
Ridiculous, IMO.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)It claims that some of Clinton's bundlers are lobbyists for private prison corps. It doesn't say that the money they have raised as bundlers was donated by private prison corps.
Truth is a wonderful thing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's the smear du jour today. Sorry you missed it but it's still on the front page. You can still catch it easily enough.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)THAT is the thread where this specious claim is being made. Sickening.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)As for the suggestion that HRC has received donations from private prison corps, I have no idea whether that is true.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Never seen a lefty work for Cato.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I do find left libertarianism interesting though.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)"It was in Greenwalds professional frustration that he found Townhall, then a conservative politics forum on CompuServe sponsored by National Review and the Heritage Foundation, via his roommates boyfriends Republican mother."
You need to get over that fiction.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I thought that maybe you were assuming that because he is a libertarian he must be right wing. My point was that libertarians can be left or right. As for Greenwald, he is left on many issues, but I am not sure how far right he is on economic issues. You never answered my questions about whether he favored the sort of things that right libertarians favor, e.g., eliminating the social safety net, privatizing most government services, etc.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)As with you, the OP has completely failed to back up her claim. Also as with you, she seems to misunderstand the nature of her own claim. Is it about DU, or is it about the Intercept article? I truly don't believe she's grasping the difference, based on her replies to you and to me.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You just don't want to admit it. Hell, the headline alone backs up what the inference is meant to be.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)And you don't dispute that. You claim it's 'right wing' but you do not dispute anything in the article.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)And calling Greenwald. Dk, and the intercept "right wing" makes you sound like an idiot.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Glenn Greenwald is on the exact same ideological plane as Ron Paul. They are both libertarians. I'm not sure how you can deny that fact.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Never heard of them myself. I have worked with groups like La Raza before but never heard of presente - have you?
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)You and the other Clinton supporters are too busy running around screaming that Sanders supporters are racists. Presente is a group that supports Latino concerns and has been around for many years. Why would I know that? Because I am a member.
If it comes down to believing a snot nosed self-involved internet "activist" or Presente, I'll trust Presente twice a day everyday and five times on Friday.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)My research shows that they are an online only group that started in 2009. Their Facebook page has 23k likes. Their "about" page does disclose anything about who founded it or who works there.
Maybe they are just trying to get noticed. But I'd advise them that making up stuff is not the way to do it.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I understand.
Reading is fundamental. Here is their information off their Wikipedia page you claim you read:
Presente.org is an American advocacy group that "exists to amplify the political voice of Latino communities" in the United States. It was co-founded by journalist Roberto Lovato. In 2009 the group coordinated "BastaDobbs.com, a Latino-led coalition" critical of TV anchor Lou Dobbs' xenophobic commentary; Dobbs resigned from CNN under public pressure.[1][2][3] Also in 2009, during the confirmation of chief justice Sonia Sotomayor, the group disseminated a positive visual portrait of Sotomayor[4][5] In 2011 the group has campaigned against the U.S. government's deportation program "Secure Communities."[6][7]
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)who Presente is, yet you yourself responded to a thread where Presente was clearly discussed. It goes to show you didn't even bother to read the OP, you came in heavy handed with your knee jerk reaction and attacked. Good show! This really makes you look intelligent!
Here is a link to the thread and your exact post at 6:22 am (KST) the above post was at 10:52 am (KST):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251526601#post92
enough
(13,254 posts)The more you say about this, the more you demonstrate what you do not know.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL! I can't wait.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)get. Most libertarians are right libertarians and so the failure to recognize a spectrum here is not unusual. Does Grenwald want to eliminate social safety nets? Does he want to privatize most government services? Those are the sort of things that would make him right wing.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)enough
(13,254 posts)You could call Greenwald a lot of things, but "right wing" is purely ignorant.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)It's late September and I really should be back at school
I know I keep you amused but I feel I'm being used
Oh Maggie I couldn't have tried any more
You lured me away from home just to save you from being alone
You stole my heart and that's what really hurt.
uponit7771
(90,301 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)SonderWoman
(1,169 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)You mean that guy that wrote the story that at leasst but some rrins on the government's ability to spy on us?
God he's a real right wing nutjob. I WANT the government to spy on us.
Those horrible, horrible muckracking investgatuve journalists.
And that horrid right wing rag The Guardian was complicit?
Oh wait a minute. The Guardian is a historically left wing British newspaper. ...WEll that must be a ruse.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not sure how you can deny it is. That's who he worked for.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Greenwald's own explanation at link above. And what he wrote for them below. Not exactly Rissh Limbaugh subjects:
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
The Digital Surveillance State: Vast, Secret, and Dangerous
The Conversation: The Surveillance State Thrives on Fear
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And writing for Cato isn't "working" for Cato. Except they paid him to do it. But it's not work because Greenwald says it's not work.
So we should not infer anything about his work for Cato, but we CAN infer Hillary got donations from for profit prison corps (who do not typically donate to Dems) because some lobbyists and lawyers that have helped her get donations have them on their client list.
Ridiciculous.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Homophobic, misogynist, hypercapitalist Randian bullshit.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"Glenn Greenwald is not just the American Left's most fearless political commentator; his fearlessness is such that he has shifted the expectations for everyone else, too. His rock-ribbed principles and absolute disregard for partisan favor have made U.S. political discourse edgier, more confrontational, and much much better."
- Rachel Maddow
"The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald's blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now."
- Michael Moore
"The most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years."
- Bill Moyers
Thank you for opening our eyes, MaggieD.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #52)
MoveIt This message was self-deleted by its author.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's a right wing org. He's a long time right wing libertarian. I'm pleased to know that I'm better informed than those you cite. They didn't do their homework.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)It's just that they're just plants in the Libertarian war to pollute our precious bodily fluids.
Thank you for your good work here.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)So yes, I'm afraid I do appear to know more than they do.
frylock
(34,825 posts)comedy fuggin gold!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Have a nice evening.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You know what? Everything out of that guy reeks of Ron Paul style right wing libertarianism.
rock
(13,218 posts)As there are no legitimate criticisms against Hillary, one must resort to making them up. And, of course, repeating them nauseatingly.
P.S. Keep up the excellent work!
MBplayer
(73 posts)Special 'f you' goes out to Bill Richardson, who took in around $25k from GEO.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Right?
MBplayer
(73 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)At people who worked at Geo and/or donated to PACs both she and Obama got donations from. Not the same thing. Your employer cannot tell you who to donate to or not donate to. Thankfully.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Hillary's bundler Richard Sullivan was Dick Gephard deputy campaign manager
and former finance director of the Democratic National Committee. Richard Sullivan
was a top fund-raiser for Vice President Al Gore. Richard Sullivan was national
fundraising director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).
Counsel to the House Majority Leader. Treasurer and finance chairman for the
Democratic Governors Association (DGA).
Capitol Counsel LLC, two of the most experienced Democratic tax lobbyists in Washington have joined forces with a team of Democratic fundraisers and operatives to form what likely will emerge as one of Washingtons premier boutique lobbying shops.
The firm, Capitol Counsel LLC, will focus almost exclusively on two of the most powerful committees in Congress: the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance panels. At least that is the initial strategy the company may follow clients interests to other committees or to the House and Senate Democratic leadership.
http://www.capitolcounsel.com/team/richard-sullivan/
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2262-lobbyists-team-to-form-powerhouse-shop
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobbyist.php?id=Y0000011438L
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks for letting us know. What you may not know is that every major progressive group has them too.
MBplayer
(73 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)At people who worked at Geo and/or donated to PACs both she and Obama got donations from. Not the same thing. Your employer cannot tell you who to donate to or not donate to. Thankfully.
ismnotwasm
(41,965 posts)It's freaking weird
fbc
(1,668 posts)...and this might be the worst topic I've ever seen on this site. It's riddled with inaccuracies, so many that to attempt to address them would be a Herculean task.
Glenn Greenwald is further left than most democratic politicians, that's for sure.
And he didn't even write the article in question.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And he loathes both Obama and HRC. NOT an unbiased source by any measure.
Gothmog
(144,919 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)A right wing investigation was used as opposition research against Gutierrez. When I asked that op multiple times how the right wingers investigation was going, I got nothing but deflection. It's just a bunch of Gowdy/Starr/Conaway cheerleaders.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Welcome back!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm just curious. It shouldn't be too much burden to offer a substantive comment if you're going to frequent a discussion group, should it? I just don't get the reason for these kind of comments.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Don't take the bait.
frylock
(34,825 posts)it IS the bait.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You see defending HRC as flaimebait.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)How much substantive comment are you looking for when you post twaddle like "Right Wing libertarian Glen Greenwald"? You post this crap knowing full well what kind of response you're going to receive. Let's get real here.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... IMO. And I think his background is pretty clear on that. You can disagree without being rude.
frylock
(34,825 posts)You've been linked to several pieces by Greenwald himself explaining his position, yet you continue to misrepresent his views. As I said, you ignore and dismiss.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We'll have to agree to disagree.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Noam Chomsky is probably best described as a left wing libertarian. Ron and Rand Paul are right wing libertarians. Greenwald falls in the former camp, not the latter. Or are you going to tell me that Chomsky is a right winger? LOL.
Response to MaggieD (Original post)
Post removed
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)news to me.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)so OOOOOOoooow ... that must mean if I want weed
legalized, that I'm spouting a "right wing talking point" ...
FAIL.
are you kidding me?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I also agree with him on Snowden for the most part. But he's still a right leaning libertarian in my book based on some of his previous actions, and writings. And frankly the specious article proves it.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)is no excuse for accusing a Democratic Socialist with an impeccable
progressive record of being a Libertarian.
This is the same swarmy smear some on DU have used against Glenn Greenwald
and it's even more misplaced against Bernie than it was against Greenwald.
Is that all you got? Really?
Gee, if Sanders isn't a racist .. well then, he MUST be a Libertarian.
I know it must suck to be a Hillary supporter about now, but I had no idea
it had gone this far. my sympathies.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's exactly how I see this latest attempt by Bernie supporters to smear HRC with this unbelievably specious argument.
Clearly they are running out of fake stuff to say about her.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/24/guess-who-else-fundraising-clinton-private-prison-lobbyists
Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/24/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton
TruthDig
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/private_prison_lobbyists_are_fundraising_for_hillary_clinton_20150724
MotherJones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-lobbyists-campaign-staff-keystone-lehman
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/08/private-prison-lobbyists-are-fundraising-for-hillary-clinton-2471060.html
Last I heard, NONE of them are "Libertairan" websites.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I feel no compelling need to "throw them under a bus."
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)either you agree there is SOMETHING to this story, or there isn't
I posted about Hillary taking Private Prison Bucks long ago, so long
ago I haven't found it yet, but may yet.
Till then, good luck defending Hillary's shameless money-grubbing
from the private prison industry, aka Cheney's gold mine.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is the last place I go for actual well... news. But she is.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They are a VERY progressive site that supports Latino issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251526601
Latino group demands Hillary Clinton and DNC cut ties with private prison industry
http://presente.org/press/releases/2015/8/17/latino-group-demands-hillary-cut-ties-private-pris
We demand Hillary Clinton return and reject any and all donations and financial support from the private prison industry. Clinton cant claim to be working to end mass incarceration while accepting donations from the very people who are bankrolled by it. Hillary Clinton claims to be the ideal candidate to represent Latinos, but that cant be trusted if she is accepting money from the very people who have made billions of dollars destroying the lives of millions of immigrants and Latinos. For far too long, black and brown people have been arrested and imprisoned for minor crimes they commit at rates far lower than white people all the while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and millions of lives.
If Clinton wants our votes, she must return, and stop accepting, dirty money from private prisons.
About presente: With more than a quarter million members, Presente is a major national organization dedicated to amplifying the political voices of Latino communities in the United States.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is the author of the article
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That means he green lights all articles. Glad I could educate you on that. Have a nice evening.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Nice to know you are going to tell me how this works.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I've published over 200 articles in my career. I know you fancy yourself a journalist, but you can't actually be more than a blogger if you don't know this.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is also a term common in MARKETING, where you might work as well
Reporters PITCH a story, and write a story and fight for their stories. Editors accept a story idea, it is not green lighted, I am sorry, I guess you work in MARKETING. But this is hardly a common term in actual journalism.
And with that, have a wonderful day in this fantasy of yours.
Your obsession is your obsession, and go argue with the FEC ok. For that matter go correct Presente while at it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And editors either approve or they don't. And no, I don't work in marketing. I do health care policy analysis.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)inside a news room. Some terms are used like a B Roll (applies to video), others are not, like green lighting,
Perhaps in your field it is... I would not claim to know the first thing of how the articles i eat with breakfast are actually approved. Or for that matter how you call that process. I know how it works in my little corner of the universe.
And I know that this is not a term used in my field.
And with that, really have fun. Right now trying to work on a piece... and by the way you still debunked nothing from Lee Fang's reporting.
And these are his bona fides
Lee Fang
[email protected]
Lee Fang is a reporter for The Intercept. He has a longstanding interest in how public policy is influenced by organized interest groups and money. He was the first to uncover and detail the role of the billionaire Koch brothers in financing the Tea Party movement. His interviews and research on the Koch brothers have been featured on HBOs The Newsroom, the documentaries Merchants of Doubt and Citizen Koch, as well as in multiple media outlets. He was an investigative blogger for ThinkProgress (2009-2011) and then a fellow at the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute and contributing writer for The Nation. In 2012, he co-founded RepublicReport.org, a blog to cover political corruption that syndicates content with TheNation.com, Salon, National Memo, BillMoyers.com, TruthOut, and other media outlets. His work has been published by VICE, The Baffler, The Boston Globe, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Progressive, NPR, In These Times, and The Huffington Post. His first book, The Machine: A Field Guide to the Resurgent Right, published by The New Press, explores how the conservative right rebuilt the Republican Party and its political clout in the aftermath of President Obamas 2008 election victory. He is based in San Francisco.
- See more at: http://www.republicreport.org/author/lee-fang/#sthash.ODviJM73.dpuf
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I mean other than your own blog? I'm sincerely curious because you don't seem to understand the editorial process of a real publication.
The editor green lights the article and then reviews the article and approves or disapproves the actual content. In fact writers do not even have control over the headline. I've written for 5 different mags and that is how it works.
There is an excellent article about this from Grantland that explains the editorial process. Do you need me to find it for you and provide a link? You're sadly mistaken about how real journalism functions, sorry to say.
Response to MaggieD (Reply #158)
nadinbrzezinski This message was self-deleted by its author.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sounds like our local weekly here. Real publications have a much more rigorous editorial process than it appears you have been exposed to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And with that, I am done and deleting my post to you
Suffice it to say it's standards are so weak that it's won 88 journalism awards.
But I am deleting my response to you and adding you to my soft ignore list, You are special and not in a good way.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I truly don't think you really understand the editorial process at a major publication. I do wish you well in your journalistic endeavors though! Sincerely.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)the person I support is in bed with bank lobbyists
See this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=527977
I am not in the mood for outside agitators making up lies.
This was my response to that post:
http://www.newdealleaders.org/about
The NewDEAL is a national network of rising state and local elected leaders who are pro-growth progressives. Our mission is to bring together leaders focused on expanding opportunity and to help them develop and spread innovative ideas to spur economic growth that is broadly-earned and sustainable. We do this by connecting the NewDEAL Leaders with each other to exchange ideas, and connecting them with other pro-growth progressive political, policy, and private sector leaders.
The network is led by our Honorary Chairs, Delaware Governor Jack Markell and U.S. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, as well as our Honorary Regional Chairs: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, U.S. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, U.S. Senator Chris Coons of Delaware, U.S. Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman, former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz, and Houston Mayor Annise Parker.
We hope youll take a moment to nominate innovative leaders youve met and sign up to stay connected as we add more of their pro-growth progressive ideas to our site.
I do not believe for a minute that that site is liberal or progressive.
it is just manipulating things and that is a really shitty thing to do when it comes to us electing our next president.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And it's sad to see it here. Like I said up thread I don't support Bernie but I would never post made up nonsense about him like was done here.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They are investigative reporters who drill into stories and try to untangle messes.
Remember when reporters used to do that no matter who was hurt or who benefited?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)by the way... you could have gone to Open Secrets and found that the PAC is not listed by name... that is not evidence of anthing and it does list the donors. You would be shocked i suppose that banking interests are her three top donors there.
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019&type=I
I personally hate that open secrets does not list actual PACs, but the Intercept got that info from the FEC... they might be toothelss as hell, but at least they have to list this shit.
Here link to Richard Sullivan contributions
And the FEC detailed record
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?27931403444
Or at least one of a few. If you want to ahem DEBUNK something, you'd better know how to find this information.
And this took me all of three minutes, but I work with this crap regularly. We only do it with local pols though. Hell, today I had fun looking at the donations from Qualcomm for a local pol who voted to fast track the TTP... follow the freaking money.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I've already addressed this multiple times in the thread. The OP posted here today claiming she gets donations from prison corps is simply false.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)the bundler is real, I linked to him, and he does bundle from them,
The fact that it is a small percentage of what she is getting is real too. And there is an increasing chorus among Latin activists, among them Presente, for her to stop it. And you might want to go argue with the FEDERAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION. The data is out there.
I am not giving you innuendo, I am giving you links to the ACTUAL SHIT.
You might want to be humble and walk away from this. Or not... hyper partisans usually do not do that.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That "bundler" is a democrat that supports HRC. You guys don't seem to understand that lawyers and lobbyists are running businesses. They don't automatically hold deep ideological feelings for every client they work for. To think that is simply politically naive. It does not work that way.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)because you cannot argue with the PRIMARY sources, in this case the FEC.
Am I blaming her for it? No, it's politics, and bundlers do what they do usually though PACS. which is PART OF THE PROBLEM with citizens united. That is the real issue here. CU.
And as of now, whether she deserves it or not, she has a problem with one of the largest latino organizations in the country. Congrats, that is the reality.
No six degrees of separation needed.
Congrats. Now please proceed with this bullshit of yours. I must say, it is quite entertaining.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sorry you missed it. But you can certainly go back and read the thread if you'd like.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and primary material. This is like taking a horse to water, and the horse refusing to drink that water.
you claimed they lied. Took me literally three minutes to find one of the records at the FEC website. Proves that no, they are not lying. And yes, he has raised money for HRC. So you keep that fantasy ok. I s'pose the federal government and their pesky records are part of the vast right wing (and now libertarian) conspiracy.
It is hilarious, comedy gold in fact.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That because a Democratic lobbyist has Geo for a client that translates into HRC getting campaign cash from for profit prison corps. Is that clear enough for you?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and it is not a ridiculous claim. You have no idea where a PAC is getting funds for any candidate, For all you know every one of the candidates, both D and R is getting money from the eat your kittens for breakfast corporation that wants this a normal practice in the United States.
The part you are not getting though your skull is that none of us can actually find out because of how PACs help to hide where the money is coming from. This is frustrating to all who actually have looked under the hood. So no, it is far from a ridiculous claim.
If you have a lobbyist bundling funds for any candidate, you have to assume that they are bundling from ALL THEIR CLIENTS. That is the problem with Citizens United and Dark Money. This is not a HRC problem, it is a SYSTEMIC problem. So no, it is not ridiculous at all. Why this current election will be over 5 billion.. capiche now?
And for the moment, she is having a problem with the largest Latino group in the nation. Enjoy.
And you do go argue with the FEC. I gave you one of the ACTUAL FUCKING DOCUMENTS, I did not link to DKOS, I linked to the FEC for christ sake. And yes, it took me all of three minutes because I know how to look for this shit. In short, you debunked nothing. And the fact that you are still digging them heels as a good partisan hack is truly hilarious.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But keep trying.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)that is hilarious, I do hope some day you realize that you are arguing with the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and their fracking records, not me.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)That's progress, at least.
As everyone knows, socialism is just a more virulent form of libertarianism.
Honestly, I don't know how you manage it. But I sure hope there's money involved.
If not, I'd worry.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Wouldn't I get a hide if I said that to a Bernie supporter? Bet I would.
For the record, I'm simply a Democrat that supports the Democratic front runner and does not support the "not a Democrat" in the race. Oddly, that's not popular on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)The alternative explanations for your specious accusation are just too unpleasant to ponder.
I'd pray for you if I were a believer.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... Insulting accusations next time, huh?
Cha
(296,805 posts)This OP has "simple-minded Manichean" written all over it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=529106
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
I know that juries here seldom hide a Bernie supporter no matter what they post, but this is just uncivil.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 19, 2015, 03:36 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: It is time for civil debate rather than personal attacks. Substance in debate, pro, or against matters...
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Insipid personal attacks.. I don't care who it supports.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Probably not a good idea to call out Bernie supporters in your alert, but it seems insulting to me, lobs some spit at some other DUer and basically adds nothing to the discussion.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The alerted post has "simple-minded personal insult " written all over it.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)rearing it's ugly head.
Thank you for debunking the "Hillary takes cash from private prison corps" libel.
ericson00
(2,707 posts)but also, I am left wondering why Hillary hasn't started a fightthesmear.com thing like Obama did in 2008? These lies go around way to easily
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Garrett78
(10,721 posts)Greenwald, formerly of Salon and a regular contributor to Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, is far more of a leftist than neoliberal Clinton. Just because the Cato Institute agrees with him on a few issues (drug and prison reform, ending citizen surveillance), issues with which leftists also agree, doesn't make Greenwald "right wing." No more than Rand Paul is "left wing" simply because he has some views with which leftists agree.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)Blind loyalty is not a desirable trait.
MoveIt
(399 posts)"Nuh uh"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)But thanks for your opinion.
MoveIt
(399 posts)uponit7771
(90,301 posts)Autumn
(44,980 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)By introducing properly the layers of complexity behind the simple minded Pavolian headline response what you are doing, you rebel, is forcing folks to think things through....that always is painful for some.
William769
(55,142 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)You're using the same "I didn't do it, that corporate structure I just happen help run did" dodge that repubs have used for years on end.
The people who make the decisions to run these private prisons and those who make the decisions on how to exploit prisoners, many of whom are the people of color you claim to fight for, are the people donating to Hillary. And they do so with the expectation that she will help them continue that exploitation.
You can spin it for the partisans and try to befuddle the ignorant, but I like to believe that most here understand that this OP is no more than an attempt to justify very bad decisions on the part of Team Hillary.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)last1standing
(11,709 posts)Why are you trying to pretend they don't?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)This idea that they hold deep ideological beliefs that match every client on their client list is naive in the extreme. And again, its ridiculous in the extreme to try to pretend that equates to HRC taking money from prison corps.
The idea the Hillary haters club is trying to float here reeks of desperation, IMO.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If you want to argue for letting a candidate be in the pocket of an industry that makes billions off of destroying the lives of countless young people of color, go ahead.
But at least be honest about it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Into the employment history of everyone who donates to Bernie. Lol.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)I expect that will be the exact moment Team Hillary finally realizes what a colossal mistake it wast to take the cash in the first place.
Until then, I fully expect you to support politicians taking money from corporations that are destroying the future of millions of young people of color.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Bundling is a great way to let corrupt politicians take money from malicious sources so that they can claim "We Didn't Know!"
No human being with any shred of integrity would ever knowingly accept bundled money from lobbyists who take money from such unspeakably wicked incarcerate for profit operations.
The only people you are going to fool with your Third Way propaganda 'splain are fools.
snip---
Were in a meeting about drugs. Americas first drug is free black labor, and turning black bodies into profit and the mass incarceration system mirrors an awful lot like the prison plantation system. Its a similar thread, and until someone takes that message and speaks that truth to White people in this country so that we can actually take on anti-Blackness as a founding problem in this country, I dont believe that there is going to be a solution.
Because what the conversations that are happening now and why there is so much cohesion across the divide, the red side and the blue side, its because of money, right, we are spending a lot of money on prisons. Were spending more money on prisons than we are on schools, but if we look at it from lens of lets solve this financial problem, and we dont look at the greater bottom line that African-Americans who are Americans are suffering at greater rates than most other people, every other people, for the length of this country then its not going to go away. Its just going to morph into something new and evolved. You know, I genuinely want to know, you, Hillary Clinton, have been in no uncertain way, partially responsible for this. More than most. There may have been unintended consequences.
But now that you understand the consequences, what in your heart has changed thats going to change the direction of this country? Like what in younot your platform, not the things youre supposed to saylike, how do you actually feel thats different than you did before? Like what were the mistakes, and how can those mistakes that you made be lessons for all of America for a moment of reflection on how we treat black people in this country?
Last week, Clinton and other candidates revealed a number of lobbyists who are serving as bundlers for their campaigns. Bundlers collect contributions on behalf of a campaign, and are often rewarded with special favors, such as access to the candidate.
Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit.
As we reported yesterday, fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.
The Clinton campaign recently engaged two sets of such bundlers from the private prison industry's lobbyists.
Private prison companies make billions from our broken and discriminatory criminal justice system by disproportionately locking up Black and brown people in the country's most dangerous prisons, for profit. Furthermore, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to keep at least 34,000 immigrants locked up to meet a draconian federal quota at a cost to taxpayers of $2 billion per year, much of this going to enrich private prison companies. And nearly 20% of immigrant detainees are locked up for traffic offenses. Imagine the devastation we'll suffer if the industry's lobbying power determines and influences the next president.
Join us in urging Secretary Clinton to disavow the private prison industry and demand that the Democratic Party oppose private prisons in their 2016 platform.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)So true.
lawexpert
(4 posts)Corrections Corporation of America gave 78% of donations to Republicans and 22% to Democrats: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00366468
List of Recipients for Corrections Corporation of America: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00366468&cycle=2016
GEO Group Summary of donations: (0% to Democrats, 100% to Republicans): https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00382150
Recipients of GEO Group donations: They are all Republicans: https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00382150&cycle=2016
Federal Election Commission: Summary for Hillary Clinton: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P00003392&tabIndex=1
Itemized Individual Contributions: http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do