People of all stripes have been hammering Bernie on TV news today for calling Hillary unqualified for president. Does this story have legs?
How is calling a political opponent "unqualified" anything new or outrageous?
I don't want a president who voted for the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and pushed for a free trade agreement with Panama, increasing the illegal behavior revealed by the Panama Papers.
She's the best option. President Obama can't run again.
I'm still on the bern train
Hey, I love him too but he's got no path.
If he gets wrecked in NY, I'll agree.
You're gonna vote for him in CT?
I'm leaning toward Hillary because despite her many flaws, she's competent and extraordinarily capable. I'm good with either though.
I'm not too happy with her. I don't like her donors. I'm not a huge fan of her record, as evidenced by what I said above. I especially don't like her ties to fossil fuel interests. She also spent a few years on a Walmart board, where she did not defend workers, which bothers me a lot.
This narrative is amusing. The Panama agreement actually HELPED the government's ability to prevent tax evasion. Bernie voted against financial protections. Bad judgment.
And by your and Bernie's logic, President Obama isn't qualified to be president.
I happen to really like Obama. As do most Democrats. Bold move to attack a sitting president of your own supposed party.
That's not what the articles I have read on the Panama deal have said.
And I do disagree with Obama on a number of issues. I'm much farther left than Obama. I'm not a democrat, so I don't feel like I have a moral obligation to agree with the president.
Articles 12.11 to 12.7 seem at the worst to be toothless reassurances that don't affect Panamanian tax evasion (tax avoidance is a different issue). At best, they prevented abuse of financial services to some degree. Not sure how the trade agreement increased illegal US tax activity. If you have better info, please let me know.
It's one thing to disagree with someone. It's another to call them fundamentally unqualified.
Especially give that he voted to confirm her in 2009, refused to go down this path as late as January 28th. But now he's running a firmly negative campaign, making ridiculous attacks on the Secretary (She made a deal with the Devil? Really? She's destroying the party with her ambition? She's unqualified? The constant attacks on her integrity. The straight up lies about her campaign financing, trade positions, and regulatory record. Come on, Bernie). I've honestly lost a great deal of respect for him in the past two weeks. He's desperate, and it shows.
Also, given how few American were at all implicated in even tax avoidance (which is legal) let alone tax evasion (which isn't), I think the US financial system comes out looking like the good guy for once.
I'll see if I can find my sources on the Panama trade agreement.
As their campaigns have progressed, I've seen both candidates become increasingly more aggressive. However since I am distrustful of Clinton because of her donors, I don't think it's absurd to question her integrity. When she flipped out at the Green Peace activist, people started talking about her ties to the fossil fuel industry. I'll find you that too.
If you search "Panama trade deal" all the headlines (and articles) are about how the deal allowed this to happen.
And here's Clinton's donations from big oil.
But of course Ted Cruz receives millions times as much as Clinton from them, so he is much more frightening.
What is the evidence for the claim that the Panama agreement had anything to do with the Panama papers? Mossack Fonseca (sp?) had been operating for 40 YEARS. The trade agreement was from what, 2011?
Beyond the fact that they both have the word Panama in them, what was the relation? The agreement itself seems to discourage the kind of activity the Panama papers revealed.
I think we can both agree that candidates shouldn't reject donations just because they come from people who work in the fossil fuel industry. Sanders has gotten $55k from those donations. Clinton has gotten $300k (and $220k from environmentalists, I might add).
So the issue really the $4.5 million figure that people are throwing around. So where did that $4.5 million come from? Well first of all, it didn't go to Hillary. If went to her Super PAC, which she is legally barred from coordinating with. Now I don't believe that super PACS and campaigns don't coordinate, but I don't see any evidence of coordination on these donations. But let's put on our tin foil hats and assume they did. Where did Hillary get this $4.5 million?
It's not actually from the fossil fuel industry at all. Not one penny.
It's from two billionaire philanthropists who managed funds that had invested some of their capital in oil companies. To call that a donation from the fossil fuel industry is so mind-spinningly disingenuous that I'm surprised Sanders actually parroted those claims.
It's simply a lie to say she is getting millions from the fossil fuel industry. She's getting $300k from the industry...and by industry we mean the workers in that industry. Just like Sanders is getting $50k. There's also the issue of the so-called fossil fuel lobbyists giving her money. Again, no. Some lobbyists who at one point had fossil fuel interests as a client (among many other clients) bundled OTHER people's donations (not from fossil fuel industry).
I can't find a single example of quid pro quo corruption in her record.
I've found two possible examples of that in Sanders' record. But I trust him, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say the smell of corruption on those issues is purely coincidental.
This exchange was particularly worrying:
Rose: FactCheck.org, as you know, “Clinton’s 2016 campaign has not accepted any direct contributions from any corporation, oil and gas companies included.”
Sanders: Now that’s not true. I’ve just read you is what is the fact. $4.5 million, including money from 50 lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry.
Campaigns are legally prohibited from getting donations from companies of any industry. Does Sen. Sanders, who is running to reform campaign finance laws, not know this, the single most basic of campaign finance laws? Or does he know and is lying for votes?
I still need to look into your claim about the Panama trade deal.
I agree that employees donating directly to the campaign is not fair to count (not just because Sanders does too; I had that response before I knew Sanders got them too). The npr fact check says that about 3.25 million of the 4.5 is fair to count.
Here is an article about how Clinton as Secretary of State advocating fracking around the world:
And as for Sanders' statement, it seems to me that he didn't read any fact checks about Green Peace's numbers, and he is conflating that the super pack is kinda part of the campaign, which isn't unreasonable in my opinion. Although on its face, he is mistaken.