Brava Eva, I support Greenpeace.

eom

That seems to be TRNN's policy.

More attempts at guilt by innuendo. If these lobbyists or employees were actually donating on behalf of the oil and gas industry, that would be a crime.

for fossil fuel are working very hard to finance her campaign and have been since the beginning of her campaign.

A link from the "right wing rag" as your people would likely describe - Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

Do you ever grow tired of misleading people in threads that contradict your "mis-speaks"

any of the Lobbyist Money Bern has received all of which is list at opensecrets.org.
Does mean that Bern is on the "take" too,,,, just not as much as Hillary?

Prove to me he has Lobbyists from the fossil fuel and frakking industry bundling money for him, if they tried he would return it, he has returned money already so far this campaign in order to keep it real with real voters. He would certainly not dishonor the agreement he signed with Greenpeace that Hillary refuses to sign (one would assume because, especially after verbally abusing a Greenpeace representative, she opposes the Greenpeace organization). He does not.

you seem to have no problem with their data upstream...... and u didn't bother answer my Q . If Bern is also taking Lobbyist money, does that make him just less corrupt than Hillary or is he still without sin?

What exactly are you talking about? Or was your David Brock memo too incomplete to give you the answers to your claim?

The lobbyist cash the Sanders campaign has collected has come from traditionally left-leaning causes: labor unions, environmentalists, the American Civil Liberties Union.

For instance, John M. Walsh, a lobbyist for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, contributed $500 to Sanders last year.

Other labor lobbyists giving Sanders money include Ian Hoffmann, a lobbyist for the American Federation of Government Employees, who contributed $235, and Michael Dolan, a lobbyist for the Teamsters, who gave $100.

$3,200 overall 85% of whch were not bundled, but personal contributions.

It is a bullshit meme to try to disregard the millions or corporate lobbyists dollars just to her campaign that bundle thousands a piece for Hilary just from the fossil fuel industry alone.

Pretty lame to make pretend he is doing what Hillary has been doing (and lord lots not get into the money bundled for her half a dozen PACs or the many more millions laundered through the Clinton foundation.)

Interesting to note, that of a grand total of money contributed to him by lobbyists of $3,200 none of it came from the fossil fuel lobbyists.

What an asshat move to try this dishonest meme.

As it quotes Hillary:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/hillary-clinton-bundlers-fossil-fuel-lobbyists

Sanders supporters choose to ignore that and smear her with innuendo about her donors who happen to be lobbyists, who are just people who work at lobbying firms (a rather common occupation in DC). These firms' clients represent all manner of industry. The lobbyists who work there are allowed to make campaign donations as individuals and that is what they did. If they were donating on behalf of the oil and gas industry, it would be a crime.

Bernie himself received over $50,000 from people who work in the oil and gas industry.

It did in fact appear to be included in the article in order to show her hypocrisy the way it read to me (and most people capable of critical thought)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

whopper?

on Clinton's decisions otherwise.... the fact that she pushed fracking in Europe, or that she never mentions "carbon tax", or that she had to flip on KeystoneXL to even start her campaign.

But it doesn't stop there:

VICE News: Fossil Fuel Investors Are Pumping Millions of Dollars Into Hillary Clinton's Campaign

So her superPAC bundlers just all happen to have worked as fossil fuel lobbyists. Geez.

Any crime by the lobbyist or his corporate client would be difficult to prove, but that doesn't mean she didn't take money from the lobbyist or that when she did, she didn't know exactly where it came from.

She did. My conclusion is that taking money from a corporate lobbyist is the same thing as taking money from the corporation itself. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would draw the same conclusion. Anyone with n ounce of common sense would also conclude that to prosecute all such cases would bust the Justice Department's budget.

You can make that "it would be a crime and she's innocent until proven guilty" canard all day long if you like. It only applies in a court of law, and and there's no judge here, just my cat grooming himself. Moreover, no serious person is going to suppose Mrs. Clinton will ever see the inside of a courtroom over this. So each of us may draw his own conclusions as to whether Mrs. Clinton, or someone from her campaign on her behalf acted illegally or at a minimum unethically by taking that money.

That's business as usual in American politics. It's how most politicians survive. It's contemptible, bur it's hard to hold it against her in an environment as corrupt as this one.

It's up to us to change it. Vote Bernie.

according to opensecrets.org. Does this mean that Bern is just not corrupt as Hillary?

There's a big difference between the Communication Workers of America and the CitiBank, JPMorganChase or Goldman Sachs (source: OpenSecrets.org).

or u would never make such a statement, u would know about Oil and GAs, mining, waste management, wall street bankers, finance corps, health services and HMO lobbyist : et al bern has taken money from.... geeez

As ole Paul wrote, " man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

I was looking for similar time period, preferably in this campaign cycle.

And why wouldn't I have made a statement there's a big difference between a labor union and a crooked bank?

As far as your question is concerned, the answer is no. If Mrs. C is taking money from dirty energy companies, then she is taking money in large sums from a major source of pollution and adverse climate change. Fossil fuels need to be first supplemented then supplanted by renewable sources. Will Mrs. C stand up to the oil and coal any better than she's stood up to Wall Street banks, who are in need of re-regulating and being broken up as badly as a spoiled brat is in need of a long time out? I'm not sure the world can wait another four to eight years to find out if she's ever going to stand up ExxonMobil or not.

Something you will be wasting your bandwidth arguing is that just because Hillary takes money by the trainload from crooked banks or dirty energy doesn't mean she won't stand up to them. Steer manure! Any other politician who takes as much as she has from such sources does as they tell her, and I don't see anything in Mrs. C to think she's any different. On the contrary, I see every reason to think that she is not. If there's no instance of her changing her position after being bribed given a generous campaign contribution, a generous donation to the family charity or a exorbitant speaker's fee less than an hour's work, then it is because she started out on the wrong side of the issue, took money from a pleased Wall Street fraud merchant or an industrial polluter, and remained comfortably in his pocket where it's nice and warm. If she's not interested in reinstating Glass-Steagall, she's not serious. If she's not serious, I'm not interested.

It is stipulated by Greenpeace that their research shows that Senator Sanders took money from the oil and coal industries before signing a pledge not to do so. From their research, Senator Sander has kept that pledge. Obviously, I don't know enough about Open Secrets to negotiate their website for information. However, Greenpeace is, to me, a reliable source on these matters. As for the Washington Post, also cited on this thread, forget about it. It's degenerated from its high water mark in 1974 to just another gear in the establishment disinformation machine, little more reliable than FoxNews.

I will further stipulate that Ted Cruz is into the fossil fuel industries for $167M. Needless to say, I expect him to repay the favors should he become president.