2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe literally can't afford Hillary...
A lot of baggage, and a lot of money....Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The point is that we the people can not afford the same level of access as these other donors have been able to obtain. And access is influence, at best.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Work for the presidential because of her devotion to Americans.
-none
(1,884 posts)That's where the real money is.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The point is about access to political power and we the American people cannot compete with these interests. Think about it.
And you also deflected from my point and didn't address it at all.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In congress for twenty five years.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)As in, he has ethics and doesn't want to feel beholden to moneyed interests. He represents the State of Vermont, not trade groups and businesses.
I would very much not like my President to have such cozy relationships with Deutsche Bank, Biotech trade organizations, Chambers of Congress, etc.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)At least I hope that's the case. If not, this person is almost too naive to vote.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)I don't know enough about this person to make any sort of judgment call.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)In my mind I'm thinking "they can't really be serious, right?" It's almost like the kind of arguments kids would have on a playground when they didn't have facts to generate a genuine debate. Does that analogy make sense? I feel terrible writing this stuff, but I'm a relatively rationally minded guy, and I leave this site many times just shaking my head in amazement.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I cannot believe some are so ignorant, if not willingly. Arguing with kids on a playground is apt--you can't convince or rationally argue, it is all a farce. The child if nothing else will run away with their fingers in their ears.
You should see the conversation i had the other day, I was in disbelief that i had to have that conversation: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251934296
I also am dismayed by the focus on polls over issues, heaven knows we have enough issues to talk about. But Hillary comes up short nearly every time. In a way there is no point in arguing either issues or current events with them. That is why i am considering going to JPR instead.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Beyond the pale....
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)And yet doesn't understand 5th grade mathematics. I am not sure what to think anymore about the Hillary supporters. Sum things just don't add up!
pangaia
(24,324 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)It is filled with some of the greatest writers I have seen on DU, and yes, MannyGoldstein is there too (along with Third Way Manny!).
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)And I've vowed to quit. And not because I feel inferior. It's not about right or wrong.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)...that this person is totally oblivious?
pangaia
(24,324 posts)But my brief discussions with her/him are not encouraging.
Then again, sometimes I can be pretty naive.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Maybe we're both on her/his ignore list
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)Bernie Sanders "I do not want their money."
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)As Denoted Above... Just a Sampling... #9 of the 14 Characteristics that define a FASCIST State 9. Corporate Power is Protected
- The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
840high
(17,196 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Hillary owes the people who have bought and paid for her services in the past. The speaking fees are enormous.
It takes a person working for federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour a total of 41,379 hours to earn the $300,000 that she was paid for some of her speeches. That is 1,034 weeks or 19 years of 40-hour weeks.
Hillary is the very prize example of the oligarchy who earns so many times the wages of others that it CAUSES the income inequality in our country.
$300,000 or even $1 million in income a year is not so terribly shocking. But $300,000 for a single speech? Preparation and all time, even transportation added up still makes that fee for a speech quite amazing.
If she wanted to earn that kind of money for a speech, she should have decided not to run for the presidency.
Even at the $12 minimum wage that Hillary supports, it would take a worker 25,000 hours divided by a 40 hour week means 625 weeks, divided by 52 means it would take a minimum wage American worker earning $12 an hour about 12 years to earn that amount of money.
$12 times 40 hours is 480 per week times 52 is only 24,920 dollars per year and it would earn a person earning $12 per hour about 12 years to earn what Hillary got for one speech to one organization.
It's great that she earns that kind of money for a speech.
But to run as a Democrat for the presidency when you have sold yourself to people and organizations who potentially want things from our government that contravene or would harm the interests of ordinary voters in some cases is just not smart.
We all have to make choices. Hillary has sold herself to special interests. Some of them are great organizations. But Hillary can't serve them and us at the same time. And she owes them a lot of money.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)Chortle, snort, giggle, guffaw!
Thanks for that levity!
(Even with the evidence staring you in your face, you cannot see that HRC is VERY interested in money?)
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)She's going to cash in whatever happens.
And the rest of us are going to pay for her hubris.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)You are not thinking about it again.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Oh, BTW, a personal attack on me is really not needed.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)One of those speeches costs more than half of that.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Hybrid
(1 post)This is so hard for me to say, because I've been a Bernie Sander's fan for a long time. I've followed his political career in Vermont since his was in the house. I admired his honesty, his spunk, his concern about real people over corporate interests, his concern about income inequality. Like me, he seemed to have true feelings of empathy for others. I admire that in a politician, especially in a world where it seems that everyone is in it only for themselves.
That's why the last few days have been so hard on me.
I turned on the TV and heard that Bernie Sander's campaign had stolen Hillary Clinton's data from a DNC database. I just can't believe it.
I'm old enough to remember another time when a presidential figure gained inappropriate access to DNC files. However, instead of a primary candidate, it was a president himself. His name was Nixon, and the scandal was called Watergate.
Back in those days, I was filled with rage, but, today, all I can do is cry with sadness. Watergate was a violation, but Berniegate is a betrayal.
And, just like those days in the dark past, the scandal is in the cover-up. What did he know? When did he know it? He's blaming his campaign, but he's also suing the victims.
My heart is just not in the Sander's campaign anymore. I feel so betrayed, and I just can't stop crying. I can't support Bernie anymore.
Hillary Clinton, 2016!
If you believe that Hillary is above the fray, then let me se you a well-used bridge that I just passed by.
840high
(17,196 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Makes me suspicious.
Paulie
(8,462 posts)What a first post.
murielm99
(30,761 posts)It is a tough place for those of us who do not worship Bernie, but so what?
Enjoy the holidays, too!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)DhhD
(4,695 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Hillary supporters are stooping lower than ever, apparently.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)We've heard it all before.
Someone suddenly decides to switch sides, and posts about it on DU,
and nobody believes it.
I think I'll make one up about not being able to support Hillary because of the Conflicts of Interest between her and Wall Street Banks,
or her campaign so "friendly" with the execs at NGP VAN that we can't believe anything they say.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 24, 2015, 08:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)In the 1970s, Nixon's staff broke into a hotel room and stole files.
In the 2015 case, the vendor chosen by the DNC had buggy software. Sanders' staff could view information about the Hillary Clinton campaign by clicking. Three of them couldn't resist the temptation, and one was fired by Sanders and two were suspended by Sanders.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)NGP Van took responsibility.
NGP Van has a database that includes the basic voter data.
It then has for each candidate a private database that takes the basic voter data and adds the candidate's proprietary, private information and notes to that common basic database.
If you go to NGP Van's website, you learn that NGP Van had a "bug" in one of the "releases" of their database. It lasted about one hour and 40 minutes. It gave permission to Bernie's campaign to view Hillary's data, to search it and save it to folders -- which I assume necessarily stayed on the NGP Van website.
Someone from Bernie's campaign went into that combined database which included its information as well as Hillary's and did searches. The searches were phrased so that they could have either had the purpose of ascertaining that Hillary's information was in the database provided by the vendor NGP Van to Bernie's campaign and the extent and types of Hillary's information that was provided to Bernie's campaign, OR it could have had the purpose of actually obtaining and looking at the details of Hillary's campaign. Not much viewing could have been done in an hour and 40 minutes. Little would be retained unless the viewer had a photographic memory.
Hard to tell which purpose the Bernie campaign employee had unless he has said something about his purpose. NGP Van stated on its website that one item was exported by one campaign.
A prior similar breach occurred in October at which time, I gather, the Bernie campaign believed that its website was accessed by another campaign. Bernie's campaign reported it.
NGP Van has stated that it was not the vendor involved in the October breach.
So that is the story.
The DNC has been pro-Hillary and has employed many pro-Hillary employees from the get-go.
This does not reflect on Bernie personally at all. Someone in his campaign may or may not have overreached in reviewing the data on the website.
But when you think in terms of what the employee saw going into the database, here is how it worked.
The employee went in to find Bernie's data. There is no accusation that a Bernie employee intentionally sought access to Hillary data when he/she entered the website. Clearly at that point the intention of the Bernie employee was to query Bernie information.
But what did the employee, the Bernie employee find? Hillary information was there, probably mixed up with Bernie's data.
If you have ever worked with a database, like say Google, you can find a lot of stuff on there that is not of interest to you. You query it to ask a question. That's what we know that Bernie's employee did. He/she asked for information just like you do when you Google. The questions he asked, the information he requested identified Hillary data. Like Hillary's list of voters who are strongly favoring Hillary. It was something like that. I am not quoting.
Bernie's staff did not seek access to Hillary's information. They received it due to a mistake by the vendor who was most likely contractually responsible for protecting the privacy of the data of each of the campaigns.
If I had been looking at the website, I might well have wanted to ascertain what the extent and quality of the mixing of the data was and would have queried for Hillary's data in precisely the obvious way the Bernie's staff did. This is especially likely since Bernie had experienced a similar breach with a website managed by a different company in October.
The searches that were made were obviously for Hillary's information and were made in a manner that insured that the website managing company, NGP Van could trace the history of the searches. That is what makes me think that the searches were not intended to obtain the information so much as to be able to prove the nature and extent of the breach. Bernie's first thought would be to protect its own information. Bernie's campaign could benefit from Hillary's information to a certain extent, but more important to Bernie's campaign would be protecting its own information from Hillary's (probably much larger) staff.
I think this matter should be investigated by a truly independent and qualified outsider.
I hope that Bernie continues to press his lawsuit on this matter.
And in the meantime, Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. Bernie is drawing crowds of over a thousand people at a time in Iowa. In the same or similar geographic venues, Hillary is drawing crowds in the low hundreds. Hillary must be getting desperate. No doubt this accusation against Bernie's campaign was made so rashly and without a thorough discussion with Bernie because Hillary is getting scared. She is a weak candidate, a vulnerable candidate, and her platform is not selling.
So I hope you rethink your decision.
Thanks.
NGP Van's statement is here. Here is an excerpt:
First, a one page-style report containing summary data on a list was saved out of VoteBuilder by one Sanders user. This is what some people have referred to as the export from VoteBuilder. As noted below, users were unable to export lists of people.
http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It's as if you go into Facebook to check on your friends' posts and find that you have access to all the information of everybody else. You are permitted to see say President Obama's Facebook page and all the Facebook pages of everybody whether you know them or not. You are not stealing information if you look at the Facebook pages and try to figure out what in the world you are getting and the extent of it.
It's the job of Facebook to separate the information and protect the privacy of their subscribers.
I'd like to see the language in the contract between DNC and NGP Van and the various campaigns. It would be interesting to know how the vendor's duties were defined. That is where the problem was. Bernie's campaign did not steal information although one campaign, I assume Bernie's exported one page, and I don't know what was on that page.
As I understand it, the files that were said to have been saved would have been saved to the website of NGP Van, not to some other place.
That is what it says on NGP Van's site. I provided the link but that site and its blog can also be Googled.
An independent investigation by an organization or individuals agreed to by the parties or appointed by the court is needed.
Thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)It is the difference between honest and dishonest. Regardless how you wrap it up.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We don't know whether it was honest or dishonest. It was most likely honest in my view.
Have you ever worked with a database other than Google?
I have. Years ago.
Have you tried to imagine the quantity of data they were looking at? Lists of voters from many states. Huge lists. Enormous lists with data attached.
It's not the difference between honest and dishonest. Not at all. The data with the exception of one page remained on the website and under the control of the vendor NGP Van.
Anyone who works with these kinds of databases or has worked with them knows that there is a history of searches. In fact, when I worked with a database (and think of it Quickbooks is a type of database that a lot of people have worked with), I went back and retrieved searches from my history so that I could retrieve the information.
The Hillary hysteria over this is just ridiculous, and I think the author of the article quoted and referred to in the OP is trying to tell people that.
The only value in these searches was verifying the extent of the breach and maybe the Bernie campaign could get a very general idea about Hillary's overall strategy. But not even that much.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)How do you know?
Can you explain to me what was stolen?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I am surprised as hell ghat has to be stated out loud.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)NPG Van's explanation of what happened.
Bernie's team was allowed to search Hillary's data. They didn't "take" anything. It remained on the website with the exception of one page which I am assuming is the list of searches that we see published everywhere.
It's best to read the NGP Van website statement regarding the incident.
It's also good to try to understand how databases work.
Google is a good place to start. When you search on Google, you enter a huge database. You don't steal from it when you do a search. Google allows you to see the information you ask to see. There is lots of information on the internet that Google does not present to you when you do a search.
Another example, a better example, is Facebook. You can control what your friends can and cannot see on Facebook. Facebook can also control whether you can see certain information on the website too. That's how databases work.
What happened was that NGP Van allowed Bernie's campaign to see the data on Hillary's site. It's as if Facebook allowed you to see information on President Obama's personal Facebook page or my personal Facebook page. You aren't supposed to be on my friends list (nothing against you, but I don't know you), but if Facebook's software had a "bug" it could under certain circumstances allow anyone on the internet to access my personal or your personal Facebook page. I could look at what you have posted. I would not be stealing it. I would just have access to it. That's like what happened on the NGP Van website page. NGP Van had a bug in its program that allowed Bernie's campaign to see Hillary's data and search it.
Same was probably true for Hillary's campaign. We don't know yet just what Hillary's campaign did, but they may have looked at Bernie's data too. They may not have searched to determine the amount of Bernie information available to them, but then they may have looked at Bernie's information. All they would have had to do was to make general searches and saved them to their portion of the website. Later they could have just served their own portion of the website once the bug had been removed. The difference would be the Bernie data. The data missing from the later data would be Bernie's data. It wouldn't be easy to look at the data, but if you had a lot of staff you could see what you wanted to see. Even with not such a large staff, you might be able to measure how much information Bernie entered which would give you an idea of the strength and capacity of Bernie's database entry team.
So we can't assume that we know just what happened.
But "theft" it was not.
If Facebook lets you see and search my Facebook page, that is not theft by you.
Throwing terms like "theft" around when they do not apply is not a good idea.
Thanks.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JunkyardAngel83
(72 posts)The NGP VAN logs have been published. They show the Sanders campaign did save HFA campaign data from the database queries they made.
You can view the logs here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSBeQvNakGxuty36ACPFNaNLNeoqgz2Pn7e2x0VMYds/edit
More info:
» http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/
» http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)To NGP Van which is where it came from and where it remains to this day.
The Sanders campaign did not save the data to some site outside the NGP Van website other than the one page of searches that you are reading in the first document you post.
They did not export more than the one page from the website.
The entire record is in the NGP Van log.
They stole nothing.
The Hillary supporters' allegations are false.
Go to the NGP Van website and read the facts.
http://blog.ngpvan.com/
First, a one page-style report containing summary data on a list was saved out of VoteBuilder by one Sanders user. This is what some people have referred to as the export from VoteBuilder. As noted below, users were unable to export lists of people.
As the OP's website said, the most they could get was a quick glance that MIGHT have enabled them to figure out some of Hillary's strategy on getting out her vote. But they probably already know that strategy.
The other websites you cite to are just opinion pieces of utterly no value.
Let a court case decide this.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was way out of line on this. She needs to resign.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)You are tooooo funny!!!
(I'd say welcome to DU, but I have a sneaking suspicion you might be getting a pizza delivery soon...)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Manny is a good one.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Ino
(3,366 posts)beltanefauve
(1,784 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)This attempt to paint Hillary as someone who does not care about America and only wants to get her friends richer is absurd. It's fictional. It's trying to convince others not to vote for Bernie, but just to hate Hillary.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)earthside
(6,960 posts)First of all only speaking fees from universities go to charity.
And what charity would that happen to be?
CBS NEWS July 4, 2014, 3:22 PM
Hillary Clinton: All my college speaking fees go to charity
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you have some fictional issues made up about it, too?
We would only have to pay the President's salary not the speaking fees.
The charges of future corruption are stupid. There's no proof whatsoever that these people get anything they want because they paid HRC to speak. That was a contract, they felt having her speak was worth it. Speech done, payment made. That's all there is too it.
There is no reason to assume they would get some nefarious undue influence.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Self-serving.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..for the Execs, it is about on parity with the other rip off "Charities" in the USA.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Thanks, Hillary.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Again I refer this writer to #9 of the 14 Characteristics that define a FASCIST State....
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
treestar
(82,383 posts)there's nothing left.
You imply that means she would support things they want. That would probably be impossible as the different donors would have different goals.
You've created this fictional "corrupt" Clinton who does things not because she thinks they are best for America, but just to aggrandize herself. There's no reason to think that is true of her any more than of anyone else who runs for office. In fact, running for office shows you are less greedy than not, as the financial rewards for it aren't as great as they are for someone that smart and educated out in the capitalist system.
It's trying to tar her with it by repetition.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)charity??
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)you will make money from that. Write a book that people want to read.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)buy a train car full. Murdock of course was thankful that The Newt pulled strings making it possible for him to get citizenship which allowed him to buy American media outlets. Book selling is a very clever way for wealthy individuals and corporations to give money to politicians. In any case, she is a member of the 1% and even though she sometimes mentions that she wants to help the 99%, she will do nothing that will cost her 1% friends a dime.
earthside
(6,960 posts)TIME May 19, 2015
Hillary Clinton is dirty on this speaking fees issue ... it will come back like a vengeance to haunt her if she somehow gets the Party's presidential nomination.
For me it is very much about stopping Hillary Clinton from taking the Democratic Party even deeper into the banker/Wall Street/corporate/MIC cesspool.
By comparison, Sen. Sander is much, much better -- he has been a fighter for poor, working and middle class Americans for decades. He hasn't become a millionaire by being in office. You bet that matters for the soul of the Democratic Party.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)The empirical comparison of Clinton vs Sanders is stark.
Duval
(4,280 posts)banks continued doing their little tricks and I've seen the Stock Market showing unhealthy signs. If we have another 2008, I'm thinking the Dems will be blamed for it, especially by the right leaning MSM.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Obviously, she is a very good speaker!
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Return on investment is expected.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Bernie's soon to be announced middle class tax plan- He's going to give us some numbers isn't he?
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)He's like Santa Claus, offering free stuff without paying for it and explaining what would happen. Yes, raise taxes on the rich, but are you going to slash the military? What will America's role in the world look like?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)That was a talking point used by Republicans to attack the Democratic Party debates.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)byronius
(7,401 posts)I don't agree with the OP's take, but Bernie's been pretty clear about everything, in detail. His per-transaction Wall Street tax is inarguably a good idea. I don't think he's going to slash the military; I think he'll go after the incredibly counter-productive gravy-train crap that goes on in the military. Really, he's awesome.
So is Hillary. I'll vote for either in the general.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Arguably one of the most recognizable world figures. Clinton also speaks for free all of the time.
Right wing sexist bullshit. Very selective list of speaking engagements. That is the deception in your attempt to cover up the whole picture. Clinton is successful. No denying that. Clinton is accomplished. No denying that. Your chart is so selective considering the hundreds of speeches she has given. That is how unrepresentative of her speaking engagements you are being here.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Gotta get that in there, uh?
Even when it has nothing to do with what anybody is talking about here.
We are talking here about privilege, about a 'public servant' who cashes-in ... we criticizes Republicans who do this, too.
It's not the Sanders partisans who are being hypocritical here, it is the liberal, "let's be for the common folks" Hillary supporters who condemn this kind of behavior in Republican elites, but who now find Bill's and Hillary's accomplishments and 'success' as marvelous money-making opportunities.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)And BTW, what does 'accomplished' mean?
"Clinton is successful." So what? What does successful mean?
"Clinton is accomplished." You said that already
Ok.. list other speeches she has given and to whom and for how much..
SEXIST?? What does her sex have to do with anything mentioned? Nothing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)Only saints vowed to poverty need apply.
byronius
(7,401 posts)What a comeback, under incredible pressure, with grace, in the face of white-hot flames.
I have no problem with her success.
senz
(11,945 posts)and they know it.
libodem
(19,288 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)HoneychildMooseMoss
(251 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 25, 2015, 11:37 AM - Edit history (1)
they moved to a ritzy residential area in New York State.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Of course where I live is not quite as ritzy.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)person I work with. How dare she be successful!
azmom
(5,208 posts)H2O Man
(73,605 posts)Thank you for this.
olddots
(10,237 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)Will we also have to pay for press conferences or will the news media pick up the tab?