|
he was conserving political capital
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1069596094924025857?s=21
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
The first two responses I see in that thread are just pants-on-head stupid "I don't want my candidates captured by big oil" "he has exactly no governmental experience"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:"I don't want my candidates captured by big oil" Bad news for candidates who are also woolly mammoths struggling mightily to free themselves from tar pits
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:"he has exactly no governmental experience" I get the feeling a number of people in El Paso would disagree, but idk
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:The first two responses I see in that thread are just pants-on-head stupid I get the second one, but why exactly is it stupid to not want politicians captured by one of the industries that is doing its best to destroy civilization on this planet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
If I recall, any donation by an employee of a company counts toward money from that company, so it looks like Beto has taken tons of oil money, but that's cause practically everyone in west texas is in the oil business.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I get the second one, but why exactly is it stupid to not want politicians captured by one of the industries that is doing its best to destroy civilization on this planet. It's not stupid to want that it's stupid to imply that Beto is "captured" by them. He famously shunted corporate/PAC donations during his Senate campaign and still managed to raise a metric fuckton of money from individual contributions. I'm uncertain of how good he'd be as a candidate for 2020 but I wish these people would at least have good-faith arguments against it if you are against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:It's not stupid to want that it's stupid to imply that Beto is "captured" by them. He famously shunted corporate/PAC donations during his Senate campaign and still managed to raise a metric fuckton of money from individual contributions. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01++ 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
mastajake posted:If I recall, any donation by an employee of a company counts toward money from that company, so it looks like Beto has taken tons of oil money, but that's cause practically everyone in west texas is in the oil business. gently caress, technically any donation I make could count toward that, since while I don't work directly in Oil & Gas, it's adjacent enough to qualify as part of that industry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:gently caress, technically any donation I make could count toward that, since while I don't work directly in Oil & Gas, it's adjacent enough to qualify as part of that industry. quote:METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
by that metric Beto is owned far more by Big Democrat/Liberal and Big Retired https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?cid=N00033540&cycle=2018 quote:Industry Total
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:by that metric Beto is owned far more by Big Democrat/Liberal and Big Retired Ah by that metric Republicans aren't owned by industry either great to know!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
And? The whole point is that unless you think it's a cabal of dozens/hundreds of Big Oil execs that are going to come shaking him down over their individual contributions maxing out at ~$2k when he raised literally tens of millions of dollars, it's a stupid point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah by that metric Republicans aren't owned by industry either great to know! Indeed we agree that its a poor metric of little value to the point you're trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Indeed we agree that its a poor metric of little value to the point you're trying to make. Or maybe it's a fine metric, and dismissing industry contributions because generic party members gave more is stupid? No Safe Word posted:And? The whole point is that unless you think it's a cabal of dozens/hundreds of Big Oil execs that are going to come shaking him down over their individual contributions maxing out at ~$2k when he raised literally tens of millions of dollars, it's a stupid point. The whole point is that "any contribution you make" wouldn't count under their methodology, you were wrong about that. And thanks John Roberts for defining bribery as "CEOs personally shaking down politicians who accepted giant bags of money with cartoon dollar signs on them" but the reality is there's a reason why the oil industry gave more to Beto than to anyone else besides Ted Cruz and it's not because oil companies love wasting money on charity for politicians who just need a hand up without any expectation of consideration in return.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Lets criticize Beto for something more meaningful. His Climate Change policy proposal while a breath of fresh air in Texas isn't sufficient for the nation.quote:It is crucial now more than ever that the U.S. and world leaders act urgently to address the issue of climate change. We must ensure the funding and independence of organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) so that they can provide necessary climate science research. That's basically as conservative on Climate Change as one can be while still admitting its real, manmade, and a problem. Again, great for a member of the Texas delegation, but its still Beto sticking his head in the sand. Hopefully if he runs for President he'll get more aggressive once he's outside the state. But if he doesn't then its hard to claim he's even trying to address the greatest crisis facing this nation and the globe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The whole point is that "any contribution you make" wouldn't count under their methodology, you were wrong about that. "The oil industry" didn't give poo poo to Beto. Lots of individuals who work in that industry did. Scroll down the page and look at all the big fat $0 next to PAC in each industry. The individual max contribution is $2700. How exactly do you think he is in the pocket of the oil industry when the leverage of any individual contributor is at most approximately 1/25,000th of his total campaign contributions? Yes, if he exerts pressure on that industry it could depress the total they provide, but even in that context, the whole industry as a whole only accounts for less than one percent of his campaign contributions. Erase all of them and he still raises tens of millions of dollars. Trabisnikof posted:Lets criticize Beto for something more meaningful. His Climate Change policy proposal while a breath of fresh air in Texas isn't sufficient for the nation. This is fair, it doesn't go far enough but I'm not sure how much of this is "this is the extent to which I'm willing to enact policy" and how much of it is "I don't want to readily create talking points for my opponent". That said, none of this implies that Big Oil is pulling his strings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Or maybe it's a fine metric, and dismissing industry contributions because generic party members gave more is stupid? But why would Beto be more in the pocket of an industry that donated less than 1.5% of his total donations versus all the other interests that donated more? He got $3,414,748 from the retired why would he be in the pocket of Big Oil over $430,000? Its a lovely metric for the point you're trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Any contribution I made over $200 would have counted. Quit picking lovely nits. Ahahaha "Quit picking lovely nits. Anyway technically the physical equipment an an oil plant didn't donate to Beto, it was people who happen to work there" Trabisnikof posted:But why would Beto be more in the pocket of an industry that donated less than 1.5% of his total donations versus all the other interests that donated more? He got $3,414,748 from the retired why would he be in the pocket of Big Oil over $430,000? Ah yes, just like when Hillary took $300,000 to secretly promise Wall Street she'd govern in their interest regardless of her public pronouncements, this didn't really happen because the AARP gave her money too If it's only 1.5% of his total donations he should have no trouble rejecting the money right? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahahaha I know your whole schtick is not arguing in good faith as I've seen in other threads, but I wish you hadn't brought it here. If you think the industry an individual works for is what defines their entire platform, great. It's wrong, but cool, you can keep crowing about how a tiny fraction of a person's campaign contributions came from individuals in an industry that is incredibly large in the area he represents to make whatever point you think you're making I guess. It's much easier to point at a number and not consider context, so I get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ah yes, just like when Hillary took $300,000 to secretly promise Wall Street she'd govern in their interest regardless of her public pronouncements, this didn't really happen because the AARP gave her money too Your own metric is proving you wrong on this on. Hillary got more money from "Securities & Investment" than any other group, including the retired. So yeah, her funding is closer to an example of a candidate bought and paid for than Beto's. Either your metric proves you wrong or its a lovely metric. VitalSigns posted:If it's only 1.5% of his total donations he should have no trouble rejecting the money right? Does any candidate running for office meet this new requirement you've dreamed up? Even Bernard took money from Oil & Gas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:I know your whole schtick is not arguing in good faith as I've seen in other threads, but I wish you hadn't brought it here. If you think the industry an individual works for is what defines their entire platform, great. It's wrong, but cool, you can keep crowing about how a tiny fraction of a person's campaign contributions came from individuals in an industry that is incredibly large in the area he represents to make whatever point you think you're making I guess. OK even if I grant that absurd sophistry, he should have no trouble turning down the money right, since it doesn't matter. Trabisnikof posted:Your own metric is proving you wrong on this on. Hillary got more money from "Securities & Investment" than any other group, including the retired. So yeah, her funding is closer to an example of a candidate bought and paid for than Beto's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Even Bernard took money from Oil & Gas. Radical opinion, maybe politics should be based on principles, not cults of personality? Yes Bernard Sanders should reject money from the industry that is literally putting human civilization on a doomsday path, duh. Can't help but notice the fundamental contradiction in your argument: the money doesn't matter at all yet it's simultaneously unreasonable and impossible to expect a politician not to take it anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your own metric is proving you wrong on this on. Hillary got more money from "Securities & Investment" than any other group, including the retired. So yeah, her funding is closer to an example of a candidate bought and paid for than Beto's. the DNC voted to stop taking fossil fuel money and then voted to take it after all lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hahaha. "It's not industry money, it's money from people in the industry" totally a good faith argument. But, again, none of what you've provided is evidence of "he's in the pocket of the oil industry". corn in the bible posted:the DNC voted to stop taking fossil fuel money and then voted to take it after all lol Yeah, this was really stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Sure, he could, but the only reason he'd do so is to fight a perception of undue influence which is not a popular perception. So why alienate actual legitimate contributors? Doing so might drum up more contributions from others, I suppose, but that's up to his campaign strategy team to figure out. He's not in the pocket of the oil industry, he just literally can't afford to alienate them 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Can't help but notice the fundamental contradiction in your argument: the money doesn't matter at all yet it's simultaneously unreasonable and impossible to expect a politician not to take it anyway. I'm saying your metric of declaring any politician who takes any money from O&G as in their pocket as dumb. Instead you should look at their policies and history of actions and statements as a far better barometer. Argue Beto is in the pocket of O&G because of his votes, or his statements, or his associates. Don't argue he's in the pocket of O&G because the industry the 17th largest of industries contributing to him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm saying your metric of declaring any politician who takes any money from O&G as in their pocket as dumb. Instead you should look at their policies and history of actions and statements as a far better barometer. OK great, let's look at his actions and statements. You know what would be good, actions and statements rejecting O&G industry money which he apparently doesn't need anyway!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:He's not in the pocket of the oil industry, he just literally can't afford to alienate them Oh no my $71 million dollars in donations would become *checks notes* closer to $70 million dollars if I stopped taking donations from that industry whole-cloth, even though it wouldn't actually be all that meaningful to do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Oh no my $71 million dollars in donations would become *checks notes* closer to $70 million dollars if I stopped taking donations from that industry whole-cloth, even though it wouldn't actually be all that meaningful to do so. Right so the doublethink that the money doesn't matter at all, yet he can't do without it anyway. We're not talking about individual small-dollar donations from janitors at the refinery here. We're talking about contributions greater than $200 apiece, by definition from people who can afford to throw around a significant fraction of the monthly rent budget of the working class towards each individual politician they support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right so the doublethink that the money doesn't matter at all, yet he can't do without it anyway. Nobody is saying he can't do without money, it's just that even if you consider contributions from individuals within the oil and gas industry, he could very easily afford to do without it as it is less than one percent of his entire campaign contributions, and even then he didn't spend all of it. quote:We're not talking about individual small-dollar donations from janitors at the refinery here. We're talking about contributions greater than $200 apiece, by definition from people who can afford to throw around a significant fraction of the monthly rent budget of the working class towards each individual politician they support. But what evidence are you offering to support the idea that he is "captured by big oil"? Or are you just arguing for argument's sake at this point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Nobody is saying he can't do without money, it's just that even if you consider contributions from individuals within the oil and gas industry, he could very easily afford to do without it as it is less than one percent of his entire campaign contributions, and even then he didn't spend all of it. No Safe Word posted:It's up to $200 in a single year which isn't peanuts by any stretch, but it's not life-changing money either. No Safe Word posted:But what evidence are you offering to support the idea that he is "captured by big oil"? Or are you just arguing for argument's sake at this point? Well there is the fact that his climate change plan is totally inadequate to actually address the devastating catastrophe coming our way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well there is the fact that his climate change plan is totally inadequate to actually address the devastating catastrophe coming our way. So, no evidence then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:It's inadequate in detail and scope, but that doesn't imply some industry shenanigans are behind it. And you're not connecting the dots from the campaign contribution side since you're basically saying "he should just get rid of it if he doesn't need it!!" and then magically conjuring up some controlling influence it has over shaping his policy. What evidence would you accept. I think being willing to sacrifice the future of human civilization, which just so happens to align with profit motives of the industry destroying human civilization and whose money neither political party is apparently willing to do without is more than a coincidence, but I guess I don't have video evidence of the Monopoly Man handing over cartoon money bags in exchange for a notarized contract from Beto O'Rourke saying the money and only the money is making him do it, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Justice Roberts! And again the doublethink, he doesn't need the money but it's somehow critically important that he take it anyway. But its critical importance exercises zero influence somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
It's interesting to compare standards for politicians with say standards for financial ethics in literally any other sphere of human behavior. If I took 1.5% of my salary in gifts from say a supplier in my industry, I'd be out on my rear end for merely the appearance of impropriety and and if I said "well but how do you know for sure that the money their CEO gave me affected my judgment in purchasing maybe I would have acted the same how can we really know, makes u think huh, and anyway I don't even need the money but don't ask me not to take it bc I want it real bad (don't think about it too hard ok)" I would be laughed out of the room. But a politician makes the same argument and suddenly we all have to nod our heads and say "hm yeah makes sense being paid and then doing a thing for the payer might not mean being paid to do a thing, welp no reason not to take the money". Like let's say we genuinely believe O&G money has zero effect on politicians. Shouldn't we be concerned about the appearance of impropriety, even just from a purely political standpoint that appearance of corruption can hurt support? Why shouldn't we hold politicians to at least even the lowest standards of appearance of impropriety that even the shittiest industries impose on their employees (for good reason)? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
The dirtbag left is accusing Beto of taking money from the O&G industry in exchange for dooming our children to climate catastrophe, but that's totally a lie the oil companies are getting conned because Beto would doom earth for free! Suckers!
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
I guess at this point I'm just curious what industries politicians are allowed to take contributions from, if having money donated to you by an employee of a particular industry is enough to make someone tainted regardless of who made the actual donation or why they made it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
beto needs BIG OIL to pay for his HAMBURGER
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I guess at this point I'm just curious what industries politicians are allowed to take contributions from, if having money donated to you by an employee of a particular industry is enough to make someone tainted regardless of who made the actual donation or why they made it. What do you think about rules about the appearance of impropriety in the private sector. Should I be allowed to take kickbacks as long as there's some ambiguity about how high up the person giving me the money is and what their individual motive was? Maybe the rep only gave me that stack of money because he liked my shoes and wanted me to be able to by more snappy shoes right? Again we're not talking about small-dollar contributions from average joes who happen to mop the floors at a refinery. We're talking about people with the dough to contribute a signficant fraction of (and up to a multiple of) a working-class person's monthly rent to each individual politician, I think it's reasonable to expect politicians to demonstrate that this is above board and not the other way around. Especially because the argument is "oh well the money doesn't matter and he doesn't need it anyway" so there's absolutely zero downside to not taking it! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Dec 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 21:12
|
|