I particularly like the final paragraph of the following story.
Read on.
Emphases mine:
DNC delays decision on banning corporate PAC money – February 17, 2019 08:52 PM
A governing committee of the Democratic Party decided Friday to not ban donations from corporate political action committees, instead choosing to delay a decision until 2020.
Advocates sought the ban on corporate PAC money — rather than on corporate donations as a whole — to communicate independence from business interests, even though the Democratic National Committee took just $144,000 in corporate PAC donations last year, or about .08 percent of the party’s $175 million 2018 windfall, according to Vox.
The ban previously was adopted in 2008 when former President Barack Obama ran for office, but was abandoned in 2016 when Hillary Clinton sought the presidency.
The latest proposal was sponsored by Christine Pelosi, chairwoman of the California Democratic Party women’s caucus,but was punted Friday by the DNC Resolutions Committee, delaying a decision until 2020 when the DNC Platform Committee will decide.
—snip—
More than 50 House Democrats and several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have said recently they will refuse corporate PAC donations as more left-wing policies find traction within the party, notably including increased support for government-financed healthcare.
—snip—
The DNC is not considering a ban on donations from corporations, which could prove more detrimental to the party’s bottom line.
Although the DNC took little money from corporate PACs last year, it did rake in a good deal of contributions from corporations. The party’s top corporate donor last year was hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, which gave more than $1 million, and was until recently run by CEO Robert Mercer, whose other investments include Breitbart News and President Trump’s 2016 campaign.
I repeat:
“The party’s top corporate donor last year was hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, which gave more than $1 million, and was until recently run by CEO Robert Mercer, whose other investments include Breitbart News and President Trump’s 2016 campaign.”
Think on that for a minute…especially you neocentrist DNC supporters.
UniParty system?
Corporate control of both parties?
NAAAAAAhhhhhh…!!!
Who’d even consider such a thing!!!???
Couldn’t happen here, right???
WRONG!!!
WTFU.
It’s already happened.
The New Dems who are being increasingly vilified in the equally bought-and-sold major media (of both supposed “sides”) are simply trying to stop that single problem!!!
Succeed in doing so and the whole game will change.
Watch.
AG
Arthur, is it your goal to get this policy position of yours in the Democratic Party platform?
“I personally believe that this union in which so many of us seem to passionately believe should be broken up into smaller countries. Someone wants to live in a country where homosexuals are stoned to death? Great. Move to the U.S D.S…the United States of the Deep South…wallow in your ignorance surrounded by others like you and watch your system implode from sheer stupidity.”
Thanks for responding to the question you are asked. We don’t want to argue, just understand.
Also, too, an extreme cynic of journalism is using the Washington Examiner as his primary source here.
This is the person who wants us to support Donald Trump and Republican Party candidates in 2020 by getting progressives to decide not to vote for the Democratic Party Presidential nominee and other Party candidates.
He’s already written here that he’s preparing to campaign here against Trump’s only viable opponent in 2020.
I am going to answer selected comments in the main article. I am too busy this week to be bothered saving replies in order to stop them from being zeroed out.
Thank you and good night…
AG
Gosh, you’re planning a response so trollsome and offensive that you anticipate it would get the very rare multiple “Mega-Troll” gradings from community members if you didn’t cheat BooMan’s system. That’s quite an admission that just leaked from you.
This is the way it’s going to be from now on if you insist on campaigning for Trump and Republicans here. You’re going to have to answer for your radically regressive positions eventually. Perhaps you should stop running away as you have for a while now and answer some hard questions. Repeatedly taking a powder is not a good look from The Last Honest Community Member.
. . . welcome the desired spin wherever he can dredge it up from.
This is Arthur Gilroy’s 14th diary so far this month. What a vicious censorship regime we have around here!!
The censorship is brutal on this blog. Only 14 posts, the vast majority of which make the rec list. If in the same position, I would launch a vigorous protest against such cruel treatment.
They make the rec list because it only takes one sockpuppet account recommending to push the post on to the list.
. . . I don’t think it’s the whole explanation here.
When I’ve bothered to look, most recs of ag “standalone articles” (LOL!) have been by voice, oui, or “Karl Pearson”. The first two are obviously doing factional-solidarity recommendations (in the same manner that oui has openly admitted deliberately abusing the ratings system for this same purpose):
I doubt either’s an ag sockpuppet, though.
It’s Karl that’s the mystery to me (as I’ve noted before). On the extremely rare occasions when I’ve noticed he’s actually written something here, he has not come across as either dishonest or an idiot (which contrast with ag argues against KP being an ag sockpuppet, either). Why he nevertheless chooses to be a serial enabler of ag’s garbage (by frequently recommending it, even though the content is ridiculous) looks inexplicable to me. Still, I think also not a sockpuppet.
I’m not too blog savvy, so I had to look up the term “sockpuppet” again. You are right–I’m not an ag sockpuppet.
. . . of my perceptions (I’ve come to have a fair amount of faith in them over time from such confirmations, coupled with rarity of refutations).
Your choice not to address the question of your promotion of ag’s toxic behavior here — even as you’re replying to a comment in which I referenced it specifically — speaks volumes.
Though volumes of what I don’t know.