Millionaire Donor Threatens Democratic Party: “If They Go Far Left, I’m Out”

[Padawanbater2]

i do not see any bullying in the video presented

No. The truth is you see exactly what we see except you've aligned yourself with a side so whatever the opposition says is wrong, regardless of the objective evidence

Cloobeck said he's going to "cut them off", and so will his rich friends who fund Democratic campaigns, if they don't quit using the word "billionaires". That's how Cloobeck see's criticisms coming from progressives about paying his fair share in taxes as an elite. That's confirmed by Ruhle asking "Then are you worried that the Democratic party is going too far to the left?". The left's criticism is that people like Cloobeck need to pay their fair share in taxes. Have you heard of the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers? People like Cloobeck stash their money offshore to avoid the American tax rate. Trump and the Republicans are pushing for a tax plan that will skyrocket the deficit and give an enormous tax cut to the rich. Why do you support Cloobeck's opinion on this as an average citizen?

I provided evidence from a Princeton University study that unequivocally proved rich elites like, Cloobeck, take priority over average Americans when reflected in congressional voting records. Nothing to say about that?

Why do you seem to support the idea of elites like Cloobeck controlling the direction of the party by financing establishment Democrats political campaigns, especially considering his interests as an elite are diametrically opposed to average Americans?

 

[UncleBuck]

The idea that you think you're educated is the best laugh I've had all month!

what do you think educated means?

i had a great education in the public school system. i grew up in one of the best ones in grade school, was taught to think for myself. high school was in a different state, not as good save a few very excellent teachers in a few AP classes. had a more than affordable college education at one of the state's public universities which changed my entire worldview while there.

didn't stop there, either. was educated in the workforce as well. first through desk jobs, now through the trades. i've never stopped learning. just today i was given a tip on how to very easily set a double hung window squarely with perfectly even reveals that totally blew my old method out of the water. i don't even bother measuring angles on trapezoid windows either, i trim the whole thing out full scale on the ground instead of using the fancy math i majored in at university.

tell me what you think getting a good education means.

 

[UncleBuck]

No. The truth is

this is how cult members speak.

 

[ginjawarrior]

No. The truth is you see exactly what we see except you've aligned yourself with a side so whatever the opposition says is wrong, regardless of the objective evidence

Cloobeck said he's going to "cut them off", and so will his rich friends who fund Democratic campaigns, if they don't quit using the word "billionaires". That's how Cloobeck see's criticisms coming from progressives about paying his fair share in taxes as an elite. That's confirmed by Ruhle asking "Then are you worried that the Democratic party is going too far to the left?". The left's criticism is that people like Cloobeck need to pay their fair share in taxes. Have you heard of the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers? People like Cloobeck stash their money offshore to avoid the American tax rate. Trump and the Republicans are pushing for a tax plan that will skyrocket the deficit and give an enormous tax cut to the rich. Why do you support Cloobeck's opinion on this as an average citizen?

I provided evidence from a Princeton University study that unequivocally proved rich elites like, Cloobeck, take priority over average Americans when reflected in congressional voting records. Nothing to say about that?

Why do you seem to support the idea of elites like Cloobeck controlling the direction of the party by financing establishment Democrats political campaigns, especially considering his interests as an elite are diametrically opposed to average Americans?

your hatred for the rich has lead you into fabricating a load of bollox

i have got no problem with progressive taxation and i saw nothing from Cloobeck to suggest he was against it either

there was nothing said in theere about trump either.

i find it incredibly dishonet of you to muddy the water about a democratic donor with the shit that trump is doing as iff Cloobeck is supporting trump

 

[see4]

No. The truth is you see exactly what we see except you've aligned yourself with a side so whatever the opposition says is wrong, regardless of the objective evidence

Cloobeck said he's going to "cut them off", and so will his rich friends who fund Democratic campaigns, if they don't quit using the word "billionaires". That's how Cloobeck see's criticisms coming from progressives about paying his fair share in taxes as an elite. That's confirmed by Ruhle asking "Then are you worried that the Democratic party is going too far to the left?". The left's criticism is that people like Cloobeck need to pay their fair share in taxes. Have you heard of the Panama Papers, the Paradise Papers? People like Cloobeck stash their money offshore to avoid the American tax rate. Trump and the Republicans are pushing for a tax plan that will skyrocket the deficit and give an enormous tax cut to the rich. Why do you support Cloobeck's opinion on this as an average citizen?

I provided evidence from a Princeton University study that unequivocally proved rich elites like, Cloobeck, take priority over average Americans when reflected in congressional voting records. Nothing to say about that?

Why do you seem to support the idea of elites like Cloobeck controlling the direction of the party by financing establishment Democrats political campaigns, especially considering his interests as an elite are diametrically opposed to average Americans?

You said a bunch of words but never got to a point.

What exactly is your point in all this blah blah?

 

[UncleBuck]

You said a bunch of words but never got to a point.

What exactly is your point in all this blah blah?

this is him lashing out at the world because he was abused as a child by a woman, probably his mom. or sister. or both.

 

[Padawanbater2]

i have got no problem with progressive taxation and i saw nothing from Cloobeck to suggest he was against it either

"Then are you worried that the Democratic Party is going too far to the left?" Ruhle asked.

"So much so it drives me nuts, Cloobeck responded. "So much so it would make me quit the party. And I've made it very clear I'll cut your money off. And others will do the same."

"Right now there is an opportunity," Ruhle said. "If Democrats lose for example in the state of Virginia. If that isn't a wake up call, that the Democratic leadership needs to get together and say we've got to find a middle ground, because if the Democrats continue to go far to the left, you've got that whole group in the center that just aren't going to go the way of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. And then you're gonna fracture the party even more."

"It's fractured," Cloobeck replied. "It's broken. We need a new brand. It needs to be simple. Keep it simple -- tax reform. Keep it simple, -- infrastructure, no bumps in the road. What more do we have to say? They need to have a new brand created."

"Are we going to see Democrats pull it together and vote together?" Ruhle asked. "A lot of Bernie supporters did not turn and vote for Hillary. They just didn't vote at all.

"I know and I can tell you that if we go far left, I'm out," Cloobeck said. I'm out. We need middle-ground."

"So when you tell the Democratic leadership this when you meet with Wyden and Pelosi and Schumer," Ruhle asked. "What did they say to you?"

"Well," Cloobeck responded. "So far they've given me great signals that they're willing to participate and get there. We shall see."

DailyKos


Tax Reform. What do you think Cloobeck is arguing there, his taxes need to be higher or lower?

 

[ginjawarrior]

"Then are you worried that the Democratic Party is going too far to the left?" Ruhle asked.

"So much so it drives me nuts, Cloobeck responded. "So much so it would make me quit the party. And I've made it very clear I'll cut your money off. And others will do the same."

"Right now there is an opportunity," Ruhle said. "If Democrats lose for example in the state of Virginia. If that isn't a wake up call, that the Democratic leadership needs to get together and say we've got to find a middle ground, because if the Democrats continue to go far to the left, you've got that whole group in the center that just aren't going to go the way of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. And then you're gonna fracture the party even more."

"It's fractured," Cloobeck replied. "It's broken. We need a new brand. It needs to be simple. Keep it simple -- tax reform. Keep it simple, -- infrastructure, no bumps in the road. What more do we have to say? They need to have a new brand created."

"Are we going to see Democrats pull it together and vote together?" Ruhle asked. "A lot of Bernie supporters did not turn and vote for Hillary. They just didn't vote at all.

"I know and I can tell you that if we go far left, I'm out," Cloobeck said. I'm out. We need middle-ground."

"So when you tell the Democratic leadership this when you meet with Wyden and Pelosi and Schumer," Ruhle asked. "What did they say to you?"

"Well," Cloobeck responded. "So far they've given me great signals that they're willing to participate and get there. We shall see."

DailyKos


Tax Reform. What do you think Cloobeck is arguing there, his taxes need to be higher or lower?

we been round this one already

he's answering the question the interviewer asked

your hatred for the rich has left you in this weird place where whatever he says he;s a bad guy

 

[Padawanbater2]

You said a bunch of words but never got to a point.

What exactly is your point in all this blah blah?

Wealthy donors who fund the Democratic party usually own and/or operate large corporations, so establishment Democrats largely vote on issues in congress that cater to corporate interests instead of the issues their constituents support and/or elected them to congress for.

Make no mistake, so do establishment Republicans.

 

[see4]

Wealthy donors who fund the Democratic party usually own and/or operate large corporations, so establishment Democrats largely vote on issues in congress that cater to corporate interests instead of the issues their constituents support and/or elected them to congress for.

Make no mistake, so do establishment Republicans.

You know how you solve that problem?

Get money out of politics, reverse Citizens United and eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[Padawanbater2]

we been round this one already

he's answering the question the interviewer asked

You said you didn't see any indication from Cloobeck to suggest he was against progressive taxation. I asked you if you believe Cloobeck was arguing for or against the Democratic party raising his taxes?

So he made it pretty clear he's against his taxes being raised, and that Democrats should shut up about it or else he'll stop funding their campaigns..

That's not an indication to you that he's pretty clearly against a progressive taxation system..?

your hatred for the rich has left you in this weird place where whatever he says he;s a bad guy

I don't hate anyone for being rich. I wouldn't even say I hate the rich people who manipulate the political system. "Hate" isn't the right word. I'd say it concerns me that it happens. It affects every facet of every American's life whether they realize it or not. It's troubling more Americans aren't aware of it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You know how you solve that problem?

Get money out of politics, reverse Citizens United and eliminate the Electoral College.

I agree

So why did multiple Democrats just side with Republicans on removing banking regulations that were enacted after the crash to protect average Americans?

 

[ginjawarrior]

You said you didn't see any indication from Cloobeck to suggest he was against progressive taxation. I asked you if you believe Cloobeck was arguing for or against the Democratic party raising his taxes?

no i said multiple times in this thread that economic polices were not talked about in the interview

So he made it pretty clear he's against his taxes being raised, and that Democrats should shut up about it or else he'll stop funding their campaigns..

That's not an indication to you that he's pretty clearly against a progressive taxation system..?

no you are just waffling on puting words into his mouth its dishonest and you should stop it

your hatred for the rich has left you in this weird place where whatever he says he;s a bad guy[/QUOTE]
I don't hate anyone for being rich. I wouldn't even say I hate the rich people who manipulate the political system. "Hate" isn't the right word. I'd say it concerns me this that it happens. It affects every facet of every American's life whether they realize it or not. It's troubling more Americans aren't aware of it. [/QUOTE]

your so blinded by hate that you have acted as judge and jury on this interview and you have come up way short on the facts

 

[Padawanbater2]

no i said multiple times in this thread that economic polices were not talked about in the interview

Then what is Cloobeck threatening Democratic politicians with when he says he'll cut them off? Why will he cut them off for using the word "billionaires"

no you are just waffling on puting words into his mouth its dishonest and you should stop it

Cloobeck is clearly saying to the Democratic party "Stop talking about raising my taxes or I'll stop funding your campaigns"

What do you believe he's saying?[/quote]

Your hatred for the rich has left you in this weird place where whatever he says he;s a bad guy

Again, I don't hate rich people for being rich, as I said before, I don't even "hate" the elites funding the campaigns behind the scenes. This is simply a strawman argument attempt to paint me as a fringe extremist because you can't actually argue against the merits of the arguments I've made. Most Democrats, Independents, and a majority of Republicans agree with the positions I espouse

your so blinded by hate that you have acted as judge and jury on this interview and you have come up way short on the facts

The facts are that Cloobeck is fed up with the Democratic party criticizing the amount of taxes he pays, if they keep it up, he will cut them off. And you, for some reason, support Cloobeck in this instead of the constituents that voted to put these people in office

 

[ttystikk]

The facts are that Cloobeck is fed up with the Democratic party criticizing the amount of taxes he pays, if they keep it up, he will cut them off. And you, for some reason, support Cloobeck in this instead of the constituents that voted to put these people in office

What's scary is that people who lack basic comprehension skills still vote, resulting in outcomes like the clown in the Oval Orifice.

 

[Padawanbater2]

What's scary is that people who lack basic comprehension skills still vote, resulting in outcomes like the clown in the Oval Orifice.

What's even scarier is that people who have basic comprehension skills still vote, resulting in outcomes like the 2016 Democratic primary

 

[ttystikk]

What's even scarier is that people who have basic comprehension skills still vote, resulting in outcomes like the 2016 Democratic primary

Or, believe in the 'outcome'

 

[UncleBuck]

What's even scarier is that people who have basic comprehension skills still vote, resulting in outcomes like the 2016 Democratic primary

ya mean the one where hillary was democratically nominated by 4 million votes, largely on the strength of her performance with black voters and women?

i know you hate both of those groups.

 

[ttystikk]

ya mean the one where hillary was democratically nominated by 4 million votes, largely on the strength of her performance with black voters and women?

i know you hate both of those groups.

Can't be 'democratically nominated' in a rigged sham spectacle for mass consumption.

You keep bringing up the results of a thoroughly invalidated contest like they mean something.

 

[Padawanbater2]

largely on the strength of her performance with black voters?

So why didn't black voters come out to support Hillary by voting for her against Trump in enough numbers in swing states to secure her the election? Aside from your claim that they were too ignorant to be aware of propaganda