Support NeoGAF

[Prodigal Son]

And that candidate is about to lose the nomination. Most importantly, that candidate hasn't been able to do a damn thing to raise money for down-ticket democratic candidates. Hillary, on the other hand, has raised something around 37 million dollars specifically to help get Democrats in office on all levels of government PRECISELY to create uniform change. All that change you talked about in your last post? Well, Hillary's gotten a lot closer to making it happen than Bernie has because she's used the system we have. But hey, moral high ground and whatnot.

"I'll lose otherwise" is a valid reason until you can explain why its not.

It's not a valid reason because, in my view, exploiting a corrupt system to create subjectively beneficial change still means you've exploited a corrupt system. The person who has used corrupt means to get to power, regardless of their goals once in power, still supports corruption. Pardon me for thinking that's disingenuous.

Not to mention that corporations and Wall Street give money for reasons. They don't give money to candidates who will act outside of their interest. The idea that Clinton will act in manner that's detrimental to those who helped her get into power just because she says she will is ridiculous.

or you're calling Clinton a liar. Which is it?

I'm calling Clinton a liar. Yes. I will be voting for someone I believe is a liar in the upcoming general elections.

 

[Xe4]

This thread really makes me want to vote for Trump at this point. The way people jump all over anyone who doesn't want to vote for Hillary is ridiculous. "But SCOTUS nominations! But Trump is worse! Lesser of two evils!" Does it ever fucking occur to you guys that maybe people don't live in swing states and otherwise play by the rules of how to vote in our terrible two-party system?

I will never vote for Hillary - and it really doesn't matter who I vote for - because I don't live in a swing state and my vote for a presidential candidate is inconsequential. I do however vote in every election (even midterms and primaries) like a good little citizen and vote for Democratic candidates in statewide and local elections. I'm doing about as much as I can to contribute with my one measly vote. But just because I don't support Hillary I'm apparently part of the Tea Party or something like this thread would have you believe.

And this is why people are jumping down your throat. Not because you're supporting Sanders, but because if he looses you'd rather throw a hissy fit than try to keep legions of other people from getting screwed over.

We live in a two party system and not every candidate is gonna be perfect, get over it. Tons of minorities and LGBTQ have been voting for a democrats for years even though many, many times, it is simply the lesser of two evils.

Welcome to the US political sydtem, where change is purposefully meant go be slow. If I could change the system we have to be multi party I would, but for now you have to work with what you have.

I'm calling Clinton a liar.

Good to know this conversation is going to go nowhere. I suppose there's nothing I can do because youre already convinced you that Hillary is the anitchrist

 

[Hige]

And this is why people are jumping down your throat. Not because you're supporting Sanders, but because if he looses you'd rather throw a hissy fit than try to keep legions of other people from getting screwed over.

We live in a two party system and not every candidate is gonna be perfect, get over it. Tons of minorities and LGBTQ have been voting for a democrats for years even though many, many times, it is simply the lesser of two evils.

Welcome to the US political sydtem, where change is purposefully meant go be slow. If I could change the system we have to be multi party I would, but for now you have to work with what you have.

Did you read anything at all after that line before copy-pasting a diatribe that doesn't apply to me?

 

[Box]

This is bullshit. If these voter's can't be fucked enough to actually understand the issues and the gravity of situation. Or get over their hurt feeling that Bernie didn't win and understand there are bigger things at stake. That's not Hillary's fault.

The same shit was being said during the 2000 presidential race. And disgruntled "progressives" and democrats alike didn't bother to give a fuck or just didn't vote out of protest, and the result 8 years of Bush Jr.

Good grief. It's not anyone's duty to vote for Hillary. You know there are Bernie/Trump supporters, right? And people who were only engaged in the primary because of Bernie's "revolution" speaking to them. Why would Hillary be entitled to those votes?

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

You know what's anti-Bernie as well? Refusing to vote for a democrat in the general election, and actively contributing to the low-voter turnout. He hammers this point home in every debate, and unfortunately for many of his supporters those two points go in one ear and out the other.

Suggestion. Don't call Bernie supporters anti-Bernie for not participating.

Just tell Bernie supporters that he's doing a good job against Hillary in the Primary. This shows that there's a large amount of people fed up with our current political process. Tell them that progressives and democrats are weak in the house and the senate, and that if they continue their enthusiasm for the legislature we could take over the house and senate vs. the republican majority that will stop (Bernie or Clinton) and HAS STOPPED (Obama) democrat presidents from being effective.

Bernie is getting a good amount of new and young voters. And this is your chance to explains to them that their self-omission from the political process is a bad thing. Obama did a lot of good for this country saving it from Bush's economic collapse, promoting green energy, repealing Bush's tax cuts for people earning over $45,000, etc. Obama could've been WAY more effective if more progressives voted.

There's indeed a lot of smart people voting for Hillary. But you need to catch the entering progressives the best you can.

 

[sphagnum]

I don't think Hillary supporters are attacking anyone.

There's definitely a smugness though about certain Hillary supporters on this board even outside of when they're arguing with Bernie supporters.

Both factions need to do some mirror-looking. I find it baffling that so many Hillary supporters just seem to be unable to understand why some Bernie supporters could be upset without resorting to claims about them being stupid or naive or secretly racist or whatever. Not to say there aren't Bernie supporters like that (see: reddit) but it's like no criticism of Hillary ever gets internalized, just written off. Bernie supporters are beat over the head with criticism about their candidate and rightfully so but a lot of Hillary supporters seem to just shrug their shoulders at her own shortcomings and go "Yeah I know, whatever" or argue that it's all lies and slander.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

I call them holdouts because I'm only referring to Sanders supporters who claim they will abstain if Hillary is nominated.

As for #2, the joke writes itself.

Okay.

In that case, I don't think you're convincing any "holdouts" from voting in the November. If anything you're preventing "holdouts" from voting in November for making fun of them.

You're helping destroy your own party.

 

[Prodigal Son]

suppose there's nothing I can do because youre already convinced you that Hillary is the anitchrist

Ah yes, because something I've said in this discussion points to solely to Hillary Clinton. It isn't as if I've been critical of, not only our campaign finance system and not only those who use it, but even those who vote for those who use it. Surely there's no chance that you're just being a bit defensive because I'm attacking your favored candidate.
/s


Clinton isn't particularly bad. She's just one of the thousands of representatives of our corrupt, greedy and ineffective political class. Her special interests (for now) favor policy that is (mostly) beneficial. I'll vote for her at the end of this year when she likely secures the nomination.

 

[royalan]

There's definitely a smugness though about certain Hillary supporters on this board even outside of when they're arguing with Bernie supporters.

Both factions need to do some mirror-looking. I find it baffling that so many Hillary supporters just seem to be unable to understand why some Bernie supporters could be upset without resorting to claims about them being stupid or naive or secretly racist or whatever. Not to say there aren't Bernie supporters like that (see: reddit) but it's like no criticism of Hillary ever gets internalized, just written off. Bernie supporters are beat over the head with criticism about their candidate and rightfully so but a lot of Hillary supporters seem to just shrug their shoulders at her own shortcomings and go "Yeah I know, whatever" or argue that it's all lies and slander.

I think the difference here is Bernie supporters are rallying around a man who hasn't really been attacked by the political machine until recently. Whereas to even BE a Hillary supporter is to understand that she's been one of the most attacked and demonized politicians in recent memory. We shrug it off because we're used to it.

It's not that people don't understand why Bernie supporters are upset. We're just trying to remind people that Bernie's message is larger than Bernie, and Hillary by and large supports his message and always has. You can think her a liar all you want, but this simply isn't reflected in her record. So don't just fall off in the event that Bernie doesn't get the nom.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Okay.

In that case, I don't think you're convincing any "holdouts" from voting in the November. If anything you're preventing "holdouts" from voting in November for making fun of them.

You're helping destroy your own party.

Ah yes, because something I've said in this discussion points to solely to Hillary Clinton. It isn't as if I've been critical of, not only our campaign finance system and not only those who use it, but even those who vote for those who use it. Surely there's no chance that you're just being a bit defensive because I'm attacking your favored candidate.
/s


Clinton isn't particularly bad. She's just one of the thousands of representatives of our corrupt, greedy and ineffective political class. Her special interests (for now) favor policy that is (mostly) beneficial. I'll vote for her at the end of this year when she likely secures the nomination.

you both were adamant about not voting for her pages ago. That was a quick turn around.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

There's definitely a smugness though about certain Hillary supporters on this board even outside of when they're arguing with Bernie supporters.

Both factions need to do some mirror-looking. I find it baffling that so many Hillary supporters just seem to be unable to understand why some Bernie supporters could be upset without resorting to claims about them being stupid or naive or secretly racist or whatever. Not to say there aren't Bernie supporters like that (see: reddit) but it's like no criticism of Hillary ever gets internalized, just written off. Bernie supporters are beat over the head with criticism about their candidate and rightfully so but a lot of Hillary supporters seem to just shrug their shoulders at her own shortcomings and go "Yeah I know, whatever" or argue that it's all lies and slander.

Yes as a Bernie supporter it seems a lot of HIllary supporters are trying to tell us that we're stupid for not supporting Hillary.

I will vote for HIllary in the general if it comes to it. I'm not gonna like it but I'll do it.

There are some people who are thinking about whether they should or not. And these insinuations don't help Bernie supporter vote for Hillary. If anything all that happens is you push them further away from Hillary.

Hillary may likely get the nomination. The best thing HIllary supporters can do is encourage Bernie supporters to vote HIllary. Tell it more positive--i.e. Bernie's doing good! If progressives keep this up real change can happen in the midterms and even next election--rather than negative--e.g., she's electable and he's not electable.

 

[Prodigal Son]

you both were adamant about not voting for her pages ago. That was a quick turn around.

Can you quote where I've said that I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll admit my memory is poor, but I'm quite sure I didn't say this.

The idea that many of us acknowledge the reality that our campaign finance system is corrupt yet continue to support candidates that exploit it baffles me.

I feel like you'd have be be fine with the system to show support to someone who has used it to get ahead. That, in an of itself, says a lot to me.

Do you mean this? The post addresses those who'd choose corruption over non-corruption as is the case in these primaries. I wasn't talking about the general. We've little choice then, do we?

 

[Leona Lewis]

Okay.

In that case, I don't think you're convincing any "holdouts" from voting in the November. If anything you're preventing "holdouts" from voting in November for making fun of them.

You're helping destroy your own party.

I've spent the last few threads arguing why it's so important for Democrats to vote no matter who the nominee is for reasons ranging from ensuring a liberal-leaning Supreme Court, supporting down-ticket candidates in Congress, and maintaining Obama's legislative victories in health care, job discrimination, etc.

All I've read as a retort is "Why settle for corruption/dishonesty/less than perfect?" when the question has already been answered.

So to answer your question, I'm obviously not going to convince them of anything. But maybe they'll remember it in 2020 when, as a result of their non-action, the chance of another Bernie-esque candidate (or even Bernie himself) gaining any traction is even slimmer than it is now.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

you both were adamant about not voting for her pages ago. That was a quick turn around.

Yes. Like I said. A lot of Bernie supporters are considering whether or not to vote for her in the General if it comes to that.

The best thing to do is to be encouraging and use this time to convince new and young voters to keep up progress through the midterms.

 

[dramatis]

I don't know what to say to you if you think Hillary Clinton is opposed to the system that got her into power in the first place.

She isn't. Many Americans can see blatantly that she isn't. One can argue that that's okay. Many don't even consider it an issue. That's fine.

To me, it's a big issue. Reforming it for everyone firstly means we make major changes to our campaign finance system and do our best to remove money's influence from congress. We also strive to create a congress that represents the best interests of the people. We also make it so that as many people as possible can have their vote and voice heard. Then we'll have a true democracy. If you think Hillary Clinton is the candidate that will most effectively do this, there isn't much I can say that shouldn't be self-evident.


EDIT: Every response here expresses the exact same sentiment: Apathy to the less than satisfactory. This is fucking depressing.

Ulysses S. Grant issued Order No. 11 in 1862 during the Civil War, in which he was clearly discriminating against Jews by ordering specifically their expulsion from the military territories he controlled. During his presidential campaign, questions about this order was raised against Grant, and he sought to distance himself from his order. After he became president, Grant "appointed more Jews to office than any previous president...condemned atrocities against Jews in Europe, [put] human rights on the American diplomatic agenda..." and became the first president to visit a synagogue.

Strangely enough, people can and do change.

What is depressing here aren't the people who have 'apathy to the less than satisfactory', whatever that means. What is depressing here is that you and the ones clamoring that they will not vote for Hillary, what you take away from failure isn't to get up and continue the fight for the issues and policy, but to lie down and allow yourself to get walked over. Because you have convinced yourself your morals are higher and more valuable than anything else in the race. "I am pure, I will not compromise"—and in the end, what would you have changed? What would you have satisfied, other than yourself?

What is your plan to change anything? What good are your morals if they change nothing? If you can't even vote for Hillary, what hope can you have of an actual 'political revolution', where you have to vote for significantly less outstanding candidates at the lower levels?

 

[MotherFan]

This is bullshit. If these voter's can't be fucked enough to actually understand the issues and the gravity of situation. Or get over their hurt feeling that Bernie didn't win and understand there are bigger things at stake. That's not Hillary's fault.

The same shit was being said during the 2000 presidential race. And disgruntled "progressives" and democrats alike didn't bother to give a fuck or just didn't vote out of protest, and the result 8 years of Bush Jr.

What's bullshit is the fact that you think that somehow the small amount of bernie supporters that won't vote for hillary is going to affect the election. Maybe if we look at the amount of voters that came out in iowa and saw the enthusiasm gap there we could see the potential problems. Maybe we could look at her likeability numbers and see the issue. Maybe we could look at the number of people that think she is honest, or even her head to head polls vs rubio. But it is easier to blame the small amount of bernie supporters pissed off than the real issues facing this election. I mean, gaf reddit and twitter can't be wrong right.

 

[sphagnum]

I think the difference here is Bernie supporters are rallying around a man who hasn't really been attacked by the political machine until recently. Whereas to even BE a Hillary supporter is to understand that she's been one of the most attacked and demonized politicians in recent memory. We shrug it off because we're used to it.

That's true certainly, but I'm not just referring to attacks on her character or falsehoods from the GOP. I mean genuine problems that voters can have with her like her coziness with corporations and banks (which I'm aware a bunch of Hillary fans don't seem to care about but a lot of other Democrats and independents most certainly do), her foreign policy that will do nothing to dismantle the American empire, her moderation in support for a higher minimum/living wage, her general bad campaign skills that don't pull in crowds, etc. She is someone with a lot of positives but she is also a very flawed candidate and I just want to make sure that people don't think she's "good enough" as is. If Bernie needs to be pushed further in the right direction sometimes, so does she.

It's not that people don't understand why Bernie supporters are upset. We're just trying to remind people that Bernie's message is larger than Bernie, and Hillary by and large supports his message and always has. You can think her a liar all you want, but this simply isn't reflected in her record. So don't just fall off in the event that Bernie doesn't get the nom.

I don't doubt you, personally, because your posts are always intelligent and insightful but there are some other Hillary fans who I don't feel like naming to keep out any further drama who absolutely just seem to hate Bernie and aren't interested in what his supporters have to say. Are there some Bernie supporters who deserve a smack in the head? Sure. But there are some Hillary supporters who need one as well.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Ulysses S. Grant issued Order No. 11 in 1862 during the Civil War, in which he was clearly discriminating against Jews by ordering specifically their expulsion from the military territories he controlled. During his presidential campaign, questions about this order was raised against Grant, and he sought to distance himself from his order. After he became president, Grant "appointed more Jews to office than any previous president...condemned atrocities against Jews in Europe, [put] human rights on the American diplomatic agenda..." and became the first president to visit a synagogue.

Strangely enough, people can and do change.

What is depressing here aren't the people who have 'apathy to the less than satisfactory', whatever that means. What is depressing here is that you and the ones clamoring that they will not vote for Hillary, what you take away from failure isn't to get up and continue the fight for the issues and policy, but to lie down and allow yourself to get walked over. Because you have convinced yourself your morals are higher and more valuable than anything else in the race. "I am pure, I will not compromise"—and in the end, what would you have changed? What would you have satisfied, other than yourself?

What is your plan to change anything? What good are your morals if they change nothing? If you can't even vote for Hillary, what hope can you have of an actual 'political revolution', where you have to vote for significantly less outstanding candidates at the lower levels?

I'm calling Clinton a liar. Yes. I will be voting for someone I believe is a liar in the upcoming general elections.

I'll vote for her at the end of this year when she likely secures the nomination.

Something the Clinton Camp doesn't seem to understand is that you can be critical of a politician that you'll still have to vote for at the end of the day.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

This thread really makes me want to vote for Trump at this point. The way people jump all over anyone who doesn't want to vote for Hillary is ridiculous. "But SCOTUS nominations! But Trump is worse! Lesser of two evils!" Does it ever fucking occur to you guys that maybe people don't live in swing states and otherwise play by the rules of how to vote in our terrible two-party system?

I will never vote for Hillary - and it really doesn't matter who I vote for - because I don't live in a swing state and my vote for a presidential candidate is inconsequential. I do however vote in every election (even midterms and primaries) like a good little citizen and vote for Democratic candidates in statewide and local elections. I'm doing about as much as I can to contribute with my one measly vote. But just because I don't support Hillary I'm apparently part of the Tea Party or something like this thread would have you believe.

Hey man. You can vote for whoever you want. That's definitely your choice.

I really wish you would vote for HIllary though (in the General Election of it comes to that).

I'm assuming you're a Bernie supporter and a progressive. Politics can really suck but a large part of that problem is that not enough of progressives and younger folk participate in the legislature elections.

I really like Bernie's stances, and part of that is just continuing the movement to convince other people to participate. He's doing really good in the Primary Election. Just imagine if we kept up the momentum to vote in a progressive and democrat house and senate. The republicans are obstructionists in the house and senate that is counterproductive to a lot of good things for the people. Obama was blocked a lot. He could've done more if we gave him what he needed.

Obama did make the mistake of not encouraging enough people to vote in the midterms. Bernie is the opposite. He's a grassroots guy and he's telling all his supporters to continue participating. Even if Bernie is elected to the President, that would still require us to vote progressive locally and in the midterms to make his candidacy worthwhile.

This is our chance to catch new progressives and get them to continue participating.

 

[Chococat]

Not to say there aren't Bernie supporters like that (see: reddit) but it's like no criticism of Hillary ever gets internalized, just written off.

My view on this is because Hillary has been shit on her entire political career. There is nothing Bernie supporters can tell us about the evils of Hillary that we haven't heard since she was put in the national spotlight as First Lady. The Republicans have beaten that dead horse into dust, added water to make more clay horses multiple times to beat again. And again. And again.

The fact that Benghazi and e-mail "scandal" are still a thing is ludicrous. Give me some legitimate dirt like Kwame Kilpatrick or Rick Snyder scandals and I might change my stance on her. Otherwise, sadly people died on her watch due fully knowing that might in the line of duty, and old people government don't quite understand computers making stupid mistakes in storing possible top secrete information. The lentghs people are willing to expose national secretes just get her is scary.

So yah, it is true, criticisms of Hillary are meet with blank stares by many because we are numb to it. Want to point out how she can improve? I'll listen. Want to tell me how she is a corporate shill? Yeah, yah got nothing a Republican mud sling.

 

[blackw0lf]

Not to mention that corporations and Wall Street give money for reasons. They don't give money to candidates who will act outside of their interest. The idea that Clinton will act in manner that's detrimental to those who helped her get into power just because she says she will is ridiculous.



.

Oh? This is during the time Hillary was receiving huge sums from Wall Street

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

While the financial crisis came to a head in summer 2008, problems with housing started to bubble up in 2007 during Clinton’s ill-fated presidential primary campaign. On the trail, Clinton addressed these nascent issues -- particularly the mortgage crisis -- as early as March of that year.

Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007. She said too many people were ignoring warning signs.

"The subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street," Clinton said. "It's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families."

She gave specific proposals for addressing subprime mortgages, including expanding the role of the Federal Housing Administration, more borrowing options for underprivileged and first-time homebuyers, more safeguards against predatory lending practices and policies intended to prevent foreclosures.

In August that year, she delivered a similar speech about dealing with problems from subprime mortgages. There, she reiterated earlier proposals, and also suggested laws establishing national standards and registration for loan brokers, as well as regulations on lenders.

"I think the subprime market was sort of like the canary in the mine," she said. "You know, it was telling us loudly and clearly, ‘There are problems here.’ "

It didn’t become law, but Clinton sponsored a bill to implement these policies in September 2007.

The first time she mentioned derivatives was in a November 2007 speech in Iowa. (A derivative is a financial product that allows investors to hedge against price fluctuations in an underlying asset.)

"We need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products," she said. "You can't let Wall Street send the bill to your street with the bright ideas that just don't work out. Derivatives and products like them are posing real risks to families, as Wall Street writes down tens of billions of dollars in investments. Companies are taking the loss of a billion here and a billion there simply because the securities they own are worth less than they thought."

In the same speech, she spoke again of the risky lending that led to the subprime mortgage crisis, adding that she called on then-President George W. Bush to convene a conference to find a solution.

And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."

This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according to the New York Times.

At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections.

After becoming secretary of state in 2009, Clinton made noticeably fewer comments on domestic policy and financial regulation. But the record shows that establishing policies to address the then-nascent financial crisis was a key point of her campaign platform in 2007 and 2008.

Sure sounds like she was willing to act in a way detrimental to their interests. Maybe not as aggressively as needed she still took action detrimental to their interests.

 

[Hige]

Hey man. You can vote for whoever you want. That's definitely your choice.

I really wish you would vote for HIllary though.

I'm assuming you're a Bernie supporter and a progressive. Politics can really suck but a large part of that problem is that not enough of progressives and younger folk participate in the legislature elections.

I really like Bernie's stances, and part of that is just continuing the movement to convince other people to participate. He's doing really good in the Primary Election. Just imagine if we kept up the momentum to vote in a progressive and democrat house and senate. The republicans are obstructionists in the house and senate that is counterproductive to a lot of good things for the people.

This is our chance to catch new progressives and get them to continue participating.

I think you meant to quote someone else? I already said I vote in every election and I vote for Democrats. It's illogical for me to vote for a presidential candidate in a non-swing state that I don't support when I'm still supporting the party at a state and local level. Voting for Trump for the lulz wouldn't change the outcome any more than voting for Hillary would in my particular case, nor in a way that I could foresee a potential statewide shift (e.g. Texas turning blue). Maybe I'll just vote for Batman as a write-in.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Oh? This is during the time Hillary was receiving huge sums from Wall Street

Sure sounds like she was willing to act in a way detrimental to their interests. Maybe not as aggressively as needed she still took action detrimental to their interests.

Jesus.

So after she showed herself willing to act out against Wall Street's interests in 2007, they continue to donate to her in 2015?

These Wall-Street fellars must really think she'll be a real nice president!

--

This is getting silly. Support Clinton because she supports some good policies (if you ignore criminalizing Cannabis, Capital Punishment and openness to aggressive foreign policy). But the notion that some people here genuinely believe she'll be tough on Wall Street is actual comedy. It's funny.

We'll be having this exact conversation in eight years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...et-donors-say-more-than-9-11-built-their-bond

"Now, I know you're going to be bad for my business and you may very well cause us to fail should our fraud backfire on us, and we are a business after all, but I just really care about foreign policy and education, you know?"

 

[Cerium]

Jesus.

So after she showed herself willing to act out against Wall Street's interests in 2007, they continue to donate to her in 2015?

These Wall-Street fellars must really think she'll be a real nice president!

--

This is getting silly.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...et-donors-say-more-than-9-11-built-their-bond

But another former UBS executive, 32 Advisors Chief Executive Officer Robert Wolf, said the relationship between Wall Street and Clinton transcends banking. “So, maybe just maybe, the financial-services industry contributes to a candidate based on many other things than his or her profession and may look at many other issues as well,” he said, citing immigration, foreign policy and education. “I know I do.”

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

I think you meant to quote someone else? I already said I vote in every election and I vote for Democrats. It's illogical for me to vote for a presidential candidate in a non-swing state that I don't support when I'm still supporting the party at a state and local level. Voting for Trump for the lulz wouldn't change the outcome any more than voting for Hillary would in my particular case, nor in a way that I could foresee a potential statewide shift (e.g. Texas turning blue). Maybe I'll just vote for Batman as a write-in.

I meant to quote you. I just thought you were voting Trump to spite the pro Hillary people in this thread.

Anyway. Keep active. Bernie has the attention of the young people. And this is our chance to get more of them involved, especially in the midterms where we really need it.

 

[Cerium]

"Now, I know you're going to be bad for my business and you may very well cause us to fail should our fraud backfire on us, and we are a business after all, but I just really care about foreign policy and education, you know?"

Little known fact: Half of the upper management at Bain Capital in 2012 were Democrats, some of whom were Obama bundlers (large scale fundraisers). They were literally raising money for Obama while he shit on their company and dragged their name through the mud. Presumably, they were not doing this in the interest of their business.

Hobbling White’s ability to move more swiftly was a factor hidden from the outside world: the staunch refusal of Bain to assist Boston on defense. A decade removed from the firm, Romney was a distant memory to all but a few executives; the institutional loyalty to Mitt was minimal, and the desire to wade into partisan politics nil. Bain’s upper management and employees were split among Republicans and Democrats. There were even some Obama bundlers, who pleaded with Messina and Axelrod not to drag the firm into the campaign—extracting only a concession that Chicago would refrain from using an infamous photo of a young Mitt and some Bain associates clutching greenbacks.

Mark Halperin; John Heilemann (2013-11-05T05:00:00+00:00). Double Down: Game Change 2012 (Kindle Locations 5593-5597). Penguin Press HC, The.

 

[Averon]

That's not Hillary's fault.

It will most definitely be Hilary's fault if it comes to that. It is her job as the nominee to convince people to support her. It this not the voters' obligation to support any candidate, even if that candidate is from the same party.

If Hilary cannot get some Bernie voters to support her and it cost her the election, however unlikely that scenario is, it is because Hilary is a flawed candidate.

 

[royalan]

Jesus.

So after she showed herself willing to act out against Wall Street's interests in 2007, they continue to donate to her in 2015?

These Wall-Street fellars must really think she'll be a real nice president!

YES. You're being sarcastic, but yes. The world is simply not as black and white as you seem to want it to be. There's no totally pure good and evil here. Believe it or not, there are reasons that people working on Wall Street might support a candidate other than thinking that they'll be a puppet for them in the white house, masking their shady dealings.

Honestly, this is what I think Hillary was trying to communicate when she gave that absolutely terrible "Wall Street supports me because 9/11" answer in the second debate. That she had cultivated relationships on Wall Street that transcended them thinking they'd own her, because truthfully she's always been critical of them.

 

[Zornack]

It will most definitely be Hilary's fault if it comes to that. It is her job as the nominee to convince people to support her. It this not the voters' obligation to support any candidate, even if that candidate is from the same party.

If Hilary cannot get some Bernie voters to support her and it cost her the election, however unlikely that scenario is, it is because Hilary is a flawed candidate.

Is it Obama's fault that some racist bigots think he's Kenyan born Muslim?

 

[Prodigal Son]

Little known fact: Half of the upper management at Bain Capital in 2012 were Democrats, some of whom were Obama bundlers (large scale fundraisers). They were literally raising money for Obama while he shit on their company and dragged their name through the mud. Presumably, they did this for more than the interest of their business.

I don't think I'm the one with unrealistic ideals if you think businesses will donate to Candidates who will damage their ability to make more money. They're a business. Their goal is to make money. They are a soulless collection of many, many individuals whose primary common interest is profit (even if it necessitates fraud and illegal actions). They will not give money to a politician who will hurt them. Why is this an argument that rational people need to have?

Do you think they gave money to Obama because they agree with him? Or because in eight years, they still have destructive control of our economy and politics?

YES. You're being sarcastic, but yes. The world is simply not as black and white as you seem to want it to be. There's no totally pure good and evil here. Believe it or not, there are reasons that people working on Wall Street might support a candidate other than thinking that they'll be a puppet for them in the white house, masking their shady dealings.

Honestly, this is what I think Hillary was trying to communicate when she gave that absolutely terrible "Wall Street supports me because 9/11" answer in the second debate. That she had cultivated relationships on Wall Street that transcended them thinking they'd own her, because truthfully she's always been critical of them.

Wall Street will act against their own interest because members within them place a greater importance on the well-being of the American people than on their own profit.

We must live in a lovely world.

 

[Hige]

I meant to quote you. I just thought you were voting Trump to spite the pro Hillary people in this thread.

Oh, that part's true though.

Edit: I'd hold my nose and vote for her if I lived in like Ohio or North Carolina, to be clear.

 

[blackw0lf]

Jesus.

So after she showed herself willing to act out against Wall Street's interests in 2007, they continue to donate to her in 2015?

These Wall-Street fellars must really think she'll be a real nice president!

"

Take a look at her top donors this cycle. Do you see Citigroup, Goldman Sachs or any of the other top wall street firms there?

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&

Whenever you hear about data that Goldman Sachs or Citigroup are some of Hillary's top donors, they're referring to career, not this election cycle.

Maybe the fact they're not donating as strongly tells us something?

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Oh, that part's true though.

Lol. Okay.

 

[Leona Lewis]

On a lighter note, masterful use of Komm, süsser Tod

 

[Averon]

Is it Obama's fault that some racist bigots think he's Kenyan born Muslim?

Hilary not being able to convince people she'd fight the corrupt political system they think is ruining this country.
Obama cannot convince racists to support him because of his skin color and heritage, an integral part of himself he cannot change.
Not even in the same ballpark.

 

[Xe4]

Ah yes, because something I've said in this discussion points to solely to Hillary Clinton. It isn't as if I've been critical of, not only our campaign finance system and not only those who use it, but even those who vote for those who use it. Surely there's no chance that you're just being a bit defensive because I'm attacking your favored candidate.
/s


Clinton isn't particularly bad. She's just one of the thousands of representatives of our corrupt, greedy and ineffective political class. Her special interests (for now) favor policy that is (mostly) beneficial. I'll vote for her at the end of this year when she likely secures the nomination.

I never said Hilary was my favored canidate. Hell I'm still not sure who I prefer, Sanders on the issues of economics/politics, or Hillary on foreign policy issues. They both seem to have simmilar stances, but obviously Sanders will focus more on economics/politics and Hillary more on foreign policy.

But it annoys me when Hillary is seen as this huge liar who isn't any better than Trump/Republicans, by many Sanders supporters. Because that's blatantly untrue, and honestly seems like the Republican propaganda machine did it's work brilliantly on Hillary, even amongst liberals, which is a damn shame. And I'm not saying don't vote for Sanders now. Vote for Sanders now! But when it comes time for general election, still get out and vote.

Getting rid of corruption in politics is a huge issue, but getting rid of Citizens United is the biggest thing that can be done, and Hillary/Bernie appointing Justices to strike it down when it comes up again. So if you really truly care about campaign finance, electing a democratic president, and a democratic Senate are the most important things.

Did you read anything at all after that line before copy-pasting a diatribe that doesn't apply to me?

Yes I read the whole thing. Looking at your post it seems evident you live in Texas, a state that will turn purple sooner or later. Hell with Trump running theres a chance it'll turn purple this election. So your vote absolutely does matter.

And you blatantly saying there's a large possibility of you voting for Trump means what I wrote absolutely fits you, because if you vote democratic always, you voting for Trump, a known bigot and huge asshole, over Hillary, who votes similarly on 93% of the issues that Bernie does, means you would be throwing a hissy fit.

Your vote matters because the more votes against Trump means the less likely his bigoted message will be taken seriously in the future, and the sooner Republicans will shift away from racism as a party platform.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Take a look at her top donors this cycle. Do you see Citigroup, Goldman Sachs or any of the other top wall street firms there?

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?id=N00000019&

Whenever you hear about data that Goldman Sachs or Citigroup are some of Hillary's top donors, they're referring to career, not this election cycle.

Maybe the fact they're not donating as strongly tells us something?

Tells us a lot of things. The fact that they're donating at all says more.

---

You guys are funny. Never change.

I never said Hilary was my favored canidate. Hell I'm still not sure who I prefer, Sanders on the issues of economics/politics, or Hillary on foreign policy issues. They both seem to have simmilar stances, but obviously Sanders will focus more on economics/politics and Hillary more on foreign policy.

But it annoys me when Hillary is seen as this huge liar who isn't any better than Trump/Republicans, by many Sanders supporters. And I'm not saying don't vote for Sanders now. Vote for Sanders now! But when it comes time for general election, still get out and vote.

Getting rid of corruption in politics is a huge issue, but getting rid of Citizens United is huge, and Hillary/Bernie appointing Justices to strike it down when it comes up again. So if you really truly care about campaign finance, electing a democratic president, and a democratic Senate are the most important things.

We're in complete agreement then.

 

[Aaronology]

I'm not saying that you are a Hillary shill. What I was saying is that your argument came off like that. This line in partcular:



That is definitely true and I agree. But Bernie supporters don't want to "settle." If they were willing to settle for something safe they would've backed Hillary as the candidate a long time ago.

No, many of them don't, and it's an insight into how little experience with America's political system this particular subset of his fans have and also how utterly they lack empathy for those of us in certain demographics who have seen and fought for progress in inches over years, not months. Women, minorities and LGBTQ have been playing the game of settling since day 1. Welcome to the damn party. No, you can't always get exactly what you want. Yes, sometimes you have to settle. No, that doesn't mean you quit. However, if you are so fragile that Bernie not being President is enough to break your spirit you were never going to be any use to him if he had won anyway.

But real talk won't do for them, though. Oh no. "What do you mean? I can't have my perfect candidate? What sort of election is this?!" And they turn their nose up at a Clinton, who has practically identical a voting record and shares the vast majority of her politics with Sanders. This entire sentiment reeks of privilege and I'm so sick of it, the selfishness that is behind it, the shortsightedness that empowers it and this whole primary that I'm almost to the point of abandoning cordiality.

And if I don't get the things I am after
I'm going to scream!

They're the Veruca Salts of this election. They're throwing their hands up, huffing and puffing. They're threatening to throw temper tantrums, to stay home, to vote for one of the most openly bigoted Presidential candidates most of us have ever seen. This, from the same people who think they are the champions of Progressivism! It's really nothing but a fad for them.

To them Hillary represents Politics as usual where we settle for the lesser of two evils.

"Politics as usual" is just another way of saying "both parties are the same" without immediately drawing the ire that ridiculous stance deserves, especially after Scalia's death has drawn even more attention to the USSC and raised the stakes. "Politics as usual" under Clinton would definitely not be "politics as usual" under any of the GOP and suggesting as such is fear-mongering and/or plain ignorance. Ironically, for all this talk of "not settling" and holding firm, what exactly do you think Bernie himself would end up doing once elected but settle? And settle? And settle? And settle?

Thankfully, most of Bernie's supporters aren't the rabid type I've grown so frustrated with. But the sort who are stumping their feet and pledging support for Donald freakin' Trump?

 

[Yoda]

Little known fact: Half of the upper management at Bain Capital in 2012 were Democrats, some of whom were Obama bundlers (large scale fundraisers). They were literally raising money for Obama while he shit on their company and dragged their name through the mud. Presumably, they were not doing this in the interest of their business.

Obama had been very friendly to Wall St. from 09-2012. The fact is there was an expectation of major prosecutions. Those never happened. Large swatches of the financial sector profited (handsomely) from the American economy getting destroyed, inconsequential fines, no admittance of wrong-doing, and regulation, which on it's first draft looked amazing. Unfortunately over-time it was watered down, amounting to nothing more than increasing the compliance head-counts at banks. Donating to him despite the anti PE rhetoric made sense. An incumbent is always favored to win, and Romney would only be marginally better (because there is very little he could do in their favor that Obama wasn't already doing). Donating heavily against Romney and losing would have loosened the influence the FS has over Obama, given he wasn't really that bad for them, there's no reason to buy a slightly nicer horse so to speak.

On the subject of how professional lobbyists donate. It isn't based on the content on stump speeches or essays on the candidate websites. They do donate off voting records and private correspondence. Claiming the Clinton's haven't been pro financial industry is a stretch. This was evident earlier in the campaign when she tried to simply brush it off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uQutU7FzcQ

She's equal or to the right of Obama on financial regulations, which is why she's received more money from them than even a few of the republican candidates.

 

[Plumbob]

You think you're making a logical argument. But all you're doing is parroting more pro-Hillary point of views. BUT SHES ELECTABLE!

Berni supporters don't care about that. They care about integrity they see in their leaders. It's not something you can logic out.

It is indeed an attack. You really didn't say anything to dispel either of my cases.

An argument is not an attack, neither is an inquiry. I think emotions are running a bit high and people may be taking these discussions personally.

 

[Hige]

Yes I read the whole thing. Looking at your post it seems evident you live in Texas, a state that will turn purple sooner or later. Hell with Trump running theres a chance it'll turn purple this election. So your vote absolutely does matter.

And you blatantly saying there's a large possibility of you voting for Trump means what I wrote absolutely fits you, because if you vote democratic always, you voting for Trump, a known bigot and huge asshole, over Hillary, who votes similarly on 93% of the issues that Bernie does, means you would be throwing a hissy fit.

Your vote matters because the more votes against Trump means the less likely his bigoted message will be taken seriously in the future, and the sooner Republicans will shift away from racism as a party platform.

I live in a blue state that as far as I'm aware isn't at risk of turning purple or red anytime soon. If you have any links that suggest me voting for Hillary is more important than I think, I'm interested (not being sarcastic). I see the value in voting for a Democratic president in a place like Texas, but I don't think my circumstances fit the hissy fit description you're using against me.

 

[Valhelm]

Clinton and Sanders aren't all that similar. While they broadly agree on issues of social liberation, their priorities and positions on all other issues are drastically different. Most obviously, Sanders treats income inequality as a major issue. Clinton does not. Sanders would like to reform fundamental institutions of American society, while Clinton would not.

 

[Tesseract]

it's hillary's fault if she loses the ge

let's go lupe!

 

[Mecha]

You do realize that Citizens United came about because of an attack ad on Hillary, right? Why on earth would she want to repeal it. Why on earth would she not be in favor of reforming something that benifits the Republicans far more than it does her? I hear this a lot from Bernie supporters, even though Hillary has preached for campaign reform time and time again. So either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're calling Clinton a liar. Which is it?

The Citizens United Super PAC have also put forth $307,345 against Hillary, she's the only candidate the Super PAC has spent any money against.

 

[Prodigal Son]

Clinton and Sanders aren't all that similar. While they broadly agree on issues of social liberation, their priorities and positions on all other issues are drastically different. Most obviously, Sanders treats income inequality as a major issue. Clinton does not. Sanders would like to reform fundamental institutions of American society, while Clinton would not.

While this is very true, those who claim the candidates are similar are really doing so in a comparative sense. They are very similar when you consider the republican candidates who are also running for the same job.

As far as Democrats go, yeah. There are fundamental differences.

 

[Xe4]

I live in a blue state that as far as I'm aware isn't at risk of turning purple or red anytime soon. If you have any links that suggest me voting for Hillary is more important than I think, I'm interested (not being sarcastic). I see the value in voting for a Democratic president in a place like Texas, but I don't think my circumstances fit the hissy fit description you're using against me.

Just off the top of my head: the less popular vote a president gets the less legislation they can enact. If Hillary won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, for instamce, her power would be severely reduced as she would lack popular precident.

As I've said before, the less votes Trump gets, the more he gets buried in a landslide by the Democratic nominie, the better, because it will mean that his hateful rhetoric will less likely to be used in future elections by the Republican party.

Finally, there's more than voting in am election. Donating and or volunteering for the Hillary campaign can make a huge difference, both in states that DO matter, and in down ticket races.

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Clinton and Sanders aren't all that similar. While they broadly agree on issues of social liberation, their priorities and positions on all other issues are drastically different. Most obviously, Sanders treats income inequality as a major issue. Clinton does not. Sanders would like to reform fundamental institutions of American society, while Clinton would not.

Just because she doesn't focus on exclusively income inequality does not mean it is not a major issue. If you don't think repealing citizens united, creating a system to put money based on citizens choice into the process and going further to regulate banks doesn't fit your description then it's only because of your own tunnel vision.

I get that you prefer Sanders but please stop perpetuating lies about the other candidates.

 

[Valhelm]

While this is very true, those who claim the candidates are similar are really doing so in a comparative sense. They are very similar when you consider the republican candidates who are also running for the same job.

As far as Democrats go, yeah. There are fundamental differences.

Fair enough. A lot of Clinton supporters have made a pretty ardent effort to minimize Sanders' radical nature, so comments like the above bother me.

Just because she doesn't focus on exclusively income inequality does not mean it is not a major issue. If you don't think repealing citizens united and going further to regulate banks doesn't fit your description then it's only because of your own tunnel vision.

I get that you prefer Sanders but please stop perpetuating lies about the other candidates.

Neither Sanders or Clinton can repeal Citizens' United.

Clinton's plans for financial reform can be best described as half-assed. And speaking of "lies about the other candidates", suggesting that Sanders focuses exclusively on income inequality is absurdly dishonest.

 

[Cerium]

I don't think I'm the one with unrealistic ideals if you think businesses will donate to Candidates who will damage their ability to make more money. They're a business. Their goal is to make money. They are a soulless collection of many, many individuals whose primary common interest is profit (even if it necessitates fraud and illegal actions).

You have no idea how this works and you're not even bothering to read. The donations in question are coming from individuals who work at these institutions, not directly from a corporate bank account.

 

[gutter_trash]

How about you encourage them to vote more rather than disparage them. You know you're saying that you don't believe that they mean what they say/want.

All you have to say is that whatever happens, you want them to vote in the midterms to keep momentum going for progressivism and the democratic party.

I personally do want the US the veer farther Left. Because the people need it.

But I have little faith on bandwagonners who don't bother to vote at midterms