JesseEwiak
Member
If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office. I think of the banks giving money to Hillary as redistribution in action.
Democrat Debate 10 |CNN| Sometimes I just wanna punch you in your perfect teeth.
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
- Status
If you can't drink their whiskey, screw their women, take their money, and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in office. I think of the banks giving money to Hillary as redistribution in action.
No you don't do that. You separate them from their power in the system completely. You don't keep them there with you to be corrupted with.
JesseEwiak
Member
So, you believe private citizens shouldn't be able to pay other private citizens money in exchange for a speech?
BouncyFrag
Member
She got $315,000 from eBay to give a twenty minute speech. Only the most naive won't see this for what it truly is.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tech...ton-32-million-for-speeches-since-2014-2015-5
JesseEwiak
Member
That eBay is really at spending money? Also, what insidious thing is eBay going to get for their 315k from President Clinton?
Anyway, I think the truly hilarious thing with all this talk of corruption and the like is that the reality of the situation is that both parties are probably the least corrupt they've ever been and in many ways, that's a bad thing. With the end of earmarks and both parties becoming more ideological along with it becoming easier for certain "deals" that used to be hidden on pg. 295 of a budget to become an Internet meme, it's now impossible for a Budget Chairman to hand out some pork for one congressman, insert a tax loophole for an employer of another Congressperson, and perhaps, find a cute intern for another Congressman to get some votes.
The truth is, Republican's don't love tax breaks for oil companies, massive tax cuts to rich people, and destroying the EPA because Exxon gives them a lot of money. They already believed in all of those things - the money from Exxon just makes it easier for them to win an election. The same thing with Democrat's. You know why Bernie likes guns more than the average liberal? Because he's from Vermont. You know why Hillary was friendly to Wall Street? She was from New York. You know why Maria Cantwell loves Boeing? She's from Washington. Guess what, Joe Biden suddenly cared a whole hell of a lot less about the credit card industry once he became VP.
No i don't believe that. Didn't see the way you framed this at first, how ridiculous is this lol
Yeah i see someone separated from the reality of americans and who is running for the president
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So getting paid money to give a speech disqualifies you for being president. That's a fascinating view you have there. How is the view from up there on your high horse? Going to be really difficult to find candidates that meet your purity test.
JesseEwiak
Member
Only people who nobody wants to pay to hear talk is allowed to be President.
JesseEwiak
Member
If dumbass CEO's want to give me that paper to say vaguely nice things about them, I'll happily take that scratch and so should Hillary. Paying off Bill's secret children ain't cheap.
Um no, I quickly read his question and saw how he framed it. I initially read it thinking he included the actual numbers and amounts she was getting paid for the time she spent in this actual election we're talking about. No of course I don't believe getting paid to give a speech disqualifies a person. However, theres so much more depth in reality to it then,
" OH MY GOD SO NOW YOU CANT PAY PEOPLE TO TALK. "
JesseEwiak
Member
So how much before they're DQ'd for obviously being paid off shills? $10,000? $25,000? $100,000? I just want a hard number here where it goes from a valid transanction to an obvious payoff.
It's not about it being an obvious payoff. It's about thinking about is it morally sound and right for someone who wants to be president to get paid 200000 dollars for one hour of talking when the majority of americans live in debt while working 40- 50 hour work weeks? That's who you think is more qualified than bernie? That's who you think represents the poor and middle class more than bernie?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So if they give speeches at minimum wage it would be ok?
JesseEwiak
Member
FDR was a goddamn aristocrat. JFK's family was rich as hell off moonshine and other smuggling. LBJ got rich off oil as a Texan. Just because somebody is rich doesn't mean they can't push policies that help everyone else.
But even putting aside that, give me the person who will advance things slightly, but will actually slightly advance things over the person who thinks he'll magically get an 8-term Congressman from an R+10 seat who is worried about a primary challenge to sign on to free college and single payer health care because a whole bunch of college kids march outside his office.
Well the last thing Hilary should be doing is giving speeches to banks. That'd be ok.
When squalor becomes a virtue. Berniebros.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
So it's not about the money then? Can we move the goalposts some more so we can fit your argument?
Edit: I'll be away from awhile, have fun.
shinra-bansho
Member
A poor rando on the street represents poor randos pretty well. They should probably be President.
To make it seem like Hilary would be able to advance things slightly while saying Bernie wouldn't do anything is ignorant. Your acting like if Bernie wins the nomination the democratic party wont support him. He is working with the same congress hilary would be you know, that right?
And no I'm not saying a rich can't help the poor but there is someone in this election who stands out above the other.
Don't really think it will help you understand where your point is incomplete. But if you can please read this https://theintercept.com/2016/04/14/to-protect-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/ I would be thankful.
Yep bernie is jsut a crazy poor rando on the street, good substantive comment there. I'm dooone.
SolarPowered
Member
They should earn at least fifteen bucks an hour!
You act as if being a bank or working for a bank is inherently a crime. It's not like she gave speeches at Neo-Nazi rallies.
Bernie actively doesn't support down-ticket Democrats! The electorate would be materially different (and weaker from a Democratic standpoint) if he were the nom! Even if he won, the composition of Congress would likely be very different and very much less favorable than with Hillary!
I've taken to using exclamation points like Pigeon in my didacticism because it really feels like the Berniebros aren't actually reading posts.
It actually is probably more likely Hillary would get more done, however slightly, because she is actually supporting downticket Democrats with money that could mean bodies in office that could, ya know, pass actual legislation and not rainbow dreamscapes made from clouds and unicorns.
But ya know, Bernie is having a CONVERSATION so it's cool.
not talking about your avereage bank teller. yep keep ignoring their economic power and responsibility and how they effected our economy
shinra-bansho
Member
You made her personal wealth and success a matter of qualification. I didn't even mention Sanders.
It was the degree of commentary warranted for a pointless line of attack.
That taken to logical corollary means that guy on the street is most qualified.
It was the degree of commentary warranted for a pointless line of attack.
That taken to logical corollary means that guy on the street is most qualified.
Wait, why is it that receiving money for giving a private speech at a corporate event is equivalent to being bought and paid for by that corporation. Why isn't this a case of the labor market at work, as the scarcity of Hillary Clintons means that she can command an extremely high price from corporate event planners looking for somebody famous to speak at their events?
This makes no sense. I'm supposed to believe that there's something nefarious at work when it's just supply and demand?
This makes no sense. I'm supposed to believe that there's something nefarious at work when it's just supply and demand?
JesseEwiak
Member
Let me hit you with a scenario - Bernie Sanders somehow wins the nomination and wins the Presidency. Let's even give him the Senate. But, the House stays Republican.
So, Bernie gives his big Inauguration speech and puts forth his first set of bills - $15 minimum wage, single payer health care, free college, etc. Paul Ryan and the Republican Caucus say, "lol no" and passes their own stuff.
So, Bernie goes, "I WILL SHOW YOU THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!"
Bernie gets a million people (mostly people under 30) to show up to the Capitol for a whole week.
Paul Ryan and the Republican House Caucus goes, "lol no none of those hippies are from our districts."
This happens for two years. Bernie's approval rating continues to drop because he gets nothing done. 2018 comes around. Bernie loses the Senate and the GOP gains in the House because it a midterm election. What does he do then?
Banks make the economy function. When and if specific ones commit impropriety they should be delt with, but they aren't evil institutions.
Yes. Well guess what. They've been behaving incredibly inappropriately for a long time now. And getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to speak for an hour isn't a way to deal with them.
It doesn't not deal with them either. It nothings them. Hillary was a private citizen being paid to do a job. She deserves to get paid the maximum amount she can receive for that service.
This line of argumentation is more than a bit disingenuous considering the obstruction Hillary will face with a Republican House as well. Arguably she would face way more obstruction than he would. They really don't like her much at all. And unlike Hillary, Republicans have at least worked with Bernie and spoken positively of his reaches across the aisle. And in his time with the senate he's accomplished quite a bit for the people as well. His ability to work across the aisle and bring others together makes me inclined to believe he'd at least handle these situations in a manner that Hillary just won't be able to do. This is less a knock on her however and more on how Republicans just refuse to really have anything to do with her at all. And it most certainly comes from a sexist place.
Frankly speaking whether he gets the nom or not, I think it's important to have someone who has been and continues to push out progressive ideals. There are many progressive ideals that are important to have. We can't stay content with what we currently got and that's my biggest issue with some voters right now. That content nature/lack of care for voting is what has the potential to kill any progressive front. It's why every election, not just the presidency, is important.
This is a pretty serious fiction. Tales of Bernie's across aisle work have been greatly exaggerated. His efforts have either been incredibly small or bi-partisan by nature.
Frankly, Bernie was never really important enough for the Republicans to seriously attack.
It's not a serious fiction. What is one to me are these efforts made by some to completely dismiss the reality here. His time in the Senate has had a great influence and frankly speaking whether you want to acknowledge it or not, he has the reputation he does for a reason. Republicans who work with him always speak positively of the guy and he has often formed coalitions between Republicans and Democrats and gotten progressive shit done while doing it. Dismissing this reputation and dismissing what he has done as merely "he's not important enough to attack" is nothing more than hand-waving away the fact that he does work across the aisle far more effectively than Hillary ever has. That said, again, this is far more a knock on how Republicans treat her rather than any criticism of her.
JesseEwiak
Member
This. Also, we heard all kinds of stories about Obama too - "he worked with Illinois Republican's to pass a criminal justice reform bill that passed unamiously!
Well, Illinois Republican's ain't Congressional Republican's and the same people who say they respect Bernie Sanders in interviews today will happily call him a socialist ruining the nation from the day he's the nominee to the day he leaves office and every day in between.
As for building up a local movement, I truly hope so. If your average Bernie Sanders supporter truly wants a change, instead of complaining Hillary is a neoliberal sellout, go find a state senator to support. Run for your local school board. Donate to a county council race. Figure out who is the most progressive candidate for Attorney General. That's how the conservative movement shifted the nation to the right, by showing up every election.
Name these efforts that have had a great influence. Name these coalitions. What large scale effort has he lead? What major change has he caused? If you add everything Bernie has done together, frankly it would have less impact than CHIP by itself.
Bernie does not have a very impressive legislative record. And as for Republicans speaking well of him, it's a way for them to appear bipartisan without praising a Democrat.
I'd appreciate it if you would actually respond to what I pointed out about how your argument equally applies to Hillary rather than avoiding it.
Oh please, Bernie has worked with Republicans across the country not just state level. Fact is, the guy has a very long record of being able to work with those of all kinds of political backgrounds. To dismiss that history is to dismiss quite a lot, to be frank here. I am not arguing that they won't be obstructionist to him but Bernie will surely be able to work with them more than Hillary could considering both of their histories with the Republican party.
JesseEwiak
Member
I agree they'll just be as obstructionist. That's why Hillary has focused a lot on things she can control without Congressional approval and not say, promised massive overhauls to the health care system that requires supermajority support in the Senate to get anywhere.
As for working with people, maybe they might meet with Bernie a couple more times before saying no to everything like they've said no to everything from Obama. Just because they've talked some in the Senate cloak room doesn't mean that Orrin Hatch or John Thune is suddenly going to vote for repealing tax cuts for the rich or to expand spending at all.
http://www.alternet.org/election-20...shing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357
To turn such a blind eye to his track record is just ridiculous. I've had to even post this very same stuff and more to others on this board who keep on repeating the lie that you do regarding Bernie. The guy has been a player in Washington for a while and an effective one. Whether you like that or not really doesn't matter at the end of the day.
I hate to break it to you, but little in his record presented in those links is very substantial. I'm glad for his work with for the VA, I'm glad for his work with community health centers, but otherwise it's not great. The only people who would look at that list and be super impressed are people wholly lacking in perspective and Washington knowledge.
Again, trading it all for CHIP would be a trade well worth making.
Some of Hillary's promises are similar to Bernie's, to be honest. They differ in some very big regards (which heavily influence my preferred choice) but they are also quite the same in many others. I don't really see much of a change there one way or the other regarding focus. Have they both focused on separate issues throughout the primary? Yes. Would they push for more or less similar things? For the most part, I would like to believe so. Again, I go back to the big issues for me but generally speaking I don't see how Hillary or Bernie have an extreme advantage one way or the other here.
I agree that Bernie would face hardships too. They'll be obstructionist no matter what and it's a shame it would work that way. It's why local/mid-term elections are so important to me. Again, however, given his record with Republicans, I am just more inclined to believe that he could be able to get more done with them than Hillary. And it's a shame that the reason for that stems, as I said earlier, from sexist inclinations.
In the end that's just a what-if scenario however and discussing back and forth on "what-ifs" isn't going to result in anything conclusive in this case.
Oh, hey, you're making the "you're an idiot" argument. Again. And I wonder why I bother. If you don't want to look at the facts and just want to insult people then this conversation is wholly pointless. I could just repeat the facts to you ad nauseam and all you're going to do is deny them and look for a way to be insulting so why bother at this point.
This is not as clear cut as you portray it to be. Public administration is about integrity and such 'private matters' can be quite controversial.
teruterubozu
Member
I'm glad the party is finally coming together. What a heartwarming debate that was.
She was paid to give speechs to employees of banks. I can't figure out what about that shows a lack of integrity.
LOL, we all know why Hillary won't release the transcripts. She doesn't have to. People who were have already talked.
I wonder if they'll ask for their money back since they got fined $5 billion the other day.
I wonder if they'll ask for their money back since they got fined $5 billion the other day.
Also, this line of thinking is so weird, that these high paying speech gigs have to be a form of bribery. Companies pay obscene amounts of money to celebrities and other high profile people for internal speeches all the time. This is not a weird thing.
You trying to make it seem like she was some pop star appearing at a rich girl's sweet 16 is kinda funny. Yes, companies pay huge amounts of money for people to make appearances and speak. No matter how many times you say it, that isn't the issue.
So what is the issue?
- Status