Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

Can we all remind ourselves how much of a fool Romney looks after all this?

After?

 

[jiggle]

Can we all remind ourselves how much of a fool Romney looks after all this?

Damn I had forgotten that episode lol
Poor Mitten

Again

 

[Leona Lewis]

After?

I mean, he was always a goober, but the ferocity of his dumb speech is just...how is someone even capable of being such a glutton for embrassment?

 

[MIMIC]

What behavior are you referring to?

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

 

[JesseEwiak]

What behavior are you referring to?

Refusing to take a hollow wiffleball bat to a gunfight.

 

[eBay Huckster]

What behavior are you referring to?

nothing specific. not even a pattern of more lenient actions after XYZ amount of donations, or any other kind of quid pro quo that isn't the blatant type. no type of actual broadly defined corruption that can be specified in a measurable way, or even so much as gleaned in a haphazard way.

just the same ol' opensecrets link. the same old pointing to dollar amounts without any kind of causal link, whether strong or 9/11 truth tier, that behaviors or votes were changed.

 

[titiklabingapat]

It's ironic: the rationale behind the the view that Hillary's behavior regarding money in politics is A-OK until there is quid pro quo corruption can be found in the MAJORITY OPINION of "Citizens United." And the rationale that it's questionable and leads to corruption? Can be found in the dissent.

I don't know how people can overlook Hillary's behavior and then turn around and cry about the decision in "Citizens United".

From Stevens' dissent: Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.

You literally asked for this.

In a First Past the Post voting system, it's literally the lesser of two evils. You let the other side win and you get a disastrous 8 years of a Bush presidency. You learn to compromise because the system asks for it. If you want change, you change the system. Until then, you play by the game's rules.

 

[MIMIC]

nothing specific

Funny you say that. More from Stevens' dissent:

Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible

 

[eBay Huckster]

so basically, you have nothing but your own farts and a few lines of stevens' dissent to base this on, given that there isn't even innuendo in the smoke here.

e: scratch that, there isn't even smoke here

like, it'd be one thing if i was actually saying that because there's no concrete evidence of a quid pro quo there isn't one, but i'm saying that there isn't one because it took liz warren taking a vote out of context for there to even be a vague innuendo hinting at one. you can agree with stevens' dissent and also agree with this viewpoint.

 

[Ogrekiller]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/math-says-bernie-sanders-is-finished-222775

 

[MIMIC]

so basically, you have nothing but your own farts and a few lines of stevens' dissent to base this on, given that there isn't even innuendo in the smoke here.

e: scratch that, there isn't even smoke here

This is honestly quite sad. All to get Hillary Clinton elected.

No, I don't have evidence of her being corrupted and I have "nothing" to go on. You need to give the case a read (including the dissent)

 

[LiquidSolid]

You do realize that part of the reason there aren't many Americans listed in the Panama Papers is that very free trade agreement? It upped enforcement and allowed the US to better fight that sort of thing.

And even if there were, trying to pin something on her that she did as part of Obama's administration is stupid. She's not the one calling those shots, so unless you think she should've resigned over them, it's a non-issue.

Apparently the bulk of the American side of things has yet to be leaked. So who really knows. I doubt the people you mentioned are on there personally (it would be political suicide), but you never know, especially with Trump. That said, I'm sure there will inevitably be some interesting targets that will still be on there, if the remainder ever gets fully leaked.

You, apparently, seeing as it's your grand proof that she's corrupt.

 

[eBay Huckster]

This is honestly quite sad. All to get Hillary Clinton elected.

yeah, it's sad that you apparently can't see why people aren't buying your argument (that apparently relies on quoting two lines of stevens' dissent ad infinitum while ignoring any nuances) without resorting to this kind of bullshit

and ironically making it while supporting a candidate with actual demonstrable quid pro quos, all along the spectrum, re: the gun, sugar, and defense industries

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I didn't know there was a #HillaryOrBust


Yep. And why the hell should Bernie support anything other than progressives that align with his movement.

I'll go even further. Bernie would make waves if he came out soon with Elizabeth Warren as his running mate.

Because HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD does he plan to pass any of his ridiculously liberal policies without a bunch of Democrats in the House from places that aren't San Francisco and Vermont? You need more centrists Democrats to win swing districts in places like Arkansas.

How detached from reality do you have to be to not realize this?

 

[royalan]

This is honestly quite sad. All to get Hillary Clinton elected.

No, I don't have evidence of her being corrupted and I have "nothing" to go on. You need to give the case a read (including the dissent)

What's sad is that you continue to denigrate Clinton with nothing but baseless assumptions, and all in service of a candidate who actually does have a demonstrable allegiance to particular lobbyists and corporate interests (NRA/gun manufacturers).

 

[TheFixer]

This is honestly quite sad. All to get Hillary Clinton elected.

No, I don't have evidence of her being corrupted and I have "nothing" to go on. You need to give the case a read (including the dissent)

The first time I've seen a Supreme Court dissent used as a smoking gun for Hillary's corruption. You gotta applaud the ingenuity of our beloved Bernie bros.

 

[s10satsu]

What behavior are you referring to?

I believe he means that people talk about campaign finance reform and overturning CU, but will defend Hillary taking tons of money in from businesses and such with the same logic that made CU get through the Supreme Court in the first place. It's certainly a bit of a paradox even if there hasn't been a smoking gun yet.

 

[JesseEwiak]

This is honestly quite sad. All to get Hillary Clinton elected.

No, I don't have evidence of her being corrupted and I have "nothing" to go on. You need to give the case a read (including the dissent)

Let me give you a hypotherical. Some insanity happens and Sanders is the nominee.

God himself comes to you and says, "if Sander doesn't take SuperPAC money, Trump will win the election, three new conservative justices will be appointed, and you'll never get any sort of progressive change at the national level again for a generation because the Supreme Court will just declare in Unconstitutional."

Do you still think Sanders shouldn't sully himself by becoming corrupt by allowing SuperPAC's to work with him?

I believe he means that people talk about campaign finance reform and overturning CU, but will defend Hillary taking tons of money in from businesses and such with the same logic that made CU get through the Supreme Court in the first place. It's certainly a bit of a paradox even if there hasn't been a smoking gun yet.

It's not really a paradox. You go by the rules, even if you disagree with them. You don't get bonus votes by not taking SuperPAC cash. Even Russ Feingold, besainted liberal who worked w/ McCain to reform campaign finance who refused to take SuperPAC money in 2010 is taking it now in 2016. Why? Because he got killed by millions of dollars of outside spending and lost his Senate seat.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I believe he means that people talk about campaign finance reform and overturning CU, but will defend Hillary taking tons of money in from businesses and such with the same logic that made CU get through the Supreme Court in the first place. It's certainly a bit of a paradox even if there hasn't been a smoking gun yet.

well, first of all, all politics are full of paradoxes from the local level on up - you're inevitably gonna run into contradictory reasoning if you're dealing with any kind of heterogeneous groups of interests

but secondly, from what i can recall from the last time i read it (last spring, for a public affairs law course), CU's majority was predicated on the premises that BCRA § 203 unconstitutionally abridged the capacity of corporations and unions to engage in political speech by placing both time limits and contribution limits, and that strict, demonstrable quid pro quos were the only acceptable rationales for such limits.

this section of Stevens' dissent directly addresses the latter:

One former Senator candidly admitted to the District Court that “‘[c]andidates whose campaigns benefit from [phony “issue ads”] greatly appreciate the help of these groups. In fact, Members will also be favorably disposed to those who finance these groups when they later seek access to discuss pending legislation.’” Id., at 556 (quoting declaration of Sen. Dale Bumpers). One prominent lobbyist went so far as to state, in uncontroverted testimony, that “‘unregulated expenditures—whether soft money donations to the parties or issue ad campaigns—can sometimes generate far more influence than direct campaign contributions.’” Ibid. (quoting declaration of Wright Andrews; emphasis added). In sum, Judge Kollar-Kotelly found, “[t]he record powerfully demonstrates that electioneering communications paid for with the general treasury funds of labor unions and corporations endears those entities to elected officials in a way that could be perceived by the public as corrupting.”

i.e., that people who benefit from unregulated independent spending might be perceived as corrupt because of the risk that they will listen more to the spending entities in question.

it's logically coherent to think the Court was wrong on that front while simultaneously not thinking Clinton is corrupt, because fundamentally, the latter is the same kind of "maybe" that Stevens' dissent points out. you either agree with one interpretation of the body of work, or you don't.

it's fine, i think, to doubt that she's trustworthy - i don't think she is and i'm a pretty damn vehement supporter. it's all the more motivation for me to stay active after november to make damn sure her feet are held to the fire.

it's a whole other thing to imply that people who disagree with the premise that she has to be corrupt are being willfully blind, and a lot of people in this thread are falling neck deep into the second camp while acting like they're walking on water.

 

[MIMIC]

Let me give you a hypotherical. Some insanity happens and Sanders is the nominee.

God himself comes to you and says, "if Sander doesn't take SuperPAC money, Trump will win the election, three new conservative justices will be appointed, and you'll never get any sort of progressive change at the national level again for a generation because the Supreme Court will just declare in Unconstitutional."

Do you still think Sanders shouldn't sully himself by becoming corrupt by allowing SuperPAC's to work with him?

And this is the problem: people have convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get money Hillary's way.

When do you think it'll be OK to not run a campaign like this? In 4 years? 8? 12? 60? Just not *this* election, right? (and in 4 years, it'll be *that* election, and in 8, it'll be *that* one, and in 60, it'll be *that* one)

It never stops. And when the new rules come out, politicians will inevitably find new loopholes to exploit, and it'll be justified as "playing the game" and you're a fool if you don't think like this, etc. We will have literally gone no where. Instead of corruption being looked down upon, we just continue our culture of seeing it as a necessary evil.

Reminds me of steroids in sports. Yeah, it gives you the competitive edge and "everyone's doing it," but have some integrity for God's sake. Not everyone is doing it and there are plenty of "clean" people who are doing just find.

It's not really a paradox. You go by the rules, even if you disagree with them. You don't get bonus votes by not taking SuperPAC cash. Even Russ Feingold, besainted liberal who worked w/ McCain to reform campaign finance who refused to take SuperPAC money in 2010 is taking it now in 2016. Why? Because he got killed by millions of dollars of outside spending and lost his Senate seat.

But people get to look good when they complain about Citizens United one minute and then say "what corruption after she took hundreds of thousands of dollars from those 50 banks????" the next.

 

[s10satsu]

It's not really a paradox. You go by the rules, even if you disagree with them. You don't get bonus votes by not taking SuperPAC cash. Even Russ Feingold, besainted liberal who worked w/ McCain to reform campaign finance who refused to take SuperPAC money in 2010 is taking it now in 2016. Why? Because he got killed by millions of dollars of outside spending and lost his Senate seat.

I think you misunderstand me. Hillary supporters say that money has no affect on how the recipient of said money votes. This was the general logic used in favor of CU. Yet the same supporters still seem to be serious about campaign finance when it doesn't seem to matter if it isn't "buying" votes in favor of the sources of the money. It's not so much about playing the game, it's about the effects of playing them game on the player.

My guess is that the idea is to make it easier for less networked or rich candidates to make a legit run for offices, but many ideas seem to leave independents out in the cold which I'm not sure I'd be happy with.

And this is the problem: people have convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get money Hillary's way.

When do you think it'll be OK to not run a campaign like this? In 4 years? 8? 12? 60? Just not *this* election, right? (and in 4 years, it'll be *that* election, and in 8, it'll be *that* one, and in 60, it'll be *that* one)

It never stops. And when the new rules come out, politicians will inevitably find new loopholes to exploit, and it'll be justified as "playing the game" and you're a fool if you don't think like this, etc. We will have literally gone no where. Instead of corruption being looked down upon, we just continue our culture of seeing it as a necessary evil.

Reminds me of steroids in sports. Yeah, it gives you the competitive edge and "everyone's doing it," but have some integrity for God's sake. Not everyone is doing it and there are plenty of "clean" people who are doing just find.
.

Well, steroids are illegal I believe so that might be a poor example. Everything Hillary is doing is legal as far as we know, just sometimes fishy looking. And to be fair, change is exceedingly difficult in the system of government that has been created. Even if we get CU out, there will be other loopholes to be abused. (As an example, see the whole Victory Fund loophole which I don't think involves CU at all if I am remembering correctly.) Without radically changing how campaigns are run and how much money is required for a campaign, I'm not sure if the 'game' will ever not be a thing. And it is basically impossible to make these radical changes because most in politics probably benefit quite a bit from current campaign finance laws and revolving door positions. You'd basically have to toss congress out almost completely and get a whole new batch. It's a sad reality and one reason why so few people care about voting.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I think you misunderstand me. Hillary supporters say that money has no affect on how the recipient of said money votes. This was the general logic used in favor of CU. Yet the same supporters still seem to be serious about campaign finance when it doesn't seem to matter if it isn't "buying" votes in favor of the sources of the money. It's not so much about playing the game, it's about the effects of playing them game on the player.

fwiw my argument's more that "money doesn't seem to have actually had an impact on how she's voted and conducted herself", which is more a gut feeling that her ambitions from 50 years of political campaigning and activism outweigh the influence of money

that isn't to say that money has no impact on how recipients vote in general! that's to say that i doubt it's had an appreciable impact on how clinton, specifically, voted.

(and for the record, i personally want it to be not OK to run a campaign like this in four years, regardless of whether that makes Clinton's re-election more difficult. hopefully that's in the form of a judicial reversal or legislative action so that both parties lose the incentive.)

 

[Rentahamster]

One of the reasons I am hoping to see a Sanders vs Trump general is because it would be a very interesting experiment to see BOTH sides who have run a primary campaign on a platform partially based on being free from lobbyist money.

It would be an amazing game of chicken to see who cracks first. Even more amazing if neither of them do.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

One of the reasons I am hoping to see a Sanders vs Trump general is because it would be a very interesting experiment to see BOTH sides who have run a primary campaign on a platform partially based on being free from lobbyist money.

It would be an amazing game of chicken to see who cracks first. Even more amazing if neither of them do.

Sanders is reliant on donations, Trump can just use his own wealth. What happens if Trump decides to spend 500 million in October and Sanders literally cannot raise a figure close to that?

 

[Rentahamster]

Sanders is reliant on donations, Trump can just use his own wealth. What happens if Trump decides to spend 500 million in October and Sanders literally cannot raise a figure close to that?

Like I said, a fascinating game of political chicken. It would be one of the more interesting tests of principle that I've seen.

 

[JesseEwiak]

And this is the problem: people have convinced themselves that the only way to win is to get money Hillary's way.

When do you think it'll be OK to not run a campaign like this? In 4 years? 8? 12? 60? Just not *this* election, right? (and in 4 years, it'll be *that* election, and in 8, it'll be *that* one, and in 60, it'll be *that* one)

It never stops. And when the new rules come out, politicians will inevitably find new loopholes to exploit, and it'll be justified as "playing the game" and you're a fool if you don't think like this, etc. We will have literally gone no where. Instead of corruption being looked down upon, we just continue our culture of seeing it as a necessary evil.

Reminds me of steroids in sports. Yeah, it gives you the competitive edge and "everyone's doing it," but have some integrity for God's sake. Not everyone is doing it and there are plenty of "clean" people who are doing just find.
.

My problem w/ money in politics isn't that it'll make people corrupt. The vast majority of politicians already have ideological beliefs that line them up with certain groups or are biased towards industries that are important to their state or district.

My problem w/ money in politics is that it allows those with lots of money outsized power in choosing who wins elections via ads and donations to candidates making it easier for those crazy candidates to get elected in the 1st place, especially in local elections.

After all, Barbara Boxer or Ron Wyden wouldn't suddenly stop supporting action with climate change even if Exxon personally gave them $100 million dollars each in untraceable cash. By the same token, Planned Parenthood could give Ted Cruz $50 million dollars tomorrow and he'd still be pro-life.

Are there specific small bore issues where campaign contributions may matter? Maybe. But Hillary Clinton was friendly with Wall Street because she was the Senator from New York and the financial industry, whether you like it or not, creates a ton of jobs just like Maria Cantwell will always be friendly with Boeing and any senator from Texas, even a Democratic one, will be friendly with the oil and gas industry.

Like I said, a fascinating game of political chicken. It would be one of the more interesting tests of principle that I've seen.

With only the small matter of the lives and happiness of millions of people in the balance - sooooo fascinating!

 

[nib95]

You, apparently, seeing as it's your grand proof that she's corrupt.

What? We already know hundreds of American companies and people are using Panama's loopholes to avoid taxes and store capital. Knowing the exact people who are doing it is besides the point. My point wasn't that Hillary herself uses Panama as an off share haven, but that she supported the trade agreements that facilitated them, whereas for example Bernie rejected them, predicting exactly the outcome that did end up occurring.

This, coupled with the Bankruptcy bill which she initially vehemently rejected because of it's negative impacts to the working class, but then later pushed through because the finance sector wanted it, were just two examples I gave that highlight what in my mind is her lack of partiality on these things.

 

[Maledict]

One of the main reasons few Americans were in the Panama papers is because they don't have a huge need. The USA is a tax haven already - have you looked at what goes on in Delaware? It's one of the reasons some of the anti-evasion measures between countries have failed - because the USA wants to stop everyone else whilst not looking at the crap in its own backyard.

 

[Palette Swap]

This thread really illuminates the fact the Democratic primary is running on self-cannibalizing character assassination rather than on any kind of meaningful ideological debate that could help shape a consensual GE platform.

 

[Rentahamster]

With only the small matter of the lives and happiness of millions of people in the balance - sooooo fascinating!

Sarcastic dispersions against my capacity to care for the well-being of my fellow citizens aside, yes, I find the situation compelling.

 

[noshten]

If you want to ban Open Primaries, perhaps the DNC and RNC need to start thinking about how they'd fund their little nomination process without state funding.

 

[giga]

💀

 

[Sean C]

Purely academic at this point, but it will be interesting to see what sort of residual anti-Trump vote there is in the remaining states now that everybody but Kasich has given up trying to stop him.

 

[Vanillalite]

If you want to ban Open Primaries, perhaps the DNC and RNC need to start thinking about how they'd fund their little nomination process without state funding.

This is my only issue with closed primaries.

I'm not against closed in theory. Just against it when they used public funds and already established voting setups.

 

[TyrantII]

This thread really illuminates the fact the Democratic primary is running on self-cannibalizing character assassination rather than on any kind of meaningful ideological debate that could help shape a consensual GE platform.

Liberals are very, very good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[boiled goose]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Democrats that say that bug money is not corrupting politicians unless quid pro quo is demonstrated but then say they are against citizens United are the biggest hypocrites in politics.

That is literally the argument used in citizens United. Literally.

I see so much in this thread it's disgusting the mental gymnastics of Fanboyism are disgusting.

 

[TyrantII]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Democrats that say that bug money is not corrupting politicians unless quid pro quo is demonstrated but then say they are against citizens United are the biggest hypocrites in politics.

That is literally the argument used in citizens United. Literally.

I see so much in this thread it's disgusting the mental gymnastics of Fanboyism are disgusting.

Of course it's corrupting. A presidential election is also not the place to really make change to it.

State Parties and Congress are where you push leaders that would adopt a 100% public financing amendment.

Trying to force the top of the ticket in a $2 billion dollar campaign to fight with both hands tied behind their back is stupid and hilariously short sighted. It won't move the needle where we want it, and it only reinforces those in Washington that wispet in their ear that they can't count in those votes. So don't bother.

 

[royalan]

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Democrats that say that bug money is not corrupting politicians unless quid pro quo is demonstrated but then say they are against citizens United are the biggest hypocrites in politics.

That is literally the argument used in citizens United. Literally.

I see so much in this thread it's disgusting the mental gymnastics of Fanboyism are disgusting.

How is asking for evidence fanboyism? People are just asking for some shred of tangible evidence that Hillary is a politician for corporate interests. You don't need quid pro quo for that; this is the most obvious attempt to distract from the lack of an actual argument, and you have the nerve to claim fanboyism.

All you would have to do is demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a politician that has generally voted for and/or sided with legislation that favored corporate interests over the poor and middle class. Again, if you could do that, you wouldn't need to "prove" that she got something specifically for it. It would be implicit in her politics.

But simply claiming that a politician with a relatively clean record in that regard MUST be corrupt because she's accepted campaign contributions from people who work in industries you and Bernie don't like (because that's really the point here. Bernie has also accepted campaign contributions and PAC money, but I guess it's "pure" when he does it), or worked with bundlers who've also worked with those industries (which is six degrees of separation bullshit and doesn't effect her politics at all) is incredibly dishonest, lazy, and honestly not worth taking seriously. Which is why Bernie is losing and this has never been a winning argument for him.

 

[Yoda]

How is asking for evidence fanboyism? People are just asking for some shred of tangible evidence that Hillary is a politician for corporate interests. You don't need quid pro quo for that; this is the most obvious attempt to distract from the lack of an actual argument, and you have the nerve to claim fanboyism.

All you would have to do is demonstrate that Hillary Clinton is a politician that has generally voted for and/or sided with legislation that favored corporate interests over the poor and middle class. Again, if you could do that, you wouldn't need to "prove" that she got something specifically for it. It would be implicit in her politics.

But simply claiming that a politician with a relatively clean record in that regard MUST be corrupt because she's accepted campaign contributions from people who work in industries you and Bernie don't like (because that's really the point here. Bernie has also accepted campaign contributions and PAC money, but I guess it's "pure" when he does it), or worked with bundlers who've also worked with those industries (which is six degrees of separation bullshit and doesn't effect her politics at all) is incredibly dishonest, lazy, and honestly not worth taking seriously. Which is why Bernie is losing and this has never been a winning argument for him.

Credit card regulations:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/07/elizabeth-warrens-book-completely-undermines-hillarys-latest-defense-of-bankruptcy-bill-flip-flop-video/

 

[Sub_Level]

Delegate count is a little off but still funny.

 

[BotoxAgent]

How is asking for evidence fanboyism?

because they can't find evidence

 

[dramatis]

Trump becomes de facto GOP nominee as Cruz exits after crushing Indiana loss [Washington Post]

Donald Trump, the celebrity mogul whose brash and un­or­tho­dox presidential bid was counted out time and again, became the de facto Republican nominee Tuesday night after a runaway victory in Indiana’s primary forced his chief rival, Ted Cruz, to quit the race.

Trump overcame a spirited last stand by Cruz — and a patchwork movement of Republicans working desperately to derail him in fear that his polarizing politics could doom the party — to gallop to the nomination. Indiana’s results positioned him to easily accumulate the 1,237 delegates required to avert a contested convention.

Even as Ohio Gov. John Kasich vowed to continue his long-shot campaign, Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus declared Trump the “presumptive nominee” and urged all Republicans to unite behind him.

The Day the Republican Party Died [The Atlantic]

A funny thing has happened to the Tea Party’s brand of anti-incumbent fervor in the age of Trump. In down-ballot primaries, antiestablishment conservatives have largely flopped. In Indiana on Tuesday, Representative Marlin Stutzman, a stalwart member of the Freedom Caucus that helped oust former Speaker John Boehner, was routed in the Senate primary by a fellow congressman supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In primaries in Alabama and elsewhere, incumbent and establishment candidates have similarly had an easy ride against their challengers. It is as if Trump had provided an outlet for all the primary electorate’s rage, leaving their local representatives unscathed.

Cruz’s failure and Trump’s success have cast the Republican insurgencies of yesteryear in a new light. Was ousting Dick Lugar and his fellow longtime incumbents ever really about the strict conservative agenda of Washington groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth? Or was it, for the voters who carried it out, about a deeper, more primal, more identitarian resentment, an indiscriminate rage against the machine? Cruz’s loss revealed that his brand of activist conservatism wasn’t really driving the past years’ rebellions of the GOP base. It is this realization that has made the rise of Trump so disturbing for the party intelligentsia.

 

[royalan]

Credit card regulations:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/07/elizabeth-warrens-book-completely-undermines-hillarys-latest-defense-of-bankruptcy-bill-flip-flop-video/

You mean that bankruptcy Bill that even Biden was advising Hillary to vote for, and that she wouldn't vote for until it was amended to include provisions that addressed Warren's concerns?

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: In her book, Senator Warren said the bill was essentially the same but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not. Big banks were part of her constituency. She wanted their support, they wanted hers. Including the part --

HILLARY CLINTON: George, look. I have the greatest -- I have the greatest respect for Senator Warren. As I said, we did work together. I faced a choice. I could have said to the women who have been my advocates for 30 years, I'm sorry. I'm now in the senate. But you know, I can't help you.

Nobody else was helping them. They were desperate to get help. They were afraid child support would be below credit card debt. They were going to be left out and left behind and badly damaged. I could have said, I can't do that. Because somebody in ten years might say that something else was going on. That's not the way I work. They came to me... I went to the floor. I lobbied to get it changed. And, as part of getting the change from both Democrats and Republicans, who were leading that legislation, they said if we change the bill at the last minute to take account of the issues you're raising, about women and children, which they clearly had not made a priority before I showed up, then, you know, you have to say you'll vote for it.

It was, look, that's what you have to do. I swallowed hard. I said okay. It was also the case, it didn't get passed. I got what I needed into the bill. It stayed in the bill, even in a bad version that I opposed in 2005. Thank you for the opportunity to set the record straight.

But even if the above weren't the case, and Hillary had supported that bill without any provisions...it's just one piece of legislation, out of her entire 8 year tenure in the senate. Hardly reflective of a politician handily in the pocket of the corporations. Got anything else?

 

[Adaren]

This thread really illuminates the fact the Democratic primary is running on self-cannibalizing character assassination rather than on any kind of meaningful ideological debate that could help shape a consensual GE platform.

I scream every time I read a post saying "I think she's only in it for the power" "She seems like she'd be really cold and standoffish in person" "All those scandals around her seem pretty shady".

Ugh. You're better than that, GAF.

 

[Steel]

I scream every time I read a post saying "I think she's only in it for the power" "She seems like she'd be really cold and standoffish in person" "All those scandals around her seem pretty shady".

Ugh. You're better than that, GAF.

Yeah, it's not like she's old, likely to die in the next decade, and probably more concerned about her legacy than bribes. But, seriously, it's hardly as if she'll live long enough to enjoy any post-campaign cash, anyway.

 

[B-Dubs]

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Do you not even read your own links? Because you can't make posts like that if you actually bothered to read the big red letters on that page.

 

[jmdajr]

Delegate count is a little off but still funny.

Already mentioned but Cali probably has too much good food to quit now.

 

[Darryl M R]

I'm always confused about national polls saying "X candidate is preferred by the American people over Y candidate." Where do these polls come from and who are the people that respond? What is the sample size? I have never been asked to respond in one of these polls :[


Also once Hillary gets the nomination I will have to donate something to her, can't let Trump actually win. . that would be insane for the country.

Spoiler

But I rather have Trump than Cruz any day

 

[jmdajr]

Multiple GOP operatives – most staying anonymous – told MSNBC they were “voting for Hillary.” Earlier in the day, John McCain’s former presidential campaign manager said as much publicly.

nice

 

[Darryl M R]

nice

This is beautiful. I will take this.