Support NeoGAF

[Peter Ian Staker]

There's a wide spectrum of responses between what we did and launching a full scale invasion of Syria.

By remaining aloof, Obama left a vacuum that was filled by the Russians, have been happily bombing civilian populations ever since.

What sort of responses are you thinking of?
I think Obama did well to not pull the US back into the dumpster fire the Bush administration helped creating.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Or AIPAC. Or big pharma. Or big arms vendors like Haliburton. Do these multi million dollar donations really comes hands free? These corporations are so disgusting and vile in their treatment of people for maximum profit that it makes me skeptical that they give a shit about politics unless they want to somehow favor the game. But that is not an accusation on Hillary or calling her crooked or corrupt, but I share Sanders concern as he said "I have huge doubts when candidates receive massive sums of money". That is not an unreasonable skepticism to have. It is unreasonable to flat out accuse someone of corruption however.

Again, corporations legally can't donate to politicians. Employees of corporations can and will. For the most part though, corporations and rich people donate to candidates for two reasons -

1. To help a candidate that already agrees with them win. After all, the NRA isn't powerful because it hands out lots of money. The NRA is powerful because 1/3 of the country believes Obama is going to take their guns.

2. To look equal and donate to both sides - most really large companies do this, since they're largely non-political about policies that don't effect them directly.

Again, I agree with public financing of elections, but hate it for the right reasons.
.

It will take a Sulla type personality, to walsh in and reform the two-party system, and make it so third parties can be a part of coalition politics. Maybe Hillary can help do it. That would really be something!

As long as we have a FPTP, a third party will never rise and quite frankly, in America, a third party is much more likely to look like Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders.

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

She did. As recent as yesterday.

fyi

"That's really the bottom line here and I have said, during the interview and in many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly," Clinton told reporters.
"So I may have short-circuited it and for that, I will, you know, try to clarify," she added.

That is not owning up. That is sweeping things under the rug which are out in the public I.e.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received. Was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.

Also the following is not owning up and is sweeping under the rug as well. This is less than a week ago:

"That’s not what I heard Director Comey say," Clinton responded. "Director Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people: that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails."

That is some true word wrangling. And it stinks.

I'll be voting for her but she doesn't need to do these things. They make her look quite dishonest and plotting.

 

[Abounder]

Hillary is the Democrat's Dick Cheney and conveniently has a Super PAC paying million$ for asstroturfing trolls (don't get defensive ya'll, not accusing anyone here lol), which is similar to shady tactics employed by both Israel and Russia. When it comes to ratings and judgment she is the worst Democrat frontrunner we have seen, and embodies the revolving door of corruption that has led to disastrous foreign and domestic policies. She can't help but say yes to her advisers/lobbyists whether it's warmongering generals or the wolves on Wall Street. On top of that she's racist with her super-predator malarkey. And personally I don't want to see a manpig called Bill Clinton back in the White House and in 'charge of the economy'. Oh yea Hillary also wants to escalate things vs Russia such as the no-fly zone in Syria and pushing the red scare again in this election cycle. She's campaigning too much on fear for my liking but at least it's working.

Still a million times superior than Trump but that's not saying much, hopefully Hillary's ratings improve and doesn't poison the rest of the party

 

[Taramoor]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

-----------

 

[Mighty Chin]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

-----------

It's not a lie. It can be both. That right there should put an end to it.


But it won't.

 

[Valhelm]

There's a wide spectrum of responses between what we did and launching a full scale invasion of Syria.

By remaining aloof, Obama left a vacuum that was filled by the Russians, have been happily bombing civilian populations ever since.

The Obama strategy has done a lot to improve the situation of the Syrian Kurdish forces, who are the closest thing to a "good guy" in this conflict. I'm not complaining.

 

[Aaronology]

Ps: How is it that Hillary still won't admit she lied/screwed up with the emails. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Does she not know what her image is? So dumb.

Hillary Clinton admits private email server was 'a mistake'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-private-email-server
"I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility."

Hillary Clinton admits 'short circuit' on email server comments
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/06/hillary-clinton-admits-short-circuit-on-email-server.html

Hillary Clinton apologizes for e-mail system: ‘I take responsibility’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-e-mail-system-i-take-responsibility/

Hillary Clinton Apologizes for Email Setup as Secretary of State
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-apologizes-for-email-setup-as-secretary-of-state-1441745045

Hillary Clinton 'sorry' about private email account, says it was a 'mistake'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hillary-clinton-sorry-about-private-email-account-says-it-was-a-mistake-1.3220182

Clinton admits using private email server was wrong
http://www.trtworld.com/americas/clinton-admits-using-private-email-server-was-wrong-7553

Tim Kaine says Hillary Clinton admitted wrongdoing in email server scandal
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/kaine-clinton-admitted-mistake-email-server-scandal-article-1.2739558

“She said, ‘Look, it was a mistake and I’ve learned from it and I’d do something different,’” the Virginia senator said in a teaser for a CBS interview set to air Friday morning. “That’s been the way she’s pitched it to me.”

Clinton Acknowledges Private E-Mail System a ‘Mistake’
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-05-31/clinton-acknowledges-private-e-mail-system-a-mistake-podesta

Edit:

It's not a lie. It can be both. That right there should put an end to it.


But it won't.

Much in the way this thread is still going even though it seems to have devolved into a support group for people unreasonably dissatisfied with the Clinton campaign. We're back on emails.

 

[boiled goose]

So she's corrupt and makes legislation based on what big donors say and doesn't care what the people want but she is also a flip flopper that only does what is popular by the American people?

She was paid to give speeches. But what money has she taken that has influenced her as a senator or as SoS? If it is so plainly obvious, then provide some examples.

It's posts like this make me think that you are either extremely dishonest or extremely naive. Or just bad at critical thinking.

Let's agree on the basic facts. Legislation has zero correlation with public opinion but has a positive correlation with donor opinion.

The influence of money in politics is insidious and pervasive. If you need quid pro quo then you are not against citizens united are you? If money has no influence why is Hillary against it? See fundamental dishonesty or lack of critical thinking.

If Hillary is receiving all that money then it's either because her policies pass the approval test or because she does. In either case she is propped up by money in a way that skews the intended democratic process. More money, higher chance to win. How do you get the money? By adopting or already having policies donors agree with. It's obvious.yet you pretend it's not a problem because it makes your politician look bad. Even she admits it is a problem.

If you don't see the problem with becoming wealthy by getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks when you know said banks spend millions lobbying to get favorable legislation then I don't know what to tell you. It's such an obvious conflict of interest. I guess climate change deniers getting money from energy companies is obvious but Democrats are somehow immune. Not as bad or not as blatant doesn't mean not a problem.

 

[aliengmr]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/hillary-clinton-attacks-donald-trump-journalism/index.html

"I was pointing out in both of those instances, that Director Comey had said that my answers in my FBI interview were truthful. That really is the bottom line here," she said. "What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly. I may have short-circuited and for that I will try to clarify."

Clinton went on to repeat that she "never sent or received" classified information on her private email server -- a statement that is inconsistent with Comey's testimony on Capitol Hill.
"And I would go back to where I started, I regret using one account, I have taken responsibility for that," Clinton said.

Is that really an admission?

"I have acknowledged, repeatedly, that using two email accounts was a mistake"

Yes. Not sure what else needs to be said.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It's posts like this make me think that you are either extremely dishonest or extremely naive. Or just bad at critical thinking.

Let's agree on the basic facts. Legislation has zero correlation with public opinion but has a positive correlation with donor opinion.

The influence of money in politics is insidious and pervasive. If you need quid pro quo then you are not against citizens united are you? If money has no influence why is Hillary against it? See fundamental dishonesty or lack of critical thinking.

If Hillary is receiving all that money then it's either because her policies pass the approval test or because she does. In either case she is propped up by money in a way that skews the intended democratic process. More money, higher chance to win. How do you get the money? By adopting or already having policies donors agree with. It's obvious.yet you pretend it's not a problem because it makes your politician look bad. Even she admits it is a problem.

If you don't see the problem with becoming wealthy by getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks when you know said banks spend millions lobbying to get favorable legislation then I don't know what to tell you. It's such an obvious conflict of interest. I guess climate change deniers getting money from energy companies is obvious but Democrats are somehow immune. Not as bad or not as blatant doesn't mean not a problem.

OK, this is what you guys don't get - the crazy Senator doesn't throw snowballs on the floor of the Senate because he's being paid off by Exxon. He already believes climate change isn't real and Exxon's funding helps him stays in office.

The truth is, on the big issues (economics, Wall Street, health care, foreign policy, etc.), campaign funding isn't to effect peoples opinions. It's to help to get people in office who already agree with you.

As for the speaking fees, if anything, Hillary is being underpaid. 120 people, including such luminaries as Larry the Cable Guy and Guy Fieri also make $200k per speech.

 

[benjipwns]

damn, imagine if it had been trump/fieri 2016

 

[gutter_trash]

I really can't understand what is going on in this gif.

pyrotechnics lit up the giant screen, she was standing right below

 

[woolley]

It's posts like this make me think that you are either extremely dishonest or extremely naive. Or just bad at critical thinking.

Let's agree on the basic facts. Legislation has zero correlation with public opinion but has a positive correlation with donor opinion.

But earlier in the thread she flip flops on issues based on what popular by the people at the time but now your saying she does what her donors want and not what the people want.

Which is it?

And what legislation has she passed that shows corruption?

And in a representative government aren't the elected officials not supposed to do thing that the people want?

 

[The Technomancer]

The "classified information" was three statements buried deep in email chains forwarded to her without proper header markings. Christ how are we still on this?

 

[paragonpro]

I consider myself largely republican on near everything but some of the social and relgious views. i think the problem is democrats and republicans need to be able to be able to talk to each other without dems assuming we are all sexist/racist/homophobic, and vice versa more hard core republicans need to be willing to talk to democrats with out immediatley jumping to "im not going to listen to this sjw liberal shit". This election is tearing us apart worst than ever, and alot of that is because we are afraid of confrontation breaking out if we try to talk to eachother about it.

 

[xxracerxx]

I consider myself largely republican on near everything but some of the social and relgious views. i think the problem is democrats and republicans need to be able to be able to talk to each other without dems assuming we are all sexist/racist/homophobic, and vice versa more hard core republicans need to be willing to talk to democrats with out immediatley jumping to "im not going to listen to this sjw liberal shit". This election is tearing us apart worst than ever, and alot of that is because we are afraid of confrontation breaking out if we try to talk to eachother about it.

I completely understand that not all republicans are sexist/racist/homophobics but it is hard to differentiate when your parties platform say otherwise.

 

[Aureon]

Breitbart is to the right wing what the New York Times, the WaPo and the Guardian are to the left-wing.

Breitbart doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the New York Times.
The NYT is very neutral, to the point of laughably trying to find a "middle" sometimes.
Breitbart is...

Please.

Her support of Netanyahu is terrible. It's not something that should be defended. He is a proxy dictator. A right-wing racist maniac who has instigated thousands of deaths, in what is essentially a new frontier of US colonization. You can compare the Palestinians to the Native Indians in that they are slowly but surely getting fucked up and ignored, and propaganda liked it's executed via AIPAC is there to twist the narrative.
The death penalty is another one of those, that are neither a GOP attack or based in purity. Many, many countries of the world universally agree that it is a barbaric, ignorant policy stance to have that is an embarrassment to any civilized society.

Could you point at anyone defending those two? I don't quite believe i've seen either, and USA politics discussion is my favourite entertainment.

The argument being attacked is that you need to agree with a politician on every single issue or s/he didn't "Deserve" your vote, in most cases.

 

[brainchild]

My bigger pet peeve is with Clinton Supporters who shitpost and smear of any criticism against her as purity bullshit or as a GOP brainwash propaganda.

It is this weak, and timid fanboy defense of someone who cannot own up to the mistakes. I've seen posts in PoliGAF that defends every fucking legitimate critique of her policies as a sign of what a great person she is.
Her support of Netanyahu is terrible. It's not something that should be defended. He is a proxy dictator. A right-wing racist maniac who has instigated thousands of deaths, in what is essentially a new frontier of US colonization. You can compare the Palestinians to the Native Indians in that they are slowly but surely getting fucked up and ignored, and propaganda liked it's executed via AIPAC is there to twist the narrative.
The death penalty is another one of those, that are neither a GOP attack or based in purity. Many, many countries of the world universally agree that it is a barbaric, ignorant policy stance to have that is an embarrassment to any civilized society.
Particularly so in a country that has done such a disasterous job in targeting minorities through racial court, and through bogus proceedings. There is little room for interpretation there, so to see people defend this as "YAS QUEEN" is just incredible insulting and gross. Snowden is another talking point where I think she (and Obama) is just flat out wrong in calling him a criminal. He is practically a hero who uncovered fuckery by the NSA. She should own up to it. This is not a FOX news talking point either.
I think her stance on fracking is hypocritical. It's good she embraces climate change, but saying that more studies need to be done on fracking is just bullshit. And the same goes for the legalization of weed. We all know where this is headed, and it annoys me that she won't´just come out and say it. The overwhelming science community agrees that fracking is damaging the environment.
If the reality is that the US economy needs to rely on fracking as it veins off coal, she needs to come out and say it.

Hillary might be forced because she has to pander to her moderate base. And that I understand and sympathize with. But as an armchair critic, I'm within my right to say a policy is bad when I see it's bad. When people defend her talking points- Not her decisions for a fair judgment, but flat out starts arguing that Netanyahu is great, weed is bad and fracking is perfectly safe... That is just annoying.
I agree with 93% of Hillary Clinton according to Isidewith, and that is when we all took the test in the early in 2015. Since then, she has absorbed Bernies platform, and it's probably closer to 98% now.
I'm fine with Hillary. I just don't like her fanatic supporters, much like Hillary supporters who are fine with Bernie, don't like Bernies fanatic supporters. It's the support of the ground troops that irk the knee jerk reaction, and it usually boils down to a few posters saying some arrogant bullshit.

I'm really hoping The Democrats will try and deliver on their most progressive platform in history. I do wonder what the moderate democrats feels about it. I don't think they are too happy about all these young people coming to the convention, starting shit and pushing the entire party left. After all, there are people within the democratic ranks who basically sabotaged Obama on many of his progressive issues. I'm concerned, as I try to make peace with my cynicism about the influence of donor money, and how corruptible humans are. I just don't understand how companies like Exxon Mobile give money to candidates if nothing fishy is going on.
Or AIPAC. Or big pharma. Or big arms vendors like Haliburton. Do these multi million dollar donations really comes hands free? These corporations are so disgusting and vile in their treatment of people for maximum profit that it makes me skeptical that they give a shit about politics unless they want to somehow favor the game. But that is not an accusation on Hillary or calling her crooked or corrupt, but I share Sanders concern as he said "I have huge doubts when candidates receive massive sums of money". That is not an unreasonable skepticism to have. It is unreasonable to flat out accuse someone of corruption however.

I hope for the best once she is elected. Hopefully she is. We will just have to see how the pendulum swings. I think in her first term, things will be difficult like it was for Obama and a lot of negativity will be around her, but I think that maybe things will improve. A lot of it depends on if they can take the senate in 2 years. And if they get someone through the supreme court who is liberal and young. Things could be interesting. If she gets citizen united overruled it could quite something. If the deregulation of wall street or whatever they do, can stop shadow bank (the real problem) that too would be something worth being pessimistic about.
It will take a Sulla type personality, to walsh in and reform the two-party system, and make it so third parties can be a part of coalition politics. Maybe Hillary can help do it. That would really be something!

Fantastic post with legitimate criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and more importantly, legitimate criticisms of Clinton supporters. Prepare for it to either be handwaved or largely ignored.

 

[The Technomancer]

Can someone point me to where she said fracking was "perfectly safe"?

And no, I'm not nitpicking. Give me criticism based on things she has actually said and done please

 

[Buzzati]

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

Absolutely right.

 

[spiderman123]

There is a clearly a bias for Hilary.

My dislike for Hilary stems from my voluntary work in Haiti After seeing, listening and interacted with the people. I could never stomach to even support Hilary or the Clintons for that matter.

Don't get me wrong Trump is way worst but why not Bernie man why dems why!

 

[xxracerxx]

There is a clearly a bias for Hilary.

My dislike for Hilary stems from my voluntary work in Haiti After seeing, listening and interacted with the people. I could never stomach to even support Hilary or the Clintons for that matter.

And that is totally okay to criticize the organization for that shitshow.

 

[Big Baybee]

It's posts like this make me think that you are either extremely dishonest or extremely naive. Or just bad at critical thinking.

Let's agree on the basic facts. Legislation has zero correlation with public opinion but has a positive correlation with donor opinion.

The influence of money in politics is insidious and pervasive. If you need quid pro quo then you are not against citizens united are you? If money has no influence why is Hillary against it? See fundamental dishonesty or lack of critical thinking.

If Hillary is receiving all that money then it's either because her policies pass the approval test or because she does. In either case she is propped up by money in a way that skews the intended democratic process. More money, higher chance to win. How do you get the money? By adopting or already having policies donors agree with. It's obvious.yet you pretend it's not a problem because it makes your politician look bad. Even she admits it is a problem.

If you don't see the problem with becoming wealthy by getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars from banks when you know said banks spend millions lobbying to get favorable legislation then I don't know what to tell you. It's such an obvious conflict of interest. I guess climate change deniers getting money from energy companies is obvious but Democrats are somehow immune. Not as bad or not as blatant doesn't mean not a problem.

I get your concerns, and I understand where you are coming from, I really do. I just don't think money has influenced a lot of her decisions. She's got a pretty good voting record and has been a pretty progressive voice, even if she hasn't been the MOST progressive. If you can't point to any way that money has influenced her, seems like it's just a whole lot of nothing. She represents what her constituency wants, good or bad, and that HAS been proven. She shifts with the polls, and right now the polls on progressive causes are further to the left than they have ever been.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Could you point at anyone defending those two? I don't quite believe i've seen either, and USA politics discussion is my favourite entertainment.

The argument being attacked is that you need to agree with a politician on every single issue or s/he didn't "Deserve" your vote, in most cases.

I don't remember which posters who said it, but I'd suspect it's somewhere next to the "Sanders is worse than Ted Cruz. At least Ted is honest" garbage. It's been a vile election season, with many banned posters on both sides of this aisle.

Again, corporations legally can't donate to politicians. Employees of corporations can and will. For the most part though, corporations and rich people donate to candidates for two reasons -

1. To help a candidate that already agrees with them win. After all, the NRA isn't powerful because it hands out lots of money. The NRA is powerful because 1/3 of the country believes Obama is going to take their guns.

2. To look equal and donate to both sides - most really large companies do this, since they're largely non-political about policies that don't effect them directly.

Again, I agree with public financing of elections, but hate it for the right reasons.
.


As long as we have a FPTP, a third party will never rise and quite frankly, in America, a third party is much more likely to look like Donald Trump than Bernie Sanders.

1. There are def. NRA lobbyist who kill anti-GUN legislation bills using lobbying. There are polls that suggest that a overwhelming amount of Americans are open to some gun restrictions, background checks or so on.

Politicians supported by the gun Lobby are also much more likely to support NRA. Much more likely:

When it comes to bankrolling candidates sympathetic to the gun lobby, candidate contributions from NRA-related PACs are 85 times larger than contributions from individual donors, according to the nonpartisan donations research group Open Secrets.

And while mass shootings shootings are regularly lamented as tragic events that demand change, they give a huge boost to the bottom line of gun and ammo manufacturers.

In a documentary released earlier this year, “Making a Killing: Guns, Greed, and the NRA,” filmmaker Robert Greenwald explores how the lucrative gun industry and the powerful gun lobby preserve profits by scuttling legislative efforts to address even the most common-sense gun law reforms.

“In any one of these tragedies, in any one of these incidents, take away the gun and look how different the situation is,” Greenwald previously told The Huffington Post.

He noted that fledgling politicians or those facing tough re-election battles are especially susceptible to the NRA’s powerful draw.

“If you’re a politician and you align with the NRA, you know you’re going to be well-funded and you’re going to have passionate people behind you,” Greenwald said.

Link; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ol-san-bernardino_us_565f7622e4b08e945fedffa0




2. But it does affect many of them directly. Many of them have a political interest. Hench the skeptism. Remember Disney's CEO asking its employees to donate a part of their day to Clinton? I think it seems naive to think that Disney doesn't have a serious hard on for TPP. Much of their brand depends on it. It's one of their core issues, and something they have been fighting for decades for. (copyright expiration for characters like Mickey Mouse).
For energy companies, whoever supports or doesn't support fracking is gonna cost them billions. So of course there is an interest. And I don't see the same companies donating to Trump.



3. I attest that there is an undeniable link between profitability for corporations who lobby. It's a lot; https://hbr.org/2016/05/lobbyists-are-behind-the-rise-in-corporate-profits And it's stuff like that which makes me extremely nervous.

 

[old manatee]

And that is totally okay to criticize the organization for that shitshow.

nice wordplay tho

 

[hawk2025]

Look, if lobbying didn't result in direct benefits to companies they just plain wouldn't do it.

That's the reality of the matter.

 

[xxracerxx]

nice wordplay tho

But it is totally more than just the Clinton's running that shitshow. The whole thing should be criticized and not just Hillary and Bill.

If you want to criticize Hillary's involvement that is cool, it is just a bigger issue than just her.

 

[Boombloxer]

I shudder whenever I see pictures of her *huge* smile. Her shit eatting grins always have the most inappropriate context, especially with people next to her in the same picture.

Look at her eatingcrackers.jpg is appropriate here.

It's not bull, it's a fact of my general experience. And yes, I brought the facts often in the past. That didn't really matter. Hell, my critique of Hillary's LGBT past was more or less scoffed at and ignored when I went into detail on the matter and why I had preferred Bernie to Hillary on the subject. Which isn't even getting into where my other big issues lie with her and the Democrats at large. Which is particularly foreign policy. I would say the economy too but the Democrats are moving leftward on that.

And frankly it's what happened to many in the primary. Antagonistic responses to criticism of her =/= a discussion. Immediately jumping to accusations that one's character is flawed just because they aren't fully happy with Hillary is illogical. Especially if they can explain why and aren't at all arguing in dishonest manners. It's not conducive to any form of proper discussion and certainly not something the ToS holds in any regard.

Which is part of why I say this topic is beaten to death at this point. It never goes anywhere to point it out because most of the time nothing is done about the antagonistic elements. This topic is more or less another meta-commentary on the general attitude when it comes to these specific discussions. A meta-commentary on an issue that's frankly been an issue for months on months on months now. It's sad to see that it still is an issue in some regards. Thankfully it doesn't seem to be as big a one but I'm still seeing it pop up on occasion. I personally think it healthy to critique a nominee regardless of who they are and party affiliation.

For the record, I have my issues with Democrats in general as well. It's not like I'm specifically targeting Hillary or anything. It's not like I really hide my issues with them.

You can criticize someone wth specifics, don't think anyone here has a problem with that, but there will be people that disagree. It is a forum.

I think she is corrupt. Just not particularly corrupt compared to other politicians. Also not legally corrupt, since corruption has been legalized in the US.

This is a criticism that can't legitimately come from the right, since by my standards the gop is much more corrupt than the Democrats.

I consider it corrupt to take donations from and have closed meetings with wealthy donors. That is a problem not particular to Hillary but most politicians and the political system in general. OF COURSE it affects policy. First the evidence is there. See Princeton study. Legislation correlates with donor, not constituent opinion. Second, politicians are required to have acceptable stances to donors to get such donations. Or politicians with said views get propped up. In either case it's a problem.

Now, I also consider it corrupt ( or unethical if you prefer) to become a multi millionaire by putting money in your pocket from the very industries you are supposed to be regulating. That is a criticism more specific to the Clintons.

Despite these issues, I will unapologetically vote for Clinton in November.. and not just because of Trump. Hillary is infinitely better than pretty much any Republican.

Ok, Ive posted her voting record before in regards to big financial bills and donors. Please point out which of these she voted for that you had a problem with.

Agreed 100%.

Nah. Come in without facts? You are asking for it.

Hillary is the Democrat's Dick Cheney and conveniently has a Super PAC paying million$ for asstroturfing trolls (don't get defensive ya'll, not accusing anyone here lol), which is similar to shady tactics employed by both Israel and Russia. When it comes to ratings and judgment she is the worst Democrat frontrunner we have seen, and embodies the revolving door of corruption that has led to disastrous foreign and domestic policies. She can't help but say yes to her advisers/lobbyists whether it's warmongering generals or the wolves on Wall Street. On top of that she's racist with her super-predator malarkey. And personally I don't want to see a manpig called Bill Clinton back in the White House and in 'charge of the economy'. Oh yea Hillary also wants to escalate things vs Russia such as the no-fly zone in Syria and pushing the red scare again in this election cycle. She's campaigning too much on fear for my liking but at least it's working.

Still a million times superior than Trump but that's not saying much, hopefully Hillary's ratings improve and doesn't poison the rest of the party

Yea, see the first part of your post is complete bullshit. She is no way comparable to Dick Cheney. And past the SuperPAC they have little in common. This is a reason why your post can be dismissed. Point out the specifics bills you have a problem with that was affected by money.

I consider myself largely republican on near everything but some of the social and relgious views. i think the problem is democrats and republicans need to be able to be able to talk to each other without dems assuming we are all sexist/racist/homophobic, and vice versa more hard core republicans need to be willing to talk to democrats with out immediatley jumping to "im not going to listen to this sjw liberal shit". This election is tearing us apart worst than ever, and alot of that is because we are afraid of confrontation breaking out if we try to talk to eachother about it.

The Republican platform varies between open hostility, dog-whistles and asinine statements about abortion, racism, business and religion. Until the platform itself changes to not support those things simply because the scary black man exists, there is little to discuss. Most of the posters here that are Republican will say diet racist things and not even be aware of it until they are called out.

I don't have a problem with partisan politics, but disagreement on fundamental issues like "the Supreme Court should be fully staffed" and "we probably shouldn't hold the country hostage because we don't like this law" demonstrate that what common grounds were there have eroded, largely because facts are simply ignored instead of refuted.

There is a clearly a bias for Hilary.

My dislike for Hilary stems from my voluntary work in Haiti After seeing, listening and interacted with the people. I could never stomach to even support Hilary or the Clintons for that matter.

Don't get me wrong Trump is way worst but why not Bernie man why dems why!

Because Bernie was a terrible candidate. He did not speak to everyone, nor build upon the foundations of Obama.

 

[Theonik]

I think Trump eating pizza with a knife and fork is the only thing that comes close in cringe levels.

 

[googleplex]

I felt that this thread very quickly became hillary dominated after Bernie gave his support to her.

Before that it was a very nasty fight between Bernie and Hillary, despite this it felt as if almost no side was willing to listen to the (at times valid) complaints of both candidates and with most of the Bernie voters who went Hillary or busted the same attitude remained but without any other viable candidate to fling shit at each other.

This forum, much like politics in general always felt like you must defend the person you vote for no matter what.

No it Really wasn't a nasty fight. At least not from Hillary's end. It was Bernie and his campaign flinging Shit at her the last few month and Hillary just smiling and taking it. Bernie and his camping calling Hillary everything but the whole of Babylon and Hillary being mostly complimentary to Bernie. Because while should could have destroyed Bernie at anytime it wouldn't serve the party in the long run.

In 2008, Obama vs Hillary was nasty.
2016 was Hillary giving Bernie a free ride.

 

[2MF]

What makes Hilary awful?

Is she against LBGT? Is she trying to push to much austerity or too much spending? Is she bad because her past mistakes are too significant to brush aside? If yes, which mistakes? And why? Or do you feel she is a typical politician because she also has business interests and support?

Please be specific.

She seems to me like a political chameleon. Hungry for power and will do anything for it. Thankfully I'm not a US citizen so I won't have to vote for her in order to stop Trump.

Having another Bush or Clinton is far from optimal. All the presidents for decades have been from these dynasties, except Obama...

 

[eBay Huckster]

Is there a word for Hilary drones? Like Berniestan?

Does Hilary Money Boys roll of the the tongue right?

we're partial to "establishment shills", actually

 

[radios shipping overview]

I think the gif is cute. It has helped me to feel more sympathetic toward her.

 

[KingV]

I get your concerns, and I understand where you are coming from, I really do. I just don't think money has influenced a lot of her decisions. She's got a pretty good voting record and has been a pretty progressive voice, even if she hasn't been the MOST progressive. If you can't point to any way that money has influenced her, seems like it's just a whole lot of nothing. She represents what her constituency wants, good or bad, and that HAS been proven. She shifts with the polls, and right now the polls on progressive causes are further to the left than they have ever been.

I think it's not fair to say money hasn't influenced her at all either. Look at the comments Elizabeth Warren made about Hillary in 2004. Look at how she negotiated a huge arms deal for the Saudis right after the Saudi Royal Family donated a rack of money to the Clinton foundation.

I don't think she's corrup in a quid pro quo way, where someone said "Hillary, if you do this, I will donate ten million $'s". But, at the same time, I look at some of this and say, well it's not obvious that she's entirely clean either.

Her supporters are using a standard of criminal corruption, and many of her detractors are saying there's an appearance of corruption. Both are technically correct, it just depends how serious you think it is.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

You probably haven't been on the receiving end of it yet.

Personally, I delete probably 90% of my posts before hitting the reply button because I don't want to deal with a potential dogpile. I'm not scared of having an actual 1:1 conversation with any person, but once you let the cat out of the bag on this forum it becomes impossible to manage the conversation. The second you post something unpopular you will get character attacked, talked down to, insulted, I'd even go so far as to say bullied. It's like, if you hold an alternative opinion, people don't engage that opinion, instead they immediately stake the moral highground, as if it were impossible to have this alternative view without some type of moral failing. Engage the idea, not the person, everyone needs to try and be better at this. That is the true problem.

Being polite doesn't help.
Genuinely asking to be educated doesn't help.
Distancing yourself from the view being posted doesn't help.

Now this is an issue with the internet in general and not specific to this forum, BUT I hold this forum to a higher standard than the rest of the internet. Sadly though, I've been let down a lot lately.

Even posting this is giving me hesitation to be honest.

I have been on the receiving end and also delete most of my posts before replying. I've rewritten this one several times.

Your post summarizes my thoughts well.

 

[jevity]

Look at the almost post-moronic shit she is up against.

This is the new accepted standard of general election ads in 2016.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/762016426102296576

So far beyond the pale, we can hardly see the pale anymore.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I think it's not fair to say money hasn't influenced her at all either. Look at the comments Elizabeth Warren made about Hillary in 2004. Look at how she negotiated a huge arms deal for the Saudis right after the Saudi Royal Family donated a rack of money to the Clinton foundation.

I don't think she's corrup in a quid pro quo way, where someone said "Hillary, if you do this, I will donate ten million $'s". But, at the same time, I look at some of this and say, well it's not obvious that she's entirely clean either.

Her supporters are using a standard of criminal corruption, and many of her detractors are saying there's an appearance of corruption. Both are technically correct, it just depends how serious you think it is.

Is there any evidence of those Saudi donations? Politifact claims that Saudi Arabia didn't make any donations while Clinton was Secretary of State. The Washington Post also corroborates that. Regardless, no matter what Clinton actually believes, US foreign policy is already inherently, almost reflexively pro-Saudi. They wouldn't have to donate to Clinton. Vox had a good article earlier this year about how Saudi Arabia gets its point of view aired in Washington. Mostly, they use their money in subtle ways, by influencing think tanks, building personal relationships, and in general getting a seat at the table, where people in positions of power will listen. This long quotation in particular is the key to understanding Saudi Arabia's influence in Washington, and it's a lot more complicated than the conventional explanation that's always given, which is about oil:

"There's a broad consensus in wanting things to be the way they were before," one DC-based Middle East expert said.

"That means the US alliance with Israel and with Gulf states to contain Iran, fight terrorism, and keep the oil flowing," the expert went on. "That's been US foreign policy for 50 years. Obama is trying to do different things. So what you're seeing is a pro-Saudi position that's also the foreign policy establishment position."

Because the old order was so aligned with Saudi interests, Washington's status quo bias is expressed as a pro-Saudi bias. When the foreign policy community calls for maintaining the old alliance structure, isolating Iran, and staving off Islamist movements, these are all core Saudi interests.

But, more than that, the Saudis and other Gulf states tend to describe the world, and America's place in it, in terms that many members of Washington's foreign policy community badly want to hear.

I am often asked why Washington's foreign policy consensus can seem unusually inclined to interventionism and other assertive foreign policy positions, and why, compared with other policy fields, it is relatively bereft of more libertarian-minded scholars.

To me, the answer has always seemed obvious: You are more drawn to the study and practice of American foreign policy if you believe that American involvement abroad is generally a force for good.

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states share this belief. They explicitly desire American hegemony over their region because it serves their interests, helping to maintain their rule at home and their outsize influence abroad. When you speak to officials from those countries, they sound practically like Ronald Reagan, describing American power projection in the world as necessary and indeed welcome.

...

The point is that both groups share a worldview that privileges, to an unusual degree, the assertion of American power and that fears the consequences of American inaction.

This worldview, for Americans, is rooted as much in foreign policy doctrine as it is in something of mythology. In our mythos, hegemony over the Middle East is fondly but falsely remembered as more stable, more welcome, and more durable than it actually was or is. American power projection in the Middle East, whose track record has been mixed at best, is considered not just a useful tool but an intrinsic good in itself.

In that mythology, the American unipolar moment after the Cold War was peaceful not because of the absence of great-power conflict or proxy warfare, but for the far more idealistic and appealing reason that the assertion of American power is inherently virtuous and stabilizing. In this view, the root cause of any problem in the world must therefore be an absence of American power projection, and the solution, therefore, is always more American power.

For decades, American foreign policy makers have been trying to convince US allies, including those in the Gulf, to buy into this mythology. Many did, and grew to rely on the consequences of that worldview. Now those in the Gulf are spending heavily to persuade Washington of its own mythology. Many people in Washington, ever willing to hear their own wisdom repeated back to them, including and perhaps especially when that wisdom appears falsified by reality, are listening.

As far as domestic policy is concerned, I think people tend to overrate the influence of money and underrate ideology and party position. It's very possible that lobbyists have outsize influence because they are ubiquitous in Washington, because they are constantly cajoling and persuading politicians, because they offer a specific expertise that politicians rely on. But politicians ultimately respond to their electoral incentives, which is why candidates generally try to implement the platform they ran on once they win. People have this weird caricature of Clinton, where she is both cravenly focus-testing every last political move yet also hugely influenced by donations. Most likely, Clinton is just like any other politician. She will try to pass her the platform she ran on, because not to do so would be damaging. After all, the last two presidents that failed to win a second term were either seen as ineffectual (Carter) or a liar (Bush), reneging on his promises.

 

[KingV]

Is there any evidence of those Saudi donations? Politifact claims that Saudi Arabia didn't make any donations while Clinton was Secretary of State. The Washington Post also corroborates that.

Huh. I didn't know that. Makes me feel a hair better about her.

As far as domestic policy is concerned, I think people tend to overrate the influence of money and underrate ideology and party position. It's very possible that lobbyists have outsize influence because they are ubiquitous in Washington, because they are constantly cajoling and persuading politicians, because they offer a specific expertise that politicians rely on. But politicians ultimately respond to their electoral incentives, which is why candidates generally try to implement the platform they ran on once they win. People have this weird caricature of Clinton, where she is both cravenly focus-testing every last political move yet also hugely influenced by donations. Most likely, Clinton is just like any other politician. She will try to pass her the platform she ran on, because not to do so would be damaging. After all, the last two presidents that failed to win a second term were either seen as ineffectual (Carter) or a liar (Bush), reneging on his promises.

This however, is just not true. Money buys access, and lets one get the ear of people with power. It may not make a huge difference in the broad strokes of policy, but makes a big difference on the small things. It's one of the reasons the tax code is so complicated. Every weird little deduction has its own constituency to lobby for it, and the public broadly wants to simplify it, but has no real opinion on many individual pieces of it. Most large complex pieces of legislation are like this.

The TPP was literally written by corporations, lobbyists, and trade groups. Let's be honest, that is probably going to become law in the lame duck session.

 

[darkace]

The TPP was literally written by corporations, lobbyists, and trade groups. Let's be honest, that is probably going to become law in the lame duck session.

As well as citizen advocacy groups, trade unions and government organisations.

Read corporate submissions on the TPP, they hate it.

 

[boiled goose]

Ok, Ive posted her voting record before in regards to big financial bills and donors. Please point out which of these she voted for that you had a problem with.

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Wall street bribed politicians less legislation would be much tougher overall. That not only includes things like financial regulation but corporate taxes in general.

Over the last 40 years the relative tax burden has shifted from corporations to the middle class. That is by design.

QUOTE=woolley;212670762]But earlier in the thread she flip flops on issues based on what popular by the people at the time but now your saying she does what her donors want and not what the people want.

Which is it?

And what legislation has she passed that shows corruption?

And in a representative government aren't the elected officials not supposed to do thing that the people want?[/QUOTE]

The things politicians say and the legislation that actually gets passed are not one and the same?? Gee what a surprise!

Your kneejerk defense without any lack of critical thinking is outstanding.

Obama said he would limit the influence of lobbyists in DC yet money is as influential as ever!

The things politicians do and the things they claim to support are not one and the same. Do I believe Hillary is really against TPP (against obama)? Nah. It's pandering. If not passed in lame duck session, my guess is Hillary will pass something similar.

 

[KingV]

As well as citizen advocacy groups, trade unions and government organisations.

Read corporate submissions on the TPP, they hate it.

Please, read the rather blistering opinion on the TPP from the AFL-CIO. It's clear that the unions think they had no significant input into the final draft. They even say so on their own web page.

http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/Trans-Pacific-Partnership-Free-Trade-Agreement-TPP

If the corporations hate it so much, that's news to me. You should show some receipts because Google provides nothing substantial on "corporate submissions on the tpp."

I'm sure some industries hate it where there are currently large tariffs (like the sugar industry). But net-net, it was primarily written by corporations and corporate advocacy groups.

 

[Veelk]

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Wall street bribed politicians less legislation would be much tougher overall. That not only includes things like financial regulation but corporate taxes in general.

Over the last 40 years the relative tax burden has shifted from corporations to the middle class. That is by design.

That's fantastic. Now, is there any specific thing you can point to in regards to Hillary Clinton? Just one?

 

[Abounder]

Yea, see the first part of your post is complete bullshit. She is no way comparable to Dick Cheney. And past the SuperPAC they have little in common. This is a reason why your post can be dismissed. Point out the specifics bills you have a problem with that was affected by money.

Say what? The parallels are uncanny between Hillary and Dick - accomplished, corrupt, robotic, and love to make war. Follow the money, peers like Warren talked about how money influenced Hillary's vote and no one believes that Mrs. Wal-Mart is against the TPP, and let's not even get into shady foreign policies that's killed countless civilians overseas. Her judgment and character is awful and the ratings reflect it, we should thank the gods for Obama and the godawful Trump.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Her judgment is awful and the ratings reflect it, we should thank the gods for Obama and the godawful Trump

 

[wildfire]

I feel it's only Pro Hillary on here because the people here are pragmatic enough to know that as much as they would have loved a Bernie Presidency the country is just not ready for that yet. When Democratic Socialism is still equates with Communism to a large section of the voting Electorate, the country is not ready for that big of a shift.

With Hillary hopefully continuing on the Obama trajectory towards a more progressive future. The Bernie dream will just take a little bit longer.

Besides its pretty easy to be Pro Hillary when it's Trump on the other side.

These people aren't pragmatic. They really didn't appreciate how much of a dumpster fire Trump has always obviously been.

 

[Abounder]

Obama has been a godsend for fellow Democrats (dat approval rating and DNC speech), and Trump is the only frontrunner that looks worse than Hillary (both lead historically awful numbers). Whatever you pray to, thank them for torpedoing the Republicans and giving us 8 years of Obama lol

 

[googleplex]

That's fantastic. Now, is there any specific thing you can point to in regards to Hillary Clinton? Just one?

No he can't and nether could Bernie when asked.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Obama has been a godsend for fellow Democrats (dat approval rating and DNC speech), and Trump is the only frontrunner that looks worse than Hillary. Whatever you pray to, thank them for torpedoing the Republicans and giving us 8 years of Obama lol

From an experience standpoint Hillary is an almost unbeatable candidate. She has also been under attack by Republicans since the early 90's, so they have had plenty of time to dig up every bit of dirt--then rebury it and dig it back up frequently--on her, so a majority of the public has a skewed perspective of Hillary. Shit, I've seen people who love Obama going out of their way to share Breitbart articles about why Hillary is so bad. The Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves. You can't spend 35+ years telling people Government is an abject failure and the private sector is infinitely better, and expect any establishment politicians to win.

 

[Wafflecakes]

That's fantastic. Now, is there any specific thing you can point to in regards to Hillary Clinton? Just one?

He feels it in his gut though! The taco he ate promised that Hillary was a Wall Street shill.