Support NeoGAF

[Arkeband]

I'm shocked that liberals aren't hesitating to use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary Clinton in this primary. Hope y'all come around when the real election begins.

You can pretend that's a right wing talking point all you want.

Will you defend Hillary's justification of "that's what they offered" when she herself sets the minimum?

Are you OK with Hillary lying to you in this instance?

How much are you willing to turn a blind eye to? Do you have any standards for the person you're voting into office?

Some cute stories of Bill being silly, or her daughter and how hard it was being a mom and politician at the same time, and other filler like that.

I can't tell if you're delusional or if this is satire.

 

[Valhelm]

I'm shocked that liberals aren't hesitating to use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary Clinton in this primary. Hope y'all come around when the real election begins.

What are you talking about? Essentially every criticism of Clinton boils down to her fiscal conservatism.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

What are you talking about? Essentially every criticism of Clinton boils down to her fiscal conservatism.

Name one fiscally conservative policy of hers.

 

[The Lamonster]

You can pretend that's a right wing talking point all you want.

Will you defend Hillary's justification of "that's what they offered" when she herself sets the minimum?

Are you OK with Hillary lying to you in this instance?

How much are you willing to turn a blind eye to? Do you have any standards for the person you're voting into office?

The donations thing is just one small example of these traditional right-wing or right-wing style attacks.

Also, I never said I was voting for her, although I probably will (we don't vote until March 15th) unless Sanders can convince me that he's strong enough to win a general election. Unfortunately for Sanders, it kind of depends on who the Republican nominee is...whereas I can see Clinton beating any of them handily. My personal priority is having another Democrat as the next president.

 

[SamVimes]

The donations thing is just one small example of these traditional right-wing or right-wing style attacks.

So are you gonna explain what's right wing about being concerned about money in politics?

 

[benjipwns]

Name one fiscally conservative policy of hers.

She refuses to immediately nationalize the means of production.

 

[Arkeband]

With money in politics, we've essentially legalized bribery, which means we have no democracy.

I can understand the drive to defend Clinton as you believe she would never stoop to this level, but as I stated above she's already lying about it, so... where is all of this goodwill coming from?

Both Republicans and Democrats are influenced by money in politics - it doesn't only affect their decision making for votes, but they have spoken out themselves about how they are tied to a phone begging for money the rest of the time, which means they spend less time learning about the issues they're voting on or spending time with their constituents.

 

[Valhelm]

Name one fiscally conservative policy of hers.

Her support of the bank bailout is the most obvious example, but her stagnant tax plan is more concerning. A pledge to "close loopholes" is not enough to help close the wealth divide in this country, and there's no indication that she'll be noticeably more leftward in her fiscal policy than Barack Obama.

One of her main ideas to repair the economy is "increase private investment". This belief, that our economy should operate at the whim of corporate greed and speculation, is inherently fiscally conservative.

Clinton's "bank fee" and regulatory form would be better than what we have now, but her ties to the banking industry are so close that her sincerity falls into question.

 

[Roronoa95]

So why is Karl Rove and wall street funding attacks against her when she's oh so chummy with the big banks? I mean if I was a big banking hedge fund manager, I would make sure my "bought" candidate wins the horse race, no?

I can't explain Karl Rove strategy here and even if I could it won't solve the main issue : there are too much money coming from corporations in the pockets of politicians.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I can't tell if you're delusional or if this is satire.

Well what do you believe was in those speeches?

She does hundreds of speeches. She's not going to write one for every single event. She, like any other "pay per event" speaker, just has a template they use for every speech and adjusts it a bit for her audience. It's just fluff and filler. Not some conspiracy where she goes and promises all these CEOs all the tax breaks and kick backs she'll give them when she's president. Like some kind of cartoon villain. You think she'd ever do such a thing in a basically public event? No, it's nonsense to think she would.

I think you're paranoid if you think the speeches were anything other than employee pep rallies. It's a shame Sander's supporters feel the need to use Tea Party tactics, but whatever. His supporters have put me off of liking Bernie, since they decided to go full Tea Party. His supporters are ruining him and he's not doing anything to fix it.

I'm shocked that liberals aren't hesitating to use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary Clinton in this primary. Hope y'all come around when the real election begins.

It really is a shame. I thought liberals knew better, but I guess not. No rational thinking when you're promised utopia.

 

[Oblivion]

Her support of the bank bailout is the most obvious example,

Eh, I dunno if that counts, really. Lots of people agree that even though Wall Street is full of shitheads, we had to bail them out, otherwise shit would be worse. Even Obama supported it, after all.

 

[SamVimes]

Well what do you believe was in those speeches?

She does hundreds of speeches. She's not going to write one for every single event. She, like any other "pay per event" speaker, just has a template they use for every speech and adjusts it a bit for her audience. It's just fluff and filler. Not some conspiracy where she goes and promises all these CEOs all the tax breaks and kick backs she'll give them when she's president. Like some kind of cartoon villain. You think she'd ever do such a thing in a basically public event? No, it's nonsense to think she would.

I think you're paranoid if you think the speeches were anything other than employee pep rallies. It's a shame Sander's supporters feel the need to use Tea Party tactics, but whatever. His supporters have put me off of liking Bernie, since they decided to go full Tea Party. His supporters are ruining him and he's not doing anything to fix it.

The speeches were nothing more than pep rallies for sure. That's not really the problem as it has been discussed multiple times.
But you can go ahead and marginalize whoever has opinions different from yours.

 

[kirblar]

Her support of the bank bailout is the most obvious example, but her stagnant tax plan is more concerning. A pledge to "close loopholes" is not enough to help close the wealth divide in this country, and there's no indication that she'll be noticeably more leftward in her fiscal policy than Barack Obama.

One of her main ideas to repair the economy is "increase private investment". This belief, that our economy should operate at the whim of corporate greed and speculation, is inherently fiscally conservative.

Clinton's "bank fee" and regulatory form would be better than what we have now, but her ties to the banking industry are so close that her sincerity falls into question.

None of those things are fiscally conservative. Theyre all smack in the middle of mainstream economics, and are neither liberal nor conservative.

 

[ApharmdX]

It's odd, reading this thread and others, and seeing the mental gymnastics necessary to believe that accepting Wall Street money doesn't create a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate. There are a lot of bad attacks against Hillary (by both the right and left) but this isn't one of them. Money has corroded American democracy, and this exemplifies that corrosion.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The speeches were nothing more than pep rallies for sure. That's not really the problem as it has been discussed multiple times.
But you can go ahead and marginalize whoever has opinions different from yours.

Being paid to make a speech doesn't mean Hillary is corrupt and paid off. Her speeches at financial institutes make up just a tiny fraction of her speeches, and are meaningless.

Does it mean she's corrupted by the college graduations she's spoken at (and been paid for)? Of course not.

Are Bernie and his supporters going to go down the list of every place she's ever been paid to make a speech at and figure out which ones corrupted her and which ones didn't?

It's a petty and trivial attack. There are better things to pick battles with Hillary over. This isn't one of them.

 

[phanphare]

Being paid to make a speech doesn't mean Hillary is corrupt and paid off. Her speeches at financial institutes make up just a tiny fraction of her speeches, and are meaningless.

Does it mean she's corrupted by the college graduations she's spoken at (and been paid for)? Of course not.

Are Bernie and his supporters going to go down the list of every place she's ever been paid to make a speech at and figure out which ones corrupted her and which ones didn't?

It's a petty and trivial attack. There are better things to pick battles with Hillary over. This isn't one of them.

if money in politics is seen as trivial then it's no wonder we are where we are today

 

[balladofwindfishes]

if money in politics is seen as trivial then it's no wonder we are where we are today

Appearing at a morale boosting event for employees, with a likely canned speech, is absolutely not "money in politics"

That's trivial. It's a few speeches out a hundred. She likely didn't even think much about where she was or who she was giving the speech, beyond changing a few rehearsed lines to make a joke or something.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

Appearing at a morale boosting event for employees, with a likely canned speech, is absolutely not "money in politics"

Then why not get someone else to "morale boost." It just happens to be the potential future president of the US? No way are these two events independent.

 

[phanphare]

Appearing at a morale boosting event for employees, with a likely canned speech, is absolutely not "money in politics"

the issue is that a lot of the organizations who donate money to her campaign are also the ones who are paying her for speeches

 

[SamVimes]

Being paid to make a speech doesn't mean Hillary is corrupt and paid off. Her speeches at financial institutes make up just a tiny fraction of her speeches, and are meaningless.

Does it mean she's corrupted by the college graduations she's spoken at (and been paid for)? Of course not.

Are Bernie and his supporters going to go down the list of every place she's ever been paid to make a speech at and figure out which ones corrupted her and which ones didn't?

It's a petty and trivial attack. There are better things to pick battles with Hillary over. This isn't one of them.

Money is influence. Not everything is about shady bribes and corruption, let's stop acting like mankind is rational.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Then why not get someone else to "morale boost." It just happens to be the potential future president of the US?

Because getting the Senator of New York/Secretary Of the State/First Lady/Whatever she was at the time is a huge deal and pretty damn cool.

If a Senator/SoS/First Lady/Famous Politician came to my work to speak it would be awesome.

Money is influence. Not everything is about shady bribes and corruption, let's stop acting like mankind is rational.

Money also isn't some festering disease that infects all that slightly brush against it forever and ever. The amount of money she made from doing the speeches is a tiny fraction of her income. She wouldn't be in the position she's in and the life she's had if she was so easily corrupt by a couple hundred thousand.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Who is to say the American people donating to Sanders are just as corrupt?

So money from anonymous small donors rather than large corporations is suddenly more clean?

Time to do some laundering then.

 

[benjipwns]

Money also isn't some festering disease that infects all that slightly brush against it forever and ever.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/hess/1845/essence-money.htm

 

[phanphare]

Who is to say the American people donating to Sanders are just as corrupt?

So money from anonymous small donors rather than large corporations is suddenly more clean?

Time to do some laundering then.

"hey Bernie, remember that $27 I gave you for your campaign? it's your turn to scratch my back *winkwink*"

 

[benjipwns]

"hey Bernie, remember that $27 I gave you for your campaign? it's your turn to scratch my back *winkwink*"

I feel like he might actually do this though. "Yeah, sure. That feel better?"

 

[SamVimes]

B
Money also isn't some festering disease that infects all that slightly brush against it forever and ever. The amount of money she made from doing the speeches is a tiny fraction of her income. She wouldn't be in the position she's in and the life she's had if she was so easily corrupt by a couple hundred thousand.

It absolutely is. Would you be fine if your physician was regularly being treated to expensive dinners by pharmaceutical sales reps? Obviously the dinners don't really matter in his income, but don't you think he might be biased when he prescribes you meds?

Who is to say the American people donating to Sanders are just as corrupt?

So money from anonymous small donors rather than large corporations is suddenly more clean?

Time to do some laundering then.

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills. Let's do a reductio ad absurdum, do you think it would be just fine if a large corporation funded 100% of a political campaign?

 

[Neuromancer]

"hey Bernie, remember that $27 I gave you for your campaign? it's your turn to scratch my back *winkwink*"

I am expecting a 1 hour full body massage from Bernie Sanders, for the $100 I gave his campaign.

Who is to say the American people donating to Sanders are just as corrupt?

So money from anonymous small donors rather than large corporations is suddenly more clean?

Time to do some laundering then.

YA GOT ME

 

[phanphare]

I feel like he might actually do this though. "Yeah, sure. That feel better?"

I am expecting a 1 hour full body massage from Bernie Sanders, for the $100 I gave his campaign.

lol

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It absolutely is. Would you be fine if your physician was regularly being treated to expensive dinners by pharmaceutical sales reps? Obviously the dinners don't really matter in his income, but don't you think he might be biased when he prescribes you meds?

How is that comparable to being paid to make a speech? Making a speech is just exchanging money for a service. The financial institute already got what they paid for, in this case, a speech. Why would they expect Hillary to give them any more preferential treatment over the other hundreds of places she did speeches at? They didn't pay for that, they paid for a speech. Which they got. Then she went home, erased the day's speech from her mind, and prepped for the next day when she made a speech at a college or something.

There's really nothing more to it. It's a job. She was paid for it. That's generally how jobs work

 

[SamVimes]

How is that comparable to being paid to make a speech? Making a speech is just exchanging money for a service. The financial institute already got what they paid for, in this case, a speech. Why would they expect Hillary to give them any more preferential treatment over the other hundreds of places she did speeches at? They didn't pay for that, they paid for a speech. Which they got. Then she went home, erased the day's speech from her mind, and prepped for the next day when she made a speech at a college or something.

There's really nothing more to it. It's a job. She was paid for it. That's generally how jobs work,

Hillary is a special snowflake exempt from bias, good to know.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Hillary is a special snowflake exempt from bias, good to know.

The DA once came to my school and made a speech about criminal justice. My school was a conservative, private catholic school. There were a lot of kids of important people at that school. Politicians, millionaires, stuff like that. Not me, I had financial aid and sacrifices from my parents, but people I knew.

Was the DA then corrupt forever, tainted by entering a religious school full of mostly rich people to make a speech to them?

No, he wasn't. He made his speech, went home and forgot about it, because it's part of his job to go around to schools and talk about criminal justice.

 

[woolley]

It's odd, reading this thread and others, and seeing the mental gymnastics necessary to believe that accepting Wall Street money doesn't create a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate. There are a lot of bad attacks against Hillary (by both the right and left) but this isn't one of them. Money has corroded American democracy, and this exemplifies that corrosion.

I don't think that anybody denies that money can create a conflict of interest it's just that people are saying that she is corrupt just for the fact of receiving money. If people would show evidence of this corruption when Hillary has been in public office then I would take the critism more seriously. But just saying that she received money for performing a private job and is therefore corrupt is not a good argument to me.

 

[ApharmdX]

How is that comparable to being paid to make a speech? Making a speech is just exchanging money for a service. The financial institute already got what they paid for, in this case, a speech. Why would they expect Hillary to give them any more preferential treatment over the other hundreds of places she did speeches at? They didn't pay for that, they paid for a speech. Which they got. Then she went home, erased the day's speech from her mind, and prepped for the next day when she made a speech at a college or something.

There's really nothing more to it. It's a job. She was paid for it. That's generally how jobs work

This is willful ignorance at its best. You really feel that an organization which paid millions in speaking fees or campaign donations won't get preferential treatment? Really? I don't... I mean, I just don't get it.

if money in politics is seen as trivial then it's no wonder we are where we are today

Exactly.

 

[Your Entertainer]

I'm shocked that liberals aren't hesitating to use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary Clinton in this primary. Hope y'all come around when the real election begins.

I'm shocked that people are either defending or choosing to ignore her recent statement about money never having influenced a political decision - considering that itself is a right wing deflection hallmark and a hallmark of citizens united. I honestly can't tell if these people always supported citizens united or if it's Hillary-love gone too far.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

This is willful ignorance at its best. You really feel that an organization which paid millions in speaking fees or campaign donations won't get preferential treatment? Really? I don't... I mean, I just don't get it.

Yea, I'm ignorant because Hillary got paid her speaking fees to talk at a company, a couple out of the hundreds she does all the time, and I don't believe that's a big deal or matters in the slightest bit and doesn't influence her at all more than any other place she's ever been paid to make a speech at.

 

[SamVimes]

The DA once came to my school and made a speech about criminal justice. My school was a conservative, private catholic school. There were a lot of kids of important people at that school. Politicians, millionaires, stuff like that. Not me, I had financial aid and sacrifices from my parents, but people I knew.

Was the DA then corrupt forever, tainted by entering a religious school full of mostly rich people to make a speech to them?

No, he wasn't. He made his speech, went home and forgot about it, because it's part of his job to go around to schools and talk about criminal justice.

Stop using the world corrupt, i never said she's corrupt.

People are inherently proud, they tend to think that if someone values them strongly then they can't be that bad, your opinions change over time and you don't even realize what influenced them.

 

[ApharmdX]

I don't think that anybody denies that money can create a conflict of interest it's just that people are saying that she is corrupt just for the fact of receiving money. If people would show evidence of this corruption when Hillary has been in public office then I would take the critism more seriously. But just saying that she received money for performing a private job and is therefore corrupt is not a good argument to me.

She did vote for the bank bailouts, correct?

I think calling Hillary "corrupt" is unfair, though, on this issue. This is our system, where money equals influence. She's merely working in that system.

 

[Arkeband]

Because getting the Senator of New York/Secretary Of the State/First Lady/Whatever she was at the time is a huge deal and pretty damn cool.

If a Senator/SoS/First Lady/Famous Politician came to my work to speak it would be awesome.



Money also isn't some festering disease that infects all that slightly brush against it forever and ever. The amount of money she made from doing the speeches is a tiny fraction of her income. She wouldn't be in the position she's in and the life she's had if she was so easily corrupt by a couple hundred thousand.

You want to love Hillary so bad we can taste it.

“I never made any money until I left the White House,” said Bill Clinton during a 2009 address to a student group. “I had the lowest net worth, adjusted for inflation, of any president elected in the last 100 years, including President Obama. I was one poor rascal when I took office. But after I got out, I made a lot of money.”

The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.

A "couple hundred thousand" is being just completely detached from reality. You would never give this benefit of doubt to any other politician.

"Cut it out"

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Bill Clinton once spoke at my college. I didn't go, but it was a big event everyone was interested in. He was a much bigger speaker than past years, or future years. Other years had been random C list celebrities, somewhat known engineers, or other people.

Somehow they managed to scrape together the speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

If I were to go up to Bill Clinton today (this was about 6 years ago) and ask him how he liked the speech he gave at my college. He's probably put on a good act about remembering it, but he wouldn't. We know he wouldn't. It was one of dozens of graduation speeches he likely did that month.

Is Bill Clinton now influenced by my tech college? If he had to make a decision about engineering education funding, would look back at my school specifically and say "yea, I liked them, I'm going to do this for them." No, he probably doesn't even remember the city the college is in, let alone anything about it.

 

[phanphare]

How is that comparable to being paid to make a speech? Making a speech is just exchanging money for a service. The financial institute already got what they paid for, in this case, a speech. Why would they expect Hillary to give them any more preferential treatment over the other hundreds of places she did speeches at? They didn't pay for that, they paid for a speech. Which they got. Then she went home, erased the day's speech from her mind, and prepped for the next day when she made a speech at a college or something.

There's really nothing more to it. It's a job. She was paid for it. That's generally how jobs work

the issue is that a lot of the organizations who donate money to her campaign are also the ones who are paying her for speeches

.

 

[Averon]

It's odd, reading this thread and others, and seeing the mental gymnastics necessary to believe that accepting Wall Street money doesn't create a conflict of interest for a presidential candidate. There are a lot of bad attacks against Hillary (by both the right and left) but this isn't one of them. Money has corroded American democracy, and this exemplifies that corrosion.

Same. I must admit it is amusing seeing people trying to convince themselves and others that getting millions in speaking fees from bankers won't influence Hilary at all if she get into the WH.

 

[ApharmdX]

Bill Clinton once spoke at my college. I didn't go, but it was a big event everyone was interested in. He was a much bigger speaker than past years, or future years. Other years had been random C list celebrities, somewhat known engineers, or other people.

Somehow they managed to scrape together the speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

If I were to go up to Bill Clinton today (this was about 6 years ago) and ask him how he liked the speech he gave at my college. He's probably put on a good act about remembering it, but he wouldn't. We know he wouldn't. It was one of dozens of graduation speeches he likely did that month.

Is Bill Clinton now influenced by my tech college? If he had to make a decision about engineering education funding, would look back at my school specifically and say "yea, I liked them, I'm going to do this for them." No, he probably doesn't even remember the city the college is in, let alone anything about it.

Hillary might not remember the exact speech that she gave at Goldman Sachs, but I'll bet you she remembers the $760,740 in donations to her political campaigns, and the million and change that they paid Bill.

You really don't see how these amounts of money could influence a presidential candidate?

 

[Arkeband]

Bill Clinton once spoke at my college. I didn't go, but it was a big event everyone was interested in. He was a much bigger speaker than past years, or future years. Other years had been random C list celebrities, somewhat known engineers, or other people.

Somehow they managed to scrape together the speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

If I were to go up to Bill Clinton today (this was about 6 years ago) and ask him how he liked the speech he gave at my college. He's probably put on a good act about remembering it, but he wouldn't. We know he wouldn't. It was one of dozens of graduation speeches he likely did that month.

Is Bill Clinton now influenced by my tech college? If he had to make a decision about engineering education funding, would look back at my school specifically and say "yea, I liked them, I'm going to do this for them." No, he probably doesn't even remember the city the college is in, let alone anything about it.

Your attempts to conflate graduation speeches to closed-door events that cost 225-250k minimum with banks isn't cute, its not naive, it's just stupid.

You would NEVER assume this Teletubby-level of inconspicuousness the moment a Republican candidate is invited to dinner with the Kochs, so stop being a goddamn hypocrite.

 

[RustyNails]

She did vote for the bank bailouts, correct?

I think calling Hillary "corrupt" is unfair, though, on this issue. This is our system, where money equals influence. She's merely working in that system.

Bank bailout was passed by W administration but supported by then Sen. Obama as well who voted yes on the bill. Letting the banks fail was a devastating scenario.

 

[jehuty]

I was asked by my room mate who I would be voting for the other day. He isn't very outspoken about politics but knows he'd never vote republican due to not agreeing with the party in virtually any aspect. I told him point blank I would vote for Hillary. When asked why I told him that she is pragmatic, and she would know how to get things done. I tend to look at things "glass half empty" and see that I Hillary too. I think she understands that all the optimism in the world won't really solve issues especially if you have a large group actively working against those issues/things. I see Hillary personally as basically Winston Churchill. Not the greatest person but in the battle we are facing now (republicans/tea party ideals and tactics) we need a someone who is willing to go toe to toe against them. That means you have to get dirty, be a hawkish in certain aspects, be willing to back stab, lie, trick, and do what needs to be done for the greater good. Hillary has that in my opinion. Bernie is a good guy, I don't think he has it in him to be that ruthless (that and the stress would work a number him at his advanced age). Either way, if the democrats win the presidency, they have to know that republican opposition to anything they want to pass will only get worse than where it is at already. Thank the heavens 2020 is a presidential election year, republicans would gerrymander democrats to oblivion given the chance.

 

[G.ZZZ]

ITT : people thinking that pointing out the problems of lobbying = ad hominems.

 

[Neuromancer]

Bill Clinton once spoke at my college. I didn't go, but it was a big event everyone was interested in. He was a much bigger speaker than past years, or future years. Other years had been random C list celebrities, somewhat known engineers, or other people.

Somehow they managed to scrape together the speaking fees for Bill Clinton.

If I were to go up to Bill Clinton today (this was about 6 years ago) and ask him how he liked the speech he gave at my college. He's probably put on a good act about remembering it, but he wouldn't. We know he wouldn't. It was one of dozens of graduation speeches he likely did that month.

Is Bill Clinton now influenced by my tech college? If he had to make a decision about engineering education funding, would look back at my school specifically and say "yea, I liked them, I'm going to do this for them." No, he probably doesn't even remember the city the college is in, let alone anything about it.

One key difference is no one is concerned about the Clintons being unduly influenced into putting the interests of your tech college ahead of the interests of the American people. Unlike your college, Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations have an obvious interest in who gets elected and what actions they take in office. Accepting millions from them is a bad look for any presidential candidate.

 

[Averon]

Do people really think that, if new banking regulations/laws were to come up in during Hilary's presidency, these $200,000 speeches won't enter her mind? I mean, it is possible to prevent these speaking fees from influencing you, but I would imagine most people would fail, even if it is subconsciously. Hilary is human like everyone else, so I just find it really hard to believe these speeches won't influence policy from her at all.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You want to love Hillary so bad we can taste it.

It's not that I love Hillary, it's that I don't like Bernie.

- Bernie's mouth writes checks he can't cash. He won't pass a single thing he's campaigning on. He knows this. Most people know this. And still he does it. You can't campaign on breaking political norms and then promise the moon knowing you can't get the moon or even close to it. It makes him no different than any other politician, even if he wants to pretend he isn't like any other politician.

- He has no idea what he's doing with foreign policy. Hillary is not going to be bested on this at all, which might be why he hasn't bothered. You can't go against an influential and well liked SoS on Foreign Policy. But still, FP is one of the few things a president can do without Congress, so it will be extremely important for this coming presidency.

- His fans are annoying, condescending and paranoid, and he's done nothing to stop them. Saying "cut it out guys!!" is nothing. He's manage to convince a bunch of people that not only is Hillary right wing, but she's corrupt, disgusting and unpopular. It's so skewed and perverted from reality, it just reminds me of the Tea Party, and it's really disappointing that it's come to this. There's no reason at all his fans need to harp on every tiny thing Hillary does. Stuff like Hillary saying she won a primary, when she won a primary, and pretending that's a gross offense was stupid. Jumping on the right wing band wagon with the email nonsense is stupid. Their "my way or the high way" and "well maybe we just need 8 years of the GOP to learn!" stuff is self destructive, naive and childish and completely counter to everything they believe in, but they don't realize it.

- Everything wall street touches is not evil. Favoring professors over professionals from the field as advisers feels short sighted and misguided. Professors often know their field well, but have little actual field experience.

- Gun control. This one always gets brushed over by his supporters.

- He says stuff poorly. He's had many times where stuff he says can easily be taken out of context, and usually is, and he needs to write up a clarification the next day to clarify. It makes him seem inexperienced and doesn't feel presidential.

- He joined the Democrats only to win. He's anti-establishment, unless it's inconvenient to not be part of the establishment. It seems to run counter to his messaging, but this is generally ignored.

- He seems to have a one track mind and one gimmick, but little substance. He wants to make the US into Norway or Sweden, but his plans to do so seem basically impossible. But that seems to be the answer to all of the country's problems. Just more socialism. Not that there's anything wrong with socialism, but the way he pushes it makes it sound like the fix for all of life's problems.

I feel these are legitimate complaints against him and why he shouldn't be president and why I support Hillary.

Your attempts to conflate graduation speeches to closed-door events that cost 225-250k minimum with banks isn't cute, its not naive, it's just stupid.

You would NEVER assume this Teletubby-level of inconspicuousness the moment a Republican candidate is invited to dinner with the Kochs, so stop being a goddamn hypocrite.

I'm sure plenty of Republicans have done speeches for financial institutions and nobody ever really cares or points them out.

Romney famously spoke at a closed door meeting of rich people that got him in trouble. It wasn't the actual meeting happening that was the issue, but rather his 47% comment and the substance of the meeting that was the issue.

Bernie has an issue with the meeting itself, and has a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude toward the content of it.

And you're calling me out for comparing the speeches to college speeches, but then turn around and compare them with private dinners with donors. Which the speeches were not.

 

[benjipwns]

Hillary might not remember the exact speech that she gave at Goldman Sachs, but I'll bet you she remembers the $760,740 in donations to her political campaigns, and the million and change that they paid Bill.

You really don't see how these amounts of money could influence a presidential candidate?

Do people really think that, if new banking regulations/laws were to come up in during Hilary's presidency, these $200,000 speeches won't enter her mind? I mean, it is possible to prevent these speaking fees from influencing you, but I would imagine most people would fail, even if it is subconsciously. Hilary is human like everyone else, so I just find it really hard to believe these speeches won't influence policy from her at all.

How do you know they aren't simply paying her for services already rendered?

If she's going to be the most powerful politician in the world a down payment seems prudent business as well.