Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

Exactly, Sanders and his supporters are fine with "playing games" when it comes to party affiliation, downticket support, Bernie super PAC and party loyalty. But they turn and attack Clinton as a shill machine who only exists to serve her corporate masters when it's convenient for them to do so. They have shown that their principles are less important than what will help them at any given time.

People project everything wrong with the system onto their opponent and this isn't something groundbreaking. Hillary could have easily decided not to do a speaking tour after her time as SoS while planning for the nomination. It's a overconfidence on her part thinking no one would attack her on these issues in the primary. Had it been just super PACs the issue would have been far less pronounced. There is also her very questionable remarks regarding why big business was donating so much while also paying her big money to give out pep talks. First she pivoted to 9/11, than she pivoted to capitalism and now she says she is above corruption. What she doesn't realize is that people who hate the current system are projecting a lot of their frustration onto her and her answers haven't soothed that.
So I do question how much it's about these voters being spurred on by Sanders and how much it was just weak messaging and preparation on Clinton's part for this line of questioning. This was still going to be a weakness in a GE if Trump is the nominee and you should be glad that these weaknesses are known now and if Hills is the nominee she has ample time to at least figure out what she needs to change this type narrative so it can't be used by Trump.
In a normal election this would have never been an issue, but this is post recession where much of the recovery isn't making it back into the economy.

 

[FlowersisBritish]

To be fair the way our government is set up requires massive amounts of money for presidential candidates and downticket dems. Clinton is just another politician, not some super corrupt money dumpster. It's impossible to be elected without enough money but we are seeing that it doesn't always decide the presidential races. It's like there is a threshold of money you have to have to have a ground game, and after that it doesn't matter. ( on the presidential side) . It absolutely does matter in the smaller state and local races. You're saying that Clinton shouldn't be able to explain her actions by pointing at the system she has to run in to get elected but Bernie can.

There's a huge difference in where their money is coming from. Bernie's major funds are from small donations and various unions. He has been very particular about who he gets his money from. You called them a Super Pac, but would you really compare a SuperPac of nurses(and various other unions) to Goldman Sachs? You're saying that the money is needed to play the game, and before I would agree with that. But Bernie got the money without playing that side of the game. And I do think Hilary can explain a lot of her actions, I just don't think she ever does it well. At least not well enough for me.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Bernie's worldview is that all boils down to class-based economic warfare in the end - it's core to his socialist worldview. (Wall St = bourgeoisie, Main Street = proletariiat) He has said many things that indicate he sees racial issues as merely a subset of these economic issues, and that by fixing the economic issues, you'd be fixing the racial ones at the same time. He faced major criticism for this early in the campaign and attempted to change the messaging, but it still seeps through when he's speaking.

This is not a point of view that reflects many minorities' lived experiences (especially black people) and it also doesn't match up to the data we have. What Bernie's views translate as, if you don't buy into his "class as the root of all evil" philosophy, is that Sanders is willing to tackle issues affecting minorities.....as long as they happen to affect white people too. Drug decriminalization, police violence, income redistribution - these are all things where the white population is going to see benefits in addition to minorities. The problem comes when trying to discuss issues that are explicitly about race- things like housing/hiring discrimination. Purely economic solutions don't address those, because you have to acknowledge a need for explicit protections and bulwarks.

To use a recent example- we've found out that banning credit checks decreases black employment, and that allowing drug testing increases black employment. The laws are sold as helping minorities, but it turns out they end up helping white people w/ bad credit at the expense of black people in general.

Bernie's support among black voters in the US is also noticeably worse in the South. There was an article about Sanders'/Cinton's outreach to black communities there, and one interesting takeaway was that many of Sanders' black supporters doing the outreach were from outside the region, and there seemed to be a big gulf/disconnect between them and the people they were talking to. This tweetstorm is one of the best things I've seen this election cycle, and it's a great explanation of why many people aren't hopping on board the Sanders train- https://storify.com/docrocktex26/when-racism-gets-in-socialism

This tweet in particular stood out to me as a distillation of the core issue:

Thanks to everyone who answered my question. I'd seen him speaking a lot about racial issues in unambiguous terms lately, but I guess that's not enough to convince people that it overrides his initial arguments.

 

[Valhelm]

I just wanna say I cracked up laughing when I got to the end and saw Tesseract's post

my world is crumbling

 

[Quixzlizx]

I just wanna say I cracked up laughing when I got to the end and saw Tesseract's post

That post had a profound lack of dank memes.

 

[theignoramus]

Sanders calling Hillary's acceptance of big money donors "obscene" today. Seems like tone moderation on Hillary is not forthcoming, lol.
But I dont understand why Bernie pretended for months like he wasnt going to go with negative attacks, only to break his promise and start with them now. Go hard or go home.
The ethical issues surrounding the questionable activities of the Clinton Foundation are more than fair game and he should have brought it up right from the beginning; like, that scandal literally falls right into his wheelhouse of money corrupting politics.

 

[googleplex]

It's not a content free argument, and you're missing the point entirely if you water down the visibility point to who's more famous. Of course Hillary has Bernie beat there. But she also had Obama beat there and that didn't stop him from winning the black vote. So clearly, we're talking about something else.

You've gotta remember that we're in the Democratic Primaries right now, and we're talking about two candidates for the nomination who, as much as Bernie's supporters like to swear otherwise, agree on pretty much everything. Where they disagree largely is on focus and implementation, but on overall goals they're on the same page. So this isn't a content free argument because the content really doesn't matter. On paper, when it comes to racial equality and injustice, these candidates are saying the same thing.

So when there are no real policy differences, the argument then becomes Who do I know? Who's been around? Who can I trust to get things done? Who is less of a risk? Who is demonstrating an understanding of me and my community? And who is just paying me lip service? And this is where Bernie loses the black vote. Because Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws (and yes, black people ARE aware of them), has been around, and has done a lot of good. Has worked with and for our community. Has the support of black leaders, and knows how to get things done. And when it came time to stump, she demonstrated a better understanding of our issues. She was willing to acknowledge that racism, and racism alone, was a force keeping black people down that needed to be acknowledged. She talked about intersectionality, and WHY this is the reason you can't just address the economy and expect the rising tide to lift black boats. She engaged black women (THE most dedicated democratic voting block, PERIOD) and spoke not just about their problems, but their aspirations. Black women (minority women in general, actually) are the fastest growing block of business owners in this country, and by a LOT (Royalan aside: YAAAAAAAASSS LADIES WORK), and to this day Hillary is the only candidate stumping that I've heard acknowledge this. And this didn't just start a week before the South started voting. Hillary's been doing this for years.

Meanwhile, Bernie threw out some well-produced ads and absolutely refused to modulate his message outside of Millionaires and Billionaires. He never really ENGAGED like Clinton did. He expected throwing out MLK's name would be enough for black people to just take his word for it. But it wasn't enough, because black DON'T know him, and he really hasn't done shit to introduce himself.

Fantastic post.

 

[Rentahamster]

I just wanna say I cracked up laughing when I got to the end and saw Tesseract's post

Aww Tesseract is banned again

 

[Prototype Viktor]

How in the hell did you get that from my post?

because he thinks Bernie has been a household name and Hilary is that absent dad that has only showed up once in 2008 and then now

 

[vicissitudes]

Aww Tesseract is banned again

Wasn't he a joke poster?

Do we have any Bernie supporters left on gaf?

 

[Rentahamster]

Wasn't he a joke poster?

Do we have any Bernie supporters left on gaf?

He's srs business.

 

[Arkeband]

Wasn't he a joke poster?

Do we have any Bernie supporters left on gaf?

I like Bernie and will be voting for him in my state's primary, but will be voting for Hillary in the general.

I don't know if that qualifies as a Bernie Supporter (tm) by PoliGAF standards, since the prerequisite for that is to secretly be a moderator on /r/S4P and be completely delusional.

My Facebook feed is full of young Bernie supporters who have only begun to annoy me with Birdie Sanders memes.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Wasn't he a joke poster?

Do we have any Bernie supporters left on gaf?

orangegrayblue, melkr_ and las7 are pretty notable ones, and they're aight

My Facebook feed is full of young Bernie supporters who have only begun to annoy me with Birdie Sanders memes.

as long as they aren't "Trump is a Clinton plant" truthers, they're not as bad as what i now get to deal with

 

[Cipherr]

to the snake oil posts -- are ideals like free college education and health care not worth fighting for? their implementation, both politically and economically, would be very difficult, there is no doubt. but the disparagement of these ideals from liberals\progressives in this thread indicate a massive compromise. and if you want to talk about how replacing a hyper-conservative like Scalia with a moderate like Garland would still be pulling the Supreme Court to the left, don't you see how a compromise like this pulls the Democratic Party to the right?

i think it would be fantastic if Hillary became passionate about these ideas. i don't see the harm in fighting for them so i don't understand this negative tone towards them. i don't think people are really thinking about what they are saying, but they are having their thoughts warped by who is and isn't supporting them

Its snake oil because I have seen him do fuck all for down ticket dems, and if you have a hope and or a prayer of getting ANY of that done, we all know you cant do it winning the house alone.

I'm not new to this; I know what it takes to get that stuff implemented. SAYING you want that stuff is easy. Everyone does that; I'm watching your actions.

 

[giga]

David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, says what we all know, that this race is basically over:

I believe Hillary Clinton has zero chance of not being the Democratic nominee. But she still is going to lose a bunch of states to Bernie Sanders the rest of the way into the clubhouse. Here’s my sense of how the race will play out from now to June.

There are 22 contests left. I would at this point predict Clinton wins 12 ( New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Guam, West Virginia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, New Jersey and Washington D.C.)and Sanders wins 10 (Wyoming, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota.)

Yes, he may very well win Wisconsin but the delegate yield will be minimal.
The most likely scenario that deviates from the above is Sanders wins a few more states, and ends up winning 12 or 13 of the final contests.

Even in a situation where Clinton wins states like CA and NY relatively narrowly, and Sanders wins states like Oregon and Wisconsin by 10 plus points, the most optimistic scenario for Sanders would be to net 30–40 total delegates in the remaining 22 contests.

The Clinton lead is almost 3oo in pledged delegates. And over 700 in total delegates. Clinton will end the primary, even if she underperforms the rest of the way, with a pledged delegate lead greater than Barack Obama’s in 2008.

And, no there is a zero percent chance the “super delegates” will somehow go against the will of the voters and choose the second place candidate. I find it hard to believe the Republican party leaders will take the nomination away from Trump in Cleveland, the GOP’s clear vote and delegate leader. But it’s not happening in Philadelphia

https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/ho...-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.apa29bwlj

 

[teruterubozu]

David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, says what we all know, that this race is basically over:



https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/ho...-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.apa29bwlj

Weird how he switches to the Republican race mid-sentence.

 

[DarkKyo]

Wasn't he a joke poster?

Do we have any Bernie supporters left on gaf?

I'm still totally for Bernie!

 

[Sean C]

To compare where the campaigns are at this point, look at Hillary's results in the primaries that have run so far:

States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 & 2016:
1. American Samoa
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. Florida (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
5. Massachusetts
6. Ohio
7. Tennessee
8. Texas

States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 but lost in 2016:
1. Michigan (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
2. New Hampshire
3. Oklahoma

States/territories lost by Hillary in 2008 but won in 2016:
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Illinois
4. Iowa
5. Louisiana
6. Mississippi
7. Missouri
8. Nevada
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina
11. Virginia

States/territories won by Hillary in 2016 that weren't included in 2008:
1. Northern Marianas Islands

 

[nib95]

Its snake oil because I have seen him do fuck all for down ticket dems, and if you have a hope and or a prayer of getting ANY of that done, we all know you cant do it winning the house alone.

I'm not new to this; I know what it takes to get that stuff implemented. SAYING you want that stuff is easy. Everyone does that; I'm watching your actions.

So is that all you care about? His history with down ticket dems, devoid of all context about the constituency he was tending, nor their demographic (second most White state in the country). No regard for his past antics on minority rights, foreign policy, economics etc, and a complete disregard for all his current outlined policies, on healthcare, police reform, education, big business etc etc?

It's hilarious reading snake oil related to Bernie of all people, when historically it's Hillary who has changed tune far more often depending on what is politically expedient of her, and is more likely to be full of the same political corruption or status quo policies due to her deep ties with corporate, military and big business. For example, you really trust Hillary of all people to massively bring down the hammer when the next recession falls? The same lady who's benefited and profited millions from those very institutes and businesses?

 

[Holmes]

For example, you really trust Hillary of all people to massively bring down the hammer when the next recession falls? The same lady who's benefited and profited millions from those very institutes and businesses?

That's a fair argument, but you can spin it the other way and say, do you believe Sanders will care and try to make any changes next time there's a gun-related massacre, considering his cozy relationship and his past with the gun lobby? These kinds of hypotheticals are beyond stupid.

 

[nib95]

That's a fair argument, but you can spin it the other way and say, do you believe Sanders will care and try to make any changes next time there's a gun-related massacre, considering his cozy relationship and his past with the gun lobby? These kinds of hypotheticals are beyond stupid.

How is it cozy? Being in the middle or less actively against something isn't the same as being cozy with it. I mean, he has a D- rating with the NRA, that hardly sounds cozy. I also doubt for example, the NRA has ever paid him for any speeches or whatever, so it's not like his political leanings will be filtered by anything more than public sentiment alone.

 

[Kyosaiga]

So is that all you care about? His history with down ticket dems, devoid of all context about the constituency he was tending, nor their demographic (second most White state in the country). No regard for his past antics on minority rights, foreign policy, economics etc, and a complete disregard for all his current outlined policies, on healthcare, police reform, education, big business etc etc?

It's hilarious reading snake oil related to Bernie of all people, when historically it's Hillary who has changed tune far more often depending on what is politically expedient of her, and is more likely to be full of the same political corruption or status quo policies due to her deep ties with corporate, military and big business. For example, you really trust Hillary of all people to massively bring down the hammer when the next recession falls? The same lady who's benefited and profited millions from those very institutes and businesses?

So, you literally have no idea about her record, both before and after she became FL?

Cool.

 

[Rentahamster]

That's a fair argument, but you can spin it the other way and say, do you believe Sanders will care and try to make any changes next time there's a gun-related massacre, considering his cozy relationship and his past with the gun lobby? These kinds of hypotheticals are beyond stupid.

That comparison seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[B-Dubs]

That comparison seems like a bit of a stretch.

They did help him get elected to the house...

 

[Ambient80]

David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, says what we all know, that this race is basically over:



https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/ho...-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.apa29bwlj

Last poll of WV has Sanders up by 26. People here hate that Hillary is buddies with Obama.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Last poll of WV has Sanders up by 26. People here hate that Hillary is buddies with Obama.

They sound like Republicans. Or racist. Or both?

 

[noshten]

So he is cozy to the gun lobby, Koch brothers, not voting for the Wall Street bailout, being sexist and many other things(I have links but you should be getting the idea). And to some it's ok when she attacks him on this but him going negative means he can't have any debates. This to me just takes the cake with this whole election cycle.
Now I know Hillary's team don't enjoy the tone of his attacks, they didn't expect anyone to be attacking them this primary.
Earlier today Benenson was talking about the millions in attack ads Bernie has run against Hillary.. Millions!
I went online to find these attack ads, since I wanted to see what they are talking about.
The following is the Bernie Sanders attack ad on Hillary Clinton and it's hilarious.

“Bernie Sanders has always been on the side of Michigan workers and working families,” the spot said.

“Bernie voted for the auto rescue package and he’s the only candidate who’s opposed to the job killing trade deals that have crushed manufacturing,” it said of the independent Vermont senator.
“Washington has always had a funny relationship with the truth. So it’s not surprising that his opponent is out with a new radio ad trying to distort the truth about Bernie’s record.”

The ad then cited Sanders’s support for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, a 2008 bill eventually used to give loans to struggling U.S. car manufacturers.

“The Washington Post spells things out pretty clearly, stating his opponent ‘glosses over a lot…’ including the fact that Sanders is actually on record as support the bailout,’” the spot said. "He even voted for it.

“’It seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic…but that voters won’t,’” the ad quoted The Washington Post saying.

“Michigan voters deserve better than typical Washington tactics: hoping voters don’t figure out what you’re up to until it’s too late. There’s only one candidate who tells it like it is and isn’t afraid of standing up for Michigan workers and that’s Bernie Sanders.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-sanders-ad-clinton-dishonest-on-auto-bailout

 

[FlowersisBritish]

So, you literally have no idea about her record, both before and after she became FL?

Cool.

Hillary does flip flop, as people tend to do, and as their opinions change. Which is alright, but she never says her opinions changed. The big moment that kind of turned me away from her was always the Defense of Marriage Act. She says it was secretly to prevent tougher laws, but I've never really believed that. It's the easiest thing to say "I was supporting you at the time, don't worry. I couldn't say it for risk of myself, but don't worry." I wouldn't be so put off by it if she said she changed her mind, but no. She was always with us apparently, we just never noticed :/

 

[Stumpokapow]

David Plouffe, Obama's 2008 campaign manager, says what we all know, that this race is basically over:

https://medium.com/@davidplouffe/ho...-nominee-lose-five-of-47a8875c1a87#.apa29bwlj

David Plouffe really believes "thru" is an acceptable thing to write?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

To compare where the campaigns are at this point, look at Hillary's results in the primaries that have run so far:

States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 & 2016:
1. American Samoa
2. Arizona
3. Arkansas
4. Florida (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
5. Massachusetts
6. Ohio
7. Tennessee
8. Texas

States/territories won by Hillary in 2008 but lost in 2016:
1. Michigan (Obama did not contest this state in 2008)
2. New Hampshire
3. Oklahoma

States/territories lost by Hillary in 2008 but won in 2016:
1. Alabama
2. Georgia
3. Illinois
4. Iowa
5. Louisiana
6. Mississippi
7. Missouri
8. Nevada
9. North Carolina
10. South Carolina
11. Virginia

States/territories won by Hillary in 2016 that weren't included in 2008:
1. Northern Marianas Islands

She's basically taking her '08 map and adding a ton of Obama's states to it. There's no way she doesn't have this in the bag.

So is that all you care about? His history with down ticket dems, devoid of all context about the constituency he was tending, nor their demographic (second most White state in the country). No regard for his past antics on minority rights, foreign policy, economics etc, and a complete disregard for all his current outlined policies, on healthcare, police reform, education, big business etc etc?

It's hilarious reading snake oil related to Bernie of all people, when historically it's Hillary who has changed tune far more often depending on what is politically expedient of her, and is more likely to be full of the same political corruption or status quo policies due to her deep ties with corporate, military and big business. For example, you really trust Hillary of all people to massively bring down the hammer when the next recession falls? The same lady who's benefited and profited millions from those very institutes and businesses?

The down-ticket thing is actually really important to me. Nothing Sanders wants to do will matter to me, even if it were to be passed, because it's pretty clear that states have to agree to opt into such programs. And Bernie's raised precisely nothing (okay, he raised the minimum $1K the DNC requires to join) to help people who aren't in blue states. Hillary has raised millions, and it's going to be crucial to flipping some seats this November, and then later in 2018. As a resident of a red state, I don't feel like Bernie would try at all to help any Democrats get elected here. But I do feel that Hillary would based on the effort she's already put into doing so.

 

[blackjaw]

David Plouffe really believes "thru" is an acceptable thing to write?

This is Twitter right where character count matters...wait, it's not....

 

[googleplex]

The down-ticket thing is actually really important to me. Nothing Sanders wants to do will matter to me, even if it were to be passed, because it's pretty clear that states have to agree to opt into such programs. And Bernie's raised precisely nothing (okay, he raised the minimum $1K the DNC requires to join) to help people who aren't in blue states. Hillary has raised millions, and it's going to be crucial to flipping some seats this November, and then later in 2018. As a resident of a red state, I don't feel like Bernie would try at all to help any Democrats get elected here. But I do feel that Hillary would based on the effort she's already put into doing so.

Who cares about those guys, they're part of the "establishment" and thus are part of the problem.

This is sarcasm by the way and I basically agree with you.

 

[boiled goose]

Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.

Such complete bs.

Ok then. You want Sanders to run as an independent then?? Is that really what you want?

What a Fucking joke of a post.

Sanders didn't even want to run! He only ran because there was no progressive challenge to Clinton.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Such complete bs.

Ok then. You want Sanders to run as an independent then?? Is that really what you want?

What a Fucking joke of a post.

Sanders didn't even want to run! He only ran because there was no progressive challenge to Clinton.

His point was that if Sanders can use the Democratic Party without having his politics corrupted by it, then it's possible Hillary can use SuperPACs without her politics being corrupted by them.

 

[Mrbob]

Trump might be in trouble next week. The leading conservative talk radio host in Wisconsin basically eviscerated him today in an interview:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/28/3763907/trump-wisconsin/

Perhaps Sykes should have ran for President. First pundit I've heard clown Trump one on one where he didn't have many good comebacks. I'm shocked Trump went on his show. I listen to Sykes from time to time and he has been slamming Trump for months.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Bernie's arguments ring hollow because he's a huge hypocrite since he's admitted to doing the exact same type of thing--he's not a Democrat, but he's running as one anyway because he's "just playing the game" and trying to get whatever advantages he can, including those the DNC offer to their candidates. He and his supporters have no right to complain--if they understand that Sanders running as a Democrat doesn't lock him into the Democratic party's platform or the interests/standards of the "establishment," then they should be able to understand that it's the same with the money that Clinton receives from SuperPACs, especially since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all anyway and thus she'd have to make choices and it comes right back to the type of choices you think she would make and not the money since that doesn't actually tie her to anything in the same way that running as a Democrat doesn't tie Sanders to anything.

I have to admit, this level of (what I see as) false equivalence caught me off guard.

The issue is not (and has never been) that politicians are "playing the game". The issue is that some aspects the system takes for granted are wantonly corrupt. These specific aspects of "the game" are the problem. There's political gamesmanship in all facets of life, it's not something you're going to stamp out altogether. But corruption tilts the field in favor of those who make the rules.

But let me address the specific example. You claim "since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all", or if I might rephrase it, "if everyone is paying me bribes, it's impossible for me to make them all happy". That is a wonderfully straightforward response.

Here's is the false equivalence I see: the honest policeman is always better than the one taking bribes. First of all, not all bribes are equal in value -- those with more money have more influence. Second, even if all bribes were of equal value, some people cannot afford the buy-in to this system, and they are left out in the cold.

I appreciate your explanation, but -- as you might have guessed -- I don't consider Sanders a hypocrite at all here. It should be possible to "play the game" while minimizing conflict of interest (or in the case of our politicians accepting money from all directions, a hundred conflicts of interest) so as to not compromise one's duty to the electorate. But it wasn't clear how to do it with any amount of success until Bernie. That is where the appeal comes from.

 

[theignoramus]

Hillary does flip flop, as people tend to do, and as their opinions change. Which is alright, but she never says her opinions changed. The big moment that kind of turned me away from her was always the Defense of Marriage Act. She says it was secretly to prevent tougher laws, but I've never really believed that. It's the easiest thing to say "I was supporting you at the time, don't worry. I couldn't say it for risk of myself, but don't worry." I wouldn't be so put off by it if she said she changed her mind, but no. She was always with us apparently, we just never noticed :/

That is the Clinton modus operandi, "triangulation":

“Since 1994, Clinton has offered the Democratic party a devilish bargain: Accept and defend policies you hate (welfare reform, the Defense of Marriage Act), condone and excuse crimes (perjury, campaign finance abuses) and I’ll deliver you the executive branch of government…Again since 1994, Clinton has survived and even thrived by deftly balancing between right and left. He has assuaged the Left by continually proposing bold new programs — and he has placated the Right by dropping every one of these programs as soon as he proposed it. Clinton makes speeches, Rubin and Greenspan make policy; the Left gets words, the Right gets deeds; and everyone is content”

I suppose this time round, its not campaign finance abuses, its millions in kickbacks from foreign despots that they solicit through their Foundation.

 

[royalan]

But let me address the specific example. You claim "since that money comes from such diverse sources that it's impossible for Clinton to be beholden to them all", or if I might rephrase it, "if everyone is paying me bribes, it's impossible for me to make them all happy". That is a wonderfully straightforward response.

That's quite a leap you made there. Care to explain why an individual donating to Clinton's campaign or to a PAC supporting Clinton is tantamount to a bribe?

 

[Elfforkusu]

That's quite a leap you made there. Care to explain why an individual donating to Clinton's campaign or to a PAC supporting Clinton is tantamount to a bribe?

How much is this individual donating? Is that amount above the politician's (in this case Clinton's) price?

Everyone has a price. There are nods to this in the system -- individual contribution limits, for example. But when individual contribution limits can be circumvented -- again, by a specific class of people (and, essentially, only that class), how can we claim the interests of everyone else are represented? For that matter, donations are only one small part of it: there are other ways to funnel money to politicians for favors and policy changes.

All I'm describing here is an oligarchy, which is, IMO, clearly what our system has become. That's "the game". I doubt the ability of any politician to play that game and come out actually representing the interests of the many instead of the few while still making the donors happy.