let's not forget that she is also actively campaigning on it.
The Amount of Hillary Hate Scares Me
- Thread starter LittleBoots
- Start date
- Status
let's not forget that she is also actively campaigning on it.
daemissary
Member
So are you arguing that what she says is irrelevant? How am I supposed to trust someone if their words mean nothing?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Oh I do agree that actions speak louder than words.
Hence many people's reservations with Hillary
JesseEwiak
Member
LBJ went from a DIxiecrat to making MLK cry in a little over a decade. A little flip flopping over gay marriage and a pipeline is nothin'.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Well the first thing to learn about politicians is you can't trust anything they say...
When did it really matter, though? What votes was she a potential deciding factor on?
It's arguable that she's doing being pretty strategic, and it's clearly worked for some definition because she's still here as a potential candidate for president. When it comes to bartering with congress over making laws, what's the better quality, shifting position to get something done or standing on a principle and making no leeway at all?
boiled goose
good with gravy
As I said, I trust their actions more.
Who they get money from. Who has their ear. How they voted.
This is a weird thing to argue because Bernie has actually a pretty good record when it comes to introducing and passing bipartisan legislation.
My reservation here is that what we get depends on who gets catered to and how much and what the initial offer on the table is.
Bartering with congress is good. But there are many ways to barter.
I actually think Hillary will be better than Obama in this respect. She is tougher and not afraid to make enemies. Obama wants everyone to like him and gives half of the house to republicans at the table and then they take another chuck out. leaving him with less than 1/4th, That said, I am not confident that hillary will not give a chunk to special interests.
I remember Saturday Night Live did a sketch about this. It was a Democrat debate for "Campaign '92: The Race To Avoid Being The Guy That Losses To Bush". You can watch it at the link if you want, but the obvious conceit is that every person in the debate is trying to convince voters not to vote for them.
"If the Democratic party were to make me its nominee, it would go on to its worst defeat in history".
Still funny, even if history has shown how off-the-mark its premise was.
This is a false choice.
I'm not preferring slow progress to fast progress. I'm preferring slow progress to no progress. I'm preferring success to failure.
There are definitely people worse off than I am. But if you're living hand to mouth, the last thing you should do is buy a lottery ticket. That's exactly what Bernie Sanders is.
Her words aren't irrelevant, but context is important.
In this case, I'm not going to hold Hillary's questionable comments on gay rights/marriage against her when this is the woman who was the first First Lady to march in a gay pride parade, and who consistently supported gay rights with her vote as a senator.
legacyzero
Banned
So you're willing to accept her saying one thing, and doing another??? I wanna be able to take her at her word. And right now, her word is very different on a LOT of issues now, than before.
Oh, and I would love to see those votes. Got a link?
EDIT: Oh, and if you wanna go on word vs vote: Here ya go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
boiled goose
good with gravy
Man did I peg you down didnt I?
I don't think it is a lottery ticket but it is certainly a risk (in terms of a less certain outcome maybe).
When keeping the status quo seems like certain disaster don't blame people for wanting a chance at change, even if it is a bold leap. People are tired. They have their backs against the wall.
I actually don't think Sanders will be the solution, but I do think he might be a better political choice for the people.
I don't mind that her of anybodies particular views change, for we should not be snakey to people who change their minds.
That said, many have the opinion much of Hillary's contrasting views are not a change of mind but a change of the culture she's trying to tap into. Whether or not that's even true, a great deal of people feel this.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Would Hillary be talking about Campaign Finance and come out against TPP if it wasnt for Sanders gaining traction in the race? Noone seriously believes this right?
Read up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rom-senate-career-saying-biden-played-a-role/
Compromise. Seems to be a recurring theme here.
I'm holding out hope, even if I think it's unlikely. I think Sanders is in this for the long haul, even if it becomes obvious he won't win in the end. He wants to get the message out, if nothing else, which is super important on its own.
JesseEwiak
Member
I don't know about TPP, but basically every Democrat, from Barbara Boxer to Heidi Heitkamp though the Citizen's United decision was a bad decision.
The answer to this question is complicated!
I already had a go-round on this in PoliGAF a little while back, so I'll try to make it quicker this time.
We had a huge speculative bubble in real estate in the 2000s. Prices and values just kept climbing and climbing. So a lot of people made a lot of very aggressive investments in real estate, because, hey, if it keeps climbing it's free money! Part of this speculative bubble included mortgages, which after all are a real estate investment. So a lot of aggressive mortgages got given out. This might seem unwise, but if you know the value of the house is just going to keep going up forever, it's actually pretty safe.
Of course, like all speculative bubbles, eventually the bubble popped and housing prices collapsed, which caused a bunch of these investments to fail, which caused a bunch of institutions to end up losing money, which caused other institutions who loaned them money to end up at risk of losing more money, etc., etc., and suddenly you have an interdependent group of institutions all at risk of collapsing as a group and blowing up the financial system.
Once we got through dealing with all of that, a bunch of judges went back and looked at those aggressive mortgages and determined that, hey, without the context of a speculative bubble those were pretty dumb mortgages to write, and so charged a bunch of banks with fraud as a result. Since, again, at the time the mortgages were written, people assumed the asset values would just keep going up and so the mortgages would be fine, this might be a little harsh. Fraud requires foreknowledge. The behavior of the banks doesn't really suggest that they knew the mortgages would fail -- they mostly held onto them and lost money on them. But, you know, a lot of people did get fucked during the financial crisis and it might be nice to try to raise some money to help them, which we can easily do by fining banks billions of dollars, right? After all, they're the ones who have the money.
So that's fine as far as it goes. Personally, while I don't really have a problem with charging a bunch of banks with crimes and making them pay a bunch of fines which we can use to help people whose mortgages went underwater, because fuck banks basically, I think that it is actually just incorrect, in a way that will make it harder for you to understand financial regulation issues, to think that the CAUSE of the financial crisis was fraud. The fundamental cause of the crisis was the speculative bubble! That's why Dodd-Frank makes it harder for banks to get overleveraged to try to reduces the consequences of the bubble in the future.
legacyzero
Banned
Sure. I think it's great if people come around on issue. But when you're constantly evolving on numerous issues, all while the thought of Wall Street and donor constituency floating overhead all of it, THAT is the issue. Clear conflict of interest.
You're not factoring in what I said above. Conflict of interest. Taking money from the special interests that influenced the bill. Did you watch the interview??
Fair enough. I agree.
Unknown Soldier
Member
To fair to Bill Clinton though, he was almost a one-in-a-lifetime natural politician. I'm not really sure who else could have done it. It's amazing that Barack Obama came along less than a decade later but that doesn't detract from how amazing a politician Bill was. The Democrats having Hillary or Bernie to choose from this cycle is almost cruel after having had Obama. Almost as cruel as having Al Gore after Bill, come to think of it. That really worked out badly for Gore, the Democrats, the nation, and the entire world especially the Middle East.
Campaign Finance? Sure. Its something Democrats will get stomped until the end of days unless something gets passed to stop SuperPAC money. Citizen's United has been around since the 90s, and the left has no equivalent to Adelson or the Kochs.
TPP, probably, as it does have some traction across the board, and outsourcing has generally been a populist issue this cycle. Trump is hitting hard over NAFTA, etc.
Yup. Do people really think Hillary is somehow secretly okay with Citizen's United? If you want to say she's in the pockets of X or so, sure (but I think the evidence and arguments are shaky), but unlimited contributions via SuperPAC is wildly unpopular in the Democratic party.
boiled goose
good with gravy
BS. It was fraud.
It was intentional fraud. Subprime mortgages provided the chief collateral for highly leveraged securities that were marketed as AAA
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20947
You can't charge banks with crimes. You need to charge people. If corporations are people that can donate to political campaigns and have free speech then they need to also be able to be jailed (or executed even?). As it stands, the system is rigged. Corporations have MORE rights than actual humans. They get more benefits with less consequences. A slap in the wrist fine is not enough. In fact, it is a joke.
Individuals need to be held accountable, and then, the crisis should have been dealt with similar to what iceland did. But no... banks too powerful. Too much political power.
No one would be talking about campaign finance if it wasnt for Bernie. Certainly not hillary. In fact, Bernie didn't even start talking about it till well into the campaign. You are correct to point out though that getting rid of citizens would probably benefit the democrats. They have slightly more shame. And yea, there is less profit motive in trying to build a more fair system than rigging it.
This is just a stump speech.
Who are you going to prosecute for the speculative bubble happening? Nobody's responsible for creating the bubble. They happen as a result of the aggregate behavior of millions of people. How do you plan to make that illegal? What would that even do?
edit: This is exactly what I mean, by the way, when I say that trying to understand the financial crisis in terms of fraud makes you incapable of actually coming up with useful responses to the real situation.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
It seems to me like you just want to put responsibility on everything that she has said to everyone and everything but her, the one that actually said them.
The point is she did those things because it was popular at the time. Gay marriage wasn't popular, so she didn't support it.
She is not a leader. She is a follower. She has to be slowly convinced of good policy (as in decades) before she does anything. What kind of fucking President is that?
She will do and say whatever it takes (and $ay it to whomever...) to get into power.
Hillary was talking about Citizens United before Bernie even started running.
When did Bernie start talking about campaign finance? Can you find the exact time?
Fenderputty
Banned
Yup.
By this metric Obama is just as guilty. He opposed gay marriage at the start of his campaign, and ultimately what happened? Some of the most gay friendly legislation ever happens under his presidency.
You don't need to lead on an issue to be effective.
Hell, if that were the case, NONE of these candidates deserve to run, and that includes Bernie.
May 19th
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-united-would-guide-her-supreme-court-picks/
And, yeah, the Citizen's United case is literally about Citizen's United trying to spam an anti-Hillary ad.
Gay Marriage has been an issue since the 80s. Who here was pushing for it back then?
I wasn't always for it, and most that now support it didn't back then, either. It was a fringe issue that grew in popularity, and Civil Unions were proven to be a complete sham.
September 8th, 1941
boiled goose
good with gravy
Sorry, I provided a link in an edit above. Individuals knew what was happening. They knew they were selling shit in a nice looking box. That shit is fraud.
Actions speak louder than words. (as I said many times in the thread regarding all politicians)
Ummm. What are you getting at exactly? There was a definite shift from income inequality to income inequality because of a rigged political system put in place because of money in politics. He always talked about both, there was a clear shift. Exact time? What do you want from me hahaha. silly request is silly
eBay Huckster
Member
yeah, and the relevant action here was a court case coming about because a group wanted to run anti-Clinton ads during the 2008 race and initially got blocked by section 203 of the BCRA, a law Clinton voted for
You said it didn't start until later in his campaign -- I have webarchive open looking for when campaign financing entered Clinton's. It's a genuine question, it's not a gotcha at all.
boiled goose
good with gravy
It is definitely clear that republicans are more corrupt, more shameless, and benefit more from money in politics. That is certainly clear.
When it comes to this issue wrt Hillary vs Bernie... I mean, it is not even a freaking contest.
I reallly really dont get the logic of some of the arguments pro Hillary supporters make... :./
There are plenty of reasons to support her. This... is not a good one.
Hmm good luck hunting then. It was a few debates in when Bernie started mentioning it in his opening speeches and closing statements more emphatically. Hillary started bringing it up a few debates after that. Im talking about a shift in focus. It might have been mentioned by both candidates long before that.
eBay Huckster
Member
i mean, the argument here is whether Clinton is sincere in being against the Citizens United ruling and whether she'd be talking about it if it wasn't for Sanders
and there's not really a compelling argument against her sincerity there that isn't the same chucklefucking conspiracy bullshit people use to invalidate all of her other positions as insufficiently pure, because the case was literally about her and directly impacted the functioning of a law she voted for and co-sponsored
and there's not really a compelling argument against her sincerity there that isn't the same chucklefucking conspiracy bullshit people use to invalidate all of her other positions as insufficiently pure, because the case was literally about her and directly impacted the functioning of a law she voted for and co-sponsored
Fenderputty
Banned
The argument is whatever boiled goose decides, man
boiled goose
good with gravy
Ok. Would she really prefer it if the system was different... maybe.... Do you know the net worth of the clintons? 100 million ish? Mostly from their high profile as politicians.
I do think she would probably prefer it.... again it skews the field republican and people dont like having to beg for legalized bribes all the time.
Has she not been influenced by this very system? Will she not continue to be influenced? Now you have to be very naive to believe that.
Well, we've gone from:
to:
I'm satisfied, I love nuance
Nuance is my favorite word. I'm happy to elaborate, explain, amend, retract positions as needed. There is no dogma here. Just call it as I see it.
eBay Huckster
Member
...You know what, I'm out. If you're not even gonna keep the goalposts consistent from single post to single post I'm not gonna keep engaging.
Skellig Gra
Member
She "flip flopped" on gay marriages in her 60s. Who is really changing that hardcore of a belief that late in life? You are saying never met a decent gay person in the prior 40-50 years of her life.
Hey, man, you're the one who made the ludicrous and IMMEDIATELY falsifiable claim that Hillary wouldn't be talking about campaign finance if Bernie hadn't done it first. Trying to spin it now and say that we're not making a good argument is just being silly. You made a dumb claim and people pointed out, just admit you were wrong and move on from it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I mean... I agree I shifted the discussion a bit...
but I feel it was justified as I was trying to get to the underlying substance, not the checkbox one liners.
The underlying substance was why Sanders supporters dont trust Hillary when it comes to campaign finance. Or at the very least, whey they trust that sanders is more likely to do something about it or be more immune to outside interests.
Huh? I elaborated my position. I don't think I was wrong on the substance. By "talking about it" I did not mean mentioned it once or whatever. I also explained that it is not like Sanders was "talking about it " from the beginning even if he mmight have mentioned it. It has become a central issue on the Democratic side. That was my point. I still believe she wouldnt be "talking about it" if it wasnt for Sanders.
Do we have a disagreement on the substance here? If we do, that is what I find silly and unbelievable.
I'm not trying to score points or win arguments, but rather have a substantive discussion.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Hillary is not my ideal candidate, far from in fact, but what a republican presidency can do to the supreme court for the majority of my adult life is legitimately terrifying given the current crop of racists dickheads to come through the shit pipleline that is the GOP
Fenderputty
Banned
That isn't a point. It's paranoia.
I wouldn't want to punish people by raising taxes on everyone if we were well off financially, but we're not. Hell, we wouldn't even be in the massive amount of debt we're in if W. Bush didn't lower taxes for everyone(in an otherwise good economic period for no apparent reason) and spent shitloads of cash in Iraq. But he did, we are in massive debt and digging the hole deeper for another decade will lead to us becoming as stagnant as Japan is right now with 230% debt.
It's inevitable that we'll have another recession, I think we should put a dent in the deficit before we get there, and the best way to do that is to raise taxes. Then, later, we can spend money safely on other things. It's simple sensible keynesian economics. Honestly, raising taxes doesn't even prevent the government from trying to deal with bank fraud.
Look, I don't think you understand that the U.S. is one of the lowest tax 1st world countries by a large margin. We don't have a national sales tax or value added tax, and without even considering that fact we are in the bottom 25% of tax rates. If you really think that the U.S. should adopt socialist policies, we're gonna have to have a tax rate to rival socialist nations at some point, or at least raise our taxes a decent bit.
But this is all irrelevant because doing anything to taxes in general is political suicide.
wat
edit: no really what
are you insinuating that lack of trust in a politician is paranoia
Prodigal Son
Member
People disagreeing with him doesn't mean he's wrong.
boiled goose
good with gravy
I strongly disagree. I call your stance naiveté.
I mean, I dont even understand what you mean. You don't think special interests influence politicians with campaign donations, access, cushy jobs after 'service'??
Im sure those 100k+ speeches to Hillary were offered to her because she is an awesome speaker that is really tough on the banks... I mean come on. #givemeabreak #jeb
Man I love arguing haha.
- Status