Support NeoGAF

[Chichikov]

Man the Hillary defence force.. Jesus Christ, you just can't criticise her here.

Agree 100%. It's really bad in neogaf but neogaf is too liberal.

Having people disagree with your opinion does not prevent you from stating.
Also, most of Clinton criticism in this thread seem to come from Sanders supporters, so maybe gaf is not liberal enough.

p.s.
Easy on the "gaf hive mind" posts, it's nothing more than shitposting. I'm letting these ones slide, but these posts add nothing to the discussion.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Man the Hillary defence force.. Jesus Christ, you just can't criticise her here.

lol..Are you just skipping the post that are criticizing her? 😏

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's funny, Cobra apparently thinks the people that want money out of politics, and are huge Bernie supporters(I supported Bernie Sanders too!), would ever be on his "Gaf is just too liberal" side.

Lol sure bud.

You did it again!

 

[benjipwns]

You realize Jimmy Buffet and Calvin Klein are also people with votes right?

Well, that's depressing.

 

[JustenP88]

Im against citizens united but ok

You realize Jimmy Buffet and Calvin Klein are also people with votes right?

Or are you trying to argue that people who own companies shouldn't be allowed to participate in the system?

These arent corporations theyre actual human beings.

Has anybody, at any point, said anything like "rich people shouldn't be able to vote"? They should be able to participate in the system, to the same extent a single mother living on $35,000/year can participate.

 

[Condom]

Im against citizens united but ok

You realize Jimmy Buffet and Calvin Klein are also people with votes right?

Or are you trying to argue that people who own companies shouldn't be allowed to participate in the system?

These arent corporations theyre actual human beings.

Hey, the rich did that to the poor back in the day. Maybe it's time to return the favour!

Spoiler

joking obviously

 

[benjipwns]

Has anybody, at any point, said anything like "rich people shouldn't be able to vote"? They should be able to participate in the system, to the same extent a single mother living on $35,000/year can participate.

Exactly, everyone should be able to buy as many votes as they want. First vote is free, second is a dollar, third is ten dollars, fourth is a hundred dollars, tenth vote is a hundred million dollars, etc.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It's also a massive waste of resources. The last Presidential election topped 2 billion in spending. That money could be used for much better things.

It could be used for something else, but it's not a massive waste. Public and private institutions create, recycle, and shift far more than $2 billion over the course of 1 day. It's very small.

 

[Haunted]

That is completely normal for an oligarchy.

 

[JustenP88]

Exactly, everyone should be able to buy as many votes as they want. First vote is free, second is a dollar, third is ten dollars, fourth is a hundred dollars, tenth vote is a hundred million dollars, etc.

Will these votes go on sale at any point because they're a bit too rich for my blood? Any coupons or buy three get one offers?

 

[benjipwns]

Will these votes go on sale at any point because they're a bit too rich for my blood? Any coupons or buy three get one offers?

Others can fund you casting multiple votes. But the ballot remains secret.

Also, I forgot, you have to buy the extra votes for each individual office or ballot question.

 

[Chichikov]

Exactly, everyone should be able to buy as many votes as they want. First vote is free, second is a dollar, third is ten dollars, fourth is a hundred dollars, tenth vote is a hundred million dollars, etc.

This is an inefficient and wasteful system.
We should have a bidding system so the market can decide that exact amount of money a president is worth to the American public.

 

[2MF]

And yes a video would be nice but literally do you even have like, anything? Or are you just speaking from the gut? Like what are the multitude of occasions where this prevalent corruption issue happened that you're thinking about when you're saying all this?

No, I'm not just speaking from the gut. Here you go, straight from the horse's (politician's) mouth:

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/30/politicians-admitting-obvious-fact-money-affects-vote/

“You have to go where the money is. Now where the money is, there’s almost always implicitly some string attached. … It’s awful hard to take a whole lot of money from a group you know has a particular position then you conclude they’re wrong [and] vote no.” — Vice President Joe Biden in 2015.

• “Lobbyists and career politicians today make up what I call the Washington Cartel. … [They] on a daily basis are conspiring against the American people. … [C]areer politicians’ ears and wallets are open to the highest bidder.” — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2015.

• “The banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” – Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., in 2009.

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[psrock]

Man the Hillary defence force.. Jesus Christ, you just can't criticise her here.

This is getting annoying. Hillary has been criticized on a daily basis in this forum.

 

[Kyzer]

Has anybody, at any point, said anything like "rich people shouldn't be able to vote"? They should be able to participate in the system, to the same extent a single mother living on $35,000/year can participate.

I did. Sarcastically.


According to the law, they are both participating to the same extent. The whole point is that its already illegal for this money to ever influence anything. $0 is as influential to policy as $1.4m. The only thing changing is the amount of support youre giving to help them win. So what are we gonna do to limit what else? And how do you even enforce that, beyond what we are already doing now?

 

[bob_arctor]

I claim a sovereign monopoly on the legitimate use of shitposting.

Whoa there, buddy. I have perfected the art so any claims you make are without merit, much like my posts the last decade or so.

 

[benjipwns]

Whoa there, buddy. I have perfected the art so any claims you make are without merit, much like my posts the last decade or so.

Copyright and patents are tools of the corporate elite's repression, I don't recognize any claim you make as to monopoly protection on shitposting.

 

[Chichikov]

Copyright and patents are tools of the corporate elite's repression, I don't recognize any claim you make as to monopoly protection on shitposting.

I think in your case, you have a natural monopoly on shitposting.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think in your case, you have a natural monopoly on shitposting.

Benji is the greatest shitposter there ever was or will be. He'll make entire threads just to shitpost in them.

 

[DpadD]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

 

[Armaros]

Benji is the greatest shitposter there ever was or will be. He'll make entire threads just to shitpost in them.

Threads? He wrote the book on shitposting.

 

[Shiggy]

How's this surprising? She needs the money, they have the money. They want to influence the political process, as president she can. Happens in most countries, i'd say. German parties typically get money from car manufacturers, and Diesel-gate as well as the soft CO2 reduction policies have shown where that leads.

I suppose only tighter limits on campaign budgets and donations can prevent corruption on such a scale.

 

[B-Dubs]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

You do realize Obama did this stuff too right? You can't change the system if you don't win.

 

[ClosingADoor]

She isn't worse, but she's running for President.

That's not an answer.

 

[benjipwns]

Threads? He wrote the book on shitposting.

I thought the title was the best part: Atlas Shrugged.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

Only one candidate running on appointing SC justices that will overturn Citizen's United.

 

[DpadD]

You do realize Obama did this stuff too right? You can't change the system if you don't win.

Wait, Obama changed the system?

What's your point?

 

[bob_arctor]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

Common Sense in any year: No fucking way I'm risking a Trump presidency. Hillary all the way!!


Of course, that's just bottomlining it. One is free to criticize the system that makes such a choice possible.

 

[jstripes]

That's...normal for a campaign.

The media are trying to be "balanced".

For every negative thing they say about Trump, they have to say something "negative" about Hillary. So, there's some real reaching going on.

 

[benjipwns]

Only one candidate running on appointing SC justices that will overturn Citizen's United.

But Citizens United's restoration of freedom of the press came after Barack and Hillary rejected public funding and spent $1 billion on the 2008 election.

 

[JustenP88]

The media are trying to be "balanced".

For every negative thing they say about Trump, they have to say something "negative" about Hillary. So, there's some real reaching going on.

Goddamn liberal media at it again!

 

[DpadD]

The media are trying to be "balanced".

For every negative thing they say about Trump, they have to say something "negative" about Hillary. So, there's some real reaching going on.

Lmao yeah right. Any criticism levied against Clinton is obviously reaching. She has impeccable character.

 

[QuantumZebra]

Joe Biden vs Trump debate would be fucking bonkers

Id pay to see that... it'd be better than Wrestlemania

 

[JustenP88]

Id pay to see that... it'd be better than Wrestlemania

I don't think the debate would make it to the scheduled end. I almost have to imagine Trump would walk off at some point.

 

[gutter_trash]

I am watching a Joy Reid segment (now live) where they are talking about the media trying to exaggerate the optics, the perception of scandal in the Clinton name for the sake of fake "equal treatment in the media about both candidates"

which is bullshit because there is nothing wrong or wrong doing on her part; just the image, the optics and the perception without any wrongdoing

 

[Chichikov]

Democrats in 2008: We need to change the system! It's all corrupt and broken.

Democrats in 2016: Guys, it's just the way it is! We need to get in line and support the candidate that the elites have chosen for us.

Democrats are not saying this now.
Democrats in congress have tried to pass legislation to limit the influence of money on the government since 2008, most notably the DISCLOSE act, but they all failed, due to opposition from the GOP.

Clinton is also for serious campaign reform (you can argue this is all bullshit, and to a degree it is since this is almost all stuff that would have to come from the other two branches of government, but you can't aruge the DNC is acting like they're happy with the current situation).

 

[Armaros]

Democrats are not saying this now.
Democrats in congress have tried to pass legislation to limit the influence of money on the government since 2008, most notably the DISCLOSE act, but they all failed, due to opposition from the GOP.

Clinton is also for serious campaign reform (you can argue this is all bullshit, and to a degree it is since this is almost all stuff that would have to come from the other two branches of government, but you can't aruge the DNC is acting like they're happy with the current situation).

We have posters here that believed/believe she is for keeping Citizens United.

People can and will argue it.

 

[tokkun]

Isn't this more a result of basically having Trump screw up all the time on his own. Any candidate would take a step back then, because it is not needed to appear on events. It's more just a campaign strategy then actually pandering to the ultra rich I think.

No, at the heart of it I think it comes down to Hillary Clinton being a risk-averse person who doesn't trust the press and doesn't enjoy campaigning. I think it's true that she is able to get away with this strategy because of the situation she is in, but it's not like it's the only option available to her. A different type of politician might look at the scenario as an opportunity to press the advantage, campaign hard, and possibly flip some more congressional seats.

If you can envision an alternate reality where Trump was ahead by a similar margin, I doubt that he would adopt the same tactic of trying not to draw attention and waiting out the clock. More likely he would still be holding big rallies to gloat and twist the knife.

 

[bob_arctor]

Lmao yeah right. Any criticism levied against Clinton is obviously reaching. She has impeccable character.

In a sense you are right--when placed against her shitbag of an opponent, her faults are clearly in the realm of just that, faults, and not say, world-ending calamities.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I don't think the debate would make it to the scheduled end. I almost have to imagine Trump would walk off at some point.

I'm pretty sure as he tried to, Diamond Joe would do this to him:

 

[Kin5290]

Why is it normal? Let no one complain, because the other side's asshole is much worse than the career insider who has bathed in the excesses of this corruption.

She will reform campaign finance after she gets elected fully taking advantage of the broken system and enriching herself via the last appointed office she held.

Keep in mind that she "enriched herself via appointed office" by writing a book and then delivering speeches about how important it is to have women in positions of power to anyone from big banks to... big camping.

And that her earning potential from the speech circuit is pretty lousy for being one of the best known political figures in the country, in large part due to the fact that she is a woman.

Barack Obama also became wealthy from being a famous person who wrote a book about himself, and once he leaves office he will likely make millions from the speech circuit, because people will understandably pay big money to have former President Barack Obama speak at their event.

This isn't a "rich have undue influence" thing or a "money in politics" thing. It's a supply and demand thing. There is a large demand for having the likes of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama speak at your events, and there is only one Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

 

[gutter_trash]

I'm pretty sure as he tried to, Diamond Joe would do this to him:

DDP has the best Diamond Cutter

 

[benjipwns]

We have posters here that believed/believe she is for keeping Citizens United.

People can and will argue it.

It's funny considering the case was about banning a movie critical of her.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Why is it normal?

I thought it was an Onion article at first. This shit is whack.

Ads cost money, and Hillary's campaign is basically a lock (she's polling almost double digits in enough states to cross 270 now). Almost all of this cash is going to get funneled to places like Georgia, Arizona and Missouri.

I don't get people sometimes. You want to see red states flip? You need resources.

 

[BlastProcessing]

We should know our place and not question the rich and powerful too much.

Maybe if you asked questions, you would have a better understanding of what's actually going on, just saying. Or you could just stay bitter, jaded and on the sidelines.

The fact that in order to win election in this country you pretty much need to pander to the ultra-rich is repugnant to me, even if it carries zero influence on the candidate (and I don't believe it does).

And to be clear, I don't really blame Clinton for doing it, if you gonna play the game, might as well play to win, but FFS, we need to clean our campaign finance laws.

I'm not sure what campaign finance reforms you would suggest. She is primarily raising money for down ticket and the DNC. Campaign finance laws already dictate that she can only revive $2,700 out of each of those $100,000 seats. If we got rid of bundling it would cripple the parties. Without party support it would become extremely difficult for new politicians to enter the system. Incumbents and the independently wealthy would have an even stronger advantage.

"Heh, why do I even need to pretend to be for the people, they're all going to vote for me anyway because no one wants the alternative."

Maybe we'll get some campaign finance reform 8 years from now...

This isn't about Clinton, she is already in a great position and doesn't really need to do more fundraising. She is doing this for the party. It's another example of her being a good soldier for the Party

Most of this money is going to go to DNC Get out the Vote initiatives this year. What is so onerous about registering and encouraging people to vote?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Lmao yeah right. Any criticism levied against Clinton is obviously reaching. She has impeccable character.

He didn't say any criticism, he said this particular criticism is reaching. He's right.

 

[Holmes]

Lmao yeah right. Any criticism levied against Clinton is obviously reaching. She has impeccable character.

It's just that instead of talking about things like Trump Foundation's $25k gift to Pam Bondi to drop her Trump U case, they're also talking about fundraisers that Clinton is attending to raise campaign funds, which is a total false equivalency. If the story were about how Republicans get big bucks from the Kochs, Alderson, etc then it would be perfectly fine to bring up who's donating to Clinton. I dunno. Maybe the media has gone out of control with these sensationalist stories and don't really care about policy. If I were the Clinton campaign I would try to grab them by the balls and change the narrative.

 

[Audioboxer]

No, Sanders is a saint who can't be criticized.

Hillary Defense Force up in here, am I right?


Because of the candidates who ran in their respective primaries, Clinton and Trump had the widest appeal.

Over a hundred million Americans sat out the primaries. This was our choice. Most of us simply shrugged.

Sanders kept pace with Clinton fundraising totals until he lost and Trump certainly didn't raise the most money in the GOP primaries.
Money is of course factor into winning a primary, but I don't think you can explain either candidate winning the nomination by simple saying "money".

Not simply, but it plays a large part. If you don't want to be a cog in the money making system then it doesn't matter what your other credentials are you're dust.

Obama raised 1.5 billion. Are these same people asking that same question in regards to him? You know, our very popular president?

I'm not an American so he isn't my president

If that figure is factual for Obama all it does for me is again reiterate in my opinion the amount of money in American politics is sickening.

 

[benjipwns]

I dunno. Maybe the media has gone out of control with these sensationalist stories and don't really care about policy. If I were the Clinton campaign I would try to grab them by the balls and change the narrative.

The media isn't qualified to talk about policy.

Really, they aren't even qualified to talk about the election narrative/horserace but at least that's mostly harmless for the ugly bags of mostly water.

 

[BlastProcessing]

It's also a massive waste of resources. The last Presidential election topped 2 billion in spending. That money could be used for much better things.

People complaining about waste are a pet peeve of mine. This money doesn't just go into the ether. It ends up in the pockets of local TV and radio stations, sign and swag manufacturers, and a large complex of people and services. Because politicians are super careful about foreign spending, it all ends up in the American economy. Elections actually represent a relatively large redistribution of wealth.

Generally, we shouldn't complain when the rich actually spend their money. The problematic part about the 1% is that they tend to hoard their cash, effectively removing it from the economy.