Support NeoGAF

[Abstrusity]

I'm lost on this joke

A little bit late, but we can draw direct parallels between how private industry does business now for what would otherwise be public goods -- in this case, roads would be private, and subject to the whims of private industry. Most people can't afford to make their own roads, private industry tends to cut corners whenever possible.

Because the cost of fixing a road is sufficiently high, it affects the bottom line more on a fiscal quarter to fiscal quarter basis than paying for increased maintenance that would be required. Nobody else gets a choice. Thus, the roads fall apart -- why did we even need roads in the first place? -- even as the tolls to travel on those roads continue to rise.

Libertarians believe in a world where human nature does not exist. A world where there is no free rider problem, no public goods, no tragedy of thecommons, and where everyone, at all times, acts in a rational manner.

So they believe in a fantasy. In the libertarian world, there would be no roads because the cost of upkeep far exceeds the personal revenue gleaned from it.

 

[Aaronology]

Yeah but...

More people voted for Hillary Clinton. Millions. No "buts" needed.

...wasn't the super delegate count wildly over reported by the mainstream media to make it look like Hilary had an insurmountable lead, giving a false view of the campaign?

No, reporting on the candidates' respective delegate and super-delegate count was not wildly divergent from any recent Democratic primary, notably the one in which Hillary Clinton lost 8 years ago. If anything the media collectively gave a more accurate view of the primaries this cycle by clearly differentiating between pledged and supers:

The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-delegate-tracker/

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/parties/democrat

This was not always done in 2008 when the media drew criticisms for occasionally portraying Clinton as ahead of Obama due to her supers. These concerns were clearly addressed in 2016, and reporting on delegate counts was easily decipherable to voters with at least a modicum of knowledge of the process.

Or just the fact these super delegates, who can choose who they wish and have a much larger say than the average person, seems like a really undemocratic system for the 'Democratic' party.

The DNC is a private organization and primaries are not intended to be, and have historically not been, purely democratic in nature. That said, super delegates have always deferred their votes to the winner of the pledged delegate count. They exists as a "break in case of emergency" feature of the Democratic Party's primary process in the event of a Trump like candidate emerging. Complaining about their mostly benign existence as if it taints the DNC while ignoring much more grievous aspects of primaries like caucuses makes me believe you aren't earnestly interested in "the average person" or how the system operates.

It was all skewed to Hilary's favour from the off and like a self fulfilling prophecy there she is as the candidate. She was likely going to win to be sure given Bernies pretty outrageous socialism (as far as America goes) but from the outset she was the chosen one, and the only real option, whether people were given a fair pick of alternatives or not.

We are at the last legs of a two-term Presidency of a black man who defeated Hillary Clinton as a first term Senator from Chicago despite having every major disadvantage that Bernie Sanders had, from relative name recognition to initial super delegate support, and many he did not. Stop making excuses for Sanders. Stop portraying Hillary Clinton as having not earned the nomination. Stop ignoring the fact that many people preferred her and voiced this preference in their votes. It's disingenuous to act overly concerned about democracy and fairness while scoffing at its results when they displease you.


Edit:

Superdelegates had nothing to do with Sanders losing. Sanders refusing to do the work to form a winning coalition before the primaries began, and not appealing to the demographics he needed to secure the nomination is why he lost.

Also this.

 

[Kinyou]

To help her win. Thats why you donate.

Why are all these poor people donating $20 to bernie sanders? Just for fun? Sounds naive to me

It seems naive because its easy to worry about the unknown. Its not that I dont question things, its important to be weary and keep an open mind, for sure. Its just like. The idea that all things must be bad and the system is fucked and we are slaves to the elite is a pretty basic opinion that one scary youtube video can persuade you into believing. It took me years to feel not scared of the system. Similar to my support of Hillary. Trust me, I started off distrusting, and assuming foul play. Then when you do research you find out theres no there there, to the point where you stop assuming these things until theres evidence.

Theres certainly too much money in politics but mostly within the law, which is really what we should be working towards changing. I have no doubt Hillary kisses these guys butts, but im much more inclined to think its for the $$$ to help her win than because shes a morally bankrupt crooked hillary caricature thats willing to sell her soul and the country.

It doesn't have to be straight up caricature level of corruption, but do you seriously believe that money has no influence on politicians?

People here keep emphasising how important it is for a candidate to collect money, so that their political goals are in line with what their donors like to see doesn't seem far fetched to me.

 

[kame-sennin]

I wouldn't say it's normal, as much as I'd say it's necessary. We shouldn't tolerate it, but why single out one politician?

There are only two in the race. Is anyone arguing that Trump isn't corrupt (besides Trump)? Does anyone think he isn't backed by monied interests?

Money in politics is fine as long as there's no explicit quid pro quo, said Republicans arguing in support of Citizens United.

You almost had me. Well done.

 

[kame-sennin]

Nothing to do with this thread, but Stan Lee often re-wrote Jack Kirby's dialogue to make Sue more of a sexist caricature and downplay her achievements, often causing strange clashes between the art and text.

Fuck Stan Lee.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

Yes, securing donations is something all politicians must do. But the clear fact of the matter is that without providing the media with other news, the media is going to make some of their own. And Hillary being in the pocket of the "ultra rich" is something that plays.

It's difficult not to walk away from this news with the feeling that Hillary is making some back-room promises to the people who are coughing up a shitload of dough for her to become president.

 

[Debirudog]

As said before, FDR was super rich and he still gave a fuck about the poor.

this "story" is a nothingburger.

 

[teruterubozu]

As said before, FDR was super rich and he still gave a fuck about the poor.

this "story" is a nothingburger.

Are nothingburgers cheap?

 

[Ihyll]

What if these super rich people are donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary because they want the same things as us?

Gay people being allowed to marry
Immigrants families not being torn apart
The EPA and combating climate change
Etc

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

There are only two in the race. Is anyone arguing that Trump isn't corrupt (besides Trump)? Does anyone think he isn't backed by monied interests?



You almost had me. Well done.

There were many other candidates in previous races too. There are many state and local level politicians as well. What about them? Where are the articles?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

There are only two in the race. Is anyone arguing that Trump isn't corrupt (besides Trump)? Does anyone think he isn't backed by monied interests?

The media not treating Trump like he's a serious candidate is partly why he's gotten this far. He's in the entertainment section of the newspaper while the others aren't.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I just hope that Hillary and her ultrarich pals will make the stock market go up a lot during her Presidency.

 

[Wilsongt]

Burn the witch.

Stein/Baraka2016

 

[FrontalMonk]

Burn the witch.

Stein/Baraka2016

I had to go on her website to make sure you weren't talking about the MK character.

Also, please try something a little less *ahem* incendiary with your posting.

 

[WedgeX]

Burn the witch.

Stein/Baraka2016

Are you a newt or something?

 

[Kyzer]

It doesn't have to be straight up caricature level of corruption, but do you seriously believe that money has no influence on politicians?

People here keep emphasising how important it is for a candidate to collect money, so that their political goals are in line with what their donors like to see doesn't seem far fetched to me.

The entire point of politics is shaping a platform to pander or have them in line with people. Thats not corruption. Shes already made her platform, its not up to be changed anymore. (insert hillaryclinton website gaf referral here), its set, and its meant to be in line with voters, not donors. People become donors by supporting whichever platform they want to win.

The idea of corruption doesnt seem far fetched to you because we dont trust the government but its kind of a big accusation to just throw out there just because.

Its not just something that happens all the time every day with everyone. Thats literally what Donald Trump wants you to believe.

I think money is far less influential than election/re-election. Thats who they pander to. Voter demographics.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Burn the witch.

Stein/Baraka2016

Baraka has already been in the White House for 2 terms.

Where's that Baraka in the White House "2 terms of Kombat" poster when I need him

 

[2MF]

The entire point of politics is shaping a platform to pander or have them in line with people. Thats not corruption. Shes already made her platform, its not up to be changed anymore. (insert hillaryclinton website gaf referral here), its set, and its meant to be in line with voters, not donors. People become donors by supporting whichever platform they want to win.

The idea of corruption doesnt seem far fetched to you because we dont trust the government but its kind of a big accusation to just throw out there just because.

Its not just something that happens all the time every day with everyone. Thats literally what Donald Trump wants you to believe.

I think money is far less influential than election/re-election. Thats who they pander to. Voter demographics.

Did you perhaps miss the reply with quotes where politicians including the Vice-President admit that money does own politics?

 

[Kyzer]

Did you perhaps miss the reply with quotes where politicians including the Vice-President admit that money does own politics?

Yeah I did miss this, but werent we talking about corruption, and buying access/favors? I feel like the goalpost just slowly gets moved toward the general concept of "money shouldnt affect politics at all" but Im talking about accusations of shaping policy in exchange for money. Lobbying is not corruption. Mothers Against Drunk Driving can lobby.

Not like a politician saying something is a source anyways. "The system is rigged, folks." - Donald J Trump, 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee

What about the quotes like this: "“Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that [is put forth], which really comes down to—you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought,” Clinton said. “But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.” - Hillary Clinton

 

[jim-jam bongs]

While I fully support Clinton, this excerpt underpins exactly why this stuff being business as usual is so harmful:

To businessmen who complain to Mrs. Clinton that President Obama has been unfriendly to their interests, she says she would approach business leaders more like Mr. Clinton did during his administration, which was widely considered amicable to the private sector.

When financiers complain about the regulations implemented by the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, Mrs. Clinton reaffirms her support for strong Wall Street regulation, but adds that she is open to listening to anyone’s ideas and at times notes that she represented the banking industry as a senator.

The wealthy contributors who host Mrs. Clinton often complain about her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and express concerns that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont pushed her to the left on trade and other issues. Mrs. Clinton reminds them she has both opposed and supported trade deals in the past.

And, as she noted at an event last month on Cape Cod in Massachusetts, Mrs. Clinton points out that she worked cooperatively with Republicans when she served in the Senate and would do so as president.

 

[EmSeta]

Amazing how some people are less concerned about the corruption than the fact that it's being reported on. If this was a republican candidate it'd sound a lot differently in here.

I'm supporting Hillary too this election (though I'd rather have had Bernie), but come on guys.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Yeah, it might be pretty normal but it's still pretty fucking disgusting.

Cosigned.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Where did she acquire that title?

...Marriage?

 

[BlastProcessing]

Amazing how some people are less concerned about the corruption than the fact that it's being reported on. If this was a republican candidate it'd sound a lot differently in here.

I'm supporting Hillary too this election, but come on guys.

How is this type of fundraising corrupt? Be specific.

What changes would you suggest to the law? Be specific.

 

[Not]

It's like now that a woman's running people actually care about shit politicians do. Fancy that.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Amazing how some people are less concerned about the corruption than the fact that it's being reported on. If this was a republican candidate it'd sound a lot differently in here.

I'm supporting Hillary too this election (though I'd rather have had Bernie), but come on guys.

What the fuck are you talking about? Candidates holding fundraisers is reporting on corruption now?

 

[Kyzer]

What the fuck are you talking about? Candidates holding fundraisers is reporting on corruption now?

theyre "ultra rich" which means its disgusting

rich people donating is automatically a bribe

 

[Coffee Dog]

How is this type of fundraising corrupt? Be specific.

What changes would you suggest to the law? Be specific.

Why is it so hard to say "yeah well Hilary is just playing the game" instead of go on the defensive and deny that money in politics exists without hard evidence of money changing hands?

There isn't anything shocking or scandalous about this, but the amount of people who are trotting out "where's the evidence" when the whole point is that the widespread systemic disfunction is due to its absence, is just flat out reality denial.

 

[EmSeta]

How is this type of fundraising corrupt? Be specific.

What changes would you suggest to the law? Be specific.

I take it you think the Citizens United ruling was a great thing, if massive amounts of money poured into political campaigns isn't a problem.

If you don't see the problem with the richest people in society being the enablers and gatekeepers for elections, there's probably not a lot I could say to convince you.

 

[Kyzer]

Why is it so hard to say "yeah well Hilary is just playing the game" instead of go on the defensive and deny that money in politics exists without hard evidence of money changing hands?

Because people who actually have an understanding of how politics work don't just accept things that are wrong because people say them.

Why is it so hard to say, "Okay, I have no evidence" instead of absolutely refusing that you could be wrong about people donating money having nothing to do with corruption?

I take it you think the Citizens United ruling was a great thing, of massive amounts of money poured into political campaigns isn't a problem.

If you don't see the problem with the richest people in society being the enablers and gatekeepers for elections, there's probably not a lot I could say to convince you.

Citizens United could be overturned and rich people are still allowed to participate because they're citizens with votes. Youre not anti-corruption, youre anti-rich people.

You not having any evidence for them being "enablers and gatekeepers for elections" but insisting on it being the truth because you have a slight hunch and dont trust politicians means you're much less likely to be convinced by logic.

Provide evidence for your reasoning and we will talk about that.

"I weep for those who are too blind to see the truth, you must support corporations being people too" is not an argument, its a condescending and misinformed post.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Because people who actually have an understanding of how politics work don't just accet things.

Why is it so hard to say, "Okay, I have no evidence" instead of absolutely refusing that you could be wrong about people donating money having nothing to do with corruption?

But that's the fun part: we do have evidence that this kind of donation leads to influenced interests! Many people have spoken out about it!

We just don't have evidence on a case by case basis, and using that to attempt to downplay a systemic issue is entirely nonsensical.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Why is it so hard to say "yeah well Hilary is just playing the game" instead of go on the defensive and deny that money in politics exists without hard evidence of money changing hands?

Why is it so hard to be specific about your grievances? Of course money exists in politics! We know about these fundraisers because it is all reported by the FEC. Anybody can see exactly who is giving what to who. So with that level of disclosure, it should be pretty easy to come up with specific complaints.

Most of the people who complain about money in politics don't seem to understand (or are unwilling to demonstrate that that they understand) what the current laws are. All I'm asking is for someone to demonstrate that they understand a system that they are criticizing.

Once that happens we can have an actual conversation that could lead to actual solutions.

 

[AxelFoley]

Amazing how some people are less concerned about the corruption than the fact that it's being reported on. If this was a republican candidate it'd sound a lot differently in here.

I'm supporting Hillary too this election (though I'd rather have had Bernie), but come on guys.

The fuck is you talkin bout, son? What corruption?

 

[Kyzer]

But that's the fun part: we do have evidence that this kind of donation leads to influenced interests! Many people have spoken out about it!

We just don't have evidence on a case by case basis, and using that to attempt to downplay a systemic issue is entirely nonsensical.

So you have evidence you just don't have any evidence?

And btw , you COULD find evidence if you tried (you guys arent even attempting to google?), and it STILL doesnt mean that fundraising is corrupt. It means there was a corrupt politician breaking the law cuz its already illegal to do what you are implying is happening every day behind every donor

 

[BlastProcessing]

I take it you think the Citizens United ruling was a great thing, if massive amounts of money poured into political campaigns isn't a problem.

If you don't see the problem with the richest people in society being the enablers and gatekeepers for elections, there's probably not a lot I could say to convince you.

No, I am absolutely against Citizens United. The type of joint fundraising that Clinton has been doing is radically different. The fact that you would conflate them is honestly troubling. Clinton is raising money specifically to secure a Democratic Senate to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will consign Citizens United to the dustbin of history.

 

[Coffee Dog]

So you have evidence you just don't have any evidence

Kyzer, you are currently denying the existence of special interests and the influence of money in politics.

I don't think you're that foolish. This is not the hill to defend Hilary on, this is something all politicians do to be relevant in this country.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Kyzer, you are currently denying the existence of special interests and the influence of money in politics.

I don't think you're that foolish. This is not the hill to defend Hilary on, this is something all politicians do to be relevant in this country.

Ok, so I will ask you. What is Clinton doing at these fundraisers? Where is the money going? Be specific.

What changes to the laws would you propose? Be specific.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Ok, so I will ask you. What is Clinton doing at these fundraisers? Where is the money going? Be specific.

What changes to the laws would you propose? Be specific.

your position is that a career politician of many decades is going to suddenly take a shit on people that have helped her secure office.

I think that's ridiculous, but if you think Hilary is the chosen one that is going to rise above and break down the status quo, that's your perogative.

 

[Kyzer]

Kyzer, you are currently denying the existence of special interests and the influence of money in politics.

I don't think you're that foolish. This is not the hill to defend Hilary on, this is something all politicians do to be relevant in this country.

No, Im not, and you're conveniently changing the point of our argument to be about the general concept of money in politics, I genuinely believe its because you don't understand how it works.

This money and special interest influencing the politics directly is already illegal.

You are saying thats how the system works. You are literally saying the whole system is full of criminals breaking the law.

Its not.

If you don't like lobbying and the ability of rich people to donate and finance campaigns thats one thing.

If you are trying to say its already obvious that Hillary has been influenced by money and special interests, and to believe otherwise is foolish, but not have any evidence, and all you have to stand on is "politicians are corrupt", sorry, but thats not an objective nor valid claim.

You are basically saying "I dont like the system". Lobbying, campaign finance. Thats a different discussion. You don't see the missing link in your argument? There's a huge blank space between "There is money and special interests in politics" and "Hillary exchanges political favors for money" ?

It requires evidence. Real SOMETHING. Not just an instinct.

If Hillary is influenced by special interests and donors then its illegal and needs to be investigated and her pay the consequences.

your position is that a career politician of many decades is going to suddenly take a shit on people that have helped her secure office.

I think that's ridiculous, but if you think Hilary is the chosen one that is going to rise above and break down the status quo, that's your perogative.

You said you have evidence, just not specific evidence. Do you not see the problem with that? lol

But hes the one who is a Hillary fanboy. Youre literally advocating for believing in something with no evidence while shaming him for blindly following Hillary...

 

[Stinkles]

...Marriage?

Was rhetorical question - that lady accused Obama of being elitist.

 

[Coffee Dog]

No, Im not, and you're conveniently changing the point of our argument to be about the general concept of money in politics, I genuinely believe its because you don't understand how it works.

This money and special interest influencing the politics directly is already illegal.

You are saying thats how the system works. You are literally saying the whole system is full of criminals breaking the law.

Its not.

If you don't like lobbying and the ability of rich people to donate and finance campaigns thats one thing.

If you are trying to say its already obvious that Hillary has been influenced by money and special interests, and to believe otherwise is foolish, but not have any evidence, and all you have to stand on is "politicians are corrupt", sorry, but thats not an objective nor valid claim.

You are basically saying "I dont like the system". Lobbying, campaign finance. Thats a different discussion. You don't see the missing link in your argument? There's a huge blank space between "There is money and special interests in politics" and "Hillary and exchange political favors for money" ?

It requires evidence. Real SOMETHING. Not just an instinct.

If Hillary is influenced by special interests and donors then its illegal and needs to be investigated and her pay the consequences.



You said you have evidence, just not specific evidence. Do you not see the problem with that? lol

But hes the one who is a Hillary fanboy. Youre literally advocating for believing in something with no evidence while shaming him for blindly following Hillary...

No shit its illegal. It being illegal and yet there are so many accounts of its prevalance is why it's a systemic problem, bro.

 

[Kyzer]

No shit its illegal. It being illegal and yet there are so many accounts of its prevalance is why it's a systemic problem, bro.

1) Where are the accounts of its prevalence, you must know them off-hand for you to hold this belief, surely? You aren't just speaking on a general hunch and mistrust of government right? What are they? What are this multitude of accounts that gave you this stance?

2) Where are the accounts of it in this case, specifically, since you are trying to convince us that Hillary is guilty of this?

"Its so obvious !" *has no evidence and no specific cases in mind*

 

[kame-sennin]

There were many other candidates in previous races too. There are many state and local level politicians as well. What about them? Where are the articles?

They all deserve hit pieces too. I've been shitting on "Uncle Joe", who was one of the architects of the drug war, for years but y'all aint wanna hear it.

But "what aboutism" isn't a great argument.

 

[JesseEwiak]

your position is that a career politician of many decades is going to suddenly take a shit on people that have helped her secure office.

I think that's ridiculous, but if you think Hilary is the chosen one that is going to rise above and break down the status quo, that's your perogative.

I have a simple question for you - what was the last name of the President who in a much more conservative time nominated 2 of the 4 judges who ruled against Citizen's United and who is that President's wife who according to all reports at the time, pushed for said President to be more progressive.

 

[GloriousBagel]

What if these super rich people are donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary because they want the same things as us?

Gay people being allowed to marry
Immigrants families not being torn apart
The EPA and combating climate change
Etc

lol like they give a rats ass what happens to anyone lower than them.

 

[Condom]

Claims to ' actually understand politics' yet argues against everything I have heard from speaking to and working with actual politicians on a national and European level. OK.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

They all deserve hit pieces too. I've been shitting on "Uncle Joe", who was one of the architects of the drug war, for years but y'all aint wanna hear it.

But "what aboutism" isn't a great argument.

I'm familiar with your views and I have to commend your consistency but you of all people should be upset with the media for choosing what they cover like this. This article purely exists because they know the same article about Joe Biden or Obama won't register the same way even though they all do the same thing.

 

[Coffee Dog]

1) Where are the accounts of its prevalence, you must know them off-hand for you to hold this belief, surely? You aren't just speaking on a general hunch and mistrust of government right? What are they? What are this multitude of accounts that gave you this stance?

I'm not going to prove the existence of money influencing politics to you, Kyzer. The fact that you're rebutting this is ridiculous and is the only thing I called out when I engaged you.

2) Where are the accounts of it in this case, specifically, since you are trying to convince us that Hillary is guilty of this?

"Its so obvious !" *has no evidence and no specific cases in mind*

If you don't think that this is something that happens in the world we live in (or is so infrequent and rare to the point of being negligible), that's your perogative. I simply don't think that Hilary is a lone, renagade exception to a systemic problem.

 

[kame-sennin]

While I fully support Clinton, this excerpt underpins exactly why this stuff being business as usual is so harmful:

 

[Kyzer]

Claims to ' actually understand politics' yet argues against everything I have heard from speaking to and working with actual politicians on a national and European level. OK.

Its a little bit absurd that people are incapable of separating the issue of campaign finance reform and corruption.

If you want politicians to not need money from people because of the POSSIBILITY of corruption, fine. I agree, we are in need of some campaign finance reform, it shouldn't cost billions of dollars to run for office.

But dont cry corruption because some high income people donated to her campaign and then act like IM naive for not automatically assuming there was an exchange of promises or favors without any evidence whatsoever.

"come on man, everybody knows donations are bribes" is not as intelligent and common sense of an argument as some of you guys think.

I'm not going to prove the existence of money influencing politics to you, Kyzer. The fact that you're rebutting this is ridiculous and is the only thing I called out when I engaged you.



If you don't think that this is something that happens in the world we live in (or is so infrequent and rare to the point of being negligible), that's your perogative. I simply don't think that Hilary is a lone, renagade exception to a systemic problem.

I'm not denying the existence of money in politics. PLEASE for the love of God stop trying to act like that's what we're arguing about. It is not the only thing you called out. Its crazy that you keep doing this. Youre doing it right now. If that's your point, you would have it and I wouldnt argue except you proceed to conflate money being in politics (lobbying, campaign finance), to BENDING or SHAPING policy in exchange for money, which is corruption, is illegal, and you have ZERO logical reason to believe NOR evidence. If you're trying to say Hillary Clinton is exchanging policies and favors for money, sorry, you're gonna need to say something. Not just "everybody knows". No, everybody does not know. Again, I think youre confusing money in politics with corruption.

Im Brazilian. Corruption is a real thing, trust me, I know.

"Theres too much money in politics."

Check. im with you.

"Hillary is clearly corrupt. All politicians are. Everybody knows this."

NOPE.

I think what you mean to post is "I wish there was no money in politics", not "All politicians give favors and access for money."