|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808
I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad.
Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order.
1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios - oops.
2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt?
3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt?
Wow, that was a particularly weak case.
On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim.
GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions.
|
On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions.
Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans.
You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Neb already told you wasn't the argument he's making.
EDIT: Do we have to dig up him calling her "the establishment candidate" and that it's "too late for establishment politics" from last year to show you this is just you realizing what he's been saying this whole time, that it is working, and are now freaking out about it?
Maybe he's been connecting the dots a bit more specifically, but it is the same message he started with, back when you were just dismissing him.
|
On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans. You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Nech already told you wasn't the argument he's making.
The assertion that "they were influenced by big money" is not a "reality", it is an accusation that you're making. You have no actual evidence to support it. They probably had plenty of different reasons to support the agreements they supported, completely disconnected from potential campaign contributions. You simply have zero idea of whether or not potential campaign monetary windfalls played a role in their decisions. In any case, if you're going to at least agree that Hillary does not seem to be more influenced by the industry in question than Obama, you're already conceding more than Sanders is willing to concede. Hopefully he follows suit, and stops with the dishonest smears 
Nobody's playing dumb -- it's called looking at the information and describing it, which can be an inconvenient process when you were pushing a mischaracterization of where the money was coming from. With regards to the strawman you're now constructing, I don't think anyone has been claiming that she's "uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics" (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the argument you are making about Sanders; more on that in the edit below) -- "the influence of money in politics" is extremely vague and in itself doesn't mean anything, which is why I've been asking for a definition of "corruption", which is the term Nebuchad used. No candidate is immune to the influence of money in politics because running a campaign costs money. If we're talking about bribery and corruption, though, that is a different matter, and while those practices do exist I have yet to see evidence of these accusations holding the slightest water with regards to Hillary.
Finally, with regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything as I was not a part of that discussion, and I wasn't even talking to you before you felt the urge to reply to me, as you do every single time someone dares show support for Clinton. The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. I wish Sanders could be as efficient as Clinton in raising money for them, considering that is how you actually achieve the kind of "revolution" in Congress that he's advocating -- by helping progressives win their races at the state level. The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us. Note that drawing a red box around the "Hillary Clinton" line on the public website I linked to myself last month does not qualify as "finding an example of wrongdoing".
edit: By the way, Sanders has received $318,579 from "the Agribusiness industry" (in reality, people in the industry...) so far this election cycle, and he received more than 40k from "the industry" in 2006 and again in 2012. He also seems to be quite the defender of the said agribusiness industry. I guess the corruption is real, following the standard pushed by some with respect to Hillary
|
On April 04 2016 16:29 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans. You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Nech already told you wasn't the argument he's making. The assertion that "they were influenced by big money" is not a "reality", it is an accusation that you're making. You have no actual evidence to support it. They probably had plenty of different reasons to support the agreements they supported, completely disconnected from potential campaign contributions. You simply have zero idea of whether or not potential campaign monetary windfalls played a role in their decisions. In any case, if you're going to at least agree that Hillary does not seem to be more influenced by the industry in question than Obama, you're already conceding more than Sanders is willing to concede. Hopefully he follows suit Nobody's playing dumb -- it's called looking at the information and describing it, which can be an inconvenient process when you were pushing a mischaracterization of where the money was coming from. With regards to the strawman you're now constructing, I don't think anyone has been claiming that she's "uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics" (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the argument you are making about Sanders) -- "the influence of money in politics" is extremely vague and in itself doesn't mean anything, which is why I've been asking for a definition of "corruption", which is the term Nebuchad used. No candidate is immune to the influence of money in politics because running a campaign costs money. If we're talking about bribery and corruption, though, that is a different matter, and while those practices do exist I have yet to see evidence of these accusations holding the slightest water with regards to Hillary. Finally, with regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything as I was not a part of that discussion, and I wasn't even talking to you before you felt the urge to reply to me, as you do every single time someone dares show support for Clinton. The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. I wish Sanders could be as efficient as Clinton in raising money for them, considering that is how you actually achieve the kind of "revolution" in Congress that he's advocating -- by helping progressives win their races at the state level. The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us. Note that drawing a red box around the "Hillary Clinton" line on the public website I linked to myself last month does not qualify as "finding an example of wrongdoing".
Com'on man... Farv after you just gave em credit,goes and says
The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates.
Right after I just posted a WP article that showed that's not true.
The rest is BS too but there's no reason to go through that when the level of absurdity is set at 11 as displayed by the assertion that the HVF is "first and formeost to support the DNC" when I just showed that it's top recipient is Hillary Clinton. Not only that but they haven't even acted curious about why she's listed as recieving $4M+ from them on their side but it's not listed anywhere as being received by the campaign...
That you are trying so hard to make sense of Hillary, in every campaign, mentioning the corrupting influence of money in politics on her opponents up until this one, but still uses it on Republicans up until it looked like Trump might win, since he also doesn't have a superPAC or victory fund to funnel contributions that are above the FEC limit for individual candidates, is silly.
You know corruption in politics isn't always as sloppy as Blagojevich or McDonnell and neither do they get pursued as thoroughly. That's hardly because it doesn't happen.
Frankly, this faux naiveté coming out of the Hillary camp regarding this type of stuff is child-like and I don't know how much longer the serious minded people can pretend this is legitimate.
EDIT: This is what I'm talking about with not even addressing what I'm saying. I never said it wasn't legal, I'm saying it's bullshit and it's on the long list of stuff that violates the spirit of the rules/laws regarding this election which Hillary supporters ignore or insist isn't a problem. Just like neither of you responded to addressing the problems in WI and NY that happened in AZ and was dismissed as being a Republican problem.
The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us.
|
On April 04 2016 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 16:29 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans. You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Nech already told you wasn't the argument he's making. The assertion that "they were influenced by big money" is not a "reality", it is an accusation that you're making. You have no actual evidence to support it. They probably had plenty of different reasons to support the agreements they supported, completely disconnected from potential campaign contributions. You simply have zero idea of whether or not potential campaign monetary windfalls played a role in their decisions. In any case, if you're going to at least agree that Hillary does not seem to be more influenced by the industry in question than Obama, you're already conceding more than Sanders is willing to concede. Hopefully he follows suit Nobody's playing dumb -- it's called looking at the information and describing it, which can be an inconvenient process when you were pushing a mischaracterization of where the money was coming from. With regards to the strawman you're now constructing, I don't think anyone has been claiming that she's "uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics" (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the argument you are making about Sanders) -- "the influence of money in politics" is extremely vague and in itself doesn't mean anything, which is why I've been asking for a definition of "corruption", which is the term Nebuchad used. No candidate is immune to the influence of money in politics because running a campaign costs money. If we're talking about bribery and corruption, though, that is a different matter, and while those practices do exist I have yet to see evidence of these accusations holding the slightest water with regards to Hillary. Finally, with regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything as I was not a part of that discussion, and I wasn't even talking to you before you felt the urge to reply to me, as you do every single time someone dares show support for Clinton. The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. I wish Sanders could be as efficient as Clinton in raising money for them, considering that is how you actually achieve the kind of "revolution" in Congress that he's advocating -- by helping progressives win their races at the state level. The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us. Note that drawing a red box around the "Hillary Clinton" line on the public website I linked to myself last month does not qualify as "finding an example of wrongdoing". Com'on man... Farv after you just gave em credit,goes and says Show nested quote +The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. Right after I just posted a WP article that showed that's not true. The rest is BS too but there's no reason to go through that when the level of absurdity is set at 11 as displayed by the assertion that the HVF is "first and formeost to support the DNC" when I just showed that it's top recipient is Hillary Clinton. Not only that but they haven't even acted curious about why she's listed as recieving $4M+ from them on their side but it's not listed anywhere as being received by the campaign... That you are trying so hard to make sense of Hillary, in every campaign, mentioning the corrupting influence of money in politics on her opponents up until this one, but still uses it on Republicans up until it looked like Trump might win, since he also doesn't have a superPAC or victory fund to funnel contributions that are above the FEC limit for individual candidates. You know corruption in politics isn't always as sloppy as Blagojevich or McDonnell and neither do they get pursued as thoroughly. That's hardly because it doesn't happen. Frankly, this faux naiveté coming out of the Hillary camp regarding this type of stuff is child-like and I don't know how much longer the serious minded people can pretend this is legitimate.
Ah yes, the typical "the rest is BS too, but it might be a bit too difficult for me to support this statement in the slightest, so let me go back to my talking points". Gotcha. I replied to the said talking points in my post above. And I never claimed that corruption never happened in politics.
With regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, your Washington Post article doesn't show it's not true. It says the Clinton campaign has benefited from the fund, which is a fact that nobody is disputing. Yet by the 31st of December, which is the latest date available for the reports on opensecrets.org, Hillary's campaign had benefited from a bit less than 20% of the totals raised (you can probably add a few percentage points for the salaries of the fund operators). The fund is both saving money to spend it on Democratic candidates in the general election and already helping the DNC. Again, I wish Sanders could do both. And again, if you find any evidence of wrongdoing, feel free to share it.
On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Do we have to dig up him calling her "the establishment candidate" and that it's "too late for establishment politics" from last year to show you this is just you realizing what he's been saying this whole time, that it is working, and are now freaking out about it?
Maybe he's been connecting the dots a bit more specifically, but it is the same message he started with, back when you were just dismissing him.
I hadn't addressed this utterly dishonest edit yet. Again, no, a direct attack on Clinton, insinuating she's corrupt, is not the same as decrying the influence of money in politics. In fact, there's a whole NY Times article that was just published with quotes from his wife and campaign insiders who argue that they should perhaps have attacked Hillary more directly earlier in the campaign. Please do not attempt to rewrite history as your misleading at best, and factually incorrect at worse claims and accusations get refuted one after the other.
On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: This is what I'm talking about with not even addressing what I'm saying. I never said it wasn't legal, I'm saying it's bullshit and it's on the long list of stuff that violates the spirit of the rules/laws regarding this election which Hillary supporters ignore or insist isn't a problem. Just like neither of you responded to addressing the problems in WI and NY that happened in AZ and was dismissed as being a Republican problem.
I have yet to receive an argument as to why the practice described would be "bullshit". The lines that happened in AZ were the responsibility of the elected officials which reduced the number of polling stations. They were Republicans. Clinton and the Democrats have been fighting against voter suppression for longer than this election. I have little conclusive information on the other issues you're referencing and the responsibilities involved, so I'm not going to make accusations like a fool.
|
On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions.
Let's grant you that you're right for a second. Let's start from the premise that Hillary is not influenced by big money. That's still what Bernie has been arguing from the start. He's been painting her as the establishment candidate, he's been displaying the difference between him and her by pressing on her big money ties and on his lack of superpac from the start, which also connects with the notion that he's an authentic candidate, which he has also been pushing from the start... there is a total continuity in logic in what he's saying and doing. Even if he's incorrect, that shouldn't be a disappointment, that should be a disagreement. If we can't even get to something so simple and so clear, there's no way we can get anywhere.
|
On April 04 2016 17:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Let's grant you that you're right for a second. Let's start from the premise that Hillary is not influenced by big money. That's still what Bernie has been arguing from the start. He's been painting her as the establishment candidate, he's been displaying the difference between him and her by pressing on her big money ties and on his lack of superpac from the start, which also connects with the notion that he's an authentic candidate, which he has also been pushing from the start... there is a total continuity in logic in what he's saying and doing. Even if he's incorrect, that shouldn't be a disappointment, that should be a disagreement. If we can't even get to something so simple and so clear, there's no way we can get anywhere.
I can't help but notice you still have no answered my two questions. You said Sanders had been running against "corruption in the establishment from the start", implying that this applied to Hillary. I am therefore asking you for clarification: could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
With regards to your assertion that Bernie's attacks on Hillary haven't changed from the start, that is factually false. Let me link the NY Times article on that precise topic that I just provided to GH: link.
|
On April 04 2016 17:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 16:29 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans. You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Nech already told you wasn't the argument he's making. The assertion that "they were influenced by big money" is not a "reality", it is an accusation that you're making. You have no actual evidence to support it. They probably had plenty of different reasons to support the agreements they supported, completely disconnected from potential campaign contributions. You simply have zero idea of whether or not potential campaign monetary windfalls played a role in their decisions. In any case, if you're going to at least agree that Hillary does not seem to be more influenced by the industry in question than Obama, you're already conceding more than Sanders is willing to concede. Hopefully he follows suit Nobody's playing dumb -- it's called looking at the information and describing it, which can be an inconvenient process when you were pushing a mischaracterization of where the money was coming from. With regards to the strawman you're now constructing, I don't think anyone has been claiming that she's "uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics" (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the argument you are making about Sanders) -- "the influence of money in politics" is extremely vague and in itself doesn't mean anything, which is why I've been asking for a definition of "corruption", which is the term Nebuchad used. No candidate is immune to the influence of money in politics because running a campaign costs money. If we're talking about bribery and corruption, though, that is a different matter, and while those practices do exist I have yet to see evidence of these accusations holding the slightest water with regards to Hillary. Finally, with regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything as I was not a part of that discussion, and I wasn't even talking to you before you felt the urge to reply to me, as you do every single time someone dares show support for Clinton. The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. I wish Sanders could be as efficient as Clinton in raising money for them, considering that is how you actually achieve the kind of "revolution" in Congress that he's advocating -- by helping progressives win their races at the state level. The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us. Note that drawing a red box around the "Hillary Clinton" line on the public website I linked to myself last month does not qualify as "finding an example of wrongdoing". Com'on man... Farv after you just gave em credit,goes and says The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. Right after I just posted a WP article that showed that's not true. The rest is BS too but there's no reason to go through that when the level of absurdity is set at 11 as displayed by the assertion that the HVF is "first and formeost to support the DNC" when I just showed that it's top recipient is Hillary Clinton. Not only that but they haven't even acted curious about why she's listed as recieving $4M+ from them on their side but it's not listed anywhere as being received by the campaign... That you are trying so hard to make sense of Hillary, in every campaign, mentioning the corrupting influence of money in politics on her opponents up until this one, but still uses it on Republicans up until it looked like Trump might win, since he also doesn't have a superPAC or victory fund to funnel contributions that are above the FEC limit for individual candidates. You know corruption in politics isn't always as sloppy as Blagojevich or McDonnell and neither do they get pursued as thoroughly. That's hardly because it doesn't happen. Frankly, this faux naiveté coming out of the Hillary camp regarding this type of stuff is child-like and I don't know how much longer the serious minded people can pretend this is legitimate. Ah yes, the typical "the rest is BS too, but it might be a bit too difficult for me to support this statement in the slightest, so let me go back to my talking points". Gotcha. I replied to the said talking points in my post above. With regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, your Washington Post article doesn't show it's not true. It says the Clinton campaign has benefited from the fund, which is a fact that nobody is disputing. Yet by the 31st of December, which is the latest date available for the reports on opensecrets.org, Hillary's campaign had benefited from a bit less than 20% of the totals raised (you can probably add a few percentage points for the salaries of the fund operators). The fund is both saving money to spend it on Democratic candidates in the general election and already helping the DNC. Again, I wish Sanders could do both. And again, if you find any evidence of wrongdoing, feel free to share it. Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Do we have to dig up him calling her "the establishment candidate" and that it's "too late for establishment politics" from last year to show you this is just you realizing what he's been saying this whole time, that it is working, and are now freaking out about it?
Maybe he's been connecting the dots a bit more specifically, but it is the same message he started with, back when you were just dismissing him. I hadn't addressed this utterly dishonest edit yet. Again, no, a direct attack on Clinton, insinuating she's corrupt, is not the same as decrying the influence of money in politics. In fact, there's a whole NY Times article that was just published with quotes from his wife and campaign insiders who argue that they should perhaps have attacked Hillary more directly earlier in the campaign. Please do not attempt to rewrite history as your misleading at best and factually incorrect at worse claims and accusations get refuted one after the other.
And that's why I didn't bother. I could show you a live stream of Hillary nefariously stroking a cyborg cat in a dark room while announcing she is changing the primary results by hand and so long as some official said it was legit you would quote them and waive it off as nothing major.
The lengths you are going to assert that the influence of money in politics has to reach a ridiculous legal threshold for you to accept it as corruption is quite comical though. Especially while suggesting merely "insinuating" corruption (what quote are you thinking of?) is different than calling the system corrupt.
There just isn't a point to go through and explain why it's so absurd. Has he specifically said Hillary is corrupt? Or has he been saying the campaign finance system is corrupt and she's been taking advantage of it, while doing so she's also taken large sums of money from some people she's telling us are going to be reigned in by her? Is that or is that not what he's been saying since long ago?
I just can't keep up with these mental gymnastics your going through. I mean If she beat Bernie and Trump and won she would have been the only legitimate contender that had a superPAC and yet we're supposed to take the idea that she's the one who would really do something about it seriously... Give me a break.
EDIT: I just hope some of the more even minded folks can see through this obvious bullshit coming out of kwiz.
With regards to your assertion that Bernie's attacks on Hillary haven't changed from the start, that is factually false. Let me link the NY Times article on that precise topic that I just provided to GH: link.
You're suggesting because you and other Hillary supporters refused to realize he was talking about her too (without using her name) that this marks some significant shift. You can't just go from 0% to attacking Hillary Clinton as corrupt without explaining the system at large first. He doesn't view it as a corruption like you are imagining the word, he means that the whole system is corrupt and you have to fight every day on every front just to keep it where it is. From the beginning Bernie has made it clear he disagrees with Hillary about some of the fights she chose not to take. She chose to have a superPAC when neither of her opponents do, she's got this fund cleaning big money donations so she can use them like they were given to her campaign, she chose to take big money from wall street for speeches, etc...
It's amazing how many people have abandoned all sense in order to ignore what they would certainly call out if Hillary was a registered Republican.
|
On April 04 2016 17:17 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 17:12 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Let's grant you that you're right for a second. Let's start from the premise that Hillary is not influenced by big money. That's still what Bernie has been arguing from the start. He's been painting her as the establishment candidate, he's been displaying the difference between him and her by pressing on her big money ties and on his lack of superpac from the start, which also connects with the notion that he's an authentic candidate, which he has also been pushing from the start... there is a total continuity in logic in what he's saying and doing. Even if he's incorrect, that shouldn't be a disappointment, that should be a disagreement. If we can't even get to something so simple and so clear, there's no way we can get anywhere. I can't help but notice you still have no answered my two questions. You said Sanders had been running against "corruption in the establishment from the start", implying that this applied to Hillary. I am therefore asking you for clarification: could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? With regards to your assertion that Bernie's attacks on Hillary haven't changed from the start, that is factually false. Let me link the NY Times article on that precise topic that I just provided to GH: link.
At some point in the near future I'm going to need you to realize that when you say "establishment politics are corrupted by big money" and "Hillary is the establishment candidate", and then you follow it up a little later with "Hillary is influenced by big money", your argument hasn't changed in value.
|
On April 04 2016 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 17:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 16:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 16:29 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Here's a few on the recent O&G hubbub + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/716367730954231808 I didn't ask you, I asked Nebuchad. Let's look at those three cases, though, in reverse chronological order. 1. In the first case, it is actually Obama who gave the impetus for the deal following his negotiations on the topic with Calderón. Hillary and the State department then finalized the deal with support from the White House. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Note that the deal included unprecedented joint inspection provisions to measure environmental and safety practices. Also note that the $4m number given 1) relates to donations given four years after the fact and 2) actually largely corresponds to donations by lobbyists involved with several different industries. It's the number examined in the Washington Post article which gave Sanders three pinocchios. 2. The same year, Obama received more than double what Clinton received, namely $972,019. They were both beaten by John McCain, who received $2,739,118. In any case, the tar sands pipeline decision was addressed by the Washington Post's fact-checker. Let me quote him: "The link between such contributions and the State Department actions is especially weak because that reflects Obama administration policy, not just Clinton. (Indeed, pipeline approval authority had been delegated to a deputy secretary of state.)". Again, are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? 3. The amount she received then put her in 16th position in the Senate. Note that the bill she voted for banned "oil and gas leasing within 125 miles off the Florida coastline", although it did significantly increase oil & gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico. About half of Senate Democrats supported the bill. I don't know why she voted for the bill, but at the same period she actually voted against the energy bill, which was strongly supported by the oil industry. She was among the 26 Senators who voted against it, while Obama voted for it. Are you accusing Obama of being corrupt? Wow, that was a particularly weak case. On April 04 2016 15:26 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:04 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 14:39 Nebuchad wrote:
The notion that Sanders has been a disappointment to you is kind of amazing. He's doing exactly what he always said he'd do. Running against corruption in the establishment was part of his campaign from the start. If you think it's a dirty trick and it's dishonest, then you thought the same thing when he started than you're thinking now. I just don't really see how you could possibly be disappointed in a line of thought that hasn't changed or evolved. Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted, according to you, from the said corruption? GH answered this, but please do note that this wasn't the point I was making. I'm talking specifically about being disappointed in something that is the exact same as it has always been. I'm not disappointed that Trump is running a racist campaign or makes sexist remarks, cause I had no hope for anything else. The specific notion of being disappointed in Sanders for making the claims he's always made from the start is no different. I would therefore submit that it's a dishonest claim. GH hardly answered me. I'll ask you again: Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Well, let's sum this up. I would say corrupt is a strong word, I would probably use "heavily influenced by big money in politics" So in that case, do they share the reality that they were influenced by big money? Yes, I would, and it's pathetic hiding behind Obama and Republicans. You can play dumb about the source and for who those sources are lobbying if you want on the O&G money, but it's just one example from one particular interest group. Beyond the absurdity of trying to pretend she is uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics while she simultaneously is campaigning on how it does influence Republicans, there's the outright circumventing of FEC donation limits using the HVA which you are conveniently ignoring while arguing something Nech already told you wasn't the argument he's making. The assertion that "they were influenced by big money" is not a "reality", it is an accusation that you're making. You have no actual evidence to support it. They probably had plenty of different reasons to support the agreements they supported, completely disconnected from potential campaign contributions. You simply have zero idea of whether or not potential campaign monetary windfalls played a role in their decisions. In any case, if you're going to at least agree that Hillary does not seem to be more influenced by the industry in question than Obama, you're already conceding more than Sanders is willing to concede. Hopefully he follows suit Nobody's playing dumb -- it's called looking at the information and describing it, which can be an inconvenient process when you were pushing a mischaracterization of where the money was coming from. With regards to the strawman you're now constructing, I don't think anyone has been claiming that she's "uniquely immune to the influence of money in politics" (in fact, I'm pretty sure that's the argument you are making about Sanders) -- "the influence of money in politics" is extremely vague and in itself doesn't mean anything, which is why I've been asking for a definition of "corruption", which is the term Nebuchad used. No candidate is immune to the influence of money in politics because running a campaign costs money. If we're talking about bribery and corruption, though, that is a different matter, and while those practices do exist I have yet to see evidence of these accusations holding the slightest water with regards to Hillary. Finally, with regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, I'm not "conveniently ignoring" anything as I was not a part of that discussion, and I wasn't even talking to you before you felt the urge to reply to me, as you do every single time someone dares show support for Clinton. The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. I wish Sanders could be as efficient as Clinton in raising money for them, considering that is how you actually achieve the kind of "revolution" in Congress that he's advocating -- by helping progressives win their races at the state level. The HVF has also contributed money to the Clinton campaign, in accordance with campaign laws. If you find an example of wrongdoing, feel free to share it with us. Note that drawing a red box around the "Hillary Clinton" line on the public website I linked to myself last month does not qualify as "finding an example of wrongdoing". Com'on man... Farv after you just gave em credit,goes and says The HVF is a fund that was created first and foremost to support the DNC and Democratic candidates. Right after I just posted a WP article that showed that's not true. The rest is BS too but there's no reason to go through that when the level of absurdity is set at 11 as displayed by the assertion that the HVF is "first and formeost to support the DNC" when I just showed that it's top recipient is Hillary Clinton. Not only that but they haven't even acted curious about why she's listed as recieving $4M+ from them on their side but it's not listed anywhere as being received by the campaign... That you are trying so hard to make sense of Hillary, in every campaign, mentioning the corrupting influence of money in politics on her opponents up until this one, but still uses it on Republicans up until it looked like Trump might win, since he also doesn't have a superPAC or victory fund to funnel contributions that are above the FEC limit for individual candidates. You know corruption in politics isn't always as sloppy as Blagojevich or McDonnell and neither do they get pursued as thoroughly. That's hardly because it doesn't happen. Frankly, this faux naiveté coming out of the Hillary camp regarding this type of stuff is child-like and I don't know how much longer the serious minded people can pretend this is legitimate. Ah yes, the typical "the rest is BS too, but it might be a bit too difficult for me to support this statement in the slightest, so let me go back to my talking points". Gotcha. I replied to the said talking points in my post above. With regards to the Hillary Victory Fund, your Washington Post article doesn't show it's not true. It says the Clinton campaign has benefited from the fund, which is a fact that nobody is disputing. Yet by the 31st of December, which is the latest date available for the reports on opensecrets.org, Hillary's campaign had benefited from a bit less than 20% of the totals raised (you can probably add a few percentage points for the salaries of the fund operators). The fund is both saving money to spend it on Democratic candidates in the general election and already helping the DNC. Again, I wish Sanders could do both. And again, if you find any evidence of wrongdoing, feel free to share it. On April 04 2016 16:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Do we have to dig up him calling her "the establishment candidate" and that it's "too late for establishment politics" from last year to show you this is just you realizing what he's been saying this whole time, that it is working, and are now freaking out about it?
Maybe he's been connecting the dots a bit more specifically, but it is the same message he started with, back when you were just dismissing him. I hadn't addressed this utterly dishonest edit yet. Again, no, a direct attack on Clinton, insinuating she's corrupt, is not the same as decrying the influence of money in politics. In fact, there's a whole NY Times article that was just published with quotes from his wife and campaign insiders who argue that they should perhaps have attacked Hillary more directly earlier in the campaign. Please do not attempt to rewrite history as your misleading at best and factually incorrect at worse claims and accusations get refuted one after the other. And that's why I didn't bother. I could show you a live stream of Hillary nefariously stroking a cyborg cat in a dark room while announcing she is changing the primary results by hand and so long as some official said it was legit you would quote them and waive it off as nothing major. The lengths you are going to assert that the influence of money in politics has to reach a ridiculous legal threshold for you to accept it as corruption is quite comical though. Especially while suggesting merely "insinuating" corruption (what quote are you thinking of?) is different than calling the system corrupt. There just isn't a point to go through and explain why it's so absurd. Has he specifically said Hillary is corrupt? Or has he been saying the campaign finance system is corrupt and she's been taking advantage of it, while doing so she's also taken large sums of money from some people she's telling us are going to be reigned in by her? Is that or is that not what he's been saying since long ago? I just can't keep up with these mental gymnastics your going through. I mean If she beat Bernie and Trump and won she would have been the only legitimate contender that had a superPAC and yet we're supposed to take the idea that she's the one who would really do something about it seriously... Give me a break. EDIT: I just hope some of the more even minded folks can see through this obvious bullshit coming out of kwiz.
You're just repeating yourself at this point, except that now you're back to using "corruption" instead of "heavily influenced by big money in politics". You still have given no actual definition of what it is exactly that you mean with either expression. You also still have provided zero evidence that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are corrupt under the M-W definition of the word (or any definition, really). At this point, you have absolutely nothing except "they have received donations". Yes, that is true. Nobody is disputing it. Nobody is disputing either that there are representatives who vote a certain way because of the support they have received in the past, and expect to receive in the future, from certain industries. Who is supposed to have argued otherwise? From the start of this discussion, I have been addressing the specific case of Hillary Clinton, and showing that based on her record, there is nothing to suggest that one should be more suspicious of her integrity than of Barack Obama's. You and Sanders have yet to find evidence of the contrary. I'm still waiting.
On April 04 2016 17:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +With regards to your assertion that Bernie's attacks on Hillary haven't changed from the start, that is factually false. Let me link the NY Times article on that precise topic that I just provided to GH: link. You're suggesting because you and other Hillary supporters refused to realize he was talking about her too (without using her name) that this marks some significant shift. You can't just go from 0% to attacking Hillary Clinton as corrupt without explaining the system at large first. He doesn't view it as a corruption like you are imagining the word, he means that the whole system is corrupt and you have to fight every day on every front just to keep it where it is. From the beginning Bernie has made it clear he disagrees with Hillary about some of the fights she chose not to take. She chose to have a superPAC when neither of her opponents do, she's got this fund cleaning big money donations so she can use them like they were given to her campaign, she chose to take big money from wall street for speeches, etc... It's amazing how many people have abandoned all sense in order to ignore what they would certainly call out if Hillary was a registered Republican.
Another empty paragraph. The article I provided you with explains in detail that Sanders initially did not target Clinton specifically, and eventually turned his attacks on her and her personal integrity. There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Do you hear Sanders say "Clinton is accepting donations from the oil & gas industry the same way Obama accepted donations from the oil & gas industry"? Of course not, because he's trying to damage her image specifically, and recognizing that there's no difference between her and Obama in this regard would undermine his objective relative to her specifically. He's still pushing the broader condemnation of the system, obviously, but he has added the idea that there is something specifically wrong with Hillary. That is dishonest and false. Stop pretending otherwise.
|
On April 04 2016 17:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 17:17 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 17:12 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 15:53 kwizach wrote:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
The dishonesty Hillary supporters are denouncing is his suggestion that Hillary is corrupt, in the pocket of various industries, and doing their bidding. Such direct attacks on her were absolutely not part of his campaign from the start, which is why I'm asking you those two questions. Let's grant you that you're right for a second. Let's start from the premise that Hillary is not influenced by big money. That's still what Bernie has been arguing from the start. He's been painting her as the establishment candidate, he's been displaying the difference between him and her by pressing on her big money ties and on his lack of superpac from the start, which also connects with the notion that he's an authentic candidate, which he has also been pushing from the start... there is a total continuity in logic in what he's saying and doing. Even if he's incorrect, that shouldn't be a disappointment, that should be a disagreement. If we can't even get to something so simple and so clear, there's no way we can get anywhere. I can't help but notice you still have no answered my two questions. You said Sanders had been running against "corruption in the establishment from the start", implying that this applied to Hillary. I am therefore asking you for clarification: could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? With regards to your assertion that Bernie's attacks on Hillary haven't changed from the start, that is factually false. Let me link the NY Times article on that precise topic that I just provided to GH: link. At some point in the near future I'm going to need you to realize that when you say "establishment politics are corrupted by big money" and "Hillary is the establishment candidate", and then you follow it up a little later with "Hillary is influenced by big money", your argument hasn't changed in value.
At some point in the near future I'm going to need you to stop dodging the two simple questions I've asked you. Here, let me repeat them again:
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
With regards to your nonsensical argument, let me refer you to what I just wrote to GH: The article I provided you with explains in detail that Sanders initially did not target Clinton specifically, and eventually turned his attacks on her and her personal integrity. There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Do you hear Sanders say "Clinton is accepting donations from the oil & gas industry the same way Obama accepted donations from the oil & gas industry"? Of course not, because he's trying to damage her image specifically, and recognizing that there's no difference between her and Obama in this regard would undermine his objective relative to her specifically. He's still pushing the broader condemnation of the system, obviously, but he has added the idea that there is something specifically wrong with Hillary. That is dishonest and false. Stop pretending otherwise.
|
On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption.
Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate...
|
On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate...
An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning.
Could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption? Or are you going to keep dodging these two simple questions because you're incapable of owning up to the rhetoric you used?
|
That is dishonest and false. Stop pretending otherwise.
I just can't help but giggle at this, particularly while Hillary is running an ad about how Bernie's college plan depends on governors, as if public colleges aren't already dependent on their funding from Republicans and would continue to be under her plan which a republican congress wouldn't be any more likely to pass than Bernie's.
An individual person is not a system.
No she is the Democratic half of that system's representative. I don't know why you're being so difficult about this of all things. They weren't kidding when they said Hillary&co are getting nervous.
|
On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning.
This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind.
|
On April 04 2016 18:14 GreenHorizons wrote:I just can't help but giggle at this, particularly while Hillary is running an ad about how Bernie's college plan depends on governors, as if public colleges aren't already dependent on their funding from Republicans and would continue to be under her plan which a republican congress wouldn't be any more likely to pass than Bernie's.
Wow, talk about lacking subtlety in deflecting the issue. With regards to their respective college plans, Hillary is 100% right that Sanders' plan depends on states accepting it. It's right there in the plan, meaning that if Congress passed his plan Sanders would still be facing a major obstacle (even more so than the ACA's medicaid expansion). Hillary's plan does not require the same involvement from state authorities. There's nothing dishonest or false about her pointing this out since it is factually correct -- nice try, though.
On April 04 2016 18:14 GreenHorizons wrote:No she is the Democratic half of that system's representative. I don't know why you're being so difficult about this of all things. They weren't kidding when they said Hillary&co are getting nervous.
Difficult? I've repeatedly refuted all of your ridiculous accusations, to the point where all you're left with is deflection and snarky one-liners. And who's nervous? I've asked you repeatedly for a bet on the result of the primary. How about 100$ bet? If you think I have the slightest doubt as to who is going to be the Democratic nominee, you haven't been paying attention to my posts.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind.
No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is both dishonest and false. The same goes for the attacks that are specific to Clinton and not the system in general.
We're also stuck on you ignoring, and erasing from the posts you quote, the two simple questions I've been asking you: could you define what you mean exactly by "corruption"? Could you also give a few examples of Hillary's corruption, in particular the outputs that resulted from the said corruption?
Why are you running away from those two simple questions, Nebuchad? What are you "stuck" on? Is it really too hard to explain what you mean with the word you're using to smear Clinton? It seems like you're unwillingly acknowledging through your silence that if you were to provide a definition of corrupt corresponding to what can be found in the dictionary, you would be incapable of substantiating your accusation
|
On April 04 2016 18:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 18:25 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 18:12 kwizach wrote:On April 04 2016 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 04 2016 17:51 kwizach wrote:
There is a difference between criticizing a general system and attacking a single person by insinuating that there is something particularly wrong with that person in terms of corruption. Not when that person is described and has always been described as representing the system and being the system's candidate... An individual person is not a system. Bernie Sanders himself made the distinction, and he made sure to stick to it until earlier this year, when he switched gears and began trying to smear Hillary's character. I've provided you with evidence documenting this fact. It's impressive that you are still discarding the evidence in favor of the lie that you're pushing that there has been no notable change in his campaigning. This discussion is just surreal. We're stuck on your unwillingness to make a logical inference of the most basic kind. No, we're stuck on you pretending that criticizing a system is the same as singling out one individual and pretending that this individual is particularly different from others in the system. Sanders himself disagrees with you, Sanders' campaign disagrees with you, and analysts and commentators who've reported the change in Sanders' attacks disagree with you. You're wrong, simple as. Pretending that Clinton specifically is in the pockets of the oil & financial industries, and carefully avoiding any mention of Obama receiving even more money than her from those industries, is dishonest and false.
A) I have negative things to say about a system.
B) That person represents the system.
Your inference: I am making no negative comment regarding that person in the context of the negative things I have to say about the system. When I start doing that later, that's a change in my position.
That's what you're arguing. You're using Sanders' decision not to focus on Clinton from the start as evidence that there has been a switch in the content of his argument, when a quick analysis of the internal logic of the argument demonstrates that this isn't the case. This should not even be a discussion, and it blows my mind a little that it is.
|
I'm just quoting myself from above. This is pointless. I commend Kwizach on attempting to reason with the sandernista but I think the last pages only demonstrate the following:
On April 04 2016 09:07 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think I've figured out the sandernista mo: they keep on justifying everything he does so more people would hear about him. It won't matter what you say to them, they will be glad to be able to preach the truth once more. They will not tire, they will not relent, you'll just argue yourself silly. If you feel like you have an argument or material to present, do so and move on. The squabbling demonstrably leads nowhere, and actually makes them happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
