|
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. |
If the majority really wanted Trump to have it, he'd have it. If this works, it's pretty clear evidence that the majority of the GOP don't think Trump should just have it handed to him. Don't forgot the Trump vote is like 40% or less.
|
On April 25 2016 12:45 Introvert wrote:
If the majority really wanted Trump to have it, he'd have it. If this works, it's pretty clear evidence that the majority of the GOP don't think Trump should just have it handed to him. Don't forgot the Trump vote is like 40% or less.
I get how it may not make sense to hand it to someone with 40%. But how do you justify handing it to 30%?
|
On April 25 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 11:56 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:
The transcripts could be the most friendly, pro people thing she has ever said and they will stick pick apart every sentence to find something they can use to attack her, however much it has to be pulled out of context.
There is no upside, regardless of what she said. So no, ofc she isn't going to release them. If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here. Do quote one post arguing that position here. Well, your posts.. I was under the impression that you agreed the system is corrupt. If you don't, then I apologize, some of what I've said to you in the past was misplaced.
I have lamented the role of money in US politics for years on these boards, and criticized the Citizens United ruling and its implications with regards to Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s repeatedly. At the same time, I have also argued that the term "corruption" has been debased by posters using it much too liberally and without rigor in cases where it wasn't warranted. And finally, I've said Clinton is similar to pretty much every other regular candidate out there, including Obama, in that she is raising money within the existing system because that is how it currently works, and because unilaterally deciding to forego the current campaign finance system in favor of harsh self-inflicted restrictions would significantly hamper the Democrats' chances in the general election against the Republicans, who would have no such qualms.
This isn't remotely close to your strawman.
|
On April 25 2016 11:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
On April 25 2016 10:15 TMagpie wrote:
On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Alt alert!
Caught me, my clever ruse of logging in my phone and not remembering the password was caught. How did you decipher such a clever amalgamation of my name 
|
On April 25 2016 12:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 12:45 Introvert wrote:
If the majority really wanted Trump to have it, he'd have it. If this works, it's pretty clear evidence that the majority of the GOP don't think Trump should just have it handed to him. Don't forgot the Trump vote is like 40% or less. I get how it may not make sense to hand it to someone with 40%. But how do you justify handing it to 30%?
Delegate decision making. Probably why whoever it is will choose an establishment running mate. Try to make the claim that you are the alternative.
It wouldn't be "handing it to" in either scenario anyway. You have to earn the votes.
Edit: I mean for all of Trump's whining, if it was "fair" he'd have no shot at winning either.
|
On April 25 2016 12:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:56 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
[quote]
If they were her campaign would have released them already. It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here. Do quote one post arguing that position here. Well, your posts.. I was under the impression that you agreed the system is corrupt. If you don't, then I apologize, some of what I've said to you in the past was misplaced. I have lamented the role of money in US politics for years on these boards, and criticized the Citizens United ruling and its implications with regards to Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s repeatedly. At the same time, I have also argued that the term "corruption" has been debased by posters using it much too liberally and without rigor in cases where it wasn't warranted. And finally, I've said Clinton is similar to pretty much every other regular candidate out there, including Obama, in that she is raising money within the existing system because that is how it currently works, and because unilaterally deciding to forego the current campaign finance system in favor of harsh self-inflicted restrictions would significantly hamper the Democrats' chances in the general election against the Republicans, who would have no such qualms. This isn't remotely close to your strawman.
I think it's pretty close actually. I think you're using terms to distanciate your position but the spirit is very similar.
|
Ted Cruz and John Kasich have announced that their campaigns will cede certain states in an attempt to keep Donald Trump from reaching the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the Republican nomination.
In a pair of coordinated statements released on Sunday night, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns said that the Texan senator would concentrate his resources in Indiana while the Ohio governor would put all his effort into Oregon and New Mexico.
Both have already stated that they expect there to be a contested convention in Cleveland in July and are already preparing for a second ballot.
However, for that scenario to come to pass, they first need to stop Trump. This apparent agreement seems to be an admission that only way to do so is for his opponents to finally cooperate against him. Under current rules, delegates are only bound by the results of their state’s primary or caucus for the first ballot. On any subsequent ballot, delegates are free to vote their conscience and, since delegate selection is often an entirely separate process from a primary, there is likely to be a significant shift in votes on a second ballot.
Jeff Roe, Cruz’s campaign manager, went first. He said “our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico, and we would hope that allies of both campaigns would follow our lead”.
Cruz has already shifted resources to focus entirely on Indiana, whose 30 winner-take-all statewide delegates represent the biggest individual haul remaining. The state, which holds its primary on 3 May, also allocates three delegates to the winner of each of its nine congressional districts. Polls in the Hoosier State had Trump with a narrow lead ahead of Cruz with Kasich lagging behind. One campaign source indicated that internal polls showed Kasich was dividing the anti-Trump vote in Indiana and serving as a major hindrance to Cruz’s prospects.
Source
|
On April 25 2016 13:17 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 12:55 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 12:05 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:56 kwizach wrote:On April 25 2016 11:30 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 11:07 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 25 2016 10:55 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 25 2016 08:15 kwizach wrote:[quote] It's not "her campaign", it's most likely her who made the decision. Over the years, it has clearly emerged that her personal privacy matters a lot to her, and I'm guessing she's not interested in getting bullied into releasing something that has never been asked of any presidential candidate ever, just because Sanders wants to subject her to his ideological purity test. It's obvious that her speeches were nothing out of the ordinary (as people who listened to her have said), that they most likely contain benign praise for what a robust and stable financial sector can bring to the economy, and that she and her campaign know that the Sanders campaign would likely look for excerpts to take out of context in order to brand her as in the pocket of banks, as they have already been doing without a shred of evidence or decency. She might release them once the primary is over, and she might not, but not releasing them doesn't reveal anything other than her unwillingness to bend the knee to demands she thinks are unwarranted, and a justified concern that her words would be distorted (as were Obama's "you didn't build that" by Republicans in the previous election). According to your logic, though, I suppose you feel that there's something very fishy about Sanders' tax returns? Because as opposed to transcripts of speeches, releasing full tax returns is actually the norm for presidential candidates, and Sanders has so far only released his incomplete 2014 tax returns. He's helping set a dangerous precedent. I'm guessing you don't think there's anything fishy in them despite his reluctance to release them, so I suggest you drop the double standard for Clinton's speeches. You don't get paid millions in financial speeches then claim them to be personal privacy while running for the most powerful office in the world. Especially after Citizens United, and the 08 crash. All the while moving the conditions of releasing them. First saying it was it is what they offered to my opponent must released his paid speeches, to the GOP must release their tax returns etc. It is just scummy. What's actually scummy: Woman learns to make money, old white candidate complains that she's making money. Woman gets popular vote and is accused of being most qualified for job, old white candidate still thinks he's a better person for job because he says so. I hope plenty of your own camp is going to jump on you there because you're asserting sexism without evidence, cause I heard it was so terrible to assert corruption without evidence when it was adressed against your side... Of course it's not going to happen, cause we're not having an honest discussion. But hey, at least I can point it out, right? It felt more like the logical end parody of a hilariously dishonest line of discussion. Unless he's serious, in which case it's more of the same. Feels like I'm in a JFK conspiracy thread or something. Page after page of talk involving smoking guns that people imagine must exist somewhere. That's a valid position: I don't think there is anything shady happening, I don't think the system is corrupt. There is no conspiracy. Another valid position: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. There is a conspiracy. What I take issue with: I think there is something shady happening, I think the system is corrupt. But Hillary Clinton, who has been chosen by the democratic establishment to represent them, is completely exempt of that. That seems to be a pretty popular position here. Do quote one post arguing that position here. Well, your posts.. I was under the impression that you agreed the system is corrupt. If you don't, then I apologize, some of what I've said to you in the past was misplaced. I have lamented the role of money in US politics for years on these boards, and criticized the Citizens United ruling and its implications with regards to Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s repeatedly. At the same time, I have also argued that the term "corruption" has been debased by posters using it much too liberally and without rigor in cases where it wasn't warranted. And finally, I've said Clinton is similar to pretty much every other regular candidate out there, including Obama, in that she is raising money within the existing system because that is how it currently works, and because unilaterally deciding to forego the current campaign finance system in favor of harsh self-inflicted restrictions would significantly hamper the Democrats' chances in the general election against the Republicans, who would have no such qualms. This isn't remotely close to your strawman. I think it's pretty close actually. I think you're using terms to distanciate your position but the spirit is very similar.
No, that is not true at all. You made up a straw man, got asked to substantiate your claim that it was a popular position on these boards, revealed yourself to be incapable of doing so, and now you're claiming out of thin air that the position I described is "pretty close" to the one you made up, with no actual argument at all behind that claim. I never argued that "the system is corrupt", or that Hillary was "completely exempt" of something affecting everyone else. I said the exact opposite, namely that while the importance of money/organizations like Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s in the current campaign finance system is problematic to me, it overwhelmingly does not amount to corruption (for example, a 501(c)(4) buying political adverts with the aim of influencing an election thanks to undisclosed donations is not an example of corruption at all, yet it is very problematic to me), and that Hillary worked within that system like virtually everyone else, including Obama, and with no hint of being corrupted any more than him. She also defends overturning Citizens United and putting an end to the kind of undisclosed political spending I referred to, like most Democrats do.
Like I said, my position isn't remotely close to your ridiculous straw man. Stop trying to misrepresent it or pretend that there is something contradictory with it.
|
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described.
|
On April 25 2016 09:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians. The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill.
What does this even mean?
The people mocking "ideological purity tests" are kind of missing the point. It's simple disagreements about what the future should look like that are causing the divide here, not some theological discussion about angels on the head of a pin.
|
On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions.
You just used quotation marks for a statement I did not make. I have repeatedly denounced the use of the term "corrupt" to describe the system. Stop misrepresenting my position, and start reading my posts instead.
On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same.
Again, according to your straw man I have been portraying Hillary as uniquely exempt of the corruption affecting the system. This is false on two levels: 1. I have no described the system as "corrupted", and I have argued that the term "corruption" misrepresents the main problems I see with the system, and 2. I have not portrayed Hillary as unique in her behavior within the system. I have compared her to Obama and to Democrats in general. Your straw man is a misrepresentation of my position.
On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described.
Is the problem that you are somehow incapable of reading, that you're not even trying to read my posts, or simply that you're deliberately misrepresenting them?
Here is what I said:
while the importance of money/organizations like Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s in the current campaign finance system is problematic to me, it overwhelmingly does not amount to corruption
Here is what you pretend I said:
the others are largely being corrupted.
I did not argue that "others" are "largely being corrupted". I have not presented Hillary as unique in the system. I have not presented corruption as a characteristic of the system -- I have in fact resisted and criticized this way of characterizing the system. Can you get this through your head before you reply to me next?
My main issue with the system is that wealthy individuals and organizations can participate in traditional election efforts, such as the buying of adverts and the public promotion of candidates, to a degree that I find very problematic, in particular through undisclosed donations to 501(c)(4) organizations. This is a separate matter than officials being actually corrupted through donations. Can the latter occur? Yes, and it has. Am I against that? Sure. Does this mean that I am calling the system "corrupt", or everyone in the system "corrupt" except Hillary? No. Do you need to pay attention to what I'm saying and stop building strawmen? Certainly.
|
On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described.
Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system.
The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from. There's a reason why a lot of other democratic nations have an elections expense limit set in law which are less than a tenth of the amounts American candidates will spend in primaries alone.
Sanders' campaign is "cleverly using the system" just as much, because he needs hundreds of millions of dollars and media attention just the same as anyone else running for President.
|
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part.
|
On April 25 2016 13:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 09:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 25 2016 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:On April 25 2016 05:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 05:36 IgnE wrote:On April 25 2016 04:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations. Yes but no. The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty?? And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim. Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair. A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves. What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist. So let's recap. Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen. And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow. (I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.) What about WhiteWater guys??? Good idea : let's base that campaign on a twenty five years old minor "scandal" that didn't lead to any kind of conviction for the Clinton and in which nobody has ever had a clue who was involved and at what level. Jesus... You REALLY think that when we talk of the Clinton, that's the important stuff? Bill Clinton has been 8 years in office, had had a major, major influence on how the world is today, Hillary has been secretary of State, we are discussing policies that could potentially change America, and more importantly, chosing someone to make sure that the most important person in the world won't be Trump, and all you guys find to debate about is a shit scandal from the 80's and the fact that Clinton doesn't want to release transcripts. That's fucking sad if you ask me. That's exactly the point : the clinton familly was in power, much like the bush familly, and their actions were basically either detrimental to the average US citizen or useless. Bill deregulated finance (which helped get a surge of income for a few years, but effectively facilitated the bubble and 2008), he didn't do anything in regards to inequalities that had risen quite a lot after reagan and bush the first, he agreed himself that he made mass incarceration worse during his mandate... I also believe they have some kind of link to the student debt fiasco ? But firm margin greatly increase during his presidency, it's true. On every topic that are central to Bernie's success the Clinton franchise did a bad job. Why would you want people to vote for someone that basicallyis the archetype of the politicians that created the situation that so many people are rejecting ? I think it's the main reason people stress so much on anything that could support this idea that she is "the system" ; it's a virtual confirmation to the fears of many that she is just another mainstream politicians. The 2008 crisis was actually because of derivatives--which sanders was on the people who made it happen. Bernie does not point this out though, because why would he point out how he was one of the helpers of the crisis and not Bill. What does this even mean? The people mocking "ideological purity tests" are kind of missing the point. It's simple disagreements about what the future should look like that are causing the divide here, not some theological discussion about angels on the head of a pin.
Bernie voted for the CMFA, which gave banks the freedom to start making MBS and other derivatives
It's ironically his one pro Wall Street vote
|
On April 25 2016 14:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. You just used quotation marks for a statement I did not make. I have repeatedly denounced the use of the term "corrupt" to describe the system. Stop misrepresenting my position, and start reading my posts instead. Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. Again, according to your straw man I have been portraying Hillary as uniquely exempt of the corruption affecting the system. This is false on two levels: 1. I have no described the system as "corrupted", and I have argued that the term "corruption" misrepresents the main problems I see with the system, and 2. I have not portrayed Hillary as unique in her behavior within the system. I have compared her to Obama and to Democrats in general. Your straw man is a misrepresentation of my position. Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Is the problem that you are somehow incapable of reading, that you're not even trying to read my posts, or simply that you're deliberately misrepresenting them? Here is what I said: Show nested quote +while the importance of money/organizations like Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s in the current campaign finance system is problematic to me, it overwhelmingly does not amount to corruption Here is what you pretend I said: I did not argue that "others" are "largely being corrupted". I have not presented Hillary as unique in the system. I have not presented corruption as a characteristic of the system -- I have in fact resisted and criticized this way of characterizing the system. Can you get this through your head before you reply to me next? My main issue with the system is that wealthy individuals and organizations can participate in traditional election efforts, such as the buying of adverts and the public promotion of candidates, to a degree that I find very problematic, in particular through undisclosed donations to 501(c)(4) organizations. This is a separate matter than officials being actually corrupted through donations. Can the latter occur? Yes, and it has. Am I against that? Sure. Does this mean that I am calling the system "corrupt", or everyone in the system "corrupt" except Hillary? No. Do you need to pay attention to what I'm saying and stop building strawmen? Certainly.
Starting to wonder if this is you...
Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.
Here's my question, how would Hillary be "unilaterally disarming" if she's the only one using the tactics she is, going into a potential general. Trump won't have had used them and neither will have Bernie? Wouldn't Trump be defending himself by matching her tactics? She's the ONLY one escalating of the three people who could still get the nomination from remaining contests.
|
On April 25 2016 14:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 13:49 Nebuchad wrote:
I think "there are these corrupting influences that play a big role in the system" and "the system is corrupt" are very similar positions. I think "Hillary is just smartly using the system to her advantage" and "Hillary is completely exempt of the corruption" are very similar positions. Sure, the terms are different, like I've already said, but the framing is the same. You have this candidate that you like that is evolving into a system that is largely influenced by big money, behaving just like anyone else does in the system, but is above that influence and instead is just cleverly using the system when the others are largely being corrupted. I don't see how that depiction betrays what you've described. Sanders is no less taking part, and using, the same "corrupt" system. The only difference is that you're drawing an arbitrary line about where the money is coming from.
It's not an arbitrary line, it's a perfectly logical line. The people who give money to Sanders are trying to obtain something in return, just like the big donors: they're trying to get their voice to be heard. They heard Bernie's message, they think it represents their voice, and so they support him with their money. The difference is, it is actually a politician's job to be the voice of people who support him in a democracy, so they're trying to influence him into playing his role. People who donate to Clinton in the same way are doing the exact same thing. The big donors' attempt is one to steal this influence away from the people and to themselves. Depending on what you think of the system, they are either successful or unsuccessful at it.
|
On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part.
First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary.
To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations.
|
On April 25 2016 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Starting to wonder if this is you... Show nested quote +Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram.
Yes, because people who disagree with your shitty ad hominems and conspiratorial attacks on Hillary Clinton are necessarily bought by her campaign. It's a comfortable worldview to have -- you're pure and right on the issues, while everyone who disagrees is wrong and a paid shill. Too bad it's not true.
|
On April 25 2016 14:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:16 Nebuchad wrote:
Well I just assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics and criticized Citizens United because you believed those corrupting influences played a big enough role in the system to deserve your time and criticism. If you don't, then I would suggest you don't spend that much time arguing against them, cause apparently the corrupting influences are spending an absurd amount of money on trying to influence the political system and are largely failing at it, not getting a whole lot of results for their efforts, so that's a waste on their part. First, I would advise you to stop assuming things and actually read what people are saying before you build straw men to discredit their positions. Second, I've repeatedly explained my issue with the use of the term "corruption" to describe practices and a legal framework which I see as problematic but not actual examples of corruption. This doesn't mean I'm denying the existence of an influence of money on elections -- a 501(c)(4) buying ads against a candidate thanks to undisclosed donations can very well have an influence on the election by impacting the views of those watching the ads, and I have a problem with the legal framework allowing this. I'm also not denying the existence of actual corruption, or in general of specific cases of officials being influenced in their views because of money interests -- this can and does happen. I have simply argued this is not synonymous with the system itself, or the majority of the people working within it, being "corrupt". And I have certainly not argued that everyone is corrupt except for Hillary. To sum up, "I would suggest" you avoid giving condescending suggestions when you're not even capable of addressing what other people are actually saying without resorting to misrepresentations.
All right. I apologize for the very short-sighted assumptions I made. I shouldn't have assumed that you lamented for years about the role of money in politics because you thought money in politics was a big issue. My suggestion stays the same though. See you next time.
|
On April 25 2016 14:34 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 14:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Starting to wonder if this is you... Correct The Record will invest more than $1 million into Barrier Breakers 2016 activities, including the more than tripling of its digital operation to engage in online messaging both for Secretary Clinton and to push back against attackers on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Instagram. Yes, because people who disagree with your shitty ad hominems and conspiratorial attacks on Hillary Clinton are necessarily bought by her campaign. It's a comfortable worldview to have -- you're pure and right on the issues, while everyone who disagrees is wrong and a paid shill. Too bad it's not true.
That was in jest (not like they wear badges or something to ID themselves  ), what about the other part of the post though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
