Support NeoGAF

[You Are Viewtiful]

Fantastic. I vastly prefer his method of fundraising. Public across the board is ideal, but he was able to remain competitive while still getting most of his cash from the 'public'.

He lost. People who don't fundraise lose. There's no point in ideological purity if you can't implement your agenda.

 

[Ozigizo]

I think commentators like that are just worried that any negative news about Clinton might cost her the election, so they'll defend all her actions anywhere and everywhere.

What they don't seem to realize is that this forum is basically exclusively Democrat, essentially meaning any comments are in "the family". It's okay to be critical of her actions and expect more of her in here if we are really interested in change.

Nice assumptions. You should be critical of the system, instead of focusing on a single candidate to fit the narrative of corruption.

 

[Coffee Dog]

He lost. People who don't fundraise lose. There's no point in ideological purity if you can't implement your agenda.

Exactly. Hilary is just playing the game, and is only as guilty as everyone else.

 

[Riddick]

What corruption?! Just because you don't like her tactics or her industrial-level fund raising program doesn't mean she's corrupt, Hillary is merely working the system that is in place. And Sanders would do the very same thing. If you want to cast blame then lay it with the broken, rotten and downright immoral US electoral system.

But remember, immoral != illegal.

Of course highly immoral isn't illegal when the laws of the country were practically written by the rich. When bribery has been legalized through a disgusting system of political "donations" then a politician that is knee-deep in her involvement with the corporations and the rich is no longer considered corrupt but she's just doing "what everyone else does" (legalized bribery) only much, much better than most other politicians.

She's so dedicated to "what everyone else does" that it almost looks like that's her actual job instead of serving the people of the country.

 

[benjipwns]

He lost. People who don't fundraise lose. There's no point in ideological purity if you can't implement your agenda.

He lead Hillary in total amount raised by the campaign in April and was only slightly behind in May. $238 million to $229 million. It was after he had already lost in June and the funds stopped coming that she finally pulled ahead.

 

[JustenP88]

He lost and it wasn't even close. And that was after outspending Clinton in many primary contests. Sanders didn't appeal to broad swaths of the Democratic base because he didn't care about their issues. He said as much before he even ran for president.

There were no institutional advantages at play for Hillary at all? We going back to the "Bernie doesn't care about minorities" shit now?

A God damn unknown 70-something socialist from Vermont raised more money than any candidate aside from Hillary, while largely ignoring large donors, and won 20+ primary contests against one of the most well-known politicians on the planet and your take away is "he got his ass kicked"?

I feel like I'm on /r/the_donald and Bernie is the cuck who got BTFO

No, he opted out of public funding. Which is the system he supports. It was available. He just didn't take it because it would have limited him to $42 million.

Yeah, I understand. He was still able to garner significant support from small donors. I'd like to think that serves as a proof of concept that this shit can be done without huge corporate donations and $250,000/plate fundraisers. If we move away from that, I think it makes public funding more palatable.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Ironic given your username that you'd be that guy. Thanks for making my point.

What point is that, are you suggesting there aren't very different core differences between Democrats and Republicans, about their tax and regulation polices, about who and where much of that money will be spent, or the fact we don't actually have 2 brothers that are willing to spend close to a billion by themselves on anyone with an R next their names. (with the exclusion of trump of course, but that money is most certainly going elsewhere)

There's a big fucking difference here between these two parties and the goals that want to be accomplished, and at the moment, in this election year, there's fuck all to be done about it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

He lost. People who don't fundraise lose. There's no point in ideological purity if you can't implement your agenda.

And Sanders did fundraise. Quite a lot! And he still lost.

You pit a candidate who's spent decades networking and reaching out to various communities and interest groups against a candidate who joined the party like two weeks ago, makes his pitch primarily to the least reliable voting bloc in the country (young liberals), how did anyone think this would go down differently?

There were no institutional advantages at play for Hillary at all? We going back to the "Bernie doesn't care about minorities" shit now?

A God damn unknown 70-something socialist from Vermont raised more money than any candidate than Hillary, while ignoring large donors, and won 20+ primary contests against one of the most well-known politicians on the planet and your take away is "he got his ass kicked"?

I feel like I'm on /r/the_donald and Bernie is the cuck who got BTFO

Cool, he beat expectations. He still lost. And I reiterate - it wasn't close!

It's not as much a matter of Sanders not caring about minorities as much as he's a slave to intersectionality and the belief that if you solved income inequality, all other issues would subside. I think there's a hint of truth to that, but it's an incredibly reductionist view of many complex social problems. Breaking up the banks is going to cure racism? It's going to eliminate homophobia? Sexism? Transphobia? Xenophobia? How does it help people with disabilities, or with mental illnesses, or drug addictions? And the fact is, almost every issue was tied back to Wall Street. How many times did we hear the canned line about "Why is a black teenager arrested for smoking pot when Wall Street executives never served a day in prison" or whatever?

This is why Bernie lost.

 

[2MF]

Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before??

The notion that Hilary is going to pull a punk rock play and tell her donors to fuck off is ridiculous. She's been in politics for decades and there's a reason she still has a career. If she has to kiss some trust fund babies and pass a few pieces of helpful legislation, she will, and there's no reason to deny it or think otherwise.

+1

The naiveté displayed here when it comes to Hillary Clinton is sometimes astounding. Superwoman Hillary Clinton will outsmart everyone and suddenly rich people will stop getting what they want from politicians. Hah...

We get it, she's infinitely better than Trump. Doesn't mean constant hypocrisy is needed every time something even mildly negative comes out about her.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Of course highly immoral isn't illegal when the laws of the country were practically written by the rich. When bribery has been legalized through a disgusting system of political "donations" then a politician that is knee-deep in her involvement with the corporations and the rich is no longer considered corrupt but she's just doing "what everyone else does" (legalized bribery) only much, much better than most other politicians.

She's so dedicated to "what everyone else does" that it almost looks like that's her actual job instead of serving the people of the country.

How can she serve the people of this country is she loses? Did she not serve as a first lady, as a senator, as a SoS? Has she not served us well taking into consideration her voting records, for the most part?

 

[Eidan]

I would prefer that she was criticized in a way that may force change to how the process works. If it's part of your platform make it part of your action.

I would prefer this kind of "ideological purity," as if practicing what you preach is some kind of negative thing.

So you would want her, and by extension her party to be out-fundraised. Which could easily hand the Republican Party the election down the ballot, and kill any chance of campaign finance reform. That's kind of stupid.

 

[dramatis]

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before??

Well, to be fair if you want repeat donations, you would think twice before being too obvious about double crossing the donor.

But I also think the rich donors are more stupid than they seem from afar, so smooth talking them is probably not that hard. Nowadays there's a lot of them anyway lol

Moreover, ultimately rich donors are still human susceptible to persuasion. It's not like you can't possibly present an argument for your desired policies that seems like it's in a donor's favor, or something like that. I've seen people rag on George Soros here before as if he were some part of a conspiracy (probably new leftie to politics reading right wing material lol), when he's one of the few very open billionaires supporting liberal causes.

Sometimes donations don't actually serve as "hey, we want this loophole" and is more like a ticket for access to the candidate to try and make the case for the loophole.

People overemphasize the money, and in hating that they end up thinking of money as everything. If that were the case, then Sanders and Bush would have won. Sanders certainly thought that the more money he threw at the problem, the more likely he would fix it.

 

[Frustrated_me]

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

 

[Coffee Dog]

What point is that, are you suggesting there aren't very different core differences between Democrats and Republicans, about their tax and regulation polices, about who and where much of that money will be spent, or the fact we don't actually have 2 brothers that are willing to spend close to a billion by themselves on anyone with an R next their names, Trump excluded of course.

There's a big fucking difference here, and at the moment, in this election year, there's fuck all to be done about it.

When it's what you have to do in order to be a politician, there aren't many differences on this issue. That's why the system is fucked. We are talking about something every politician is required to do or be faced with irrelevance.

We should be able to have a conversation on this without resorting to bringing in their policies and going on about why one is a better overall candidate.

 

[Riddick]

No one is dismissing any corruption in this thread.
Also, Sanders rejected public funding and he raised money from the very rich in expensive fundraisers in the past.

Sanders proved that you can fundraise from the people, that's my point. The MSNBC hit piece even if completely true doesn't disprove my point.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

When it's what you have to do in order to be a politician, there aren't many differences on this issue. That's why the system is fucked. We are talking about something every politician is required to do or be faced with irrelevance.

We should be able to have a conversation on this without resorting to bringing in their policies and going on about why one is a better overall candidate.

It's cool to have a conversation, but when it starts with "corrupt" and "paid and bought-for", what more is there to say really?

 

[Diprosalic]

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

That money doesn't just dissappear.

 

[Eidan]

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

Who is stopping anyone from criticizing her?

 

[Kyzer]

To the people here pondering the possibility of ignoring donor's wishes..

You realize the politicians aren't supposed to change their policies in exchange for the donations right? Officially speaking, youre SUPPOSED to ignore donor's wishes. Its not "fooling donors", thats actually the legal way to do it. Youre raising money for your platform, not taking money to help shape it.

 

[2MF]

To the people here pondering the possibility of ignoring donor's wishes..

You realize the politicians aren't supposed to change their policies in exchange for the donations right? Officially speaking, youre SUPPOSED to ignore donor's wishes. Its not a dick move, thats actually the legal way to do it. Youre raising money for your platform, not taking money to help shape it.

Meanwhile, in reality...

 

[Chichikov]

Sanders proved that you can fundraise from the people, that's my point. The MSNBC hit piece even if completely true doesn't disprove my point.

We're talking about Sanders now?
Fine.
I would like to point out that raising money from small donors is an upward wealth transfer raising money from billionaires is a downward one.
I mean, as long we're looking at in such simplistic terms.
But seriously, you think Hillary should not raise money from rich people?
Sanders would have certainly done so, and he should have.

p.s.
Really, Hillary can't "raise from the people"?
Obama (who did a ton of fundraising events with the very rich) can't "raise from the people"? FFS, he wrote the fundraising playbook that Sanders uses to a large degree.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

So you would want her, and by extension her party to be out-fundraised. Which could easily hand the Republican Party the election down the ballot, and kill any chance of campaign finance reform. That's kind of stupid.

Yeah.

You know what we need, we need more Scott Walkers elected, lets not do what needs to be done with how the system is set up across the board to make sure that happens.

 

[dramatis]

Sanders proved that you can fundraise from the people, that's my point. The MSNBC hit piece even if completely true doesn't disprove my point.

That's hardly a hit piece. Sanders made money purity a cornerstone of his campaign, so shouldn't incidents where he violated his own policies be examined?

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Ultrarich is my dream. Then I will buy gaf.

 

[Ozigizo]

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

Instead of just posting a drive-by about a defense force, maybe you could actually join the discussion.

If you want to criticize her, you're fine to do it.

 

[Kyzer]

Meanwhile, in reality...

Well, my post is about reality. People are in here wondering how people get away with "fooling donors" and the potential benefits of doing so, how to get away with it, etc.

There is no mystery. The law says they are SUPPOSED to ignore donors wishes.

And I know you say "meanwhile in reality" because its easy to say the system is corrupt, but considering these platforms are set in stone (ink, text, video, web) and theres no evidence of quid pro quo, this "reality" youre referring to is literally speculation of corruption and conspiracy. Also good luck changing your platform without anyone noticing when youre getting a million hits a day from NeoGAF~!

You are welcome to give me evidence of favors and policy in exchange for donations though.

 

[Audioboxer]

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

This.

The amount of money used/wasted/tossed about in the American political realm is downright shameful.

And people ask why out of the millions of citizens in America, and all the educated elite high IQ individuals, do we have to end up deciding between Hillary and Trump?

Money!

 

[Aaron Strife]

That's hardly a hit piece. Sanders made money purity a cornerstone of his campaign, so shouldn't incidents where he violated his own policies be examined?

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

Hillary Defense Force up in here, am I right?

This.

The amount of money used/wasted/tossed about in the American political realm is downright shameful.

And people ask why out of the millions of citizens in America, and the educated elite, do we have to end up deciding between Hillary and Trump?

Money!

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

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

 

[Aaron Strife]

dp

 

[Chichikov]

This.

The amount of money used/wasted/tossed about in the American political realm is downright shameful.

And people ask why out of the millions of citizens in America, and all the educated elite high IQ individuals, do we have to end up deciding between Hillary and Trump?

Money!

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

 

[2MF]

Well, my post is about reality. People are in here wondering how people get away with "fooling donors" and the potential benefits of doing so, how to get away with it, etc.

There is no mystery. The law says they are SUPPOSED to ignore donors wishes.

And I know you say "meanwhile in reality" because its easy to say the system is corrupt, but considering these platforms are set in stone (ink, text, video, web) and theres no evidence of quid pro quo, this "reality" youre referring to is literally speculation of corruption and conspiracy. Also good luck changing your platform without anyone noticing when youre getting a million hits a day from NeoGAF~!

You are welcome to give me evidence of favors and policy in exchange for donations though.

If I had hard evidence of any such specific instances I'd be posting it to the police, not as a reply to you on Neogaf.

But:

1- do you really think that rich people and companies are stupid enough to donate to politicians if they weren't buying influence?

2- do you not see the many instances where politicians do things that favor large corporations, at the expense of smaller businesses / taxpayers / you name it?

If you want to believe that there's no influence, go ahead. Most reasonable people don't, AFAIK. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see all the ways in which politicians favor their donors, with or without hard evidence.

 

[JustenP88]

I guess we can boil down the defense to "pics or corruption didn't happen" and call it a day...

Obama raised 1.5 billion. Are these same people asking that same question in regards to him?

Hell yes! He and anyone else in the game. On either side. Until the game changes. I'll still likely vote (D) for the foreseeable future, but I'm sure as shit not going to withhold criticism because "but but the other side is worse."

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

This.

The amount of money used/wasted/tossed about in the American political realm is downright shameful.

And people ask why out of the millions of citizens in America, and all the educated elite high IQ individuals, do we have to end up deciding between Hillary and Trump?

Money!

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

 

[Red Blaster]

benji im looking forward to your thread when kissinger endorses hildawg in her effort to shore up the 'throw people out of airplanes' voting constituency

 

[Kyzer]

We need to take away the rich peoples right to vote! Its not fair that theyre treated like equal citizens

If I had hard evidence of any such specific instances I'd be posting it to the police, no as a reply to you on Neogaf.

But:

1- do you really think that rich people and companies are stupid enough to donate to politicians if they weren't buying influence?

2- do you not see the many instances where politicians do things that favor large corporations, at the expense of smaller businesses / taxpayers / you name it?

If you want to believe that there's no influence, go ahead. Most reasonable people don't, AFAIK. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see all the ways in which politicians favor their donors, with or without hard evidence.

???

stupid enough to donate without gaining influence implies that literally the only reason and cause for a donation is for corrupt motivation, do you even know why people donate to compaigns? because they want that candidate to win lol

and yes, you actually do need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe in something without evidence

Im open to the possibility and I certainly see anti-people pro-corporate decisions all the time, but theres a thing called politics and law, and if the stance is that they are focusing on letting the free market bring the rest of the system up, its not up to you to say "I have a hunch they secretly are doing it because theyre corrupt or got money for this decision" without acknowledging that you have no objective basis to believe it...

 

[Coffee Dog]

Well, my post is about reality. People are in here wondering how people get away with "fooling donors" and the potential benefits of doing so, how to get away with it, etc.

There is no mystery. The law says they are SUPPOSED to ignore donors wishes.

And I know you say "meanwhile in reality" because its easy to say the system is corrupt, but considering these platforms are set in stone and theres no evidence of quid pro quo, this "reality" youre referring to is literally speculation of corruption and conspiracy. Also good luck changing your platform without anyone noticing when youre getting a million hits a day from NeoGAF~!

You are welcome to give me evidence of favors and policy in exchange for donations though.

You shouldn't deny the prevalence of money in politics and the very real existence of special interests.

"But nobody's seen money change hands!" It's like, um, no shit? That's why it's a widespread and systemic problem, lol.

 

[benjipwns]

benji im looking forward to your thread when kissinger endorses hildawg in her effort to shore up the 'throw people out of airplanes' voting constituency

sorry:

Foreign policy gurus Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have announced they will not endorse a presidential candidate, after reports circulated Friday that they were considering a joint endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

“We are not making any endorsement in the current presidential election,” Kissinger and Shultz said in a joint statement provided to TIME. “We are dedicated to fostering a bipartisan foreign policy, and we will devote ourselves to this effort now and after the election.”

 

[benjipwns]

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

If anything, money may following "winning" or at least "polling" as it's not like Sanders was raising money hand over fist when he was at 5% and the Queen was at 65%.

 

[JustenP88]

We need to take away the rich peoples right to vote! Its not fair that theyre treated like equal citizens

A WILD ROMNEY VOTER APPEARS

Money is speech ya'll #citizensunited

 

[Ozigizo]

I guess we can boil down the defense to "pics or corruption didn't happen" and call it a day...

It'd be nice to evidence beyond "I have a feeling," especially when the right has been harping this particular candidate for years on this issue with little to no evidence.

 

[Super_Cobra]

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

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

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

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

We need more shit-posting.

 

[Red Blaster]

sorry:

weak! guess she'll have to settle for dudes like james clad

 

[JustenP88]

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

 

[2MF]

and yes, you actually do need to be a conspiracy theorist to believe in something without evidence

Does evidence here mean that I need a video of politician in a smoky room going:

"HAR HAR I just took money from someone to change my vote tomorrow"?

Or are the countless examples of special interests controlling politics enough?

theres a thing called politics and law, and if the stance is that they are focusing on letting the free market bring the rest of the system up, its not up to you to say "I have a hunch they secretly are doing it because theyre corrupt or got money for this decision" without acknowledging that you have no objective basis to believe it...

I'm not sure I understand your point here, are you saying that it's all trickle-down economics and not corruption? OK then.

 

[Super_Cobra]

We need more shit-posting.

Lol sure bud.

 

[benjipwns]

We need more shit-posting.

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

 

[Condom]

What are people going to do if Hilary flip flops and doesn't overturn Citizen's United or replaces it with legislation that doesn't really change anything? Vote again and wait for the 2nd term?

 

[Kyzer]

You shouldn't deny the prevalence of money in politics and the very real existence of special interests.

"But nobody's seen money change hands!" It's like, um, no shit? That's why it's a widespread and systemic problem, lol.

Ok but you dont just get to say its very real actually and its super widespread and everybody knows that and not provide any actual evidence.

Money is in politics but there is a such thing as law, and people operate within that. Money in politics exists, that doesnt change the fact that people theorizing and speculating upon "fooling donors" doesn't make sense because that's not how the system works. Even if you believe in corruption, it doesn't make sense, because campaigning is literally not supposed to involve the donors believing they are gaining anything at all.

And no, its not just common accepted fact that because youre rich and donating a lot of money that means youre buying access or getting favors.

The idea that the only reason they would donate is in exchange for corrupt favors is logically flawed.

 

[Kyzer]

A WILD ROMNEY VOTER APPEARS

Money is speech ya'll #citizensunited

Im against citizens united but ok

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

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

These arent corporations theyre actual human beings.

Does evidence here mean that I need a video of politician in a smoky room going:

"HAR HAR I just took money from someone to change my vote tomorrow"?

Or are the countless examples of special interests controlling politics enough?



I'm not sure I understand your point here, are you saying that it's all trickle-down economics and not corruption? OK then.

Kind of, yeah thats how politicians justify pro-corporate decisions, right? Are you saying trickle down economics are automatically corruption?

Do you not see how thats not objective?

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