I thought it's the law.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hillary Clinton Courting Big Republican Donors
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
I thought it's the law.
StopMakingSense
Member
Shocking: most of the ex-presidents are quite friendly with one another.
The law is a joke.
Is the whole "Bill Clinton hates Obama" thing just Republican nonsense, or is there some legitimate animosity between them?
StopMakingSense
Member
Well, apart from maybe that, lol
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Another claim, with no evidence... *sigh*
Obviously not, but when has that ever stopped people from making threads before?
There was in '08 at least.
Melkezadek
Member
I don't think I've seen that anywhere on here.
The problem is I see some fellow Sanders supporters try to jump on the first sign of anything "sketchy" only to come to find out it's not the case at all. (Usually do to misunderstanding on their part)
Then they harp about "Oh well you guys must think she is soooo perfect! "
I've seen plenty of Hilary supporters on this site call her out when she needs to be called out.
Because you already view her as "sketchy " EVERYTHING looks sketchy. It's why people are becoming dismissive.
Same.
i think my favorite was the hot sauce threads
Bernie's supporters seem to believe that there are only two parts of the political spectrum:
- Bernie, the perfect hero of the left
- Republicans. Every other politician in America is a Republican to some degree
I just don't understand how anybody can look at someone who voted with Bernie 93% of the time, and who was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate, and think 'yeah, that's a Republican who's barely better than Ted Cruz!' Actually, I *can* understand - I was 20 once too.
Hillary Clinton has suffered from a few really high-profile scandals concerning integrity, and many voters are uncomfortable with her particularly close ties to the finance industry. These scandals were wildly blown out of proportion by the right-wing media, and many politicians from both parties are far less genuine than she is. That said, Hillary has issues with honesty, or at least the perception of honesty. Because she's probably the most tightly-scrutinized person in the world, she and her campaign should focus on addressing this problem.
I don't get why that particular quip caused so much salt...
Melkezadek
Member
Can you give specifics? Just so everyone knows what you're referring to?
It's truly something else.
Clinton can't take more than $2,700. If the campaign isn't making the calls (which is explicit), and it doesn't otherwise make sense to do it, it's either SuperPACs or unaffiliated supporters that will eventually be pushing them to donate to PACs.
Winking is fine. I think people understand that the line is at least somewhat blurry...especially with how Fiorina ran her campaign...but again, it doesn't really make sense for them to contribute directly to Hillary, and it's not like she needs her campaign managers making these calls.
Frankly I think this is pretty smart. Money Clinton PACs collect is money Trump PACs will not collect, or, more importantly, money that will not be used downticket. I don't think she's going to get much, though. Obama...maybe. But Clinton is Satan incarnate.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They're already donating to Hillary whether they want to or not. When Bernie drops out, who do you think gets the money?
He can either
- Donate it to charity
- Give it to the DNC
- Return it to the donors
- Break it up into separate 2000 dollar donation to individual candidates
- Keep it around in case he runs again
He's too old to run again, and there aren't enough campaigns that pass his purity test to give to. So it's either charity or the DNC.
The poll I'm referring to is all of the ones that show Bernie supporters will support Hillary after Bernie drops out. With "support" comes donations, volunteering, and stuff like that. There's more than just a vote. And there's no evidence that these people will become completely disillusioned by the process. Hillary supporters certainly didn't, and that was a much uglier race and the polls sometimes had up to 50% of supporters not wanting to ever have anything to do with Obama. And obviously that never panned out.
The idea that the majority of Bernie supporters are going to just duck out of politics is based on absolutely nothing.
If voters are uncomfortable with Hillary, they have a weird way of showing it.
BlastProcessing
Member
Sanders talks proudly about how he is able to reach and convert Republican voters. Why can you try to get republican voters to your side, but not donors?
I don't see the issue here. There is a window where some donors could be pried away. Wedges that you can use to pull the GOP apart are a good thing.
I don't see the issue here. There is a window where some donors could be pried away. Wedges that you can use to pull the GOP apart are a good thing.
Absolutely shameless. Is there no one that her PACs won't try and tap for money? But all things considered, it probably makes sense for Hillary to get elected on Republican money.
This talking point is getting so old. I'm waiting for the day when Hillary can stand on her own two feet, instead of having to rely on comparison to everyone else.
"She's just like [insert person here]!"
"You know who else did such-and-such? [Insert person here] did, that's who."
For someone who has been in politics for such a long time, her supporters sure do spend a lot of time using everyone ELSE'S conduct to sell her to voters.
This talking point is getting so old. I'm waiting for the day when Hillary can stand on her own two feet, instead of having to rely on comparison to everyone else.
"She's just like [insert person here]!"
"You know who else did such-and-such? [Insert person here] did, that's who."
For someone who has been in politics for such a long time, her supporters sure do spend a lot of time using everyone ELSE'S conduct to sell her to voters.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Love this.
"I can't support a lying, pandering, big business loving shill like Hillary Clinton. So I'll vote Trump instead. He's none of those things, in ways I can't possibly explain."
Macho Madness
Member
Maybe it's because they see a double standard that you don't
I have listened to her pathetic excuses. CIA along with the Honduran ruling class did the dirty work and she supported the coup in the backround by shielding the conspirators from repercussions and denying the crimes committed by them. It's straight from the Latin American interventionism playbook of the 60s and 70s, let CIA fuck shit up and then support the puppet governments. Funny how she mentioned how they didn't "manage" to address the systemic problems in the country Zelaya was trying to fix, her audacity knows no bounds.
What should have been done is a) stop playing world police since the US has a long history of being a ridiculously serf serving cop that makes things worse 95% of the time for the vast majority of the populations it's trying to "help" and b) follow international rules and stop hiding behind pathetic excuses she definitely have double standards for. If Zelaya was an American puppet Clinton would DEFINITELY have imposed sanctions on Honduras and you know it.
Of course. The most visible issue right now is the emails thing. Despite being a pretty esoteric mistake, most Republicans are convinced that it's treason and Hillary ought to be punished. Most opponents on the right don't understand the problem at all, but love it because it's "proof" of Hillary's dishonesty. While I personally think it was a stupid mistake to use a private server in that capacity
The other issues floating around are her refusal to release her her Wall Street speeches and her old gaffe about being fired-at in Bosnia. Bernie supporters are particularly likely to see these as game-changing examples of her alleged dishonesty, because it suggests she's trying to hide her beholdence to Goldman Sachs and willing to massage the truth to justify military intervention. Much like the email scandal, I think these two issues are also pretty frequently misinterpreted by people who already have a bias against Hillary Clinton.
In addition, while I believe this is just straight-up misogyny, some Americans think her decision to stick with Bill after the Lewinski scandal makes her "fake". This seems to be a particularly big issue with Republican women, if my aunts are any indication. I can't imagine any male candidate being so harshly criticized for the actions of his spouse, although the Trump squad is pretty insistent on calling everybody a cuckold.
It's frustrating. While Hillary Clinton is too right-wing for my own personal leanings, pretending she's closer to the GOP than Bernie or even Obama is just absurd. Two of my friends are legitimate Bernie or Bust types, and hold her to a really high standard despite mostly approving of Obama. One troubling and very entitled attitude I've encountered a little bit in person is that not voting in November would somehow "teach the Democrats a lesson", and somehow lead to more left-wing candidates being brought forward.
Your country really needs to judge your candidates based on 2 political spectrums.
Social and Economic. Because you have a lot of democrats who may say they are progressive, but it's just on social issues, and they are usually quite centrist on economic issues.
It would also separate out the Republicans into those that are just fiscal conservatives to the more Tea Party like Republican that is conservative on both sides.
Because I know some Republican voters in the US that support gay marriage, pro-choice, legalization, etc but are very fiscal conservative.
Social and Economic. Because you have a lot of democrats who may say they are progressive, but it's just on social issues, and they are usually quite centrist on economic issues.
It would also separate out the Republicans into those that are just fiscal conservatives to the more Tea Party like Republican that is conservative on both sides.
Because I know some Republican voters in the US that support gay marriage, pro-choice, legalization, etc but are very fiscal conservative.
Macho Madness
Member
Nah
Fantastic debate participation.
Macho Madness
Member
I'm not interested in your proposal. Hence "Nah"
Karsticles
Member
Bernie Sanders only agrees with me 77% of the time based on that one survey that got passed around last year. He was the highest. That Hillary is <whatever statistic> doesn't matter. She supported the Iraq War. She supported The Patriot Act. She is supposedly against net neutrality according to someone on a GAF thread a few days ago. Those are big issues for me.
I think a male candidate that stuck by his wife after she cheated on him would lose the respect of most male voters. It's far more acceptable for a woman to forgive a cheating husband than vice-versa.
This is difficult to do because the nature of partisanship. Essentially every Republican is expected to pander to social conservatives to gain support. Many Republicans clearly couldn't give a shit about evangelical Christianity, but they're willing to sell out gay people and minorities if it gets them elected. Trump is pretty unusual because he really only goes for the social issues, ignoring the neoliberal principles which have been core to the GOP platform since the Great Depression.
Social issues are also treated with more gravity than economic issues in the US, probably because the gap between the parties is much wider in this respect. I can't think of any socially conservative Democrats who've reached federal office recently. At least one Democratic governor is publicly anti-choice, but this is rare. While a few Republicans in the US are somewhat socially neutral, none of them actually fight for equality in any substantial degree.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Firstly, I appreciate you actually taking the time to say (sorta) what should have been done. Too many other posters just ignore that point. There is a core disagreement we won't be able to bridge, and that is the role of the United States in world affairs. The US has a massive military, and is often expected to intervene. Many posters here don't think we should do that. I personally think it's on a case by case basis, and we do tend to err on the side of invasion. But we likely won't get past that point of contention. Once again, thanks for typing up what your views were on the issue.
Valhelm, thank you for actually providing what you see as issues of corruption. I'll talk about them each briefly.
1.) Emails- This was standard operating procedure that was changed with Kerry for good reason. The most logical explanation is the government failing to keep up with new technology. They operated with the assumption that it was not secure, and thusly was not used for that purpose. Hence why there is no evidence classified material was emailed. You can't use the post-classified emails as an argument, especially because the various agencies can't agree on what is considered post-classified.
2.) The wall street speeches- You can pick at any facet of someone and say that not releasing such and such information means they are hiding something. I honestly think that is the reason why the issue has been ignored by her campaign. If she capitulated then what would be next? There is a video of one of her speeches, and itsfuckingnothing.gif. Also, none of those other years of taxes were released by Sanders yet. Funny how that is not seen as an issue of corruption...
See, we can have discussions on issues if they are actually provided, holy shit.
Edit: I should suffix this reply is more towards the general sentiment of those posters you refer to at the end and not you Valhelm.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Took about as much effort as your logic though.
The standard for information for you is pathetically low. Do a Google search please.
Hillary Clinton supports net neutrality.
I saw this from you yesterday too. "As said on CNN" with no source or even recollection of who the source was. Why don't you just admit you hate Hillary Clinton because reasons and move on. If the standard of information is "someone on gaf said" and that satisfies you, then really...why bother?
Don't worry. When you vote in the general election in the fall you can make your voice heard.
fortunately for all of us he can't
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
They're big issues to you, yet you couldn't be bothered to even research the validity behind the claim of her stance on net neutrality. Which likely means your mind is made up and you had no plans to support her, no matter what.
For the record, she supports net neutrality.
And she's apologized numerous times for voting to authorize the use of force in the face of what was thought to be an imminent threat. Not that that matters. She failed the purity test, so she's just as bad as the Republicans.
hydragonwarrior
Member
You gotta vote Trump to shake things up with those fat cats in Washington! Why can't you sheeple see this?
I added sheeple so it sounds less 1960's
Ohhh. It makes more sense now.
The comparison isn't about boosting Hillary, it's about providing an easy point of reference for people desperately in need of perspective.
That's about as nice a way as I can phrase it :lol
So big that you have no idea who said it and are relying on fuzzy, anonymous hearsay than doing a five second Google search to confirm it or not. What convictions.
While I'll support Bernie Sanders until the day I die, his hypocrisy when it comes to transparency is just shameful. You're correct that he has little right to talk about those speeches without releasing his own taxes.
So much of this primary is about perception. Years of right-wing attacks have convinced many Americans that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar, and it doesn't help that Hillary was first lady before many Bernie supporters were old enough to read. While it's unfair, Hillary is seen as distrustworthy by many voters of every political alignment. I think that it would be really beneficial during the general to focus on repairing this deficit, although Trump is such a blatant liar that she might not need to.
Man, another one of my friends was saying this shit earlier. He's Hispanic, so he won't vote for Trump because he doesn't want to be fucking murdered, but he was telling me yesterday that he'd rather vote for a businessman than somebody owned by a businessman, because you "cut out the middleman". It's an irrational attitude I'll never understand.
uncelestial
Member
Er, pretty sure that 44.5% of your party's voters matter. While that's not enough to win the nomination of your party, smug shitposting that tries to erase nearly half of all Democratic primary voters isn't a great look.
StopMakingSense
Member
eh?
I assume that was meant in the same sense that Bill would effectively be Hillary's VP.
EatinOlives
Member
1. This isn't Hillary or even her campaign doing this.
2. There's nothing wrong with courting distraught Republicans to vote for her. She DOES actually want to win the election, you know.
2. There's nothing wrong with courting distraught Republicans to vote for her. She DOES actually want to win the election, you know.
eh?
let's not pretend al gore did anything worthwhile
My mistake lmao, I edited
Karsticles
Member
I specifically said that I recalled the double-talk quotes from the first CNN debate. No, I'm not going to watch a multi-hour debate just to find the timestamp for you. You're welcome to watch the debates themselves, and I am 100% certain that the question came from one of them.
My research standards aren't low at all - the word "supposedly" is intentionally placed there to make it clear that I am not certain of the reference I am making. I had not yet bothered to look it up.
Why do I have to just hate Hillary Clinton because of "reasons"? I've given some pretty good reasons here, but you chose to cherry pick one issue I was uninformed on to make it sound like I have no grounds at all.
Is it really so hard to take a moment to understand what the word "supposedly" means?
Oh, she apologized. All is forgiven, then! You can't take the creation of ISIS, the exodus of entire nations of people, and numerous casualties and forgive it easily. Especially when she still talks about "no fly zones" in Syria and has a generally hawkish disposition.
I was a 20-something in college and it was clear that there was no real evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. It shows she just has poor judgment of these situations.
GAF moves pretty fast - I can hardly keep track of the threads I post in, let alone which threads other people said various things in. I'm happy to be corrected on this point, but it's a shame that all three of you are so unkind in your means.
Hah hah.eh?
Exactly. She's trying to become president of the United States, not just the progressive part of it. Nothing wrong with appealing to as many voters as possible.
Big Baybee
Member
Only Bernie is allowed to court Republicans, apparently.
Silver Arrows
Banned
Too bad he's Canadian!
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
thatsthejoke.gif
- Status