-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hillary Clinton Courting Big Republican Donors
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
That is the entire bill.
Think he's being sarcastic. To be fair, over the next few years Sanders made it like a page or two longer, lol.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, I think we discussed this before IIRC. They seemed to have reversed course on the midterm fuckery of running away from what they passed.
I'm not sure what steps can be taken to do that. I'd be ok with offering up DWS on a plate though for replacement
I frankly think we can find a better messenger.She was DNC chair during the midterm in 2014.
Karsticles
Member
I'm on part 2 of the video you posted, and her reasoning from part 1 was basically:
1) Al Qaeda attacked us.
2) Iraq didn't attack us.
3) But Iraq aided Al Qaeda at some point.
4) Iraq would attack us at some point if they got nuclear weapons.
That's all laid out in part 1 of the video you posted. In part 2, at 6:02, she even rallies all Democrats to join her in the vote, saying that we can't show uncertainty.
Now she just said, in part 2 at 6:56, that she wants to support the president in his "war on terror". There's that classic language.
It's really unfair to ask specifically where an idea came from that's over 10 years old at this point. Do you think I saved the citation from my college days?
Still, I think the video you shared shows that she was wrapped up in this whole ideology to some degree. Thank you for sharing it.
Edit: At 8:50 in the video she references the 9/11 terrorist attack as a lesson we should learn from and how to handle Saddam Hussein. Direct connection between the ideologies, like he's part of the threat that just attacked us.
titiklabingapat
Member
This thread is evidence numero uno why I find some Bernie supporters super annoying.
I like how after the OP in the thread falls apart as soon as someone reads the source and the OP is called out on how false it is; the thread gets the above vague(and in the first examples case flat out false) posts to try and keep the thread afloat anyway for its true purpose: To fling shit at a candidate; whether it be deserved or not.
Discussion isn't even about the OT anymore.
I want to see data. It's all empty words and "what ifs" until someone shows more than that. Right now people trying to pretend that Trump doesn't have the biggest Hill to climb in a LONG time for a Candidate are just lying to themselves and to others.
It's far more likely that things get worse for him than for them to get better, and there's been zero indication that this sudden worry about dems not showing up in November is based on anything but conservative wishes and media wet dreams for a "too close to call" scenario on the night of the tally.
All of the info/data/polling/demographics and everything else that isn't subjective shows Trump getting walloped AFAIK (If I'm wrong Id like to see it, I mean that genuinely, because I've been looking). And the only reason why more people aren't admitting as much is an irrational fear of low turnout due to complacency that he will lose.
Abstrusity
Member
Yeah, I think we discussed this before IIRC. They seemed to have reversed course on the midterm fuckery of running away from what they passed.
I'm not sure what steps can be taken to do that. I'd be ok with offering up DWS on a plate though for replacement
She was DNC chair during the midterm in 2014.
Well, if the DNC has a media in, all it takes is to push harder if they ever were at all to make sure that, when legislation is passed, and it affects people, then PEOPLE SHOULD FUCKING KNOW ABOUT IT.
If more events seemed like BIG events, then people would feel that "tit-for-tat" gesture and vote. That's all it needs. No "student debt in three emojis or less" or "just like your abuela" or "whip and nae nae" whatever the hell that is,
seriously, maybe hitting your kids was a good idea after all if they came up with that
If it makes for a more united politics and ends up with a clear rejection of Donald Trump and his policies from moderate conservatives without Hillary or the democratic party changing positions concerning income inequality, social justice, immigration, and healthcare, then I am all for this. The republican party may well be blowing up before our eyes and there's no reason why moderate republicans can't find a home in the democratic party.
Fuck everything if Trump wins. I've helped family register to vote and I'm doing whatever I can to ensure that a Trump presidency does not happen.
LiquidSolid
Member
You should know why it's an issue by now. Hillary can't even use fucking hot sauce without Bernie fanatics throwing a tantrum.
Abstrusity
Member
Well, see, she didn't use artesenal hot sauce brewed by the hipster guys who make vodka chocolate in their garage distillery. Who would vote for someone like that? She buys it from WHOLE FOODS. No wonder people call her a corporate whore! :^)
That's annoying, as well. And there's always one guy who uses tree bark as soap and cultivates a beard because he thinks it's in style. I'd almost rather spend more time with fedorasexuals than these people.
Almost.
Karsticles
Member
Better to talk about the candidate than mock the supporters, isn't it?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
That was a good belly laugh. Reading that reminded me of when I was in middle school and wrote out a report at six thirty in the morning just so I could get something turned in.
How false what is? The story?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Bravo. Now we have a thread on NeoGAF where Clinton supporters sre rationalizing that it's totally fine to take donations from huge Republican donors. Amazing.
There have been a few valid criticisms of Sanders that I agree with. His stances on nuclear energy and Gmos are wrong imo, but Hillary can of course do no wrong.
The promise of hey, things will still be pretty good for you if I'm President in exchange for your money is not legalized political bribery. Nothing wrong there if it means the money not going to Trump.
Party over principles and means justify the ends cases can be made, but to say there's nothing wrong here is just so hypocritically dishonest...
There have been a few valid criticisms of Sanders that I agree with. His stances on nuclear energy and Gmos are wrong imo, but Hillary can of course do no wrong.
The promise of hey, things will still be pretty good for you if I'm President in exchange for your money is not legalized political bribery. Nothing wrong there if it means the money not going to Trump.
Party over principles and means justify the ends cases can be made, but to say there's nothing wrong here is just so hypocritically dishonest...
Cesare Borgia
Banned
lol
There is nothing she can do to win over the most extreme Sanders supporters. They don't matter. She's going to beat Trump soundly, win the youth vote by a large number, and solidify the democrat base.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
As much as NeoGAF complains about SuperPACs it seems like a lot of you don't know how they actually work.
Abstrusity
Member
It is what it is. There is only one way to fix it and nobody wants to, so we'll just suffer until, like many States before us, we're added to The Fate of Empires.
StrangerInTheAlps
Member
It's hard to take this seriously anymore.
When Bernie supporters argue "Hillary is courting GOP voters and not Bernie supporters! Why won't she support us?!" it sounds like they're really just saying -"Look at what she's doing NOW! Be outraged!"
Hillary has been throwing a bone to Bernie people the whole cycle. It has been met at every turn with constant cynicism. "She's just imitating Bernie! She doesn't really believe what she's saying!"
Just. stop it. really. It's gotten comical at this point.
When Bernie supporters argue "Hillary is courting GOP voters and not Bernie supporters! Why won't she support us?!" it sounds like they're really just saying -"Look at what she's doing NOW! Be outraged!"
Hillary has been throwing a bone to Bernie people the whole cycle. It has been met at every turn with constant cynicism. "She's just imitating Bernie! She doesn't really believe what she's saying!"
Just. stop it. really. It's gotten comical at this point.
i'm sure you're just angry you can't accuse her of fraud again
CharminUltra
Member
The DP race's been over for months, but I'm giddy just thinking how fun GAF will be once it's *officially* over.
SuperPACs aren't going away without a constitutional amendment. I hate them as much as anyone else, but it looks like we're going have to keep biting the bullet for a little while longer.
i mean, it's pretty clear cut?
that poster (self-described progressive) was basically pining for a militaristic Hillary administration, using a verbose euphemism for military conflict and then holding up LBJ as some kind of ideal
you don't see the blindspot there?
boiled goose
good with gravy
There are a few different options here and there. I see a lot of people getting in the way of some trying to make a difference.
Believing Hillary is better vs Trump than Bernie is an argument worth having.
Saying money is not a problem is something else
titiklabingapat
Member
The thread was a BS excuse to accuse Hillary of conspiracy theories and BS convoluted mental gymnastics to smear her. That's it. The End.
Why are you assuming that just because some of her supporters are trying to get big Republican donors on Clinton's side that Clinton had to sell out and promise something? Disaffected Republicans have a reason to donate to Clinton just to avoid a Trump presidency and the possible anti-free trade and what not that that might bring.
Just because money is a corrupting influence in politics does not mean that it is in all cases. Moreover, just because someone took money from a large donor or a PAC does not mean that they had to give them a special favor or promise them something. You can't assume or prove corruption or influence just because someone took political money.
In the aggregate it certainly has a corrupting effect, but you can't apply that to every situation. I guess it all boils down to trust. I trust Clinton that she will nominate a judge who will end citizens united. I trust that she won't sell herself to get Republican voters. Was she influenced by some of her other more traditional donors? Possibly.
politics is messy. Increasing donations while decreasing your opponents increases your cnances and your parties chances of winning. Democrats are more likely to do something about campaign finance than republicans so increasing the democrats chances is a good thing. Staying ideological pure and achieving nothing is just stupid.
Btw, nice straw man.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The only way to fix it tomorrow would be a constitutional amendment. Which would be impossible at the moment. The states could convene, but I don't think you can get the legislations of 3/4ths of the states to agree to it.
The only other way is to wait for another issue to be brought up to the Supreme Court, and hope they take it on and overturn their previous ruling. There was quite the dissent on it, so it's possible to happen sooner than later, but it will probably be many years.
StrangerInTheAlps
Member
Seriously.
If this were Bernie reaching out to these people, they'd just use it to demonstrate how Bernie has appeal for a wide swathe of the electorate. Let's just call a spade a spade. Hatred for Clinton is pretty much all hard core Bernie supporters have left. It sustains them at this point. We all get it. I'm sure many of us look forward to a good dose of outrage from time to time to keep us motivated. But it's gone past the point of any honest discussion.
Red Blaster
Member
why worry about trump, given she's fan of the drone program its virtually guaranteed hillary will commit war crimes during her tenure
boiled goose
good with gravy
Oh yeah. Hahaha. The biggest mental gymnastics i see are those saying money doesn't affect politicians at all. Yeah.
I agree here.
How we get their and what we do in the meantime are still worthwhile discussions
titiklabingapat
Member
It does, but I'd rather it be Hillary than anyone else right now because we actually have a chance of overturning it with her supreme court picks.
LUFTRAUSER
Banned
Tell that to Mitt Romney. Money affects politics but probably not as significantly as you think. PACs seeking donors that would have otherwise donated to different PACs so they can have more money to run ads and whatnot is not the same as bribery.
boiled goose
good with gravy
That is an interesting conversation to have, yet look at posts on this thread and others.
The concerns of Bernie supporters are "conspiracy theories"
You need to have a look at the thread title and OP and realize that the criticisms on it are valid. Is there a discussion to be had about money in politics and what can be done on the path to overturning CU? Absolutely.
Is making a bullshit titled thread that doesn't even withstand brief reading of its 'source material' the best or even a REASONABLE way to approach that?
No. And it's deserving of ridicule. Want to discuss the topic in earnest? Act like it and create a new thread. Im sure we would all love to contribute outside of this nonsense.
titiklabingapat
Member
Because it's what has come down to. The OP tried very hard to make it seem like Hillary=Republican and others were chiming in with similar posts. It's a stupid comparison and just one of the few conspiracy theories put forth by hardcore Bernie supporters since the very beginning and have been especially more prominent over the last few weeks when it's pretty clear he won't win. If you don'' think so then you haven't been paying attention or you're being willfully, well, dense.
That is some dishonest shit right there. You can point to basically any of the primaries and see some Bernie supporters outraged and some fraud or corruption perpetrated by Clinton or the DNC that cost Bernie the win.
And claiming that Clinton is a tool of the corporations because of corporate donations is tinfoil hat conspiracy level. I wouldn't call someone who thinks that she is influenced by donations a conspiracy theorist at all, but a tool? Most definitely, and some Bernie supporters have gone that far.
for someone with such an intense desire to have "interesting conversation" you sure do a shitty job when your first post leads with
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The only option is forcing transparency on all superpacs, from who donated to where the money is spent. That should pass constitutional muster, and it's about all we can do. So there is not much to discuss really.
Fun fact: Direct campaign contributions over x number of dollars have to be disclosed, hence you see those websites showing donations.
Several forms of Superpacs do not have to disclose shit.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Can you elaborate on what about the title and the OP you object to?
So let's break it down. Is Hillary better than any of the people that ran on the GOP side? Absofuckinglutely. However, if GOP donors are willing to donate money to Hillary it can mean two things. One thing it can mean is that Hillary is ultimately not that different when it comes to fiscal policy and corporate stances. She is totally different when it comes to social issues, but the big corporate donors don't care about those as much. The other reason is that they thing Trump is so scary that they would rather bet on certainty.
TBH I think the truth is a combination. Is Hillary going to be as good for them as a GOP establishment pick? No. Is it still going to be alright? You betcha.
On this and other threads we have Hillary supporters claiming Bernie supporters are just as bad as trump supporters. I call BS when I see it no matter what side it's on. I hope you do the same...
It has been really sad to see a lot of Democrats run to the right to defend Hilary because someone is running on her left (that mirrors a lot of her campaign but still), on this forum even. 'Oh see, Jeb Bush shows us how money in politics isn't really a problem!'.
Karsticles
Member
For Y2Kev, I stumbled across a video that has the clips from a CNN debate that I was talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
Abstrusity
Member
Money is a problem. Who's going to fix it? You? What about GAF, or Reddit?
No. None of these people have the wherewithal to do what needs to be done, to free the country from the corrupting influence of still more influence and the money it provides. You'll do what, vote? Votes count for shit. You know why? Because Nancy fucking Drew found out on the internet that vaccines cause autism, an armchair general complains about how our armed forces aren't doing enough, Sleazebag McJackass thinks women shouldn't vote, and Jenny-Jo thinks Mexicans are the reason why her alcoholic husband can't keep a job.
All of these people vote, and not a single one of them give a solitary shit about money in politics. They SAY it, as a convenient excuse for voting for Trump, or not voting at all, or just going straight Dem or Republican tickets, but they don't care. And they never will.
Like it or not, the average person doesn't know what's best for them outside of their immediate attention spans. They, like goldfish, float in their pretty little tanks, paying little attention to what remains outside. Money in politics is a shell game. The elites raise money for the party, so other elites raise money for the opposition. They each have their own reasons for it, and it will always benefit them in the long run. We can't get money out of politics on our side because the opposition can't get money out of politics on their side, because WE don't get money out of politics on our side.
And because they need money, favors MUST be exchanged for it. Or else they'll waltz over to the opposition and offer them the same deal. Sometimes they hedge their bets and give to BOTH parties. So what do you propose we do? We could try to vote for changes, but that'll require a concerted effort across the entire country, to get enough people in Congress who all want what we want, and who will actually put up when it comes time to. Good luck.
We could try pressuring businesses and union who have vested interest in getting government in the same way you'd order from Burger King -- but they have much more power, influence, and money than you do. And besides, don't they provide you with the products you need to survive?
No, there is only one way to fix it, and it is not pretty, sentimental, or peaceful. The objective is to do it without bloodshed, but it is already a foregone conclusion. They will not give up their captured regulatory agencies, their lobbied pocket politicians, the money they skim off the top to pay for these things, or the power that comes from doing so, without a fight.
The only way to fix it is to give them one...but nobody will. So the change won't happen. Even with all of these problems, we're still comfortable, mostly. We get what we want, sort of. We get what we deserve. If, and it's a big if, we can manage to get people in line for long enough to fix this, our country is likely to change for the better, instead of the rich getting richer, the poor and middle class getting poorer, for the elites to look at the AVERAGE and say "No, see, everyone's doing fine! Look, 99% have a refrigerator!"
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Stumbled across?
That video has been shared on this forum more than any other youtube video.
JesseEwiak
Member
Many corporate donors will happily take slightly higher taxes, slightly higher governmental spending, and slightly higher regulations over the possible destruction of the US Treasury Bond Market and a trade war with China - that doesn't make Hillary a conservative, it just makes some Republican donors sane.
Karsticles
Member
Okay? That means I can't have stumbled across it? I usually stay away from these threads because of all the needless venom. If the video has been shared so much on this forum, it's wild to me that so many posters would act like they had no idea what I was talking about in reference to Anderson's questions toward Clinton. Given how many people came down on me for not going through the trouble of providing a source...
activatethesmile
Member
That not-so-subtle "you're a goddamn liar" wink-wink, lol.
Karsticles
Member
Yay for the lack of civility.
If I knew about the video, why wouldn't I have just posted it when Y2Kev asked for a source instead of saying I wasn't entirely sure? I honestly watching it for the first time tonight.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
That's cause nobody watched it after the first couple of minutes, lol.
- Status