boiled goose
good with gravy
Yup... It has been mindblowing to me.
And I don't even consider myself a Bernie supporter.
Oh I agree. You restated both of my points.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hillary Clinton Courting Big Republican Donors
- Thread starter Antiochus
- Start date
- Status
Yup... It has been mindblowing to me.
And I don't even consider myself a Bernie supporter.
Oh I agree. You restated both of my points.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't really see what the problem is here?
The moderate/establishment type Republicans are without a party at the moment. If you want change in this country you need to build consensus.
Sure, you can win with just Democrats. Quite comfortably, even. Obama did just that in 2012 - independent voters went for Romney. That's clearly done jack-all for his agenda. Even big-ticket items like immigration reform, which passed the Senate with a wide majority floundered in the House, which was too busy shutting down the government because the president wouldn't agree to repeal his signature legislative achievement, the one that's literally been named after him.
Voters - specifically, Obama supporters - had an opportunity to punish them in the 2014 elections. They rewarded Republicans for their obstructionism by staying home. It's okay, there was probably something really good on Netflix or something. I mean, I can't tell the difference between a governor and a Congressperson, can you? Exactly.
Snark/shaming the people who form a large contingency of Bernie's current base aside, the point is you can win a majority with just Democrats. In our current political climate, you need a hell of a lot more than that to get anything done.
The more reasonable Bernie supporters act like all he needs as president is a Congress with 218 Democrats to pass single-payer and free college, break up the banks and give everyone a unicorn. Obama had 256 Democrats when he passed the Affordable Care Act. Do you know how many votes Democrats scraped together? 219. Same for cap & trade (which ultimately didn't pass the Senate). Dodd-Frank fared slightly better with 223 votes in its initial vote and 237 when a few loopholes were opened to draw Republican support in the Senate. Oh yes, the Senate. There is that pesky 60-vote requirement. Democrats could do away with it, but it's a useful tool for the minority, so I doubt they will. I don't necessarily agree, I'm just saying. Senate elections are also staggered so it's going to be a while before you've filled up the chamber with 100 Bernie clones.
Now, that's for the Bernie supporters who acknowledge the reality that is Congress. For the ones who think we can just get 5 million college kids to lobby out the windows of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, or swamp the hotlines of the Supreme Court to lobby the justices (who by the way are completely insulated from public approval by constitutional design)? I really have nothing to say to you, as it will fall on deaf ears. Good luck with your twitter revolution.
There is no tyranny of the majority. The presidency is not a dictatorship. If you think Hillary is a corrupt shill and Bernie is a liberal savior and that will make all the difference between what they would actually accomplish once in office, let me put it to you this way - half the country thinks like Trump. Some won't want to admit it, but the reason Trump is doing terribly in the polls is all style and no substance. You've got some pretty severe opposition there, and a stupid and uninformed opposition, which is the most dangerous kind. If you think Obama has been a disappointing president and attribute inaction on many important legislative proposals to him "not trying hard enough" at best or just being a corporate tool at worst, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the American government that the Republicans have become quite adept at capitalizing on.
If there are Republicans with reservations about Trump who are thinking about switching, they should be welcomed to the fold. If they donate money to and vote for Democratic candidates, they are doing a great deal more for the liberal movement than any keyboard warrior ranting about how Bernie can totally win 70% of the vote in California and turn the primary on its head. That's even if they vote straight ticket Republican for everything else, because strong Hillary coattails will produce a durable Senate majority (possibly holding off a loss in 2018 due to inevitable midterm drop-off), and possibly even flip the House.
Even with a Democratic Congress, Hillary won't be perfect - she'll likely come up short in some areas, and be downright shitty in others. But you know something? Equal pay for women, equality for the LGBT community, fighting for criminal justice reform and reducing systemic racism in this country, expanding on Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, passing comprehensive immigration reform, increasing the minimum wage, curbing climate change, increasing and improving alternative energy, free 2-year college and pre-K, reforming the student loan system, operating the government with some basic level of competency and returning to pre-sequester (prequester if you will) spending levels, raising taxes on the wealthy, building a nationwide high-speed rail, protecting net neutrality, protecting abortion access, working towards cures for cancer and Alzheimer's and better research and treatment for autism, implementing a system wage insurance, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, restoring McCain-Feingold, flipping the Supreme Court majority - if Hillary can do even half of that it will absolutely be worthwhile and meaningful. And presidential candidates historically keep 75% of their promises, so there's plenty to look forward to.
If Republican donors want to be a part of that, be my guest.
tl;dr - just stop
The moderate/establishment type Republicans are without a party at the moment. If you want change in this country you need to build consensus.
Sure, you can win with just Democrats. Quite comfortably, even. Obama did just that in 2012 - independent voters went for Romney. That's clearly done jack-all for his agenda. Even big-ticket items like immigration reform, which passed the Senate with a wide majority floundered in the House, which was too busy shutting down the government because the president wouldn't agree to repeal his signature legislative achievement, the one that's literally been named after him.
Voters - specifically, Obama supporters - had an opportunity to punish them in the 2014 elections. They rewarded Republicans for their obstructionism by staying home. It's okay, there was probably something really good on Netflix or something. I mean, I can't tell the difference between a governor and a Congressperson, can you? Exactly.
Snark/shaming the people who form a large contingency of Bernie's current base aside, the point is you can win a majority with just Democrats. In our current political climate, you need a hell of a lot more than that to get anything done.
The more reasonable Bernie supporters act like all he needs as president is a Congress with 218 Democrats to pass single-payer and free college, break up the banks and give everyone a unicorn. Obama had 256 Democrats when he passed the Affordable Care Act. Do you know how many votes Democrats scraped together? 219. Same for cap & trade (which ultimately didn't pass the Senate). Dodd-Frank fared slightly better with 223 votes in its initial vote and 237 when a few loopholes were opened to draw Republican support in the Senate. Oh yes, the Senate. There is that pesky 60-vote requirement. Democrats could do away with it, but it's a useful tool for the minority, so I doubt they will. I don't necessarily agree, I'm just saying. Senate elections are also staggered so it's going to be a while before you've filled up the chamber with 100 Bernie clones.
Now, that's for the Bernie supporters who acknowledge the reality that is Congress. For the ones who think we can just get 5 million college kids to lobby out the windows of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, or swamp the hotlines of the Supreme Court to lobby the justices (who by the way are completely insulated from public approval by constitutional design)? I really have nothing to say to you, as it will fall on deaf ears. Good luck with your twitter revolution.
There is no tyranny of the majority. The presidency is not a dictatorship. If you think Hillary is a corrupt shill and Bernie is a liberal savior and that will make all the difference between what they would actually accomplish once in office, let me put it to you this way - half the country thinks like Trump. Some won't want to admit it, but the reason Trump is doing terribly in the polls is all style and no substance. You've got some pretty severe opposition there, and a stupid and uninformed opposition, which is the most dangerous kind. If you think Obama has been a disappointing president and attribute inaction on many important legislative proposals to him "not trying hard enough" at best or just being a corporate tool at worst, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the American government that the Republicans have become quite adept at capitalizing on.
If there are Republicans with reservations about Trump who are thinking about switching, they should be welcomed to the fold. If they donate money to and vote for Democratic candidates, they are doing a great deal more for the liberal movement than any keyboard warrior ranting about how Bernie can totally win 70% of the vote in California and turn the primary on its head. That's even if they vote straight ticket Republican for everything else, because strong Hillary coattails will produce a durable Senate majority (possibly holding off a loss in 2018 due to inevitable midterm drop-off), and possibly even flip the House.
Even with a Democratic Congress, Hillary won't be perfect - she'll likely come up short in some areas, and be downright shitty in others. But you know something? Equal pay for women, equality for the LGBT community, fighting for criminal justice reform and reducing systemic racism in this country, expanding on Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, passing comprehensive immigration reform, increasing the minimum wage, curbing climate change, increasing and improving alternative energy, free 2-year college and pre-K, reforming the student loan system, operating the government with some basic level of competency and returning to pre-sequester (prequester if you will) spending levels, raising taxes on the wealthy, building a nationwide high-speed rail, protecting net neutrality, protecting abortion access, working towards cures for cancer and Alzheimer's and better research and treatment for autism, implementing a system wage insurance, protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, restoring McCain-Feingold, flipping the Supreme Court majority - if Hillary can do even half of that it will absolutely be worthwhile and meaningful. And presidential candidates historically keep 75% of their promises, so there's plenty to look forward to.
If Republican donors want to be a part of that, be my guest.
tl;dr - just stop
JesseEwiak
Member
Except Hillary isn't running to the right at all - she's just telling them, "hey, you want to make sure the crazy asshole doesn't win, I'm right here, even if you disagree with me a lot, we both believe in the basic structure of the government."
Karsticles
Member
i don't really see the need to attack karsticles. he was just following what y2kev said
I didn't actually Google it, though. It was on the YouTube sidebar from her 2002 Iraq War speech someone linked earlier. I've seen it there a few times since I previously watched a video about confederates supporting Donald Trump, but this was the first time I clicked on it. Imagine my surprise and joy when it has the clip I need! :-O
lol. I'm glad I watched it, because it reminded me of the Bosnia "sniper attack" story she tried to pull a while back. I had forgotten about that!
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I didn't actually Google it, though. It was on the YouTube sidebar from her 2002 Iraq War speech someone linked earlier. I've seen it there a few times since I previously watched a video about confederates supporting Donald Trump, but this was the first time I clicked on it. Imagine my surprise and joy when it has the clip I need! :-O
lol. I'm glad I watched it, because it reminded me of the Bosnia "sniper attack" story she tried to pull a while back. I had forgotten about that!
That's probably the only legit part of the video.
Karsticles
Member
I thought the gay marriage segment seemed legit, as well. The e-mail scandal portion seemed tenuous, but I might feel differently on a second watch I will probably never do.
If I'm wrong on that point, let me know. I haven't paid any attention to her position on gay marriage.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Again I agree with this. Not running to the right? Then staying cozily close in the center regarding legislation of relevance to these donors. The "same structure of government" where you make a killing.
it's not like obama's position on gay marriage didn't have the same trajectory. and if you really want to see how fucking fraudulent the email stuff is, feel free to watch the entire 3h 20m video of her testimony. any video that's putting senator gowdy in a positive light is full of shit
http://www.c-span.org/video/?328699...timony-house-select-committee-benghazi-part-1
Karsticles
Member
I've heard that, as well. I bookmarked the video, because while playing Hearthstone I've found I can do things on the side, and watching a 3h 20m testimony by itself sounds like a miserable experience. Thank you!
LiquidSolid
Member
Uh, no. What do you think the chances are I could search through your post history and find at least one post mocking or insulting the tea party? Or are we only allowed to give Bernie's hardcore supporters a free pass?
Candidates and supporters all deserve to be criticised and/or mocked when it warrants it and the people who continue to level the most bottom of the barrel accusations they can find at Hillary, like the hot sauce, OP and "she's closer to Republicans than she is to Bernie" bullshit, absolutely deserve it. They're embarrassing.
Karsticles
Member
I'm talking about the tendency for people here to mock other posters.
I usually refrain from making generalizations like "X supporters" or "members of X". My time in politics have taught me that individuals are more nuanced than that, and they deserve better. If you can find such a post in my history, it is undoubtedly an error in judgment on my end.
I don't think it's healthy to attack a generalized "Bernie fanatics" phantom. If someone's doing it, talk to them about it. If you want your candidate to win, you do it by working with people, not against them.
eBay Huckster
Member
at this point, i'm wondering if seeing a big bada problem here is dependent on your tendency to see an enemy behind every dollar
from a strategic perspective, this is sound. not only in the sense that these donors have nowhere else to go aside from spending downballot against anyone remotely to the left of susan collins, but in the sense that the dems need all the help they can get to take back both houses of congress, for exactly the reasons you mentioned in that post. we ain't getting single-payer with a 218-217 majority, that's for damn sure.
from a policy perspective, this is not going to meaningfully impact clinton's fulfillment of her campaign promises (particularly since the overwhelming majority of her campaign money will be coming from non-republican donors).
for those two reasons alone, i don't see an issue with this. certain suspects can wax poetic about how this means i'm a typical sellout hillary shill, because apparently, running up the margins so you actually have majorities large enough to implement policy is now worthless. but i'mma just stop paying any attention to them.
Jack The Nipper
Banned
When is the next big event? When will trumps nomination take place? Is that a big deal? Will it be hosted by Romney lol
Hillary Clinton 2016: I won't get us nuked.
Yeah, I could see Hillary appealing to some moderate Republicans on the basis that the American government and the economy will still be in a recognizable state after 4 or 8 years under her watch.
Sanders fanatics who think that Hillary receiving Republican dollars would cause her to shift right are delusional. Republican funds are not secretly laced with a virus that turns all of the money raised from Democratic sources Republican, even if you can demonstrate a causal relationship between fundraising and policy.
Yeah, I could see Hillary appealing to some moderate Republicans on the basis that the American government and the economy will still be in a recognizable state after 4 or 8 years under her watch.
Sanders fanatics who think that Hillary receiving Republican dollars would cause her to shift right are delusional. Republican funds are not secretly laced with a virus that turns all of the money raised from Democratic sources Republican, even if you can demonstrate a causal relationship between fundraising and policy.
Officerrob
Banned
LiquidSolid
Member
There's a big difference between the reasonable Bernie supporters and the fanatics, who continue to cling to bullshit like "Hillary's a Republican", make up conspiracies whenever Bernie loses and desperately try to make everything Hillary (or even her SuperPACs) does into a controversy that proves she's the devil, all while conveniently glossing over that Bernie isn't a saint either. I've wasted enough of my life trying to talk down true believers, there's no point.
Tranqueris
Banned
I'd be really surprised if Bernie had much of anything left after California gets to vote, especially considering the fact that he's been shoveling every dollar he's raised into the incinerator that is his failed presidential campaign. Could also be another reason why he hasn't been raising money for down ticket races. Can't really give to other candidates while you're desperately outspending your opponent at every turn.
Souldriver
Member
It doesn't hurt to try and get money from the broader political spectrum, to court moderates and to keep money away from Trump.
It might come off as "not very principled", but I think everyone with a realistic view on American politics, knows that first you have to play the game by its rules before you can change the rules. And that includes asking money from people you wouldn't, in an ideal world, want to ask money from.
It might come off as "not very principled", but I think everyone with a realistic view on American politics, knows that first you have to play the game by its rules before you can change the rules. And that includes asking money from people you wouldn't, in an ideal world, want to ask money from.
Why would anyone change a rule that they are actively benefiting from? Seems to me like people (aka HILLARY) have to be forced.
She voted for McCain–Feingold Act. Sad!
ultratruman
Banned
My point is that Lyndon Baines Johnson is the most consequential president the US has had since FDR. Cast his legacy in any light you want, but you can't deny Johnson radically transformed the United States with his Great Society agenda and his unprecedented political support for civil rights, gun control, social security and the space program.
I used used the term 'great' in quotations for a reason. Democratic presidents who are not 'realist' isolationists (Carter, Clinton, Obama) but still support a strong liberal agenda at home have tended to make huge impacts on American society (FDR, Truman, LBJ)
That's great. But how do you reconcile her voting record with her actual campaign tactics? Like I said: it seems like you have to force her hand for her to stop.
LiquidSolid
Member
Hasn't it been pointed out a bunch of times that it doesn't actually benefit Democrats because the Republicans have far bigger spenders (like the Koch brothers and their $900 million this year) supporting them?
Even if you don't believe her policies, record or morals (despite the fact that SuperPACs originated from an anti-Hillary smear campaign), surely you can see why self-interest alone would make her hate them.
Souldriver
Member
If you don't rake in as much money as possible, you don't get elected. Play the game to change the game. Her voting records and policy statements make clear that she wants to reform campaign financing, if elected/gets the chance to do so.
AdventureMike
Member
Thought about not quoting the whole thing just to say well done, but everyone needs to read this.
So, seriously, well done.
Easy. Her campaign, democratic superPACS and the DNC need to raise at a minimum 1.5 billion this cycle.
I don't buy that. Just look at Bernie. He didn't get to where he is by campaigning like Hillary. Plus, there is a culture of money in politics. Once one hole gets patched, 10 others will pop up and get exploited. And perpetuating this culture "just to get elected so you can change it" sends the wrong message to everyone else. "She got elected that way. Why can't I?"
Plus, the people she is accepting money from aren't stupid. If they knew that their money would go toward them being blocked from having influence in the future, I doubt that they would be writing those massive checks. Which goes right back to the culture of money in politics.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
Yes, but "where he is" is losing by a large margin.
teruterubozu
Member
Just another day in Washington. And the next day, and the next day, and the next day, etc.
Because he didn't ask mega corporations and banks for money?
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Aaron Strife with the mic drop moment. My GAWD
This absolutely should find itself in any thread where people who call themselves liberal but flame Hillary or otherwise fall for trump traps and oppose her on the misguided belief that she would not be a effective conductor of progress that would be good for all the country and particularly for those without a voice or those who have less opportunity.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Disclaimer:- Im not american, Im just looking at from the outside, slightly concerned and alarmed how much of a shitshow the republican party has become, while still remaining a powerful force iN US Politics
Besides what has been said about this not being officially sanctioned, why the hell wouldnt Hillary supporters do this? Anyone with half a brain can see that a Trump presidency would be disasterous for the entire world.
Course Hillary better represents republician interests better :- Everyone wants someone at least competent in the most powerful position in the world.
Besides what has been said about this not being officially sanctioned, why the hell wouldnt Hillary supporters do this? Anyone with half a brain can see that a Trump presidency would be disasterous for the entire world.
Course Hillary better represents republician interests better :- Everyone wants someone at least competent in the most powerful position in the world.
teruterubozu
Member
Eh, it's not like they haven't heard it a thousand times by this point. Seriously, the political threads have been a broken record for months now. I must be bored as all hell to keep coming back.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I can't think of 10 posts that would be equal to what Aaron Strife just laid out in one fell swoop. It's clear, specific and nothing but sensible, covering all the bases for the nonsense happening with certain liberals right now. If someone can't read that and think, whoa that's really something to think about, then they're a lost cause. (aka TYT)
teruterubozu
Member
I don't know. "aside from shaming Bernie's base" - continues to shame Bernie's base - "Good luck with your twitter revolution." It's been done a thousand times.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Oh, I get it. He's talking about you.
You're right, Sanders didn't get to where he's at by running a campaign like Clinton's. She's followed the rules, he breaks them every month, and if he was actually a viable candidate he likely would see real repercussions for the obvious fraud within his donation system.
Since he isn't viable at this point it'll just be dropped, but it's pretty goddamn crazy when the person who has actually violated FEC rules, admitted to violating FEC rules, continues to violate those same FEC rules, and is outspending his opponent 2:1 in most states is the campaign finance reform/less money in politics "hero".
Most corporate republicans share a similar view to Jaime Dimon, who has publicly stated he would gladly exchange higher taxes on personal wealth in exchange for a more competitive corporate tax system that removes the need for inversions. Clinton will likely be able to get a nice bit of support from those people, especially when you consider Trump's statements on how he'd handle the national debt (which most GOP fund raisers are personally invested in by owning treasury bonds, FYI).
They can clearly see that this isn't even worth being referred to as a lesser of two evils election for them. This is someone who's administration will allow them to continue doing business versus someone who is going to flip over the table and yell at people to clean up the mess he just made. For any sensible person there really isn't a choice, unless you're party/ideology > country.
teruterubozu
Member
oooo. sick Bern. *rollseyes*
You'll get one of idiot A, B and C, that's what encourages the utilitarianism and the 'lesser of evils' philosophy. Not voting isn't saying "I don't support any of these", it's saying "I don't care who wins". Do you care who wins?
RON is not an option.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
I feel pretty good about it.
teruterubozu
Member
me too. let's circle jerk and finish ourselves off
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Clinton is the perfect neocon candidate as all they care about is war, supporting Israel's illegal expansion, regime change of countries who do not comply with US interests, expanding the patriot act and implementing new trade deals to cater for corporate interests.
When will Hillary announce she backs TPP again?
When will Hillary announce she backs TPP again?
Big Baybee
Member
So is Obama a neocon in your mind?
No Obama isnt pro war or pro Israel enough to be a neocon. Hillary pushed for Libya intervention which Obama now regrets. She pushed for Syria intervention while he resisted. She uses Netenyahu talking points regarding Palestine and refused to admit the Gaza attacks were disproportionate .
Obama doesn't regret intervening in Libya. He regrets the UK and France not doing their part after the initial bombing and the failure to follow up.
I've asked this many times before, but at the point where we intervened an army was on its way to Benghazi to murder a city. We knew from the commands given that massive, massive civilian death was going to be the outcome.
What should we have done?
I've asked this many times before, but at the point where we intervened an army was on its way to Benghazi to murder a city. We knew from the commands given that massive, massive civilian death was going to be the outcome.
What should we have done?
hammysaurusrex
Member
If one were being snarky, they could point out that Sanders' ability to spend money like water and not get any results is possibly not the best indication of how successful his presidency would be
Obama said his worst mistake was probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya.
Obama has conceded that the intervention didnt work.
So he regrets not occupying ?
I bet Hillary would have wanted to.
- Status