'16 Democratic Nomination Thread

[Hornsby]

Not angry and definitely not young.

But congratulations on becoming the new Kohm, it suits you.

Bob's a smart guy, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Hodor]

Bob's a smart guy, I'll take that as a compliment.

That he is. Among many adjectives.

[Bob Kohm]

That he is. Among many adjectives.

Charming?

[Lucky]

Which is good seeing as how she already owes so much to so many....



The farce is strong in this one.

Here's what kills me. I've read many Bernie supporters postulate that Hillary will be beholden to this group or that group because they have given her $500,000 or a million dollars, or ten million dollars or thirty million dollars. Here's the thing. She's going to spend a few hundred million on this campaign. Is that about right? In the grand scheme of things, how big a deal is ten million or even thirty million dollars? Because if she loses, 1) screw you, I'm not the President. If, however, she wins, 2) screw you, I'm the President.

This isn't a made for TV movie. People don't give her money because they think they can call her and get her to bomb Fredonia, or get her to veto a certain piece of legislation. They give her money because they believe her policies will be more favorable to them than the other guy's policies. Or maybe they just don't want to piss her off. But nobody with half a brain believes that people at this leve can be "bought off". A house member from Oklahoma? Maybe. Not a President.

[mjl]

This isn't a made for TV movie. People don't give her money because they think they can call her and get her to bomb Fredonia, or get her to veto a certain piece of legislation. They give her money because they believe her policies will be more favorable to them than the other guy's policies. Or maybe they just don't want to piss her off. But nobody with half a brain believes that people at this leve can be "bought off". A house member from Oklahoma? Maybe. Not a President.

well... I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't think the goal of donating $10m is to buy her off, it's just to make her feel a little friendlier to your company, so when your CEO sees her at a fundraiser and mentions how dumb these anti-fracking laws are, maybe in the back of her mind she thinks "well, this is a smart guy and he doesn't like it, maybe he knows what he's talking about".

also note The Best "Democracy" Money Can Buy: For Every Dollar Spent Influencing US Politics, Corporations Get $760 Back

[Hodor]

Here's what kills me. I've read many Bernie supporters postulate that Hillary will be beholden to this group or that group because they have given her $500,000 or a million dollars, or ten million dollars or thirty million dollars. Here's the thing. She's going to spend a few hundred million on this campaign. Is that about right? In the grand scheme of things, how big a deal is ten million or even thirty million dollars? Because if she loses, 1) screw you, I'm not the President. If, however, she wins, 2) screw you, I'm the President.

This isn't a made for TV movie. People don't give her money because they think they can call her and get her to bomb Fredonia, or get her to veto a certain piece of legislation. They give her money because they believe her policies will be more favorable to them than the other guy's policies. Or maybe they just don't want to piss her off. But nobody with half a brain believes that people at this leve can be "bought off". A house member from Oklahoma? Maybe. Not a President.

Here's what kills me, smart people like yourself thinking that she's above reproach or that the office somehow precludes the holder from indiscretions.

Elizabeth Warren has already shown that Hillary has indeed changed her position after a large donation. She's also shown that she is less than transparent on several occasions.

Politics themselves are rife with questionable ethics and the Clinton's are right there with some of the worst.

I really hope I'm wrong, but to use a line aimed at Sanders supporters, you have to be naive to believe that money doesn't weight as a factor when push comes to shove

[The Feral Slasher]

Here's what kills me. I've read many Bernie supporters postulate that Hillary will be beholden to this group or that group because they have given her $500,000 or a million dollars, or ten million dollars or thirty million dollars. Here's the thing. She's going to spend a few hundred million on this campaign. Is that about right? In the grand scheme of things, how big a deal is ten million or even thirty million dollars? Because if she loses, 1) screw you, I'm not the President. If, however, she wins, 2) screw you, I'm the President.

This isn't a made for TV movie. People don't give her money because they think they can call her and get her to bomb Fredonia, or get her to veto a certain piece of legislation. They give her money because they believe her policies will be more favorable to them than the other guy's policies. Or maybe they just don't want to piss her off. But nobody with half a brain believes that people at this leve can be "bought off". A house member from Oklahoma? Maybe. Not a President.

So if I understand you correctly you are asserting that Hillary Clinton is not influenced by money ? And it just kills you that people think she is ? Do I have that right ?

[Lucky]

So if I understand you correctly you are asserting that Hillary Clinton is not influenced by money ? And it just kills you that people think she is ? Do I have that right ?

I'm saying that people assume that a President can be bought, whatever that means, without having any factual basis to underlie that assumption. I'm saying there are more reasons to support an assumption that a President cannot be bought.

[Lucky]

Here's what kills me, smart people like yourself thinking that she's above reproach or that the office somehow precludes the holder from indiscretions.

Elizabeth Warren has already shown that Hillary has indeed changed her position after a large donation. She's also shown that she is less than transparent on several occasions.

Politics themselves are rife with questionable ethics and the Clinton's are right there with some of the worst.

I really hope I'm wrong, but to use a line aimed at Sanders supporters, you have to be naive to believe that money doesn't weight as a factor when push comes to shove

Typical Hodor post. Half-truths, innuendo, but mostly irrelevancies.

Nobody said anyone is above reproach or free from indiscretion. That's not what the post was about.

Next, I missed the Elizabeth Warren expose, but I'll look for it. The trick must be how campaign contributions impacted decisions when Hillary left State in 2013, quite some time before the campaign kicked off.

Everyone whines about HRC's ethics, nobody talks about specifics. Vince Foster, maybe? Filegate? Some other nothingburger?

If you believe, as everyone else seems to, that the Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, then no, I don't think money would weigh in a decision when push came to shove. I think not losing their money might. But since you mention it, and since Bernie claims to be one of the poorer members of Congress, I would worry about that a lot more with him taking a little taste here and there. People with no money are a lot more likely to do bad things to get money, aren't they? Or is that just an assumption?

[chancellor]

Heh, a zerohedge article submitted by "Tyler Durden".

That Sunlight Foundation article (upon which Mr. Durden's post is founded) is interesting, though I feel a little skeptical about their methodology.

Durden is usually an interesting free-lance writer. I didn't know he was writing for zerohedge, though, but it kinda fits his work.

[Mithrandir]

But doesn't money, and the 1% who have that money, control pretty much every important decision made by the President? and Congress? Or is that to conspiratorial?

[Hodor]

Typical Hodor post. Half-truths, innuendo, but mostly irrelevancies.

Nobody said anyone is above reproach or free from indiscretion. That's not what the post was about.

Next, I missed the Elizabeth Warren expose, but I'll look for it. The trick must be how campaign contributions impacted decisions when Hillary left State in 2013, quite some time before the campaign kicked off.

Everyone whines about HRC's ethics, nobody talks about specifics. Vince Foster, maybe? Filegate? Some other nothingburger?

If you believe, as everyone else seems to, that the Clintons are worth hundreds of millions, then no, I don't think money would weigh in a decision when push came to shove. I think not losing their money might. But since you mention it, and since Bernie claims to be one of the poorer members of Congress, I would worry about that a lot more with him taking a little taste here and there. People with no money are a lot more likely to do bad things to get money, aren't they? Or is that just an assumption?

I'd read up on things before I continue to disparage my posts.

Irrelevant? Half truths? Innuendo?

Why not take the time to find out if I'm right or wrong before being dickishly dismissive?



Fwiw, Sanders ethics have never been questioned nor has there been any evidence to support beliefs to the contrary.

Clinton on the other hand has been questionable since she was first lady of Arkansas. But again, do some research yourself.

And yes, they are worth hundreds of millions, look it up rather than being again, dismissive.

[Lucky]

I'd read up on things before I continue to disparage my posts.

Irrelevant? Half truths? Innuendo?

Why not take the time to find out if I'm right or wrong before being dickishly dismissive?



Fwiw, Sanders ethics have never been questioned nor has there been any evidence to support beliefs to the contrary.

Clinton on the other hand has been questionable since she was first lady of Arkansas. But again, do some research yourself.

And yes, they are worth hundreds of millions, look it up rather than being again, dismissive.

I took the time to find out before I responded to the post. I've been keeping up with this for the 25 years the right wing has been trying to pin things on Hillary, from Vince Foster's death to involvement in Watergate. It wasn't the Bernie campaign that discovered all these baseless rumors and allegations, although Bernie's supporters have been happy to continue to spread them.

What your last post does is to show that you don't have any specifics because there are none. You can say "Benghazi!", but multiple Congressional investigations have found zip. You can say "emails!", but after all this time the FBI has not announced anything. Being fairly familiar with the laws in question, I would be very surprised if they conclude a criminal violation has occurred. I could be wrong, but the mental state necessary to constitute a crime is very difficult to prove. Compare this with conservative pundits who have no more facts than I do who are absolutely certain that she will be convicted.

But, let's say that several of my friends and I question your ethics. Does that make your ethics questionable? Because a bunch of Hillary haters question her ethics, does that make her ethics questionable? And, for sake of argument, what if her ethics are "questionable"? In the world you and I want to live in, does that mean she is unethical?

As for the Clintons, they aren't worth hundreds of millions as you and many others seem to think. Together they are worth somewhere between $100 Million and $110 Million. But you could look it up. Lot of money, but not hundreds of millions. So, don't be dickishly wrong.

It is easy to demonize people who stand between you and something you want...in this case between you and having your candidate elected. But I have seen the Clintons, up close, work to make a State better by improving education, fighting the timber industry, fighting industrial pollution, lowering electricity rates, improving health care for the poor, fighting for battered spouses, and through other valuable programs. I've watched them from afar doing what they could in Washington to accomplish the goals of the Democratic Party. I know they are not the evil trolls the GOP has made them out to be in the propaganda programs over the last two decades, especially the woman-hating hysteria of the far-right.

Sanders supporters think Clinton is corrupt because she knows how the sausage is made.

[Mithrandir]

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

Here's the problem:

"Clinton, who has repeatedly promised that as president she will crack down on “outrageous tax havens and loopholes that super-rich people across the world are exploiting in Panama and elsewhere”, collected more than $16m in public speaking fees and book royalties in 2014 through the doors of 1209, according to the Clintons’ tax return."

Hahahahaha yeah we can trust these people!!

[Mithrandir]

I'm reluctant to address Mithrandir, but what exactly is that supposed to prove? That since her family makes lots of money she shouldn't address tax reform at all? Or that she is somehow corrupt? That she is holding her assets in foreign banks to avoid domestic taxes, like those implicated in the Panama Papers? This is exactly the kind of chatter to which I was referring.

You just don't yet it do you?

Wow. No wonder the super rich run roughshod.

Just wow.

So shouldn't she stop exploiting the loopholes??? Talk the talk but don't walk the walk..smh...