2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton is against Citizens United
Begs the question:
If the current claim is that getting millions of dollars from special interests, in the form of speech payments and donations and other dark money does not, can not, will not, influence her policy decisions, does not for anyone she associates with, then why is she against Citizens United?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)organizations, etc. They contribute to her as well. The banks, are contributed to all candidates with a chance to win, and a lot more will go to GOPers as we approach general election.
She has clearly stated she's against Citizens United, but as long as GOPers are filling their war chests, she's smart to do the same to beat them in November.
Banks and investment firms alone have made her a millionaire. Unions and environmental groups barely registered on her radar.
I love how naive this line is:
"She has clearly stated she's against Citizens United, but as long as GOPers are filling their war chests, she's smart to do the same to beat them in November."
As a good friend to an alcoholic, I have listened to this type of reasoning for years. "It's just for right now, I'll stop...eventually."
You do realize that Sanders has out raised everyone but HRC's large money donors, from the very beginning without any SuperPACs or millionaire parties or dark money, right?
Sanders has 3 times the number of donations and has broke every quarterly fund raising record on the books. Just saying.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I understand what Sanders is yelling at the sky about and what his supporters want. i just don't think that will get us there. Sorry.
I am sure unlimited corporate cash and playing both sides will get us there.
When you are always giving into republican demands, it's no longer compromise, it's capitulation.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)When the great progressive health care system is a Republican system from the 1980's?
When Obama would be considered a redneck in European countries?
When The USA was about the last western country on earth to legalize marriage equality?
When the military budget is more than 1/2 of the total budget?
When tax increases for those making over $200K is considered a non-starter, by the Democrats?
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)randr
(12,412 posts)is well paid for.
kaleckim
(651 posts)and all the other politicians are just humans. The banks are blood sucking machines, but just seem bent on throwing money away on her, since their bribes don't work.
Quick response to you Clinton supporters, cause I know what is coming. There are some instances, say the bankruptcy bill, where you could make a strong case for outright bribery. However, bribery and corruption are not the same thing. Corruption is her and her husband taking money from corporate and financial interests, then pushing for policies that benefit those groups. That is the entirety of their careers, and that is corruption. Don't confuse outright bribery with corruption, she is corrupt and it is impossible to argue otherwise. We can debate whether or not there have been instances of outright bribery.
IamMab
(1,359 posts)On the bright side, being stabbed in the back by your progressive allies is a lesson that only has to be learned once. Then you know better than to try to help them ever again.
angrychair
(8,699 posts)Please be more clear. Thanks!
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)kaleckim
(651 posts)"maybe A comprehension course can help those who don't understand simple..." where were you going with this? Simple equations, simple poems, simple hillbilly wedding songs? Let me know, your nugget of wisdom needs a conclusion. I won't be able to sleep tonight without it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)My neice.
kaleckim
(651 posts)then you aren't a progressive ally of mine. Progressives are against corruption, and you are backing a candidate that rose up with Walmart money, someone along with her husband that has gotten three BILLION from corporate interests since entering politics, someone whose top donors over the course of her career are banks and other corporate interests, and someone that has been meeting with corporate lobbyists since she entered the race. No progressive would back that.
Same with her hawkish foreign policy, her center-right record on economic issues (not only her record, but her instrumental role in pulling her party to the right in decades past) and her tendency to change positions on the issues as a means to gain more power. You come back and continue this conversation if she gets the nomination. I am betting that she will "pivot towards the center" (which is to the right of popular opinion on the issues, sorry but times have changed) before you have a chance to get a coffee. Some in her campaign have already said that this will be their strategy if Trump is the nominee. Then you will stop pretending that she is a progressive and the conversation will shift to us idealistic hippies that are ideological purists (never mind that we largely take these positions largely in response to the failure of the policies she has supported, not for ideological reasons), or that we are Republicans plants. Seen this movie before.
Answer this though, what makes Hillary Clinton progressive? Can you prove to anyone here that working people, the poor, our infrastructure, or the environment have gotten progressively better with people like her in power? Is there evidence of this?
Response to kaleckim (Reply #8)
Post removed
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)She's lying, like she always does.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, mutter, "just stop it" when they offer to invest more.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)And you expect a couple lines of flowery text about how she's against Citizens United to be true? Look at how much she's made by exploiting it!
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)She's trying to have it both ways, and it doesn't fly.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)she has no love for the group and is looking forward to taking them down.
She has said that money in politics is a problem and is will to not only look for SCOTUS to overturn it, but look for Constitutional remedies.
The reality is that money is needed to fight RW. The RW benefit much more from CU, than any Democrat. Although given the GOP field this year, I wonder if that is still true lol.
Creating and everyone playing on a level playing field is the bottom line....and getting rid of CU will accomplish that.
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)I'll let you do the research, it might be a nice lesson.
madamesilverspurs
(15,805 posts)Thanks!
Zira
(1,054 posts)I call that a pathological liar.
redwitch
(14,944 posts)Including him but that's ok because, well, because.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Indeed, the Clinton argument actually goes well beyond the Courts conservatives: In Citizens United, the right-wing justices merely denied the corrupting effect of independent expenditures (i.e., ones not coordinated with the campaign). But Clinton supporters in 2016 are denying the corrupting effect of direct campaign donations by large banks and corporations and, even worse, huge speaking fees paid to an individual politician shortly before and after that person holds massive political power.
Another critical aspect of the right-wing majority argument in Citizens United was that actual corruption requires proof of a quid pro quo arrangement: meaning that the politician is paid to vote a certain way (which is, basically, bribery). Prior precedent, said the Citizens United majority, was limited to quid pro quo corruption, quoting a prior case as holding that the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.
Does that sound familiar? It should. That, too, has become a core Clinton-supporting argument: Look, if you cant prove that Hillary changed her vote in exchange for Goldman Sachs speaking fees or JPMorgan Chase donations (and just by the way, Elizabeth Warren " target="_blank">believes she can prove that), then you cant prove that these donations are corrupting. After all, argue Clinton supporters (echoing the Citizens United majority), the hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors.
Conversely, the once-beloved Citizens United dissent from the Courts liberals, written by Justice Stevens, was emphatic in its key claim: that there are many other forms of corruption brought about by corporate campaign expenditures beyond such quid pro quo i.e., bribery transactions. Their argument was that large amounts of corporate cash are almost inevitably corrupting, and certainly undermine trust in the political system, because of the many different ways (well beyond overt quid pro quos) that corporations convert their expenditures into undue influence and access:
Full article: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/to-protect-hillary-clinton-democrats-wage-war-on-their-own-core-citizens-united-argument/
tabasco
(22,974 posts)just like zero politicians in the history of Earth.
azmom
(5,208 posts)if that means selling us out, that's fine. Republicans are sell outs too.
Who would you prefer to sell you out?
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rights organizations, women's groups, MOMs against guns, etc. I think she'll make sure those groups happy. Goldman Sachs, etc., will give much more to GOPers.
angrychair
(8,699 posts)She takes millions of dollars from banks and investment firms and so on: motivation is pure white as new snow.
Republican takes Koch money or money from banks or investment banks and firms: evil, dark money we need out of our political system. Down with Citizens United!
Double standards. It's either bad or it's not.
KPN
(15,646 posts)"AFTER SHE WINS THE ELECTION."