Hillary tells Koch to F off

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

29 minutes ago, AJH219 said:

Why would she say such hateful words to one of my favorite things  

Lmao

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

12 minutes ago, Kayla said:

*snip*

Wonderful post. I enjoy discussing things about various topics so pardon me if I seem a little too invested. Programming has a lot of downtime  

The main issue I had is the notion of Sanders being a man of unwavering principles when in fact he has compromised in the past. The thing is, there is a difference between compromising on your own principles to justify your own stances, on compromising on your principles to justify others. Sanders does OK on the former, but falls flat on the latter. I'm not trying to discredit the guy. I was a big fan of his and would have supported him had Hillary not run. His recent shenanigans have disappointed me a lot though.

In any case this is about Hillary so I'll return to that and keep it simple.

Hillary is not in favor of using corporation money and plans to modify the process through actions like overturning Citizens United. Still, as long as it exists there is no point in not using it when Republicans are abusing it. One can call this hypocrisy, but this no different than Sanders running as a Democrat when he is an Independent. You use the system for your own gains and change it later when you can. Otherwise you put yourself at a disadvantage you just can't risk. It's pragmatism plain and simple.

Your comment on Hillary being independent is out of place. She has served the Democratic party for decades.

Regarding Goldman Sachs, remember that speeches are not endorsements. Hillary is a very public figure as a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, etc... She's a major icon of the Democratic party. She's known worldwide and internationally. People pay for her to show up at events and give speeches and are willing to pay a lot for it much like they do for athletes, stars, and celebrities. Who knows what the speech is about. The point is that we don't know what it was about so asking about it is more indicative of our own biases as opposed to hers.

Even if you don't reply as you implied you would, I enjoyed our little discussion. See you around  

 

[Kayla 7,595]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Wonderful post. I enjoy discussing things about various topics so pardon me if I seem a little too invested. Programming has a lot of downtime  

The main issue I had is the notion of Sanders being a man of unwavering principles when in fact he has compromised in the past. The thing is, there is a difference between compromising on your own principles to justify your own stances, on compromising on your principles to justify others. Sanders does OK on the former, but falls flat on the latter. I'm not trying to discredit the guy. I was a big fan of his and would have supported him had Hillary not run. His recent shenanigans have disappointed me a lot though.

In any case this is about Hillary so I'll return to that and keep it simple.

Hillary is not in favor of using corporation money and plans to modify the process through actions like overturning Citizens United. Still, as long as it exists there is no point in not using it when Republicans are abusing it. One can call this hypocrisy, but this no different than Sanders running as a Democrat when he is an Independent. You use the system for your own gains and change it later when you can. Otherwise you put yourself at a disadvantage you just can't risk. It's pragmatism plain and simple.

Your comment on Hillary being independent is out of place. She has served the Democratic party for decades.

Regarding Goldman Sachs, remember that speeches are not endorsements. Hillary is a very public figure as a First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, etc... People pay for her to show up at events and give speeches and are willing to pay a lot for it much like they do for athletes, stars, and celebrities. Who knows what the speech is about. The point is that we don't know what it was about so asking about it is more indicative of our own biases as opposed to hers.

 

 

Good points. I see what you mean about compromise to support yourself vs. compromise to support others, and I agree Bernie doesn't do the latter. Whether or not it's a problem I struggle with, though - perhaps there are certain things that should not be compromised? For example, should Bernie have compromised and Voted "Yes" to those war votes mentioned in the previous posts if they didn't have the things he was in favor of? I don't think so. 

And you are right that they both use the broken and unfair system to their advantage. It sucks that they almost have to be a part of the machine to take it down.

I know Hillary has been a Democrat- what I mean is that when it comes to her voting record she looks more like an Independent than Bernie ever did. If you put the labels aside and just look at their history, Bernie has politically acted like a Liberal Democrat and Hillary has come off more like an Independent because she does incorporate aspects from both sides. 
(Maybe the labels are like sexual orientations. Bernie claims to be Bisexual but has only ever had Straight relationships, while Hillary claims to be Straight but has had some pretty obvious experiences with the opposite sex )

EDIT: If I had more likes I would have liked your last post and +1 for your Amy Lee avatar. <3 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Good points. I see what you mean about compromise to support yourself vs. compromise to support others, and I agree Bernie doesn't do the latter. Whether or not it's a problem I struggle with, though - perhaps there are certain things that should not be compromised? For example, should Bernie have compromised and Voted "Yes" to those war votes mentioned in the previous posts if they didn't have the things he was in favor of? I don't think so. 

And you are right that they both use the broken and unfair system to their advantage. It sucks that they almost have to be a part of the machine to take it down.

I know Hillary has been a Democrat- what I mean is that when it comes to her voting record she looks more like an Independent than Bernie ever did. If you put the labels aside and just look at their history, Bernie has politically acted like a Liberal Democrat and Hillary has come off more like an Independent because she does incorporate aspects from both sides. 
(Maybe the labels are like sexual orientations. Bernie claims to be Bisexual but has only ever had Straight relationships, while Hillary claims to be Straight but has had some pretty obvious experiences with the opposite sex )

LOL @ the last bit.

Well both of them compromise where they feel is necessary. Hillary's decisions have simply been more in the spotlight for various reasons, from her being in media forever to the GOPs persistence in messing with her.

You should know that Hillary was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate during her tenure, judging by her voting record. 

Here's a nice little article I just found that seems to try to be objective... I think

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/