Hillary tells Koch to F off

[Mast 980]

Well that's new 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 hour ago, brendablethyn said:

The problem for Hillary is that she has really bad judgement. Hardly anyone trusts her and in almost every position in public office she has had there has been a major scandal. She is going to enter the White House as damaged goods. No one knows what she stands for. Why is she running for President and yet refusing to release transcripts for paid speeches from just 3 years ago? She has very little in the name of record or achievements. She is always shifting her positions on issues and then when confronted about it she deflects and avoids answering. I don't even know if she would make it through one term because she will have scandals and her negatives are bad enough, they will not go up unless she achieves something incredible.  

What do you base bad judgement on? I'm interested in your criteria.

Not a term goes by without some scandal, so I'm not sure what you're saying. Even irrelevant things are made into scandals by your enemies. They latch on to one mistake and make it seem so huge. Look at what the GOP tried with Benghazi. It was so tragic watching the hearing

Her reputation isn't as bad you think it is. She is well respected internationally and even her enemies know her strengths. It's why they are so adamant to bring her down. Many Bernie supporters have swallowed years of smearing so readily only because she's their enemy too apparently, when she fulfills many of the same gals as Bernie.

My favorite claim is corruption. It's funny when I ask them to present proof of quid pro quo donations. Even Bernie couldn't.

That is exactly what disgusts me about him. He's using the GOP against her while turning off his supporters from ever supporting her. 

Please go online and search for her achievements. You'll find more than enough. 

Regarding the transcripts, as if that has anything to do with presidency, you said it yourself. They are private speeches done by a private citizen at a private event. What you're asking for is offensive and intrusive, not to mention placing her at a double standard. Even if Bernie didn't make speeches, it doesn't make it right. You want their phone transcripts next?

[PaperIz 7,354]

I don't know if I believe this. I simply distrust hilary 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

8 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

I don't know if I believe this. I simply distrust hilary 

You do know who the Koch brothers are right?

She has never interacted with them and they've spent millions of dollars against her. The only reason they are "warming up" to her now is because they can't control the Republican candidates.

I don't know why you wouldn't trust her, but this particular story should be easy to digest.

[PaperIz 7,354]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

You do know who the Koch brothers are right?

She has never interacted with them and they've spent millions of dollars against her. The only reason they are "warming up" to her now is because they can't control the Republican candidates.

I don't know why you wouldn't trust her, but this particular story should be easy to digest.

I mean she can say she doesn't want their help or whatever but that doesn't mean she won't accept it. But of course she could be telling the truth. I just don't trust her. She hasn't given me a reason to.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, PaperIz said:

I mean she can say she doesn't want their help or whatever but that doesn't mean she won't accept it. But of course she could be telling the truth. I just don't trust her. She hasn't given me a reason to.

What are you looking for when it comes to trust? You can't trust any politician implicitly. All you can do is place your trust in them and hope they do what's in yours and society's best interest.

What has Hillary done that makes you not want to do that? There must be a reason.

[PaperIz 7,354]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

What are you looking for when it comes to trust? You can't trust any politician implicitly. All you can do is place your trust in them and hope they do what's in yours and society's best interest.

What has Hillary done that makes you not want to do that? There must be a reason.

Just the different ways she's changed her stances on like every issue. Like yes people grow and change but that just doesn't seem like what she's done imo. I mean if Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'll vote for her but I won't enjoy it  I used to really like her tbh I just don't like her flip flop ways

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

25 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

Just the different ways she's changed her stances on like every issue. Like yes people grow and change but that just doesn't seem like what she's done imo. I mean if Bernie doesn't get the nomination I'll vote for her but I won't enjoy it  I used to really like her tbh I just don't like her flip flop ways

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm interrogating you, but what issues are you referring to exactly?

-----

Is it same-sex marriage? I hear that a lot. Here's a nice article on Politifact.

To point out the major part:

August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.

That's a 6 year difference between those stances, that are not even that different. She didn't magically flip-flop one night. Even Sanders changed his stance. He simply did it earlier. Could she have done better? Well if she had not been hung up on the word "marriage", she would have supported fully. It's a personal issue many Americans had to work through over a period of time, to the eventual general acceptance you see today.

---

Is it her stances on economy? Sanders did point out that she has "ties to Wall St" but also wants to lower the income gap so this is some sort of flip flop.

Well...the point here is that Clinton wants to lower the gap without infringing too much on the rich people.

To put it briefly, Sanders wants to do it by essentially forcing richer people to cover the costs for lower income people, thereby decreasing the income gap artificially by lowering the wealth of richer people and supporting the poorer people through essentially free stuff.

Clinton on the other hand wants to directly increase pay of low-income jobs by increasing minimum wage, support the middle class by cutting their taxes, and compromise with the wealthy to pay their fair share. She wants to promote the spirit of entrepreneurship. 

You can see they have different approaches. Clearly they interleave, such as Sanders wanting to increase the minimum wage and Clinton wanting to use the wealthy somehow, but still they are functionally different positions.

I favor Hillary's stance. I don't see how it's a flipflop. I'd rather everyone prosper.

----

If you're referring to her stance on the Iraqi war, it wasn't so much a flip flop as a poor decision to put her trust in the president nobody knew was an idiot at the time. She didn't actually approve of a war, but gave the president the authorization, along with the UN's approval, to act if nuclear weapons were found. Bush went along with it anyway without much proof. 

Ultimately she regretted her part and has owned it. How's that flipflopping though?

-----

If you're referring to her position on trade like TPP, it's important to note that she has a set of principles that are easy to spot if you look at her voting patterns. The simple fact is that sometimes information is not sufficient, and one forms opinions based on the current data. After time has passed, one acquires new information and can make new opinions. 

The TPP is one such example.

Many times opinions change, and one can view them as flipflops if one is a pessimist.

Hillary has been in the political sphere for a very long time. As a very liberal progressive, 11th on voting record, with moderate centrist approaches, it can often seen that she flip flops when in fact she's just teetering on the top of the hill and swinging in the direction that seems to be the best path. 

It's not easy being a moderate. People call you a flipflopper on the slightest thing if you aren't 100% on an issue. It's easy for people like Sanders to exist when Hillarys do. He's the rebel that fights the system while she tries to keep the country going. Both are necessary, and neither is bad.

--------

I can keep going but I don't think it's fair to call a change of opinion flipflopping, especially when the timeframes in between the opinions vary are a year or more. A lot can happen in a year. That many of her changes seem to be coincidental with American opinion changes is nothing less than the fact that the USA is evolving as a progressive nation and Hillary is a progressive liberal. Naturally she evolves with them. 

One thing she can do better is be more optimistic though. She has admitted to being reticent about embracing certain viewpoints fully due to her innate pragmatic nature. It doesn't mean she doesn't support  them from the get-go. Just look at the same-sex marriage article and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Bt1 5,213]

If Bernie would have said this, he would be sanctified by this supporters on this forum. Because it is Hillary, this topic has become about something else.

[Kayla 7,595]

28 minutes ago, Florin said:

If Bernie would have said this, he would be sanctified by this supporters on this forum. Because it is Hillary, this topic has become about something else.

Probably because Bernie's integrity regarding not being friends with the 1% he disses every five seconds is tried and true while Hillary's criticism of corporations is questionable. 

I mean, when Gaga talks about Art influencing her we don't bat an eye, but when Katy says she wants to make an artistic album we post surejan.gif because we know what the artists have done before.

And I'm not anti-Hillary- I will happily give her my vote if Bernie doesn't get the Democratic nomination. But when it comes to which of them is undeniably consistent in their expression of disdain for manipulative corporations, Hilldawg doesn't hold a candle to my loud old man. 

EDIT: REGARDLESS - credit needs to be given where it's due. Much like I would say Katy deserves praise if she puts out something great, Hillary also deserves praise when she takes a step in the right direction. Putting Koch on blast (even if just on Twitter) is an applaudable thing to do and I hope the practice of being Pro-PEOPLE not Corporations continues to grow in politics. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

37 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Probably because Bernie's integrity regarding not being friends with the 1% he disses every five seconds is tried and true while Hillary's criticism of corporations is questionable. 

I mean, when Gaga talks about Art influencing her we don't bat an eye, but when Katy says she wants to make an artistic album we post surejan.gif because we know what the artists have done before.

And I'm not anti-Hillary- I will happily give her my vote if Bernie doesn't get the Democratic nomination. But when it comes to which of them is undeniably consistent in their expression of disdain for manipulative corporations, Hilldawg doesn't hold a candle to my loud old man. 

EDIT: REGARDLESS - credit needs to be given where it's due. Much like I would say Katy deserves praise if she puts out something great, Hillary also deserves praise when she takes a step in the right direction. Putting Koch on blast (even if just on Twitter) is an applaudable thing to do and I hope the practice of being Pro-PEOPLE not Corporations continues to grow in politics. 

What you call integrity, I call incapacity for cooperation.

You can criticize someone without making them seem like an evil entity out to get you. Hillary calls for changes but doesn't push anyone aside, because she knows full well that change is best driven by mutual benefit and cooperation.

Why should someone who compromises be held accountable for not being intolerant?

.

[Kayla 7,595]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

What you call integrity, I call incapacity for cooperation.

You can criticize someone without making them seem like an evil entity out to get you. Hillary calls for changes but doesn't push anyone aside.

Why should someone who compromises be held accountable for not being intolerant?

Compromise is fine- Bernie's seemingly lack of ability compromise is one of my biggest criticisms of him. However, Hillary taking donations from big corporations then acting like she'll take 'em down for the people, all while not releasing records of her speeches for them, is suspicious. 

I see Bernie as someone who very much sticks to his principles, even when push comes to shove, while I see Hillary as someone who goes with the sides of herself that are most convenient for her at the time.
You see it as cooperation, I see it as pandering. 

I think Bernie should aim to cooperate more and Hillary should aim to pander less. 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

11 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Compromise is fine- Bernie's seemingly lack of ability compromise is one of my biggest criticisms of him. However, Hillary taking donations from big corporations then acting like she'll take 'em down for the people, all while not releasing records of her speeches for them, is suspicious. 

I see Bernie as someone who very much sticks to his principles, even when push comes to shove, while I see Hillary as someone who goes with the sides of herself that are most convenient for her at the time.
You see it as cooperation, I see it as pandering. 

I think Bernie should aim to cooperate more and Hillary should aim to pander less. 

A moderate will always be considered untrustworthy by purists, because they don't align 100% with their interests while forgetting that other people with different viewpoints need to be considered too where appropriate

Hillary doesn't take donations from corporations directly. If they do, they're from Super PACs which are indirect and of which has no control over. If their employees do send her money, it's because she aligns most with their beliefs.

Why would they support Sanders? Why would she not take their money? Even if she is against many of their points, I'm fairly certain they would prefer to have someone who is amenable to them as opposed to someone who makes them all look like evil boogiemen.

Are you implying that private citizens who own corporations should NOT have the right to donate money to candidates they believe in? Considering that Sanders receives money from such corporations too, this point is unfair to bring up.

In any case there is no proof that any form of donations lead to quid pro quo. None whatsoever in all her years in politics that even Sanders could not bring a single one up when questioned about. So why is this still a talking point that many bring up? It's unfair and ignores the reality. It's just another talking point that Sanders picked up from the GOP and fails to back up with facts, using fear-mongering and spreading distrust against a supposed colleague of the Democratic party.

Why would she release her speeches? They were private speeches done by a private citizen at a private event. This is one such principle that you are willfully ignoring. You are demanding to infringe on her rights as a private citizen in order to make you feel more comfortable. How is that remotely acceptable to any American? At this point she's standing on principle. It's also a double standard.

Just because Sanders doesn't release speeches doesn't mean he gets the right to dictate the rights of the candidates. In fact that very notion of thinking is a breach of integrity. You don't get to pick and choose the criteria.

Why don't we just go ahead and release all phone transcripts of all the candidates hmm? It's functionally the same thing. Why don't we do that to make ourselves all feel more comfortable?  

To his credit, Sanders does not always stick to his principles like you are implying. He voted for funding the wars despite opposing them, because he knew that soldiers were at stake. He bent over and became a Democrat because he knew he could not stand a chance as an independent. Once again, why are you willfully dismissing these? He has outright admitted to using the Democratic party for his own interests. Using the establishment is as establishment as it gets.

I don't know where you think Hillary is pandering differently than her peers, but I don't know what criteria you are using so I can't really refute it. All politicians point out how best they serve demographics in order to get the opportunity to represent them. 

[AJH219 4,448]

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

[Kayla 7,595]

16 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

A moderate will always be considered untrustworthy by purists, because they don't align 100% with their interests while forgetting that other people with different viewpoints need to be considered too where appropriate

Hillary doesn't take donations from corporations directly. If they do, they're from Super PACs which are indirect and of which has no control over. If their employees do send her money, it's because she aligns most with their beliefs.

Why would they support Sanders? Why would she not take their money? Even if she is against many of their points, I'm fairly certain they would prefer to have someone who is amenable to them as opposed to someone who makes them all look like evil boogiemen.

Are you implying that private citizens who own corporations should NOT have the right to donate money to candidates they believe in? Considering that Sanders receives money from such corporations too, this point is unfair to bring up.

In any case there is no proof that any form of donations lead to quid pro quo. None whatsoever in all her years in politics that even Sanders could not bring a single one up when questioned about. So why is this still a talking point that many bring up? It's unfair and ignores the reality. It's just another talking point that Sanders picked up from the GOP and fails to back up with facts, using fear-mongering and spreading distrust against a supposed colleague of the Democratic party.

Why would she release her speeches? They were private speeches done by a private citizen at a private event. This is one such principle that you are willfully ignoring. You are demanding to infringe on her rights as a private citizen in order to make you feel more comfortable. How is that remotely acceptable to any American? At this point she's standing on principle. It's also a double standard.

Just because Sanders doesn't release speeches doesn't mean he gets the right to dictate the rights of the candidates. In fact that very notion of thinking is a breach of integrity. You don't get to pick and choose the criteria.

Why don't we just go ahead and release all phone transcripts of all the candidates hmm? It's functionally the same thing. Why don't we do that to make ourselves all feel more comfortable?  

To his credit, Sanders does not always stick to his principles like you are implying. He voted for funding the wars despite opposing them, because he knew that soldiers were at stake. He bent over and became a Democrat because he knew he could not stand a chance as an independent. Once again, why are you willfully dismissing these? He has outright admitted to using the Democratic party for his own interests. Using the establishment is as establishment as it gets.

I don't know where you think Hillary is pandering differently than her peers, but I don't know what criteria you are using so I can't really refute it. All politicians point out how best they serve demographics in order to get the opportunity to represent them. 

Okay. I'm going to be upfront and honest here - I'm not interested in talking politics today. And this is not me being uninformed or unable to bring up my own points- it's just not how I want to spend my time on the forum. So please excuse me for not being as in-depth and thorough in my responses, and if I don't continue this conversation please don't take it as anything more or less than my mind simply not wanting to commit paragraphs to this specific topic. 

Your part about super pacs I agree with- Hillary shouldn't be at fault for what super pacs people/corporations donate to because those are out of her control and not directly given to her. 

I support publicly funded elections instead, though, not ones where the finances of your supporters can greatly sway your success. Owners of big business should be allowed to donate, but the problem with how things go nowadays is that businesses are having too much of a say in laws that impact the people. And too often laws are passed in favor of business, not humans. 

Regarding her speeches, it's not that I think she has to release them- they were private, afterall- but when she gives speeches that make those big businesses want to hop on her team, it is suspicious. I mean, she gave a speech to Goldman Sachs and that's the company that took the government bailout and then shipped jobs overseas. She doesn't have to release speeches, but to be buddy-buddy with that kind of business is a red flag to me. 

And you're trying to point out some kind of hypocrisy, like I wouldn't want Bernie to be transparent too? I actually would prefer it if there was more transparency in these elections.
I also want to clarify that my Pro-Bernie isn't the same as being Anti-Hillary, and I am not Anti-Hillary, no matter how Pro-Bernie I may be. 

The examples of Bernie not sticking to his principles you gave are one regarding his votes to fund wars and him calling himself a "Democrat" when he's really an "Independent." And I wouldn't say that's using the establishment, that's realizing that when it comes to voting our country seems to think only "Democrat" and "Republican" matter, and truthfully even if he deep down is an "Independent," the man has acted like a Democrat throughout his career more than any other side anyways.
Honestly, Hillary strikes me as more of an "Independent" than Bernie has ever been throughout his career. 

Regarding him voting to fund the war, please consider context. Here are the circumstances under which he voted "Yes" to anything regarding wars:
The first time Sanders voted ‘yea’ to an Iraq war spending bill came in 2006 when the bill included funding for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
The second time he voted ‘yea’ was when an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home.
The third time he voted ‘yea’ was when the legislation incorporated a massive expansion of G.I. Bill benefits that Sanders co-sponsored and the Bush administration opposed guaranteeing full scholarships to veterans, including activated National Guard troops and reservists, with three years of service attending any public, in-state university and expanded benefits for students at private colleges and for graduate schools.
The last time he voted ‘yea’ was when he gave his consent, along with the entire U.S. Senate, to fund the Iraq war’s end as President Barack Obama removed all U.S. troops from the country.

Now to me, that's an example of being able to compromise, is it not? He voted against the wars and opposed them, but was willing to vote in favor of certain aspects in order to protect people. That shows he's willing to cooperate more than your previous post implied.