Support NeoGAF

[A Human Becoming]

Pretty much the exact opposite for me. All Sanders did was pander with promises that will never be fulfilled.

That 9/11 mention was real pandering. The difference between Clinton and Sanders is Bernie has big goals that require big effort while Hillary has modest goals that will take more than modest effort. It will take more than moderate effort because Clinton isn't calling on a change to the system or asking people to step up their effort. With Republican obstruction and legalized bribery even modest goals are difficult.

I'm not going to pick a winner, but I feel Hillary was last. I thought she won the first debate.

 

[VendettaRed07]

About midway through watching it. Hillary randomly bringing up 9/11 reminded me of Family Guy.

I think what she was trying to say was that she has so many donaters from wallstreet because she was the senator from New York and that people from wallstreet were inspired by her helping to rebuild the city and not simply because they expect her to bend over for them or something.

Regardless if that was the intention and it came out wrong or not it was a terrible answer and that tweet being posted on stage like that was absolutely hillarious

 

[Wall]

None of the candidates are going to be able work with the Republicans in Congress to get their proposals passed. Republicans don't have any incentive to work with Democratic presidents because the voters in the gerrymandered rural districts they come from simply would vote them out.

I'm sad to hear that Hillary chose to shit on Sander's health care proposal with Republican talking points about massive bureaucracies, especially with single payer on the ballot in Colorado. I can't say I am surprised though.

So far, everything is going exactly as I expected.

 

[East Lake]

There's a difference between saying people should vote and arguing that a political revolution that you're not responsible for will accomplish all your goals. Of course people should vote, that's a great ideal to strive for, but it's not a campaign slogan or a selling point for a candidate, it goes without saying. Anyone could accomplish things if they have a revolution backing them, but revolutions don't come just because you say they will. It can help rile up support in a general election, but it's fleeting (see Obama).

If you're talking about this exchange:





It was a testy response but I thought my bracket sentence made it obvious I wasn't speaking literally.


To the broader point:

Yeah I don't really buy it. It seems to me you're basically framing a defeatist view as pragmatism. And that complaint could be just as easily leveled at Hillary for any number of her goes without saying comments. It's nice to want things, might as well give up!

Obama's support is fleeting because he underperformed, and not all of that is due to republicans.

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

I finished watching it. Overall, I'd give a tie to Sanders and O'Malley, with Clinton in third.

 

[JustenP88]

Well, how does he implement all of his programs and reforms?

He'll have to go through the same process any other Democratic president would.

 

[Piecake]

He'll have to go through the same process any other Democratic president would.

That's an impressive non-answer worthy of a politician.

 

[CloudyTuba]

Is there a good short summary of this posted anywhere? I accidentally missed the whole thing tonight. Wondering how they did.

 

[Wall]

That's an impressive non-answer worthy of a politician.

Hillary won't do any better. You watch.

Edit: Also, the reason single payer didn't work in Vermont is because Vermont is too small. With single payer, the larger the polity, the better it works. That is why Medicare works. I mean, seriously, Canada has a Medicare like system providing health insurance for everyone. It works better than our system. Hillary shitting on that pisses me off. I'll still vote for her if she is the nominee in the general, but it pisses me off.

 

[Piecake]

Yeah I don't really buy it. It seems to me you're basically framing a defeatist view as pragmatism. And that complaint could be just as easily leveled at Hillary for any number of her goes without saying comments. It's nice to want things, might as well give up!

Obama's support is fleeting because he underperformed, and not all of that is due to republicans.

I'd put more faith in Bernie's revolution if he was actually leading in the polls. If he can't even do that against another democrat, I don't know how anyone can think that he is going to lead and sustain a political revolution during his presidential election and subsequent mid-term elections.

Its nice to dream big, but most people are going to want to see some evidence that it actually has a slim chance of happening before they buy Bernie's claims.

Hillary won't do any better. You watch.

Edit: Also, the reason single payer didn't work in Vermont is because Vermont is too small. With single payer, the larger the polity, the better it works. That is why Medicare works. I mean, seriously, Canada has a Medicare like system providing health insurance for everyone. It works better than our system. Hillary shitting on that pisses me off. I'll still vote for her if she is the nominee in the general, but it pisses me off.

Wouldnt surprise me. I do think she has a better shot of getting things done though, because like others have said, she is a politician to the bone.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

I think what she was trying to say was that she has so many donaters from wallstreet because she was the senator from New York and that people from wallstreet were inspired by her helping to rebuild the city and not simply because they expect her to bend over for them or something.

Regardless if that was the intention and it came out wrong or not it was a terrible answer and that tweet being posted on stage like that was absolutely hillarious

Surely no one believes her explanation though.

 

[JustenP88]

That's an impressive non-answer worthy of a politician.

... It's the truth?

Not many ways to answer a non-question.

 

[Wall]

Yeah, people shit on Bernie because he says it will take a political revolution to get things done, but he is just telling the truth. The right wing in this country is able to dominate the House, state governments, and do well in the Senate because it is well funded and organized. Democrats just seem focused on personalities. All I hear in this primary are "Bernie supporters" this, and "Hillary supporters" that. Conservatives don't support candidates (unless Reagan); they support causes. By doing that, 20-30 percent of the population is able to exert a disproportionate influence on policy. Until the left organizes in this country in the way conservatives have, no Democratic candidate will get anything accomplished.

I'll vote for Hillary in the general, but adopting conservative talking points just makes me have to hold my nose even harder.

 

[davepoobond]

Why is it a bigger problem?

Politicians representing their base is the biggest problem, because the base of the republican and democratic party are just so far a part from each other that compromise is unlikely. What is worse is that the the base of the republican party has a hard on for ideological purity and not compromising with the enemy (democrats). That is the reason why we have deadlock and is the reason why nothing gets done, because we elect people who can't get anything done due to our electoral system.

I've already acknowledged that gerrymandering is a contributing problem due to the creation of safe districts that has just exacerbated the problem greatly, but even if we made those districts more competitive, the nominating process of those districts will still be in the hands of the base, and the politician will be either far more right or far more left than the actual residents, and will feel compelled to appeal to his base.

Granted, in competitive districts he will have to worry about the general election a lot more, but I have already admitted that safe districts caused by gerrymandering is big problem. I will also note that there are a number of districts that there is no way to make competitive. And the only way to make them competitive is to have some sort of top 2 or ranked voting system.

the basis of your argument is ridiculous. you are saying the problem in a representative democracy is that the people who are elected are chosen by the people to represent them

you may as well be saying the problem is people are voting


gerrymandering is the real problem because it is manipulating that vote. the voters are supposed to be a check and balance on the system, and its being rigged through gerrymandering and corrupt campaign finance

 

[exmachina64]

the basis of your argument is ridiculous. you are saying the problem in a representative democracy is that the people who are elected are chosen by the people to represent them

you may as well be saying the problem is people are voting

There is truth in that statement in that politicians in the U.S. effectively create their own districts in much of the country and if a subset of elected officials refuses to govern or compromise (which is built into our political system), then the system starts to destabilize.

While allowing people to choose their representatives is a fundamental aspect of our democracy, it's not disingenuous to say that certain choices by voters can be damaging to that system in and of itself.

Edit: Typed as you were editing.

 

[GavinGT]

What do the candidates do during commercial breaks? Do they just stand silently at their podiums and study their notes? Do they chit-chat with one another?

 

[Josh7289]

What do the candidates do during commercial breaks? Do they just stand silently at their podiums and study their notes? Do they chit-chat with one another?

Now I want to know this too.

 

[exmachina64]

What do the candidates do during commercial breaks? Do they just stand silently at their podiums and study their notes? Do they chit-chat with one another?

At the Republican debates, they chat with each other. I don't know about the two most recent debates, but at the CNN debate, someone on GAF mentioned the Republican candidates were quite amicable with each other.

 

[Wall]

Gerrymandering is a problem, but so is geography. Conservatives are able to mobilize a dedicate minority of voters in rural areas to vote in every fucking election from dogcatcher to the Presidency, which allows them to dominate in state governments and the House. The only way to defeat that is through grassroots organization. Like it or not, the grassroots are interested in policies like Single payer, publicly funded college, and in general a more aggressive stance on economic issues. Shitting on that undercuts all of those efforts. If the most prominent politician in the Democratic party shits on those efforts, then Democrats are going to experience grave difficulties in the future.

 

[exmachina64]

Gerrymandering is a problem, but so is geography. Conservatives are able to mobilize a dedicate minority of voters in rural areas to vote in every fucking election from dogcatcher to the Presidency, which allows them to dominate in state governments and the House. The only way to defeat that is through grassroots organization. Like it or not, the grassroots is interested in policies like Single payer, publicly funded college, and in general a more aggressive stance on economic issues. Shitting on that undercuts all of those efforts. If the most prominent politician in the Democratic party shits on those efforts, then Democrats are going to experience grave difficulties in the future.

Chicken and the egg scenario.

Democrats can hold the Senate and presidency on those issues, but how long would it take to build a system to rival the system which allows Republicans to dominate governorships, state legislatures and the House?

Generally, losing elections is indicative of a lack of popularity, at least in a certain region, rather than candidates need to continue running on these policies.

 

[davepoobond]

Republicans already have a 50+ year headstart and getting people to turn out for their elections. the combination of holding power through gerrymandering and creating laws to prevent people they don't want to vote to vote through legislative/executive means, its just a big shit can.

 

[Piecake]

the basis of your argument is ridiculous. you are saying the problem in a representative democracy is that the people who are elected are chosen by the people to represent them

you may as well be saying the problem is people are voting


gerrymandering is the real problem because it is manipulating that vote. the voters are supposed to be a check and balance on the system, and its being rigged through gerrymandering and corrupt campaign finance

I am not saying that at all. You are completely misunderstanding my argument. The problem with our system right now is that the dedicated base, a tiny portion of the electorate, and the most radical and obstinate portion of the electorate are choosing the candidates who go onto the general election. The people then get to pick between two candidates who were chosen by a small portion of the electorate.

Me having a problem with that system means that I am not in favor of representative democracy? Disliking that our representatives cater to the wants and desires of their small base due to our electoral system makes me against representative democracy. That is ridiculous.

What I want is to enact electoral reform so that our representatives better represent the people. Top 2 and ranked voting are reforms that will do that. If you don't know what these things are, then look them up, since I am starting to think that you do not know much about electoral reform measures and the reasons for them.

 

[Wall]

Chicken and the egg scenario.

Democrats can hold the Senate and presidency on those issues, but how long would it take to build a system to rival the system which allows Republicans to dominate governorships, state legislatures and the House?

Generally, losing elections is indicative of a lack of popularity, at least in a certain region, rather than candidates need to continue running on these policies.

It will take a long time, but there is not an alternative. Right now, turnouts of between 50 and 60 percent of the electorate are considered high. That only occurs in Presidential elections. Turnouts for midterms in a places like Kentucky are 20-40 percent of potential voters. As a result, winning elections is more about a party turning out its base, rather than appealing to a mythical "moderate" voter.

I am not saying that at all. You are completely misunderstanding my argument. The problem with our system right now is that the dedicated base, a tiny portion of the electorate, and the most radical and obstinate portion of the electorate are choosing the candidates who go onto the general election. The people then get to pick between two candidates who were chosen by a small portion of the electorate.

Me having a problem with that system means that I am not in favor of representative democracy? Disliking that our representatives cater to the wants and desires of their small base due to our electoral system makes me against representative democracy. That is ridiculous.

What I want is to enact electoral reform so that our representatives better represent the people. Top 2 and ranked voting are reforms that will do that. If you don't know what these things are, then look them up, since I am starting to think that you do not know much about electoral reform measures and the reasons for them.

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: The "moderate" voter doesn't exist, at least in significant numbers. Pollsters will look at someone who is anti-gun control and pro-marijuana legalization or someone who is against cutting Medicare but anti-immigration and call them a moderate. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[Square2015]

Democrats supporting Hillary is a mistake it's just asking for more gridlock for another 4 or 8 years. The GOP and Tea Party were elected basically to obstruct anything Obama or Hillary does. Someone without any of that baggage and history, like Bernie, OMalley is a completely different story, they do not have the history of being feared by the Right. I think Bernie would get along better with this congress even tho he's a socialist, the history of fear/hate is just not there. They too have concern about the shrinking middle class, even if it were from a democratic socialist, they would be open to his ideas as long as their constituents didn't object.

 

[Hazmat]

Democrats supporting Hillary is a mistake it's just asking for more gridlock for another 4 or 8 years. The GOP and Tea Party were elected basically to obstruct anything Obama or Hillary does. Someone without any of that baggage and history, like Bernie, OMalley is a completely different story, they do not have the history of being feared by the Right. I think Bernie would get along better with this congress even tho he's a socialist, the history of fear/hate is just not there and that makes all the difference with the Right (I would know I've been part of the Right, I understand how they think).

The only reason the Republicans don't have a frothing hatred of Sanders is because they don't have to yet. If he were able to secure the nomination they'd go after him every bit as hard as Clinton. They aren't going to work with anybody, and someone being ideologically further from them isn't going to make them like him more.

 

[davepoobond]

I am not saying that at all. You are completely misunderstanding my argument. The problem with our system right now is that the dedicated base, a tiny portion of the electorate, and the most radical and obstinate portion of the electorate are choosing the candidates who go onto the general election. The people then get to pick between two candidates who were chosen by a small portion of the electorate.

Me having a problem with that system means that I am not in favor of representative democracy? Disliking that our representatives cater to the wants and desires of their small base due to our electoral system makes me against representative democracy. That is ridiculous.

What I want is to enact electoral reform so that our representatives better represent the people. Top 2 and ranked voting are reforms that will do that. If you don't know what these things are, then look them up, since I am starting to think that you do not know much about electoral reform measures and the reasons for them.

why dont you just say you want compulsory voting? you're running around in circles trying to explain what it is and what problem it solves.

out of 2 replies you think i dont know anything about electoral reform? idk how you get to that conclusion so easily.

 

[Condom]

The only reason the Republicans don't have a frothing hatred of Sanders is because they don't have to yet. If he were able to secure the nomination they'd go after him every bit as hard as Clinton. They aren't going to work with anybody, and someone being ideologically further from them isn't going to make them like him more.

Bernie isn't new, he worked together with notable politicians from both parties. The notion that Hilary is better for negotiating is because that's all she has going for her.

 

[Foffy]

Hillary's 9/11 spin was perhaps her most disgusting attempt at being Neo from the Matrix.

Her deflection at being an oligarch is getting old, too.

 

[Piecake]

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: The "moderate" voter doesn't exist, at least in significant numbers. Pollsters will look at someone who is anti-gun control and pro-marijuana legalization or someone who is against cutting Medicare but anti-immigration and call them a moderate. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Another person commenting on electoral reform that doesnt understand it. Fantastic. I'll give you an example of how Top 2 works. Instead of a district pitting a democrat who has no chance in a rural district or a Republican who has no chance in an urban district, the top two candidates will go onto the general election, meaning that a safe district will have two republicans or two candidates fighting it out in the general election.

In this situation, the candidates have a strong incentive to appeal to moderates and the people of the opposite party to capture their votes. One of the candidates will most assuredly do this to differentiate him or herself from the other candidate, and the moderate and other party voters will vote for that person because while they likely disagree with him or her on a lot of issues, it is a lot better for them to be represented by that person, and not the crazy Freedom Caucus candidate.

These reforms incentivize candidates to move to the middle to capture votes, which is quite different than our current system which encourages candidates to move to the fringe. And it still encourages candidates to move to the middle even if that 'middle' doesnt exist.

 

[Hazmat]

Bernie isn't new, he worked together with notable politicians from both parties. The notion that Hilary is better for negotiating is because that's all she has going for her.

He's new on the national scene. The tea party Republicans in congress and the people that support them and their outright hostility to the President didn't know who he was six months ago and if he loses the nomination they won't care again in another six months.

You really think that this Republican House is going to work with a self-avowed socialist? I'm not saying that Clinton will fare any better, but let's not kid ourselves.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

I'm fucking baffled by Hillary's 9/11 comment. Very, very stupid.

 

[Piecake]

why dont you just say you want compulsory voting? you're running around in circles trying to explain what it is and what problem it solves.

out of 2 replies you think i dont know anything about electoral reform? idk how you get to that conclusion so easily.

I would be fine with it so long as people had the option to choose a 'I don't want to vote for anyone' option. But that really doesnt solve the problem of politicians being dependent on their small base rather than the general electorate nearly as much as other electoral reform measures.

And I think you not understanding electoral reform measures is a pretty easy conclusion to make when you claim that I am against representative democracy for supporting them.

 

[Cronox]

What are the big issues that effect every day life?

You must be truly blessed if nothing that happens politically ever changes your life.

This is too large a question for me to spend an hour or more typing a very long response to. Suffice it to say that in politics the small issues often get the most attention, while big issues get vague answers and promises. "We need to do something about climate change." "Drugs cost too much, we should change that." "We need to bring more/create more jobs!" (which isn't very forward thinking, but I said my bit on that in the Panera thread a couple days ago).

Instead we waste time talking about national security (your chances of getting killed by a terrorist on US soil are akin to winning the lottery), gun control (outlawing assault rifles changes nothing, the US gun culture makes taking guns away from the populace unfeasible), the morality of abortion (rates of abortion generally stay the same whether there is safe access or not), what drugs should be illegal (read about what's being done elsewhere and it's an easy answer), etc. People are passionate about these issues. But they aren't the "big issues."

In regards to what's changed my life, besides the ACA I can't think of anything a president has done since I entered into US politics as a voter in the 2004 election that has effected me positively. But even the negative effects were negligible.

 

[Foffy]

I'm fucking baffled by Hillary's 9/11 comment. Very, very stupid.

Cut it out Wall Street!

Seriously, it's like even if it's remotely implied she's an oligarch and has friends with the elite - the elite who are part of the problem in this country, at least - she looks for the first quick emotional response imaginable.

It only makes it more obvious that they're her friends, and she's going to be doing many favors for them. One favor is already one too many.

By responding with vapid attempts of reason, she only exposes the venom in her blood.

 

[Wall]

Another person commenting on electoral reform that doesnt understand it. Fantastic. I'll give you an example of how Top 2 works. Instead of a district pitting a democrat who has no chance in a rural district or a Republican who has no chance in an urban district, the top two candidates will go onto the general election, meaning that a safe district will have two republicans or two candidates fighting it out in the general election.

In this situation, the candidates have a strong incentive to appeal to moderates and the people of the opposite party to capture their votes. One of the candidates will most assuredly do this to differentiate him or herself from the other candidate, and the moderate and other party voters will vote for that person because while they likely disagree with him or her on a lot of issues, it is a lot better for them to be represented by that person, and not the crazy Freedom Caucus candidate.

These reforms incentivize candidates to move to the middle to capture votes, which is quite different than our current system which encourages candidates to move to the fringe. And it still encourages candidates to move to the middle even if that 'middle' doesnt exist.

You aren't hearing what I am saying. You seem to think that there is this vast pool of "moderate" voters out there that candidates aren't appealing to. I am telling you those voters don't exist in significant numbers. They just don't.

Most people in this country don't follow politics closely, let alone vote in every election. The reason most people don't vote regularly anymore is 1) they aren't organized to do so and 2) they don't perceive any benefit to themselves from voting. As a result, the population of regular voters is made up of people who are motivated by a particular issue such as abortion, gun control, school prayer, climate change, or civil rights. Those are just examples; there are many others. Peoples' opinions on those issues generally fall into dichotomous categories; there are not any moderates on the issue of abortion.

Magically reforming the electoral system is not going to change that. And really, it probably shouldn't. I mean, climate change is either happening or it isn't. A stimulus is either big enough or not big enough. The opposite of wrong isn't half right.

 

[zero shift]

I can't help but feel that O'Malley was the real winner in all of this. He went from being random background noise to actually having a voice to build a platform on.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It was actually asked of Sanders in the debate and I wasn't sure if he actually responded, but what exactly do people expect Clinton will do for her rent-seeking donor base of employees from JP Morgan (and Corning and University of California and the DISH network and Google) with her Executive Branch powers? Veto regulatory bills?

 

[Inuhanyou]

It was actually asked of Sanders in the debate and I wasn't sure if he actually responded, but what exactly do people expect Clinton will do for her rent-seeking donor base of employees from JP Morgan (and Corning and University of California and the DISH network and Google) with her Executive Branch powers? Veto regulatory bills?

Status quo. Obama basically. Pretend your doing things when your actually not.

(Like pretending your fighting for a healthcare bill and go back to your Health insurance industry donor friends and tell them they will get tons more people into their private pool with a mandate to do so)

Support and craft shit like TPP in the background which directly gives far more power to those same entities that the establishment is bed with, distract people with scary talk and ramp up war efforts, business as usual.

Its a far cry from Bernie's actual big goals and aspirations that want to fundamentally change this country for the better, regardless of how much critics want to cry about "well he cant do anything anyway cause GOP!"

Hillary doesn't give a shit about changing anything or fundamentally fixing issues however slow to begin with, she wants status quo and slow regression and that's what they want her to be like.

Just because she's not the GOP's immediate regression don't make her any better to me.

 

[JustenP88]

He's new on the national scene. The tea party Republicans in congress and the people that support them and their outright hostility to the President didn't know who he was six months ago and if he loses the nomination they won't care again in another six months.

You really think that this Republican House is going to work with a self-avowed socialist? I'm not saying that Clinton will fare any better, but let's not kid ourselves.

The Senate isn't the "national scene"? You don't have to be a fanatic follower of politics to have known of senator Sanders long before his campaign began.

 

[Piecake]

You aren't hearing what I am saying. You seem to think that there is this vast pool of "moderate" voters out there that candidates aren't appealing to. I am telling you those voters don't exist in significant numbers. They just don't.

Most people in this country don't follow politics closely, let alone vote in every election. The reason most people don't vote regularly anymore is 1) they aren't organized to do so and 2) they don't perceive any benefit to themselves from voting. As a result, the population of regular voters is made up of people who are motivated by a particular issue such as abortion, gun control, school prayer, climate change, or civil rights. Those are just examples; there are many others. Peoples' opinions on those issues generally fall into dichotomous categories; there are not any moderates on the issue of abortion.

Magically reforming the electoral system is not going to change that. And really, it probably shouldn't. I mean, climate change is either happening or it isn't. A stimulus is either big enough or not big enough. The opposite of wrong isn't half right.

I hear what you are saying, but you clearly are not understanding how top 2 works. Like I said previously, it doesnt even fucking matter if no 'moderate' voter exists because top 2 gives the candidates an incentive to appeal to the 30-40% of the democrats (rural)/republicans(urban) that exist in the district to get elected. He/she will do this by moderating him/herself by adopting positions or portraying him/herself as the lesser of two evils. And even if it only results in standard republican instead of a Freedom Caucuas nutjob, then that is a win in my book.

 

[i_am_ben]

It was actually asked of Sanders in the debate and I wasn't sure if he actually responded, but what exactly do people expect Clinton will do for her rent-seeking donor base of employees from JP Morgan (and Corning and University of California and the DISH network and Google) with her Executive Branch powers? Veto regulatory bills?

It's more what she won't do I think.

 

[Hazmat]

The Senate isn't the "national scene"? You don't have to be a fanatic fan of politics to have known of senator Sanders long before his campaign began.

Without looking can you tell me the senators from North Dakota? Do you think that most people can? How many people in a hundred have heard of Hillary Clinton? How many a year ago had heard of Bernie Sanders?

 

[B-Dubs]

The Senate isn't the "national scene"? You don't have to be a fanatic fan of politics to have known of senator Sanders long before his campaign began.

Not every Senator is a national figure. Just because they make decisions that affect the nation does not mean they're all well known.

 

[JustenP88]

Without looking can you tell me the senators from North Dakota? Do you think that most people can? How many people in a hundred have heard of Hillary Clinton? How many a year ago had heard of Bernie Sanders?

Not every Senator is a national figure. Just because they make decisions that affect the nation does not mean they're all well known.

I thought the whole "nobody knew who he was" was in response to him working with Republicans in the past? You think they had some sort of anonymous "gloryhole" type system in the Senate? You think the Republicans thought he was a janitor or something?

In terms of working across the aisle, Clinton's name-recognition isn't doing her any favors. I wouldn't expect Bernie's past success with getting stuff done would continue unchanged, but it's not like he just emerged from a cave in Vermont a few months ago. He's been there, he's done that, this argument is tired.

 

[Wall]

It was actually asked of Sanders in the debate and I wasn't sure if he actually responded, but what exactly do people expect Clinton will do for her rent-seeking donor base of employees from JP Morgan (and Corning and University of California and the DISH network and Google) with her Executive Branch powers? Veto regulatory bills?

Personally, I take criticisms of Clinton's donors as part of broader indictment of the influence of money on the political system and the Democratic party in particular.

Speaking particularly about the Clintons: In the 90's, the Clintons - I will speak of Bill and Hillary as a team because they presented themselves as co-presidents to the public and realistically both had a hand in building their rather unique political empire - were instrumental both in pioneering new ways to fund-raise for the Democratic party and in moving the party to the right on a number of issues. One of those issues was the deregulation of a number of industries, finance included. Its difficult not to make the connection.

Looking at Hillary's campaign today, it is difficult for me not to come to the conclusion that she is carefully staking out positions just to the right of the leftmost candidate in the Democratic primary, rather than adopting positions for their own sake. That pattern continues when it comes to the issue of reforming the financial system. I would, more fear than argue, that the influence of Hillary's donors is already reflected in the positions she is taking in the primary.

Really, my views on this topic aren't focused just on the Clintons. If you look at politics in the Western world, particularly in Britain and the U.S., you will see the rise of a certain type of politician during the 90's. That type of politician sold themselves as a "Third Way" between the, then discredited, post-war leftism in Britain and the U.S. and the reactionary conservatism of Reagan and Thatcher. Those politicians tended to reflexively move to the right on a number of issues, and they tended to be very friendly towards industries such as finance and technology.

Personally, I don't much care about what Hillary would or wouldn't do with regards to Wall Street. The fact that Republicans will still control the House means that there will not be any regulatory bills reaching her desk for her to veto. When it comes to people she might nominate to the SEC, Elizabeth Warren and progressives in the Senate will still exist, after all

Still, I wonder what will become of policies like Net Neutrality. I also don't appreciate the attacks on reforms like Single Payer.

 

[Inuhanyou]

My issue, is that even when all of this shit is made abundantly clear to supporters of Clinton, they just go on as if they didn't hear and put their hands in their ears.

"well i don't care if she's bought and paid for or if she won't do anything, or if she doesn't actually represent interests in line with actually fixing this country's fundamental issues, she's Hillary Clinton and she's been in the news than anyone else, so i'm gonna vote for her regardless of any type of fact or debate brought up by anyone"

This kind of thing is why Bernie Sanders supporters criticize Hillary more than anyone else in the race.

She literally gets a free pass from a large portion of the electorate with literally no consideration, regardless of her actual excessive backround in Corporate or anything having to do with her actual interests or viewpoints, because she's Hillary.

And if you really want to claim yourself to be someone who actually cares about policy or common sense, that aint right.

 

[Condom]

My issue, is that even when all of this shit is made abundantly clear to supporters of Clinton, they just go on as if they didn't hear and put their hands in their ears.

"well i don't care if she's bought and paid for or if she won't do anything, or if she doesn't actually represent interests in line with actually fixing this country's fundamental issues, she's Hillary Clinton and she's been in the news than anyone else, so i'm gonna vote for her regardless of any type of fact or debate brought up by anyone"

This kind of thing is why Bernie Sanders supporters criticize Hillary more than anyone else in the race.

She literally gets a free pass from a large portion of the electorate with literally no consideration, regardless of her actual backround or anything having to do with her actual interests or viewpoints, because she's Hillary.

And if you really want to claim yourself to be someone who actually cares about policy or common sense, that aint right.

Incremental change man, you just don't understand the effort it takes. I'm sure the working families will forgive her for everything if they get their $15 minimum wage in 2040.

 

[Hazmat]

I thought the whole "nobody knew who he was" was in response to him working with Republicans in the past? You think they had some sort of anonymous "gloryhole" type system in the Senate? You think the Republicans thought he was a janitor or something?

In terms of working across the aisle, Clinton's name-recognition isn't doing her any favors. I wouldn't expect Bernie's past success with getting stuff done would continue unchanged, but it's not like he just emerged from a cave in Vermont a few months ago. He's been there, he's done that, this argument is tired.

I'm saying that the reason why there isn't a relentless hatred of the man on the right is because he wasn't nationally hated, as Obama and Clinton clearly are. If he wins the primary that is all going to change, and he'll be the new devil, but instead of being a "socialist" he'll be a socialist by his own admission.

Do you think all of congress, the senate, and the right hated Obama the second he was elected to the senate? The reactions that people have change with time, and the idea that the right won't start vehemently hating Sanders if he wins is childish and naive.

 

[Foffy]

Incremental change man, you just don't understand the effort it takes. I'm sure the working families will forgive her for everything if they get their $15 minimum wage in 2040.

I know you were being playful, but I'm sure more people just won't have even have jobs by 2040.

But knowing America, we actually might ignore that and focus on wages in that scenario.

 

[Cronox]

It was actually asked of Sanders in the debate and I wasn't sure if he actually responded, but what exactly do people expect Clinton will do for her rent-seeking donor base of employees from JP Morgan (and Corning and University of California and the DISH network and Google) with her Executive Branch powers? Veto regulatory bills?

I would expect her to do what anyone would do when they have a conflict of interest. Subtly avoid hurting donors too much (they're not bad guys, people don't know...), and reward them when you can (They've always been good to me, they should have the ___ contract), while mentally telling themselves they're being fair or paying it forward.

All of us have at one point or another had a conflict of interest -no matter how small- and either leaned into it with no remorse or rationalized our actions. Even if you resisted it, you had to put in mental effort to keep your judgment under control. This is how humans work. There's a correlation between campaign donations and rewards for those companies down the line. Why wouldn't there be? Corporations don't invest millions for nothing.

But we all know this. Sanders couldn't outright say it, there are a number of possible reasons why. But he came pretty close.