2016 Election Thread (My God Kill Me Now)

[Schlich]

I'm with her! Because she's gonna be tough on Wall Street. Er, what?
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/06/hil ... ll-street/

Say what you will of this and similar stories, but Jilani's investigative journalism through this cycle has been crazy thorough.

I don't care the article was posted, but I find it a bit ironic you trashed an opinion from a piece national paper I posted on here because it was too biased from the right, but articles from Jilani who's twitter is basically filled with pro bernie/anti clinton postings passes the purity test. The NRA article had to be updated because he incorrectly attributed a lobbyist for still working for the gun lobby. Not exactly crazy through.

Im not going to say im not partisan, but youre really grasping at straws here. I didnt disregard your article because it was too biased, i disregarded it because it was garbage and thought it was hilarious after the fact that it was koch propoganda. But really, its apples and oranges here.

[Michael]

Washington (CNN)Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that Hillary Clinton was not "qualified" to be president, an escalation in rhetoric between the two Democratic presidential candidates.

"She has been saying lately that I am 'not qualified' to be president. Well let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is through her super PAC taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds," he told a crowd in Philadelphia.
Sanders added that Clinton was similarly unqualified because of her positions on the Iraq War and trade agreements.

Link


Well this is escalating quickly.


I don't think Clinton has ever said he wasn't qualified to be president?

[MrSaigon]

Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?

She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.

I'm not sure she's the "poster child", but I don't really disagree with anything you said. Clinton plays by a traditional political playbook.

Between her and her husband that playbook is dog eared and semen stained. If it's author doesn't have a pocketful of that secret wall Street speech money and can get out of the handcuffs pinning him to o the Clinton's basement radiator, he should sue.

[MrSaigon]

If what Bernie said equals either sexism or smears, I'll give him that much rope. If she hasn't said those exact words, it's not a stretch for him to say that.

[Michael]

Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?

She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.

I'm not sure she's the "poster child", but I don't really disagree with anything you said. Clinton plays by a traditional political playbook.

Between her and her husband that playbook is dog eared and semen stained. If it's author doesn't have a pocketful of that secret wall Street speech money and can get out of the handcuffs pinning him to o the Clinton's basement radiator, he should sue.

Until the "qualified" talk I just posted the rhetoric back and forth has been pretty tame on both sides. Sanders ideals are admirable, but he's a politician and not completely pure either. His positions on guns are due making him more electable in Vermont. He had a lame states rights argument for gay marriage. His rhetoric towards Clinton isn't always 100% fair.

[ghostrunner]

snip

She's referencing this question:

Sanders was asked by the Daily News whether family members of the Sandy Hook victims should be allowed to sue gun manufacturers, and he responded, "No, I don't."
"But I do believe that gun manufacturers and gun dealers should be able to be sued when they should know that guns are going into the hands of the wrong people," Sanders added.

That said, it's a lame connection and she shouldn't go there. It was also lame Sanders said Clinton should apologize to the victims of the Iraq War. I hope the democratic side stays above this type of stuff.

Also, it was a former gun lobbyist and not a party with the gun lobby.

Just for a second assume Hillary had Benghazi and the emails to work with from Bernie. I think she'd be beyond happy to talk about the 'damn emails.' And somehow questioning Hillary's WS ties (you know the millions she has personally and the well beaten path from Clinton Inc. to some hedge fund or another) is smearing?

She's in this game, not above it. She is a poster child for the game: sensational, always a victim, you're talking points become mine, it's only ok when I do it, champion of the issues as electability prudence dictates.

I'm not sure she's the "poster child", but I don't really disagree with anything you said. Clinton is an insider who plays traditional political rulebooks.

Seems like at least on the Democrat side this is what determines whether you're okay with her or not. I actually think the email is a serious issue, and Sanders was stupid for letting that slide. Her Iraq vote is fair game, as is her general hawkishness. John Kerry, in her old job, has taken her to school retroactively as far as I'm concerned. I don't find her to be an appealing person, and I do recall after supporting Obama in 2008 that I found her demeanor wholly unpleasant. She's not the least bit interested in change. She's interested (and I do believe she's interested) in getting things done in the framework that exists. She's practical to a fault - practical to the extent that she was dismissive of Obama and even his vague promises at change, and she's dismissive of Sanders and his big ideas. It probably keeps her from even considering some ideas until they're obviously feasible. That's all off-putting.

But the relentless focus on lobbying and the equating of same to corruption is what I don't get, and that seems to be the note that Sanders and his more vocal supporters like to hit the most. That NRA story is just stupid. The lobbyist hosting the fundraiser used to represent the NRA. He used to because they used to pay him. They don't now and he likely doesn't give two [expletive] about the NRA, and he's not carrying some lingering policy-influencing taint because he used to have them as a client. Focusing on that when she's been solidly against the NRA, and when she's gone further verbally than Sanders during the election? I don't get it.

Speculation on my part I suppose, but I think the way she sees it she's playing the game the way it's been played for 30+ years. It's the way her husband played it, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, and even Obama in 2008. Same oil money, same kind of lobbyists. Expensive per-plate dinners, raising money for themselves, the DNC, and down-ballot candidates. It's a system that's been worked out and worked on for decades. The person she opposed in 2008 took full advantage of it and was widely admired. Now Sanders comes along, and suddenly there's a different standard that she's never going to be able to meet. I don't blame her for being taken aback and frustrated by it.

Just speaking for myself, unless there's some sort of smoking gun where you can tie lobby money to a specific decision where she reversed herself, I really find it hard to get upset about it. I don't think accepting lobby money means you're beholden to someone, and I think that's an oversimplification of how it works. I find the whole lobby industry gross, but it's worth mentioning that in addition to having oil lobby money, Clinton and the DNC take a [expletive] of money from environmental groups, women's groups, and unions. Securities and Investment is the top industry giving to her, but it was the 4th largest industry that donated to Obama in 2008. Sanders isn't taking their money. Good for him. I'm voting for him in the primary. But I do think he ought to be focusing on the problems with the system as a whole, and cut out the thinly veiled accusations. Pin her down on Iraq, emails, her work as secretary, even the Clinton foundation donations while she was in office.

[MrSaigon]

What are Clinton's ideals? I honestly don't know. Everything she says is undermined by her history and both personal and campaign bank accounts. I personally don't think Bernie is right for POTUS. But give me someone who is working for what he believes in and not to get to office.

Does Hillary deserve more credit than that? Yes. Much? No.

[Michael]

I do think it's funny Hillary voted for the McCain–Feingold Act, which banned “soft money” contributions. Then there was an anti-Clinton movie call Hillary: The Movie, which led to Citizens United v. FEC that basically overturned McCain–Feingold and led to the super pac mess we're in right now.

IT ALL COMES BACK TO CLINTON

[jim]

Bernie is a jerk. What a jerk. Jerk off.

[Michael]

Bernie is a jerk. What a jerk. Jerk off.

I stupidly didn't see it at first, but any notion that the 74 year old guy who's chosen to be an independent nearly his entire political life not choosing to actually care about whats going to happen to the party that he joined solely for the money and exposure when he loses isn't exactly surprising.

There isn't going to be anything close to "uniting the party" like Hillary did for Obama in 08. It appears Sanders is going to pick up his ball and go home.