Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is there an "official" list of positions anywhere? Genuine question....can't find one. All the various lists tend to contradict one another. Funny thing is, there's a lot of populist sorts of concepts in all those lists. That can't make you feel good Tim.

Her website is devoid of the most typical menu item on every politician's website, a list of positions. Hillary thinks it is completely unnecessary to explain her positions, that in itself is an objectionable position.

 

[squistion]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton

Good thing I'm not a progressive then. And from many of your previous posts I'm guessing you're not either. But I'm sure they appreciate you looking after their best interests.

Hilarious. Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel. Only a conservative could point to reasons progressives shouldn't vote for Hillary without coming up with one of his own.

It is hilarious...you both took the stinky bait.

Sometimes it is hard to tell what is legitimate from you and what is stinky bait from all the dumb things you post.

 

[tom22406]

Is there an "official" list of positions anywhere? Genuine question....can't find one. All the various lists tend to contradict one another. Funny thing is, there's a lot of populist sorts of concepts in all those lists. That can't make you feel good Tim.

I have used this in the past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

 

[squistion]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

Oh, yes, I forgot that the Founding Fathers thought that corporations were people and entitled to the same rights.

 

[The Commish]

Is there an "official" list of positions anywhere? Genuine question....can't find one. All the various lists tend to contradict one another. Funny thing is, there's a lot of populist sorts of concepts in all those lists. That can't make you feel good Tim.

I have used this in the past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

Yeah...was there for some time reading. It's interesting to read the votes in conjunction with what was going on in politics at the time. However, one thing's clear, because she stood for/against something 10 minutes ago doesn't mean she holds the same position right now. That's why I was asking for an updated list, but it seems to be more of the same...SSDD.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

Oh, yes, I forgot that the Founding Fathers thought that corporations were people and entitled to the same rights.

I would love to discuss in a separate thread to not crowd things, but yeah if Tom Paine formed a company to publish pamphlets we can be sure that the FF would not have said that was suppressable.

ETA - what should be outlawed, and is as of right now. is coordination of campaigns with corporations and non-person entities like Super-PACs and 501c's, to issue campaign advertising. Hillary herself is currently violating that in spades with her Brock Super-PAC and Media Matters. She is absolutely FOS on this issue.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

That bogus story was already posted in the other thread, where it belongs.

how is it bogus?

Because there's no quid pro quo. Because Hillary Clinton gains no personal benefit from contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Because that Foundation has done extraordinary work in Africa and the third world, and anyone who contributes to it ought to be praised.

What about speaking fees to her husband?

During her Senate confirmation proceedings in 2009, Hillary Clinton declared that she and her husband were “committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State.” She pledged “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the duties of the Secretary of State” and said that “in many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict.”

Even so, Bill Clinton took in speaking fees reaching $625,000 at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.

 

[squistion]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

Oh, yes, I forgot that the Founding Fathers thought that corporations were people and entitled to the same rights.

I would love to discuss in a separate thread to not crowd things, but yeah if Tom Paine formed a company to publish pamphlets we can be sure that the FF would not have said that was suppressable.

Um, no:

http://aattp.org/9-founding-fathers-quotes-that-will-make-conservatives-heads-explode/

10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives Heads Explode

The Founding Fathers on regulating corporations.

1. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.

2. "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson.

3. "The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

James Madison

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

Oh, yes, I forgot that the Founding Fathers thought that corporations were people and entitled to the same rights.

I would love to discuss in a separate thread to not crowd things, but yeah if Tom Paine formed a company to publish pamphlets we can be sure that the FF would not have said that was suppressable.

Um, no:

http://aattp.org/9-founding-fathers-quotes-that-will-make-conservatives-heads-explode/

10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives Heads Explode

The Founding Fathers on regulating corporations.

1. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.

2. "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Thomas Jefferson.

3. "The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

James Madison

Ok, Tim asked for an objectionable position, I provided one. I don't want to hijack this thread with this discussion. - In my ETA above I noted that what should be outlawed, and is as of right now, is coordination of campaigns with corporations and non-person entities like Super-PACs and 501c's, to issue campaign advertising by proxy. Hillary herself is currently violating that in spades with her Brock Super-PAC and Media Matters. She is absolutely FOS on this issue.

But this is a value judgement, I disagree with Hillary on this particular issue. - I do believe that you would not want to suppress speech unfairly or wrongly. - Hillary however I think is of another mindset IMO.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

 

[tom22406]

My reason for not voting for her is she is a corporate Democrat,is somewhat more hawkish than President Barack Obama on foreign-policy issues and has a pretty weak civil liberties record.

 

[The Commish]

In before the "um....no she's not" rebuttals.

 

[timschochet]

My reason for not voting for her is she is a corporate Democrat,is somewhat more hawkish than President Barack Obama on foreign-policy issues and has a pretty weak civil liberties record.

OK see that's a legit critique. So is Saints' opposition to her on Citizens United (though his phrasing is. a little dramatic for me.) I would like you to explain though, how in terms of specific policy, a corporate Democrat differs from a non corporate Democrat. Is it simply a matter of supporting free trade?

 

[The Commish]

My reason for not voting for her is she is a corporate Democrat,is somewhat more hawkish than President Barack Obama on foreign-policy issues and has a pretty weak civil liberties record.

OK see that's a legit critique. So is Saints' opposition to her on Citizens United (though his phrasing is. a little dramatic for me.)I would like you to explain though, how in terms of specific policy, a corporate Democrat differs from a non corporate Democrat. Is it simply a matter of supporting free trade?

So you acknowledge the argument as "legit" but you need to understand his argument?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary is now at a net unfavorable, per the HuffPo Pollster summary of multiple polls.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

New poll out, from Quinnipiac:

- Hillary at net negative -2 favorability (45/47 unfavorable).

- That number is -12 unfavorable with Indies.

American voters say 53 - 39 percent that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy

That's a net -14 negative on trustworthy.

For Indies that number is a staggering net negative -30.

Voters are divided 48 - 47 percent over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems.

Really, that's a tough one for any pol.

but say 60 - 37 percent that she has strong leadership qualities...

Hillary continues to do really well here. It's just possible that Americans want "strong" over "trust" these days.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2228

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us05282015_U32trdf.pdf

My guess? She gets plays this "strong" strength up somehow.

 

[Boston]

Hillary's political positions are like her accent...it changes depending on who she is talking to...she is a liberal who puts her own well-being above her ideals/beliefs... she will do or say anything to further her ambitions (both political and financial) and the scary part is there are people out there who can't see thru this fraud...

 

[spreagle]

SCOTUS essentially amended the 1st Amendment with Citizens United. An amendment overturning that wrong court decision, is not amending the 1st Amendment, it is returning it to what it was before.

An amendment of the 1st would open the door for regulation of speech by corporations and individuals using corporations. If an Iowan wanted to print a pamphlet or create a website using an LLC to oppose say a Ted Cruz that would potentially be bannable. I can't imagine you really want that kind of thing, but Hillary, I believe, does.

Oh, yes, I forgot that the Founding Fathers thought that corporations were people and entitled to the same rights.

I would love to discuss in a separate thread to not crowd things, but yeah if Tom Paine formed a company to publish pamphlets we can be sure that the FF would not have said that was suppressable.

Um, no:http://aattp.org/9-founding-fathers-quotes-that-will-make-conservatives-heads-explode/10 Founding Fathers Quotes That Will Make Conservatives Heads ExplodeThe Founding Fathers on regulating corporations.1. "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson, 1802 letter to Secretary of State Albert Gallatin.2. "I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson.3. "The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison

"1" is your stock "end the Fed" quote, this is right in line with many conservatives, "2" says "monied corporations", dunno that is, it looks like a banking term and another "end the Fed" type of quote, which is fine. "3" might be anti-monopoly quote, which is once again fine with most conservatives.

 

[squistion]

Hillary's political positions are like her accent...it changes depending on who she is talking to...she is a liberal who puts her own well-being above her ideals/beliefs... she will do or say anything to further her ambitions (both political and financial) and the scary part is there are people out there who can't see thru this fraud...

Fraud? What fraud?

 

[Hang 10]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

 

[squistion]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

Makes sense if the politician is already rich and it really makes sense if that politician has found a way to get money paid in hand completely outside the campaign system. At that point if nearly all competitors are hamstrung in terms of what they can do that greatly winnows the field and gives a great advantage to those who are there first.

 

[The Commish]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

 

[squistion]

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

Makes sense if the politician is already rich and it really makes sense if that politician has found a way to get money paid in hand completely outside the campaign system. At that point if nearly all competitors are hamstrung in terms of what they can do that greatly winnows the field and gives a great advantage to those who are there first.

But nothing could be changed until after 2016 and if there was reform by the 2020 election, the big bucks contributors wouldn't like it as they would lose whatever leverage they had. It doesn't make sense that someone trying to buy the election would support a candidate with a platform of campaign finance reform (kinda doubt the Koch brothers could ever get behind that even if they liked Hillary).

 

[Slapdash]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

"Kiki's Chicken & Waffles, right here in South Carolina"

 

[timschochet]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

Makes sense if the politician is already rich and it really makes sense if that politician has found a way to get money paid in hand completely outside the campaign system. At that point if nearly all competitors are hamstrung in terms of what they can do that greatly winnows the field and gives a great advantage to those who are there first.

But nothing could be changed until after 2016 and if there was reform by the 2020 election, the big bucks contributors wouldn't like it as they would lose whatever leverage they had. It doesn't make sense that someone trying to buy the election would support a candidate with a platform of campaign finance reform (kinda doubt the Koch brothers could ever get behind that even if they liked Hillary).

It makes sense if you can pay them cash, directly, and avoid the campaign finance rubric altogether.

The AP report just showed that Bill was being paid by two major Democratic campaign donors. They paid him. Laureate paid him a salary. Teneo / Goldman Sachs paid him a salary. Their daughter is married to a guy set up in business by Goldman Sachs. A Moscow bank paid him $500K, etc. Please, who needs campaign contributions with these people. And they have their own money to run on, let everyone else try to squeeze in their $200 online donations while Hillary and Bill can sit on their pile of dough and use that. Don't worry, they'll make more, it's open season once they're in the WH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

Is she running as co-president from the Bill as President years, or was she just handing out menus for state dinners?

Here's the Bill legacy:

• Tough on crime legislation, you know the stuff progressives want repealed now.
• Banking deregulation (ahem, this will, never, ever change for the Clintons).
• Foreign intervention - Bosnia, Iraq, Libya (that was Hill as SOS of course), nation building in Haiti.
• Campaign finance - the Clintons invented bundling.
• Welfare {cough} "reform" - yes there was a time when the DLC was going to crush the party wing, almost did too.
• Health care - what was she advocating there on that commission? Oh yeah, we don't know because it was all secret.

 

[Slapdash]

"Kiki's Chicken & Waffles, right here in South Carolina"

Nice. Will have to check this place out next time I'm down in Columbia. The Whig doesn't sell chicken and waffles anymore.

 

[squistion]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

And she doesn't have to track left (or any more left) to pick up the progressives/liberals because they are already overwhelmingly in her camp and Bernie Sanders is no threat to her getting the nomination. Romney had to appeal to the tea party crowd to get the nomination then had to flip flop to try to get independents in the general election, but that strategy failed miserably.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

"Kiki's Chicken & Waffles, right here in South Carolina"

Nice. Will have to check this place out next time I'm down in Columbia. The Whig doesn't sell chicken and waffles anymore.

Hillary highly recommends it

 

[The Commish]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

Flip flopping implies it's one of two positions on an issue. Hillary's way beyond flip flopper. She'll take whatever position the people she is speaking to want to hear (which really isn't a position at all is it?).

 

[Boston]

Diagnosis for Hillary's sudden southern accent?

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/is-hillary-clinton-suffering-from-a-rare-medical-condition/

 

[timschochet]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

Flip flopping implies it's one of two positions on an issue. Hillary's way beyond flip flopper. She'll take whatever position the people she is speaking to want to hear (which really isn't a position at all is it?).

Sorry, but this is simply a false narrative.

 

[timschochet]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

Is she running as co-president from the Bill as President years, or was she just handing out menus for state dinners?

Here's the Bill legacy:

• Tough on crime legislation, you know the stuff progressives want repealed now.
• Banking deregulation (ahem, this will, never, ever change for the Clintons).
• Foreign intervention - Bosnia, Iraq, Libya (that was Hill as SOS of course), nation building in Haiti.
• Campaign finance - the Clintons invented bundling.
• Welfare {cough} "reform" - yes there was a time when the DLC was going to crush the party wing, almost did too.
• Health care - what was she advocating there on that commission? Oh yeah, we don't know because it was all secret.

Congrats, you've managed to list her husband's legacy from the 90s (and not necessarily all of his positions either.) But you haven't touched on what Hillary has been for. From the moment she became prominent, Hillary has been for:

Improving education and child care. (Remember It Takes a Village?)

Cheaper healthcare for more people.

Greater economic opportunities for minorities and the disadvantaged.

A cleaner safer energy supply.

These have been her core issues. Although she has evolved on some of the specifics over time, she really hasn't changed at all.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

With the exceptions of gay marriage and immigration (two issues that almost all Dem politicians have evolved on) Hillary has been very consistent over the years. To try to paint her as a flip flopper ala Romney is pretty laughable IMO.

Is she running as co-president from the Bill as President years, or was she just handing out menus for state dinners?

Here's the Bill legacy:

• Tough on crime legislation, you know the stuff progressives want repealed now.
• Banking deregulation (ahem, this will, never, ever change for the Clintons).
• Foreign intervention - Bosnia, Iraq, Libya (that was Hill as SOS of course), nation building in Haiti.
• Campaign finance - the Clintons invented bundling.
• Welfare {cough} "reform" - yes there was a time when the DLC was going to crush the party wing, almost did too.
• Health care - what was she advocating there on that commission? Oh yeah, we don't know because it was all secret.

Congrats, you've managed to list her husband's legacy from the 90s (and not necessarily all of his positions either.) But you haven't touched on what Hillary has been for. From the moment she became prominent, Hillary has been for:

Improving education and child care. (Remember It Takes a Village?)

Cheaper healthcare for more people.

Greater economic opportunities for minorities and the disadvantaged.

A cleaner safer energy supply.

These have been her core issues. Although she has evolved on some of the specifics over time, she really hasn't changed at all.

Ok, I'm just clearing that aspect of her career off her resume. It doesn't count in her "experience."

I agree just look at her Senate career on.

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

 

[Boston]

Here's another flip flop for Timmy...please note the publication as it comes from left of the aisle...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/14/hillary-s-big-iowa-flip-flop.html

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I want to discuss your objection to Hillary in more detail. (Mainly because you're one of the very few people who have bothered to even offer a specific objection- kudos, by the way!)

You claim that her call for an amendment to overturn the Campaign United is an attack against the 1st Amendment. Let's put aside for the moment something that we all know is true (including Hillary herself)- that this is a meaningless issue because there's not going to be an constitutional amendment on this or any issue issue during Hillary's term of office- in fact, there's unlikely to be one ever again, partisanship making it simply too difficult. But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions. I understand why many people believe that campaign monies are a protected form of free speech, though I disagree. But you imply that this is a slippery slope which could impact other forms of free speech. Exactly how? That's the part I can't figure out.

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

That made me chuckle.

 

[Slapdash]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

 

[timschochet]

Here's another flip flop for Timmy...please note the publication as it comes from left of the aisle...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/14/hillary-s-big-iowa-flip-flop.html

OK, first off, just want to note for the record that while it may be important to other people around here where a source comes from, it's not important to me. There are sources that I tend to be skeptical of, but they need to be pretty extreme. Mainstream liberal and conservative sources I'm good with. Had to get that off my chest.

Second- Hillary is hardly the first candidate to suck at the Iowa ethanol nipple, nor will she be the last. It's a pretty sad state of affairs, and has been for years. The West Wing captured the whole sham beautifully in it's 6th season, and brave GOP candidate Arnold Vinick had the guts to speak out against more subsidies. But alas, that was a fictional TV character. The real issue behind this, of course, is the fact that Iowa gets to decide first every 4 years, which is an incredibly antiquated and highly undemocratic process. There should be a lottery of states to decide who goes first every 4 years- if that happened, you'd never hear about ethanol again.

 

[timschochet]

Here is my challenge to the Hillary critics (which seems to be the vast majority of people reading this): what is it about her political positions you don't like?

Not a single real answer yet. Just that they're not to be believed, which is only an extension of the tired "dishonest" meme.

I'm against her position of letting the highest bidder decide what her positions should be.

And the highest bidder wants campaign finance reform? Interesting, although that would seem a little counterproductive.

It's cute that you believe this is really a thing Hillary is passionate about changing

"For a fool, words speak louder than actions"

I mean, she is being a shining example of everything wrong with campaign finance.

Actually, she's an example of everything that's right with it. Her donors support her, not because she does them favors, but because she genuinely shares their values.

Right, and that value being .

I think it is even more scary to suggest that Hilary actually shares the values of the foreign governments and large corporations the Clintons are constantly raising from instead of is just letting them curry favor.

Yeah it would be, and I NEVER suggested that. I'm talking about Hillary's campaign donors, not about contributions to the Clinton Foundation, which have no influence on Hillary, despite your (unfounded, without any evidence) claims to the contrary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, I want to discuss your objection to Hillary in more detail. (Mainly because you're one of the very few people who have bothered to even offer a specific objection- kudos, by the way!)

You claim that her call for an amendment to overturn the Campaign United is an attack against the 1st Amendment. Let's put aside for the moment something that we all know is true (including Hillary herself)- that this is a meaningless issue because there's not going to be an constitutional amendment on this or any issue issue during Hillary's term of office- in fact, there's unlikely to be one ever again, partisanship making it simply too difficult. But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions. I understand why many people believe that campaign monies are a protected form of free speech, though I disagree. But you imply that this is a slippery slope which could impact other forms of free speech. Exactly how? That's the part I can't figure out.

Well (er) thanks, cheers.

I think the issue belongs in another thread, maybe we should discuss in yours, but like I said, 1. with Hillary it is personal, whether people remember it or not the specific issue in C/U was a movie about Hillary and its criticizing her. When she specifically speaks of C/U she speaks of preventing that movie or one like it being screened around an election time. 2. I don't think there is a slope, it's more like a graded road, because roads to hell and how they're paved, all that. People have good intentions here. I would probably agree with 90% of most campaign finance restrictions people want to talk about. But we have to remember that politicians would write such a law and they are very self-interested here, it's like asking bankers to write a law on regulation of debentures. So when such a law would be written it would say essentially that corporate speech could be regulated. So that means if Mr. Tim S. Chochet of Redondo wanted to print a book explaining why some California gubernatorial candidate is horrible for his area because he will allow oil companies to do offshore oil drilling and how that would harm California's environment and his own personal existence, and if Mr. Chochet created an LLC to publish and market that book (because you know it's a big state, this will take employees, an agent, there will be printing costs, you will have to account for the income and the expenses related to the book, what if the book results in a lawsuit, etc.), then that book could be blocked (ie banned) because an LLC has no rights. That's just an example. What should be illegal in that situation is if a corporation coordinates with a campaign which has a candidate that opposes oil drilling. That's essentially the campaign breaking the rules.

Anyway, glad to pick it up in your thread or elsewhere. That's my view of it.

 

[timschochet]

The problem with you guys is that you see Hillary as Cersei; I see her as Daenerys.

 

[squistion]

But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions.

Hillary doesn't need a magic wand or even a constitutional amendment. If a conservative SCOTUS member retires she can replace him with someone who would vote to overturn Citizens United, that 5-4 decision goes the other way and voila: campaign finance reform is achieved.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Tim, you seem to ignore the fact that it wasn't just donations to their foundation but also a significant amount of money paid directly to Bill for speeches.

 

[timschochet]

But let's pretend instead that if elected Hillary could wave a magic wand and poof! there's an amendment which allowed for restrictions on campaign contributions.

Hillary doesn't need a magic wand or even a constitutional amendment. If a conservative SCOTUS member retires she can replace him with someone who would vote to overturn Citizens United, that 5-4 decision goes the other way and voila: campaign finance reform is achieved.

Maybe. But I doubt it. How often does the SC overturn decisions, even 5-4? It's pretty rare.