Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (1 Viewer)

[Gr00vus]

Are these donations from businesses only or from individuals in those businesses? 

A good question. I haven't been able to find that data from the site. In the end though, that's a pretty big meatball hanging out there, whether it's individuals associated with those corporations or the corporations themselves.

 

[Statorama]

You guys aren't really voting for her, are you?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Wow...quite the non-sequitor.  

The nature of the data has everything to do with how fast it can be searched.

 

[TobiasFunke]

A good question. I haven't been able to find that data from the site. In the end though, that's a pretty big meatball hanging out there, whether it's individuals associated with those corporations or the corporations themselves.

If it's individuals it seems like kind of a nothingburger. People who make donations have money, and it has to come from somewhere. Hell I'd much rather see people using money they made to influence elections than money they inherited.

 

[Slapdash]

Sure.  The vast majority of Dodd-Frank consists of provisions that improve the advantage of larger firms over smaller/regional ones.  

This inevitably ends up being true of almost all government regulations on businesses. But that  is almost never the intent of the authors.

Sorry...how do you know the intent of these individuals again?  I am assuming this is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.  If this is true, then we need better law makers; ones that can get down on paper what they intend.  This isn't an area where we just throw up our hands and say "dang, I didn't have the forethought/foresight to predict THIS would happen.  Oh well....."  

He is just taking their statements at face value with no critical thought/actual knowledge.  He is like CNN.

 

[Gr00vus]

If it's individuals it seems like kind of a nothingburger. People who make donations have money, and it has to come from somewhere. Hell I'd much rather see people using money they made to influence elections than money they inherited.

Can't go that mile with you. Individuals are definitely interested in protecting how their bread is buttered. They're not going to give money of that magnitude without some notion that doing so will be in their best interest.

 

[General Malaise]

You guys aren't really voting for her, are you?

Proudly and four days ago.  

 

[jonessed]

A good question. I haven't been able to find that data from the site. In the end though, that's a pretty big meatball hanging out there, whether it's individuals associated with those corporations or the corporations themselves.

What would the difference be between executives donating money they make from the corporation or executives voting to donate money directly from the corporation?  Influence is influence either way.

 

[Gr00vus]

What would the difference be between executives donating money they make from the corporation or executives voting to donate money directly from the corporation?  Influence is influence either way.

I agree. Tobias doesn't.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Team HRC:

We got a really rich read on voters' priorities from the policy poll. Below is just a taste of the results but since this is such a big poll thought it was important to outline some of what we found.

The most fundamental context for everything we see here is the pressure of rising costs and stagnant wages. Only 30% nationally and 29% in the battlegrounds rate the national economy as excellent or good, and we saw in the framing poll that to the extent people feel like things are improving, they don't feel like those benefits are tangible in their own lives. So there's a lot of stress not just around affording big ticket items, but around just keeping up with rising everyday household and living expenses. The everyday pressures like paying the bills (12%) cost of living (10%) and wages (4%) show up in the open-ended question about the sources of financial stress in their lives (see Q10). When we ask voters to choose which of the following three is the biggest challenge for their family, 43% say their biggest challenge is rising everyday expenses while 42% say it's big expenses like healthcare, childcare, college, and retirement.

Their financial needs are so immediate that work benefits like overtime pay, family medical leave, and paid sick days are a much lower priority at 5%. Also worth noting is that while childcare was part of the "big expenses" list we tested, it doesn't really register as a source of financial stress -- just 1% volunteer childcare.

...

- Actual state of public feelings about the economy as reported to Hillary campaign.

 

[timschochet]

He is just taking their statements at face value with no critical thought/actual knowledge.  He is like CNN.

That's got to be it. 

 

[timschochet]

Hillary's team has now chosen "Don't Stop Believing" as their theme song.

I used to kind of like that song until my older daughter joined band in 7th grade. Then I had to listen to it every week for two years. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama Would Thump Trump. Romney Would Conquer Clinton.


...

The result: Obama would clobber Trump and Romney would trounce Clinton.

Obama can’t run for a third term, but if he could he’d beat Trump by 12 percentage points, 53 percent to 41 percent, according to the poll. Romney would defeat Clinton by 10 percentage points.

... On the Republican side, Clinton beat Trump in the survey among those with a college degree, 52 percent to 37 percent. But it showed her losing those voters to Romney, 50 percent to 43 percent. Romney even runs slightly ahead of her among women.

...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-07/obama-would-thump-trump-romney-would-conquer-clinton

 

[cstu]

Can't go that mile with you. Individuals are definitely interested in protecting how their bread is buttered. They're not going to give money of that magnitude without some notion that doing so will be in their best interest.

Hillary is definitely giving them the impression that she's on their side.  However, all bets are off once she's sworn in and gets what she's wanted her whole life. 

 

[Slapdash]

He is just taking their statements at face value with no critical thought/actual knowledge.  He is like CNN.

That's got to be it. 

Feel free to demonstrate some critical thinking on this issue.  You have a flawed premise, which I have argued against.  In typical Trolling Tim fashion, you have ignored those posts and continued to push forth your narrative based on that premise.   You'll be here making the same bad arguments again and again

 

[cstu]

Obama can’t run for a third term, but if he could he’d beat Trump by 12 percentage points, 53 percent to 41 percent, according to the poll.

Only 12? 

FDR would only win by 13 with the state of the country right now. 

 

[jonessed]

Hillary is definitely giving them the impression that she's on their side.  However, all bets are off once she's sworn in and gets what she's wanted her whole life. 

Right...

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can't go that mile with you. Individuals are definitely interested in protecting how their bread is buttered. They're not going to give money of that magnitude without some notion that doing so will be in their best interest.

There's still a huge difference between corporate donations and individual donations (and it seems like this list is the latter, given that "retired" is #2 on the list). If for example the AMA is giving politicians money we can assume it's doing so solely to protect the interests of the medical community. But if doctors are giving politicians money, it could simply be because doctors make a lot of money. 

Sure, that still means politicians might cater to their interests a bit more than they caters to janitors. But now your problem isn't with corporate spending, it's with capitalism and privately funded elections as general matters.  Which doesn't exactly seem like groundbreaking news, or anything that anyone is going to change any time in the next 200 years.  Unless Trumps wins and the republic collapses and we have to start over from scratch, perhaps with some sort of barter system and perhaps feudalism or a monarchy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Only 12? 

FDR would only win by 13 with the state of the country right now. 

I agree, that's probably an underestimate.

 

[cstu]

Hillary's team has now chosen "Don't Stop Believing" as their theme song.

I used to kind of like that song until my older daughter joined band in 7th grade. Then I had to listen to it every week for two years. 

Clintons love "Don't Stop" songs.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary's team has now chosen "Don't Stop Believing" as their theme song.

I used to kind of like that song until my older daughter joined band in 7th grade. Then I had to listen to it every week for two years. 

Workin' hard to get my fill
Everybody wants a thrill
Payin' anything to roll the dice
Just one more time
Some will win
Some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on, and on, and on

- Yep.
 

 

[timschochet]

Feel free to demonstrate some critical thinking on this issue.  You have a flawed premise, which I have argued against.  In typical Trolling Tim fashion, you have ignored those posts and continued to push forth your narrative based on that premise.   You'll be here making the same bad arguments again and again

In your last post, you ridiculed me for taking these politicians at their word (you also compared me to CNN which in your mind is a ridicule, but in my mind it isn't.) 

There is no way for me to offer you critical thinking, because you present an argument which is unanswerable. To you, these guys are lying about their intent, and your proof of that is (1) the result and (2) the amount of contributions they've received. How can I possibly disprove that argument? As with the case of accusations against Hillary, it's all based on supposition. I believe that Barney Frank wanted to force limitations on Wall Street because I heard him speak about it several times and found him to be genuine and compelling. I feared he would be wrong about the results of Dodds-Frank, but I didn't question his integrity. That's all I can offer you. 

 

[timschochet]

Clintons love "Don't Stop" songs.

I wish they had stuck with "Don't Stop". Bring Fleetwood Mac out, why not? They still sound great. 

 

[RCon]

Sure.  The vast majority of Dodd-Frank consists of provisions that improve the advantage of larger firms over smaller/regional ones.  

This inevitably ends up being true of almost all government regulations on businesses. But that  is almost never the intent of the authors.

I strongly disagree with the bolded.

 

[TobiasFunke]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-07/obama-would-thump-trump-romney-would-conquer-clinton

These are always nonsense. The hypothetical grass is always greener, especially when we haven't spent the last year picking through it for weeds and dog crap. 

If Obama was actually the candidate Obamacare premiums, "if you like your plan you can keep it,"  "I'm gong to close Gitmo," and various other negative things about his presidency would be headlining rally and convention speeches and dominating the news. If Romney was running he'd be an elitist dooshbag who dismissed 47% of the population outright, was already a loser in 2012 and once gave a nod to birtherism instead of the reasonable elder statesman who currently represents the sane/moderate branch of the GOP.

 

[Scoresman]

How did they not choose The Macarena?

 

[urbanhack]

Hillary's team has now chosen "Don't Stop Believing" as their theme song.

I used to kind of like that song until my older daughter joined band in 7th grade. Then I had to listen to it every week for two years. 

White Sox 2005 World Champions theme song.....don't touch it!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

These are always nonsense. The hypothetical grass is always greener, especially when we haven't spent the last year picking through it for weeds and dog crap. 

If Obama was actually the candidate Obamacare premiums, "if you like your plan you can keep it,"  "I'm gong to close Gitmo," and various other negative things about his presidency would be headlining rally and convention speeches and dominating the news. If Romney was running he'd be an elitist dooshbag who dismissed 47% of the population outright, was already a loser in 2012 and once gave a nod to birtherism instead of the reasonable elder statesman who currently represents the sane/moderate branch of the GOP.

It's an actual poll result. If you think Hillary and Trump are as well liked and respected as Obama and Romney, well ok but you may be short company in that.

If anything the insane attacks on relatively decent people like Obama and Romney have likely inured the common voter to reporting of actual really serious issues. A lot of people have turned off the press and punditry.

 

[Slapdash]

In your last post, you ridiculed me for taking these politicians at their word (you also compared me to CNN which in your mind is a ridicule, but in my mind it isn't.) 

There is no way for me to offer you critical thinking, because you present an argument which is unanswerable. To you, these guys are lying about their intent, and your proof of that is (1) the result and (2) the amount of contributions they've received. How can I possibly disprove that argument? As with the case of accusations against Hillary, it's all based on supposition. I believe that Barney Frank wanted to force limitations on Wall Street because I heard him speak about it several times and found him to be genuine and compelling. I feared he would be wrong about the results of Dodds-Frank, but I didn't question his integrity. That's all I can offer you. 

Like I said:  You take their statements at face value.  You don't look at their actions or who is influencing them.  

Barney Frank essentially spent his entire legislative career doing the bidding of his largest donors, whether that was expanding the GSEs to prop up the housing bubble or creating regulations to protect Too Big To Fail financial institutions.  

Since you admit you cannot disprove my argument, perhaps you should present some actual supporting evidence of your claim that their intentions were to reign in Wall St next time you make the same assertions.  

 

[jonessed]

In your last post, you ridiculed me for taking these politicians at their word (you also compared me to CNN which in your mind is a ridicule, but in my mind it isn't.) 

There is no way for me to offer you critical thinking, because you present an argument which is unanswerable. So you, these guys are lying about their intent, and your proof of that is (1) the result and (2) the amount of contributions they've received. How can I possibly disprove that argument? As with the case of accusations against Hillary, it's all based on supposition. I believe that Barney Frank wanted to force limitations on Wall Street because I heard him speak about it several times and found him to be genuine and compelling. I feared he would be wrong about the results of Dodds-Frank, but I didn't question his integrity. That's all I can offer you. 

As opposed to what?  Your intuition?

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's an actual poll result. If you think Hillary and Trump are as well liked and respected as Obama and Romney, well ok but you may be short company in that.

If anything the insane attacks on relatively decent people like Obama and Romney have likely inured the common voter to reporting of actual really serious issues. A lot of people have turned off the press and punditry.

I understand it's an actual poll result.  Polls are influenced by campaigns. Campaigns unearth damaging material about candidates, or remind voters of them, expose character flaws, etc. This isn't hard and it's not really controversial.  No serious pollster things those hypothetical matchups are worth a damn.  They don't even think real matchups are worth a damn, if they're too far out before the campaign has really started, for similar reasons.

Here's proof:  In 2014 CNN ran a hypothetical poll of Obama and other leading recent/future candidates.  Romney led Obama 53-44 but trailed Clinton 55-42.

 

[timschochet]

Like I said:  You take their statements at face value.  You don't look at their actions or who is influencing them.  

Barney Frank essentially spent his entire legislative career doing the bidding of his largest donors, whether that was expanding the GSEs to prop up the housing bubble or creating regulations to protect Too Big To Fail financial institutions.  

Since you admit you cannot disprove my argument, perhaps you should present some actual supporting evidence of your claim that their intentions were to reign in Wall St next time you make the same assertions.  

He seemed genuine to me. That's all I got. 

I'm willing to concede the point though. In truth, this isn't that big a deal to me. Once this election is over I'm open to whatever arguments are to be made regarding Wall Street. (With the caveat that I do not, and likely never will, regard Wall Street as the enemy of the American people.) 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I understand it's an actual poll result.  Polls are influenced by campaigns. Campaigns unearth damaging material about candidates, or remind voters of them, expose character flaws, etc. This isn't hard and it's not really controversial.  No serious pollster things those hypothetical matchups are worth a damn.  They don't even think real matchups are worth a damn, if they're too far out before the campaign has really started, for similar reasons.

Here's proof:  In 2014 CNN ran a hypothetical poll of Obama and other leading recent/future candidates.  Romney led Obama 53-44 but trailed Clinton 55-42.

These are two well liked, respected people, are they not? It's sort of crazy to think of Obama being accused of being a secret islamist and Romney of being a misogynist back in 2012. Insane partisan hacksmanship was at play.

They are still better liked. Where do Romney and Obama rank right now all time in unfavorable ratings vs Hillary and Donald?

 

[Joe Summer]

I wish they had stuck with "Don't Stop". Bring Fleetwood Mac out, why not? They still sound great.

Hey, if there's any way that Hillary's usage of "Don't Stop Believing" will lead to Steve Perry re-joining Journey, then it will all be worth it.

 

[The Commish]

There's still a huge difference between corporate donations and individual donations (and it seems like this list is the latter, given that "retired" is #2 on the list). If for example the AMA is giving politicians money we can assume it's doing so solely to protect the interests of the medical community. But if doctors are giving politicians money, it could simply be because doctors make a lot of money. 

Sure, that still means politicians might cater to their interests a bit more than they caters to janitors. But now your problem isn't with corporate spending, it's with capitalism and privately funded elections as general matters.  Which doesn't exactly seem like groundbreaking news, or anything that anyone is going to change any time in the next 200 years.  Unless Trumps wins and the republic collapses and we have to start over from scratch, perhaps with some sort of barter system and perhaps feudalism or a monarchy.

We can assume whatever we want though, right?  Doesn't make our assumptions correct.  In your example above, I can assume that if the AMA is giving politicians money it's because they MAKE a lot of money and I can assume that if an individual is giving politicians money they are doing it solely to protect their interests in the general populace.  We have to be pretty willfully ignorant to believe/assume that people are giving money just because they make a lot of money.  That's part of the reason we have donation caps directly to campaigns.  This is why we have PACs and Super PACs.

 

[Gr00vus]

Gotta believe Romney kicks himself daily for not keeping his powder dry for 4 more years.

 

[TobiasFunke]

These are two well liked, respected people, are they not? It's sort of crazy to think of Obama being accused of being a secret islamist and Romney of being a mysoginist back in 2012. Insane partisan hacksmanship was at play.

They are still better liked. Where do Romney and Obama rank right now all time in unfavorable ratings vs Hillary and Donald?

I guess, but part of the reason they're well-liked and well-respected is this dumpster fire of a presidential campaign.  I suspect both of them would have significantly lower if they were in the current race. So it's hard to really snapshot it.  Certainly nobody's image has benefited from the current election as much as Obama. Don't get me wrong, if he could run for a third term I think he'd win, but not by much more than Clinton's ultimate margin. He might be worth an extra 2%. People who lean even slightly to the right of center would find a way to hate his guts over the course of a campaign.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We can assume whatever we want though, right?  Doesn't make our assumptions correct.  In your example above, I can assume that if the AMA is giving politicians money it's because they MAKE a lot of money and I can assume that if an individual is giving politicians money they are doing it solely to protect their interests in the general populace.  We have to be pretty willfully ignorant to believe/assume that people are giving money just because they make a lot of money.  That's part of the reason we have donation caps directly to campaigns.  This is why we have PACs and Super PACs.

You can assume whatever you want.  The issue is the foundation of those assumptions.  ANY list of donations divided by the occupation is going to make it look like well-paying occupations are trying to buy influence, because it's literally impossible for the list to say otherwise.  To donate money you have to have it first.  What you're railing against, then, is not corporate donations but capitalism (which pays some occupations more than others) and privately funded campaigns. Good luck with that fight.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I guess, but part of the reason they're well-liked and well-respected is this dumpster fire of a presidential campaign.  I suspect both of them would have significantly lower if they were in the current race. So it's hard to really snapshot it.  Certainly nobody's image has benefited from the current election as much as Obama. Don't get me wrong, if he could run for a third term I think he'd win, but not by much more than Clinton's ultimate margin. He might be worth an extra 2%. People who lean even slightly to the right of center would find a way to hate his guts over the course of a campaign.

Romney was running in the positive Fav/Unfav in 2012. Obama was the same.

By the way I agree with the bolded as to how they stand now, especially Obama. People getting wistful about smart, capable and likeable in the WH already. And hey look I'm not saying Hillary can't get there but she has to not do what she has done in the past. People maybe forget that Obama started out running as the anti-Clinton and anti-Bush.

 

[timschochet]

Gotta believe Romney kicks himself daily for not keeping his powder dry for 4 more years.

What reason is there to believe that Romney would have defeated Trump? 

 

[jonessed]

Gotta believe Romney kicks himself daily for not keeping his powder dry for 4 more years.

I think he would have trounced Hillary, but he may never have gotten to that point anyway.  Hillary ended up beating Bernie because it was a two-horse race.  Mainstream Republicans were much more spread out.  If Biden, Kaine, Schumer, etc. had all been in the running I think we might be looking at President Bernie.

 

[Slapdash]

He seemed genuine to me. That's all I got. 

I'm willing to concede the point though. In truth, this isn't that big a deal to me. Once this election is over I'm open to whatever arguments are to be made regarding Wall Street. (With the caveat that I do not, and likely never will, regard Wall Street as the enemy of the American people.) 

Then maybe it should stop being your go-to example for what is wrong with the liberal wing of the Democratic party

 

[cstu]

What reason is there to believe that Romney would have defeated Trump? 

Ted Cruz almost beat him.

 

[timschochet]

Assuming Hillary wins, a lot of what happens with the GOP will be on Paul Ryan's shoulders. 

 

[Phil Elliott]

I wish they had stuck with "Don't Stop". Bring Fleetwood Mac out, why not? They still sound great. 

Bill already did Fleetwood Mac 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Assuming Hillary wins, a lot of what happens with the GOP will be on Paul Ryan's shoulders. 

He might resign. The footshooting may not end, they could move on to knees and femurs.

 

[The Commish]

We can assume whatever we want though, right?  Doesn't make our assumptions correct.  In your example above, I can assume that if the AMA is giving politicians money it's because they MAKE a lot of money and I can assume that if an individual is giving politicians money they are doing it solely to protect their interests in the general populace.  We have to be pretty willfully ignorant to believe/assume that people are giving money just because they make a lot of money.  That's part of the reason we have donation caps directly to campaigns.  This is why we have PACs and Super PACs.

You can assume whatever you want.  The issue is the foundation of those assumptions.  ANY list of donations divided by the occupation is going to make it look like well-paying occupations are trying to buy influence, because it's literally impossible for the list to say otherwise.  To donate money you have to have it first.  What you're railing against, then, is not corporate donations but capitalism (which pays some occupations more than others) and privately funded elections. Good luck with that fight.

It's not either/or as you are presenting it (at least the way I am reading it).  They are directly tied together simply because of the way our government works and the way money flows in this "capitalistic" economy.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point you are making though....always possible.

 

[Gr00vus]

What reason is there to believe that Romney would have defeated Trump? 

I don't know what obvious weaknesses he has that Trump could convert into playground insults for one. For another, he's pretty well respected, seems like a relatively strong personality, is not insane, hasn't spent his life actively screwing over people who worked for him, wasn't pushing a super fundamentalist religious viewpoint, etc.

I think the R field may have shrunk to a small handful from the outset if they knew he was in play, and he'd probably have made short work of Trump. The cavalcade of clowns the Rs threw up there was ripe for the picking. He'd have trashed them all probably, and Trump would have gone down as a novelty candidate.

 

[timschochet]

Then maybe it should stop being your go-to example for what is wrong with the liberal wing of the Democratic party

Right now, what's wrong with the liberal wing, IMO, has less to do with their ideas than with their conspiracy minded speculation about the moderates, about Wall Street, about corporations. In terms of their ideas, I'm open to a lot of it, (probably with the exception of trade.) 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Right now, what's wrong with the liberal wing, IMO, has less to do with their ideas than with their conspiracy minded speculation about the moderates, about Wall Street, about corporations. In terms of their ideas, I'm open to a lot of it, (probably with the exception of trade.)