Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Jupiterian Local
![]()
![]()
From the Politifact article it seems that 6.9 million isn't an unreasonable figure if you start counting things like donations to Hillary-aligned super PA Cs.
However at the end of the day it's fundamentally ludicrous to believe that Hillary would be worse for the environment then Donald Trump, and "not as bad as Donald Trump and could plausibly beat him" is ultimately all the reason I need to vote for her.
edited 10th Jun '16 1:29:38 PM by Falrinn
The $6.9 million comes from a on Clinton's connections to the oil and gas industry
. Obviously, this is Greenpeace, and they are looking at every possible avenue for that money, including lobbyists who have not worked exclusively for fossil fuel companies, though it's a distinction many may not see much point in.
It also includes the $4.25 million received by her Super PAC, Priorities Action USA, which the Politifact article mentions as well, but it's defense that "it’s a stretch to draw a direct line between those super PAC donations and Clinton’s campaign" is a weak one for people concerned with the issue.
edited 10th Jun '16 1:52:15 PM by Eschaton
Given that some lobbyists will work for dozens of companies and institutions over the course of their careers going "this guy used to work for fossil fuels ergo all the money is fossil fuel money" is ludicrous.
The vast majority of fossil fuel money goes to the Republican candidates. Almost always has. To look at Clinton's comparatively small intake from them (even if you accept Greenpeace's numbers it's a fraction of her total fundraising) and scream "she's in their pocket" is making some pretty serious assumptions.
edited 10th Jun '16 2:15:52 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
Thank you. I can't post links because I am a new user. The article makes a distinction between individual contributors (about $300,000), lobbyists ($2,650,000) and Super PAC money ($4,000,000). The first number is only a fraction of the total. So can we please be nice to each other, and assume that I am not pulling numbers out of the air? I am not trying to bad-mouth Clinton, and I am certainly not encouraging people to vote for Trump. I am simply stating that there are serious concerns that people who want progressive change may have with her.
And those of us who support her are responding to you. There is, as previously suggested, no evidence that who Clinton takes money from has influenced her voting record. I mean, for gods sake, her record and Sanders' are 93% identical. They'd have to be taking money from the same people.
Also, this amuses me
.
Most elections, only around 20% of people under 30 vote. Occasionally, during a president election with a figure popular with the youth (Clinton 92, Oabama 08), it might get up to around 40%, but promptly disappears after that.
And then they wonder why things never seem like it's going their way in politics, and go out of their way to justify not voting. (Sorry if that sounds bitter, I was someone who always voted but have seen the same thing play out over and over during the last 14 years.)
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |![]()
![]()
And as I said, it is ridiculous to claim that they give her this money just because they like her so much. Also, there is evidence for that - Google 'Elizabeth Warren: When Wall Street Money Influenced Clinton'.
On the 93% number, they were only together in the Senate for two years and it includes a large number of procedural votes, so the number itself is meaningless. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz also voted together 93% of the time, this doesn't mean that they are comparable ideologically.
About the young voters, this was after the media had already announced (prematurely) that Clinton had won.
edited 10th Jun '16 2:54:53 PM by Perian
Oh sure, blame the media. It's all AP's fault. That's why he was already losing before they ever hit California.
Sanders has gotten lots of media love. I get very tired of people trying to claim otherwise. Some of the people I liked at MSNBC practically turned into the Sanders Fan Club the last year (if I had to hear one more thing about the size of his rallies I was gonna scream).
edited 10th Jun '16 2:59:27 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Yeah at this point Fox's burning hated for Sanders is just reminding me of all the Clinton haters that have been banned.
As for Clinton and the money, yes it might influence her, yes that sucks, however her norm isn't that different from that of other politicians (which may just indicate that everyone is bought by said industry, but still, if you'd be okay with any other Dem from New York you should be okay with Clinton) and at this point it doesn't matter.
She won, she's the Democratic nominee, the other option is Trump, you think the world hatred you under Bush? Trump might prompt a Europe wide defection from NATO to a new Warsaw Pact, you'd be the laughing stock of world powers and the plaything of intelligence leaders, Putin would eat Trump for breakfast.
X7 You get a mail ballot that makes it easy, also do you have to actively register to vote?
edited 10th Jun '16 3:18:18 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranNo one in the media pressed him for specifics until the NY Daily News Interview. Before then, only Chris Matthews pressed for specifics, and even then it was once, twice at most.
They handled him with kids gloves and Hillary did too, even despite his constant babbling about the establishment and her corruption.
New Survey coming this weekend!Fox is more or less right about that. People online have brought up questions of racism and sexism relating to his campaign, but the press didn't really go after him. Which would be fine if they hadn't spent as much time as they did reporting every Clinton "scandal" ever. Keep in mind I don't necessarily think this is because the media was pro-Sanders, but rather out of a desire to generate a closer horse-race than there was so the Democratic race could match the drama on the right.
Ohio becomes latest state to legalize medical marijuana.
Hillary's team has been targeting Jeb Bush Donors, telling them she represents their interests best.
The Hillary Team launches "Republicans Against Trump"
Her team seems to be very much convinced that they can capture moderate/centrist Republicans from Trump this election cycle, and slowly convert them a la Nixon and Reagan converting the Solid South. Which has me worrying her campaign is going to assume "Oh those wacky progressives, we can hippie punch/ignore them and they'll vote for us due to Voter Capture".
Now I'll admit maybe she herself is smarter than this, and she's just letting her team do it because "Eh, it's at least worth a shot, no harm, no foul", since potentially the people they're targeting might be socially moderate, but might make their sticking point Tax Cuts or w/e. Like Fighteer said, the right isn't monolithic. But she and Bill did Triangulating back in the 90s, and I want to see if old habits stick or not.
As you point out, reaching out to moderate Republicans who dislike Trump is a smart, no-risk play for her. That's not a rightward shift, that's just saying "would you rather have me as I am, or him as he is?" Republican donor money spends just as well as anyone else's, and leaving it on the table would be stupid. And a lot of the GOP establishment really hates Trump, so it's worth a shot trying to get them to donate to her instead.
If she starts changing her policy positions to appeal to those moderate Republicans better, then that would be a meaningful rightward shift. which I think would be a mistake on her part.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.Bit late on this topic, but about US bases in Okinawa - Netflix recently put up the latest season of Parts Unknown (Anthony Bourdain's CNN continuation of No Reservations) and one of the episodes was in Okinawa and touched on the issue. (Quick search tells me the first airing was in October so before the rape incident/Obama's visit). Relevant points:
- Most of the people who regularly protest the bases (at that time anyway) are retirement age or older.
- Okinawa was annexed by Japan in the 1800s and is geographically distant from and rather different from them culturally so there is some built-in resentment of the government.
- Okinawa disproportionately carries the burden of hosting the bases, which is to say, almost all of them of about 30.
- Okinawa was traditionally agricultural and the bases take up a big chunk of what would otherwise be farmland.
So while I don't see the US and Japan dissolving the program any time soon, knowing that makes it easier to get why there would be ongoing tension.
edited 10th Jun '16 6:07:35 PM by Elle
I figured it was more that everyone assumed Clinton was going to get the nomination, so why bother scrutinizing the guy who's not gonna go anywhere?
