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
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'.
Warren was flat out, unambiguously wrong. The Bankruptcy Bill was not an example of Clinton being influenced. For the record, there were three separate bills. The first one was pocket vetoed by Bill (at Hillary's urging, as Warren admits)...the second one? Clinton and Schumer lobbied for alimony protections in the Senate version of the bill...which, incidentally, resulted in an irreconcilable bill going through the Senate and the House. Know what this did? Killed it as they couldn't pass an identical one. And it was passing by like eighty votes in the Senate, so let's not pretend Clinton was this lone voice here.
The third one became law by a near Veto-Proof majority. Clinton didn't vote on it because she was taking care of Bill after a surgery. But she DID support a filibuster of the bill and read these remarks into the record
..please tell me this is someone who turned her back on principles to support the Bill.
People in industries can donate to Clinton for any reasons I know oil rig workers who are solid blue collar staunch Democrats, whose donations still count as 'the fossil fuel industry'....if Wall Street donates to her, to get nothing in return, given her top contributors come well elsewhere (One of her top contributor's is Emily's List for Pete sake) then what's the harm? Look at if there's quid pro quo, and there isn't any for Clinton.
Also, this was from a bit back but, Potatoes Rock, even if that brand of cynicism works for you, you do understand why it would be annoying after awhile to other people right?
edited 11th Jun '16 10:38:50 AM by LSBK
His avatar is a fairly stacked anime chick, but she's not half-naked.
But hey, what do people expect from the Trump campaign at this point? I mean when this
is how some of them think you can't exactly be shocked.
@Lighty Snake I should have done more research about that, I'm sorry. I have looked up some more information about the bill and, judging from a Washington Post article, it was an incredibly complex case and it is difficult to judge whether there was actual influence in this case, so I'll have to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for that. However, what would, in your point of view, be a direct example that someone has been influenced by lobby money? If Clinton will only do a half-hearted attempt to address climate change, this may very well be caused by lobby money (or to give a past example, her general laissez-faire attitude towards Wall Street), but it is insanely difficult to prove. Even Clinton herself considered these large amounts of money to be enough evidence when she attacked Obama in 2008 over it.
And again, this is not about individual employees in the fossil fuel industry (or Wall Street, for that matter) contributing to Clinton's campaign, but about the enormous amount of money raised by Super PA Cs. The former is only a fraction of the total. If Clinton is not influenced by the lobby money, why do these people keep donating such large amounts to her?
You are putting the cart before the horse. People donate to candidates they think already agree with them, not the other way around. And no, that doesn't mean that the candidate shares all their views, just that said candidate is the one who is most in line with them.
Think about it this way—you are a major corporation, and you are trying to figure out who to donate to. Sanders is a self-described socialist so he's out. Trump could be good for business, but he could also crash the economy and/or blow up the country. That pretty much leaves Clinton as the default candidate to support unless you wanna donate to Gary Johnson.
@Lighty Snake I should have done more research about that, I'm sorry. I have looked up some more information about the bill and, judging from a Washington Post article, it was an incredibly complex case and it is difficult to judge whether there was actual influence in this case, so I'll have to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for that. However, what would, in your point of view, be a direct example that someone has been influenced by lobby money? If Clinton will only do a half-hearted attempt to address climate change, this may very well be caused by lobby money (or to give a past example, her general laissez-faire attitude towards Wall Street), but it is insanely difficult to prove. Even Clinton herself considered these large amounts of money to be enough evidence when she attacked Obama in 2008 over it.
The Republican Party is a living example of it. Their platforms are almost entirely corporate giveaways, with the destruction of regulations, lowering their taxes, etc. Clinton has also proposed a Wall Street regulatory plan that even Warren has endorsed, so it's not like she' proposing letting them run amok.
The issue is the Republicans being in charge of Congress, making it so Obama's had to compromise with them on a number of things...Obama actually counters the argument because he was getting these contributions, and promptly did not do the bidding of big corporations, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry.
And like I said...people on Wall Street aren't a monolithic, totally sinister entity. If a bunch of normal, low-level guys are concerned for their employment thanks to Sanders' "tax Wall Street to fund free college" and give to Clinton instead, that's counted as 'Wall Street donations,' and Clinton's funding is not as Wall Street and corporation heavy as I've heard it claimed as compared to Republicans. The bulk of her money, to my recollection, comes from trial lawyers, non-profits and the retired.
![]()
![]()
Also the other way around, since politicians are dependent on these large-scale donations. They know that these people could simply start donating to the other guy and they could run dry on money, so it's necessary to keep the stream of money running, and this would generally require some favours. I'm not saying that Clinton will turn into a cartoonish supervillain who will force the middle-class into poverty and destroy the planet to make her shareholders rich, but I think these amounts of lobby money are simply not healthy.
That's because people (I mean news outlets, not you) often conveniently ignore the Super PAC money in their analysis. I believe the Super PAC money coming from Wall Street was $14 million (or 17?) the last time I looked, so that's a significant amount.
Also, you could hardly claim that Obama was a hero regarding Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry.

Eh, Trump might have gained back some sympathy from NY for defending it against Cruz shenanigans. Doesn't help that Hil is a transplant from Chicago rather than a born and bred New Yorker like Trump.
Not saying that means he wins, but it might not be as simple as NY being a shoo-in.