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
I literally just said I didn't. I'm beginning to think you're a troll and we should stop responding to you.
@Superdark: Wow, what a huge claim to make without anything to back that up. Show us where she said the Middle East needs to stay in perpetual war. I'm pretty sure that's some more bullcrap, though.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:04:54 PM by AceofSpades
Also, why is a donation from someone at Wall Street automatically a bribe? I get as an institution it symbolizes a lot of fucked up shit but the people themselves aren't mustache twirling villains. They can have their beliefs and support people without it relating to their profession.
I get being a bit suspicious but a lot of people take that way too far.
@Le Garcon The KKK and neo-Nazis (I still haven't seen the Neo Nazis he's conndcted to), aren't being discussed right now. We were talking abut Bernies socialism and Hilary crony capitalism. You said, that she's not in favor of crony capitalism. I asked you if she took bribes to change the system. Please answer the question.
It cracks me up when people try to hold Clinton's former views on gay rights against her when progressive golden girl Tulsi Gabbard called gay rights supporters "homosexual extremists" back in the day and is held up as a shining example of progressivism because she supports Bernie.
And you continue to evade my question. Name. One. Instance. Where. It. Affected. Her. Vote.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:11:17 PM by ILoveDogs
Tulsi Gabbard is a Hawaii representative, and a former vice chair of the DNC. She stepped down from her post claiming that they were giving Bernie unfair treatment, and as such is widely respected among Sanders supporters.
Personally, I think that she's a shameless opportunist, and nowhere near as progressive as people say.
The actual "bribes" were called speaking fees, and during her career she's raised several million dollars in that manner, money which went into her pockets.
Accepting several million in bribes disguised as speaking fees over the course of her career doesn't make a good case for her. I don't think arguments that it "clearly" hasn't effected her decisionmaking and that she'll just go ahead and take action against her beneficiaries after kissing up to them once in power is particularly compelling.
She probably won't take significant action against her major benefactors because doing so means the money stops flowing. Back near the turn of the century before several similar activities regarded as political corruption were outlawed, the same held true for politicians in those days.
And you know what? In the cases where corrupt politicians of the early 20th century tried to backstab their benefactors, the entire donor class turned against them and the money stopped flowing, something which generally was fatal to their political careers.
It pretty much precludes he possibility of Clinton doing anything significant to enact progressive economic reforms in her first term, and her second term if she has any ambitions of a political dynasty.*
Now that said, the Republicans in congress are every bit as much of a barrier as Clinton's ties to the financial industry, so this is more or less an academic question at this point.
* Not necessarily a relative, but any political protégé would go down with her.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:25:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
@Le Garcon Okay. "Donations". Do you think she accepted "donations" from Wall Street and big corporations to change the system? Or is Sanders right. Do billionaires like Trump give politicians millions to look out for their business interests over the the interests of a politicians constituents?
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:26:55 PM by 940131
And no, I don't think he's a troll. For instance, I think that Solipsist fellow a while back wasn't a troll, either.
So, getting paid to speak at a function, things which hundreds of people of various levels of importance do, is now a bribe? Capsase, you have gone into full conspiracy mode here. Hell, the transcripts of all this shit that people get mad over happened after her tenure as Secretary and before her candidacy, when she had no practical power to enact any sort of policy in favor of anyone. She was getting fucking paid for her time.
So yeah, you want us to believe Clinton got bribed over something? Try pointing out something that doesn't involve her getting paid for a speaking engagement. Where she was working.
It's legal corruption, but it's still looks like corruption. Clinton was running for President in 2016, and everyone knew that; while she was technically a private citizen, her status was In Name Only. That creates a very clear conflict of interest.
edited 2nd Jul '16 4:34:18 PM by CaptainCapsase
You still haven't explained why a donation automatically becomes a bribe just because it's from a millionaire.
Like, caution is one thing, but you are basically saying that being rich somehow means a person can't have their own views on things or actually care about other people's problems.
Like, yeah, some of them probably are meant as bribes but that doesn't mean she's some willing puppet.
@Smokeycut Sorry. I missed your question. Where's the proof that she's only supporting the rights of the LGBTQ community because it's become politically cnvenient? Well, you just have to look at the historical record and ask yohrself two questions. Did she always support gay marriage? And if not, when did she support it? She's not consistent because she's a politician. They lie and flip flop depending on the political climate. It's just a fact. If you could go back in time 5 or 10 years and ask me if I support gay marriage, I would ay yes because I always am. I'm consistent. She isn't.
![]()
![]()
It only looks like corruption to people looking to make her look bad. People getting paid to speak at functions, private and otherwise, is neither new nor in any way indicative of corruption. Regardless of the position of the speaker.
In other words, that entire post of yours stinks of mudslinging and conspiracy theory. Again, actual fucking proof of a bribe would go a long way here, and getting paid for doing work isn't it.
For record, the supposed answer to "has Clinton ever been influenced by Wall Street money?" is her shift on a bankruptcy bill while she was a senator, a criticism leveled by Elizabeth Warren. Now, I haven't gotten into it all that much, and unfortunately I don't feel it matters much anymore, but feel free to have a back and forth on that.

And by that logic Trump is also beholden to the Klan and other Neo Nazi fronts.
Oh really when?