Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

This has nothing to do with voting for "the lesser of two evils", this is just a result of an election system that results in two parties. Even if we move to a 100% public finance system, you'd still likely going to vote to a candidate that only align with you on some of the issues.

The best part is no matter who they vote for even more of their tax dollars would go to support the greater evil's campaign mwaa ha ha ha ha ha

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Why is it normal? Let no one complain, because the other side's asshole is much worse than the career insider who has bathed in the excesses of this corruption.

She will reform campaign finance after she gets elected fully taking advantage of the broken system and enriching herself via the last appointed office she held.

Corruption? Would you like to substantiate that? And what exactly do you think she's using this money for, and if it wasn't for Trump, you would have the Koch brothers spending a cool million on the GOP candidate, instead of putting all that money towards the down-ballot candidates.

It's unfortunate, but democrats have to raise a substantial amount of money if they wanna stand a chance in enacting progress throughout the political spectrum.

 

[Geist-]

"Heh, why do I even need to pretend to be for the people, they're all going to vote for me anyway because no one wants the alternative."

Maybe we'll get some campaign finance reform 8 years from now...

 

[Oriel]

This is perfectly normal for American politics.........which just goes to show how utterly fucked up the US political system really is. America really needs public financing to end this abomination.

Spoiler

Every American should still give their full backing to Hillary though.

 

[Riddick]

What is this? Comic Con?

No. it's bribes disguised as political donation. What's depressing is all the posters here defending this reprehensible shit as "normal". The standards for a decent politician and human being or in fact for political discussion have dropped like a rock here. I weep for humanity if Clinton's disgusting involvement with the ultra-rich ruling class is considered "normal" nowadays.

 

[JABEE]

A meaningful campaign finance reform is very much possible, the public hates the current state of affairs as do most members of congress.
And considering the most Democrats supported the latest efforts to fix the system and most Republicans objected to them, I think on this particular point, the GOP do currently carry more of the blame (but of course not all of it).

p.s.
This has nothing to do with voting for "the lesser of two evils", this is just a result of an election system that results in two parties. Even if we move to a 100% public finance system, you'd still likely going to vote to a candidate that only align with you on some of the issues.

It matters when hammering interested public officials for this becomes an off-limits topic, because both partisan media branches know their mascot is part of this.

 

[TestOfTide]

A meaningful campaign finance reform is very much possible, the public hates the current state of affairs as do most members of congress.
And considering the most Democrats supported the latest efforts to fix the system and most Republicans objected to them, I think on this particular point, the GOP do currently carry more of the blame (but of course not all of it).

p.s.
This has nothing to do with voting for "the lesser of two evils", this is just a result of an election system that results in two parties. Even if we move to a 100% public finance system, you'd still likely going to vote to a candidate that only align with you on some of the issues.

Well we both know that making the US not a two party system would require constitutional amendments...which means it's probably never going to happen.

Two Party can be "good enough" so long as we start seeing improvements to the system that lead to a much higher percentage of people voting and to more voters voting more than just once every 4 years.

The biggest reason money is such a big factor in US politics is because we don't have a voting system that is accessible enough, which leads to campaigns needing GOTV efforts.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Why did the libertarian cross the road?

A: What road?

lol..

 

[hydrophilic attack]

The best part is no matter who they vote for even more of their tax dollars would go to support the greater evil's campaign mwaa ha ha ha ha ha

It's still vastly preferable to making the candidates raise all the money on their own. Here in Sweden we have extensive public financing, and this is what helps the left-wing parties stay competitive with the right-wing parties which receive a lot of money from different interest groups (to be fair the social democrats get quite a lot from unions)

 

[JABEE]

Corruption? Would you like to substantiate that? And what exactly do you think she's using this money for, and if it wasn't for Trump, you would have the Koch brothers spending a cool million on the GOP candidate, instead of putting all that money towards the down-ballot candidates.

It's unfortunate, but democrats have to raise a substantial amount of money if they wanna stand a chance in enacting progress throughout the political spectrum.

Business elite buy influence. What corruption do I need to substantiate? Do you think there is a smoking gun or envelope of cash tied to one single vote? And this applies to both ends of our political environment. Industry Lobbyists exist because they impact policy.

People should be criticized for this stuff even if it makes the home team uncomfortable.

 

[7DollarHagane]

It matters when hammering interested public officials for this becomes an off-limits topic, because both partisan media branches know their mascot is part of this.

Yeah, if it was trump or cruz called out for this it'd be all "look at the rich white guy so out of touch with normal people" about this story.

I get that shes the better candidate and people are afraid that criticizing her means points for trump but it's really a sign of how forgiving people are willing to be of her because of the alternative.

 

[JABEE]

Isn't this more a result of basically having Trump screw up all the time on his own. Any candidate would take a step back then, because it is not needed to appear on events. It's more just a campaign strategy then actually pandering to the ultra rich I think.


How is she going to enrich herself as a former President, and how is that worse then compared to previous Presidents who have done the same by getting money to appear at events and do some speeches?

She isn't worse, but she's running for President.

 

[Oriel]

No. it's bribes disguised as political donation. What's depressing is all the posters here defending this reprehensible shit as "normal". The standards for a decent politician and human being or in fact for political discussion have dropped like a rock here. I weep for humanity if Clinton's disgusting involvement with the ultra-rich ruling class is considered "normal" nowadays.

It's "normal" in the context of American politics, that doesn't make it right.

 

[benjipwns]

It's still vastly preferable to making the candidates raise all the money on their own. Here in Sweden we have extensive public financing, and this is what helps the left-wing parties stay competitive with the right-wing parties which receive a lot of money from different interest groups (to be fair the social democrats get quite a lot from unions)

There's already public funding for both the primaries and general election. Has been since 1976.

Johm McCain was the last candidate to accept it. Because it caps how much you can raise and use along with other limitations. Obama and later Romney and now Clinton and Trump don't want the restrictions. Hillary raised $143 million in one month, if she took public funding she would have been capped at $92 million total for the general.

Even Sanders didn't accept it for the primaries because it would have capped him at $42 million, when he wound up raising $200 million.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Yeah, if it was trump or cruz called out for this it'd be all "look at the rich white guy so out of touch with normal people" about this story.

I get that shes the better candidate and people are afraid that criticizing her means points for trump but it's really a sign of how forgiving people are willing to be of her because of the alternative.

So she should not fundraise?

 

[Eidan]

Business elite buy influence. What corruption do I need to substantiate? Do you think there is a smoking gun or envelope of cash tied to one single vote? And this applies to both ends of our political environment. Industry Lobbyists exist because they impact policy.

People should be criticized for this stuff even if it makes the home team uncomfortable.

I see the point in criticizing the system. I just don't see the point of harping on a single candidate for participating in it. Exactly what would I prefer? A Clinton campaign that was consistently beat by Republican fundraising efforts, resulting in an inferior campaign apparatus, inferior GOTV results, and less ad buys?

 

[A Human Becoming]

Hillary has given plenty of interviews. She just hasn't done press conferences. Given that it's doubtful they'd have substantive questions I find it hard to blame her. But this idea that she hasn't talked to reporters isn't true

Press conferences are much less scripted and controlled. She'll also have to do them as president I imagine, so she should stop ducking out on them.

When I read the article last night the only part that I found particularly bothersome was how much more comfortable she is around these rich people than the general public. I mean, many are part of her inner circle of friends, but not all. It left me with the impression that while she may sympathize and truly want to help people, there is some truth that she's just incapable of connecting with regular people because she's been so far removed from that lifestyle for decades now.

 

[RustyNails]

"Ultrarich" sounds like an evil organization from a final fantasy game.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Business elite buy influence. What corruption do I need to substantiate? Do you think there is a smoking gun or envelope of cash tied to one single vote? And this applies to both ends of our political environment. Industry Lobbyists don't exist because they don't work.

People should be criticized for this stuff even if it makes the home team uncomfortable.

Yes, you should probably have substantial evidence before declaring someone corrupt or in the pockets of the 'elite', or that's she's willing to completely do a 180 on her policy platform once elected. (or the reality that the money being raised here will also be used to help down-ballot candidates which is incredibly important for progress to be stay put or made)

You can't change the game if you're not even in it.

 

[Riddick]

It's "normal" in the context of American politics, that doesn't make it right.

It sure looks like it by this thread. Her corruption is being dismissed as just another day in Washington because "everyone else does it". Maybe if she wasn't such a corporate puppet maybe she could fund raise like Sanders did, but that's just a crazy theory, right?

 

[etrain911]

Why did the libertarian cross the road?

A: What road?

I've also heard it told: Why did the libertarian cross the road?

A: None of your damn business, am I being detained?


On topic, I think that this speaks to a much larger problem in politics on the way that the game must be played. The thing I liked most about Bernie was his refusal to play it this way, and his wish and desire to reform these rules. Hopefully Hillary does so.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Business elite buy influence. What corruption do I need to substantiate? Do you think there is a smoking gun or envelope of cash tied to one single vote? And this applies to both ends of our political environment. Industry Lobbyists exist because they impact policy.

People should be criticized for this stuff even if it makes the home team uncomfortable.

It's an unfortunate reality, but I don't see the point of singling out one candidate for schmoozing when it's more of an indictment of the system as a whole. You're not going to win a national election in this country by being a perfect flower, or even (generally) a state election.

Russ Feingold, the author of McCain-Feingold (the campaign finance law crippled by Citizens United) banned outside spending in his 2010 reelection campaign because he was sure he could win just by virtue of every Wisconsinite knowing how decent and honest he was. Guess what didn't happen. And now Feingold is running for his seat again but is open to outside spending.

You wanna change the rules, first you need to win.

 

[JABEE]

It's "normal" in the context of American politics, that doesn't make it right.

And we accept it. The media accepts it. Ethics are bent to continue this subversion of democracy. At least we didn't elect the orange-faced bigot or the venture capitalist or the guy who said he invented the Internet. As long as our guy/girl wins, self-reflection is not required.

The focus is always on winning up until the election. Then the person wins and it's all about protecting the glory and feeling of conquering the boogeyman.

 

[old manatee]

She wasn't in Cape Cod, that's where the normal rich people live. She was on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket where the super rich are.

Cape Cod is a place where rich people buy all of the houses so that they can visit once a year. The actual residents are often broke in my experience.

 

[dramatis]

Business elite buy influence. What corruption do I need to substantiate? Do you think there is a smoking gun or envelope of cash tied to one single vote? And this applies to both ends of our political environment. Industry Lobbyists exist because they impact policy.

People should be criticized for this stuff even if it makes the home team uncomfortable.

The problem with that is that it seems like guilt by association rather than evidence.

Personally, I find it strange that people don't seem to consider the possibility that someone could take the money and then ignore the wishes of the donor. Perhaps it's because my personal sentiment is that if I were in that position, I would do that? lol

And it's not like all donors are all that smart, since a lot of them poured money into the Romney campaign and the Bush campaign. Fooling them is probably easier than we think.

 

[JABEE]

I see the point in criticizing the system. I just don't see the point of harping on a single candidate for participating in it. Exactly what would I prefer? A Clinton campaign that was consistently beat by Republican fundraising efforts, resulting in an inferior campaign apparatus, inferior GOTV results, and less ad buys?

Who else is running for President now? Who else should we be harping on if the point is valid?

 

[benjipwns]

She'll also have to do them as president I imagine

Says who?

 

[JustenP88]

The thing I liked most about Bernie was his refusal to play it this way, and his wish and desire to reform these rules. Hopefully Hillary does so.

Yeah, he put his money where his mouth was and had tremendous results. He should've served as proof that there was another way and we don't have to wait for change before enacting it. We could lead by example.

But, no, he was scoffed at around here because he had the nerve to challenge the anointed one.

 

[G.ZZZ]

We should know our place and not question the rich and powerful too much.

Praise bro.

 

[AlphaDump]

Yeah, he put his money where his mouth was and had tremendous results. He should've served as proof that there was another way and we don't have to wait for change before enacting it. We could lead by example.

But, no, he was scoffed at around here because he had the nerve to challenge the anointed one.

yes, it was neogaf's fault. that's it.

 

[Coffee Dog]

The problem with that is that it seems like guilt by association rather than evidence.

Personally, I find it strange that people don't seem to consider the possibility that someone could take the money and then ignore the wishes of the donor. Perhaps it's because my personal sentiment is that if I were in that position, I would do that? lol

And it's not like all donors are all that smart, since a lot of them poured money into the Romney campaign and the Bush campaign. Fooling them is probably easier than we think.

Wow, why hasn't anyone thought of this before??

The notion that Hilary is going to pull a punk rock play and tell her donors to fuck off is ridiculous. She's been in politics for decades and there's a reason she still has a career. If she has to kiss some trust fund babies and pass a few pieces of helpful legislation, she will, and there's no reason to deny it or think otherwise.

 

[elrechazado]

What's disgusting about it?

Put an R by her name and it would become very clear.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

yes, it was neogaf's fault. that's it.

NeoGAF ruins everything.

 

[JustenP88]

yes, it was neogaf's fault. that's it.

What was neogaf's fault? I'm speaking in the context of the discourse on this forum so... yes?

 

[benjipwns]

Yeah, he put his money where his mouth was and had tremendous results. He should've served as proof that there was another way and we don't have to wait for change before enacting it. We could lead by example.

Well, he opted out of his preferred public funding system so he could raise $230 million. More than any candidate except Hillary.

 

[Eidan]

Who else is running for President now? Who else should we be harping on if the point is valid?

Would you prefer if she was out-fundraised for the sake of ideological purity?

 

[ahoyhoy]

Put an R by her name and it would become very clear.

Ding ding ding.

 

[Vince_Russo]

We can critique the US political system that Clinton and the Republicans are using without having to come to the aid of our preferred politician on that particular issue. Yes, we know, Donald Trump is a monster. I would sell my soul to guarantee he doesn't win.

But it's OK to have a conversation about Clinton going to private islands with celebrities to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. It sucks, it's dirty -- no matter who uses it. Hopefully this changes in my life time.

 

[Oriel]

It sure looks like it by this thread. Her corruption is being dismissed as just another day in Washington because "everyone else does it". Maybe if she wasn't such a corporate puppet maybe she could fund raise like Sanders did, but that's just a crazy theory, right?

What corruption?! Just because you don't like her tactics or her industrial-level fund raising program doesn't mean she's corrupt, Hillary is merely working the system that is in place. And Sanders would do the very same thing. If you want to cast blame then lay it with the broken, rotten and downright immoral US electoral system.

But remember, immoral != illegal.

 

[hypernima]

Why did the libertarian cross the road?

A: What road?

I'm lost on this joke

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Put an R by her name and it would become very clear.

I don't see a R next to her name though, which is certainly a very important distinction to make and I also don't see a billion dollar Koch Brothers machine anywhere pulling the strings.

 

[JustenP88]

Well, he opted out of his preferred public funding system so he could raise $230 million. More than any candidate except Hillary.

Fantastic. I vastly prefer his method of fundraising. Public across the board is ideal, but he was able to remain competitive while still getting most of his cash from the 'public'.

 

[AlphaDump]

Well, he opted out of his preferred public funding system so he could raise $230 million. More than any candidate except Hillary.

and he setup a donation system that was below the threshold for reporting your employer and other info. It came down to clever accounting, in addition to a good donation system.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

It sure looks like it by this thread. Her corruption is being dismissed as just another day in Washington because "everyone else does it". Maybe if she wasn't such a corporate puppet maybe she could fund raise like Sanders did, but that's just a crazy theory, right?

Sanders supports Hillary now so why should she change her approach? She kicked his butt as a "corporate puppet" easily.

 

[elrechazado]

I don't see a R next to her name though, which is certainly a very important distinction and I also don't see a billion dollar Koch Brothers machine anywhere pulling the strings.

Ironic given your username that you'd be that guy. Thanks for making my point.

 

[benjipwns]

I'm lost on this joke

Fred can help out:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, he put his money where his mouth was and had tremendous results. He should've served as proof that there was another way and we don't have to wait for change before enacting it. We could lead by example.

But, no, he was scoffed at around here because he had the nerve to challenge the anointed one.

He lost and it wasn't even close. And that was after outspending Clinton in many primary contests. Sanders didn't appeal to broad swaths of the Democratic base because he didn't care about their issues. He said as much before he even ran for president.

What is the largest voting bloc in America? Is it gay people? No. Is it African-Americans? No. Hispanics? No. What? White working-class people.

He placed a bet that he could recapture a share of the electorate that has widely abandoned Democrats and liberals while Clinton focused on the coalition that elected Obama. He lost that bet. I'm sorry.

 

[Chichikov]

It sure looks like it by this thread. Her corruption is being dismissed as just another day in Washington because "everyone else does it". Maybe if she wasn't such a corporate puppet maybe she could fund raise like Sanders did, but that's just a crazy theory, right?

No one is dismissing any corruption in this thread.
Also, Sanders rejected public funding and he raised money from the very rich in expensive fundraisers in the past.

 

[JABEE]

Would you prefer if she was out-fundraised for the sake of ideological purity?

I would prefer that she was criticized in a way that may force change to how the process works. If it's part of your platform make it part of your action.

I would prefer this kind of "ideological purity," as if practicing what you preach is some kind of negative thing.

 

[benjipwns]

Fantastic. I vastly prefer his method of fundraising. Public across the board is ideal, but he was able to remain competitive while still getting most of his cash from the 'public'.

No, he opted out of public funding. Which is the system he supports. It was available. He just didn't take it because it would have limited him to $42 million.