dagblog - Comments for "How Hillary Clinton Could Ask A Single Donor For Over $700,000"

Your interpretation of my

ocean-kat — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:53:20 +0000

In reply to It wasn't the democrats that

Your interpretation of my comment:

Yeah, right, it was all a clean game played fair and square with the best ideals of democracy constantly demonstrated by our elected leaders

What I actually posted:

A bipartisan group of both republicans and democrats tried to limit the corruption but the right wing Supreme Court opened the flood gates

When ever an otherwise intelligent person is unwilling to engage in rational dialog, refuses to answer any questions, and intentionally grossly distorts another person's comments I tend to think that emotional reaction has an unspoken cause. Your sarcastic rant isn't about my posts or my arguments. It doesn't address them at all. It's about your emotional reaction to Hillary.

It wasn't the democrats that

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 15:10:24 +0000

In reply to The game is dirty. It wasn't

It wasn't the democrats that made it dirty and it wasn't the republicans that made it dirty. It was the Supreme Court.

Yeah, right, it was all a clean game played fair and square with the best ideals of democracy constantly demonstrated by our elected leaders and neither the Koch brothers nor Haim Saban, for example, had more of a vote, more influence on our country’s direction, than you and I do with our ballot every four years.Then McCutcheon v FEC changed everything. That decision turned the Republicans loose to become corrupted by money and forced Hillary to get down in the dirt, to fight fire with fire. You have spotted the beginning of history. Brilliant! As usual.

To be fair, as Glenn

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 07:28:25 +0000

In reply to The game is dirty. It wasn't

To be fair, as Glenn Greenwald noted, the "CitizensUnited" approach of pooling money for an issues or anti-candidate ad does seem like free speech. In the age of low budget Youtubes and small voter ability to make a statement, having a Tom Paine-like self-published statement blocked around elections when people care is roughly akin to keeping Bush protesters penned hundreds of yards from events in 2004.

The game is dirty. It wasn't

ocean-kat — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 07:09:23 +0000

In reply to

The game is dirty. It wasn't the democrats that made it dirty and it wasn't the republicans that made it dirty. It was the Supreme Court. A bipartisan group of both republicans and democrats tried to limit the corruption but the right wing Supreme Court opened the flood gates. It's not a money laundering scheme. The Supreme Court decided it was not just legal but a constitutional right. I don't like it. You don't like it. You think the democrats should remain pure and ignore the flood. I think that just means they will drown.

You think this is about Hillary for me? You fool, I play to win. I was happy when Obama set up a super pac and took Wall Street etc. money. I haven't seen anyone on the republican side complaining about all the money republican politicians take. And they take everything they can get. The Supreme Court sets the rules and I expect the democrats to play by them to remain competitive. I don't like democrats taking Wall Street money but I like losing even less.

“our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands,” which he said gives a large financial advantage to Republicans and their allied groups. “We can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,”

Just explain the game plan. Tell me why democrats don't have to face the reality of the law as it now stands. Tell me how democrats win by unilaterally disarming. Because I don't see the winning strategy. Because what you see as noble purity looks like losing to me.

A quick lesson on how

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 06:17:45 +0000

In reply to Everyone reading the articles

A quick lesson on how campaign finance works in the real electable world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-w...

If Bernie miraculously wins, he'll be using that megacash he complains about Hillary raising. He's been in the system before, no longer a virgin, but this yeaar he's pretwnding he's above it. Until June.

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 05:40:34 +0000

In reply to When the democrats are taking

Slamming politicians for being beholden to big time contributors has been stock in trade in political campaigns and among people talking politics forever. It certainly didn’t start with Hillary and she certainly doesn’t get an exemption just because she is your choice and the choice of the Party that I think everybody here has been a member of for most of our lives. She has taken too many millions for that. Money buys legislation one way or another. Politicians are influenced more by the power holders than they are by the wishes of the people. You know that. The power of the power holders is implemented with money. You know that. It is a system that is getting out of control “just like everyone reading the articles on McCutcheon v FEC knew this was exactly what would happen.”

Did you read the links? Did you get the point that the Clinton campaign with the complicity of the DNC set up what amounts to a money laundering mechanism? Hillary is in a dirty game. She is playing by the rules that have evolved in a way to make it a dirty game. She is very good at it. That it is a corrupted political game that she plays so well is only one of the reasons I don’t want her to be our next President when there is a better alternative who is trying to change the game.

When the democrats are taking

ocean-kat — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 01:02:04 +0000

In reply to Everyone reading the articles

When the democrats are taking most of the money instead of a fraction of the money republicans get.

But once again, while Sanders supporters slam Hillary for taking that money they are mostly oh so careful not to slam Obama and nearly every other democrat for taking that money. They offer no reasons why unilateral disarmament is as good or better against republicans who absolutely take every penny they can get. So I'll ask again.

Please explain why Barney Frank and Obama are wrong when they say democrats cannot unilaterally disarm. Please explain why a 5 to 1 fundraising gap will benefit down ballot democrats. Sanders claims of super PAC purity does not seem to be winning the election for him. If Sanders cannot win with claims of purity do you think down ballot democrats can win with claims of purity if massively outspent by their less pure republican opponents?

Everyone reading the articles

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 00:28:08 +0000

In reply to

Everyone reading the articles on McCutcheon v FEC knew this was exactly what would happen.

Yes they did, or at least believed they knew. They expected the influence of big money, sleazy money for the most part IMO, to be even greater. They expected more politicians to sell out rather than take the sort of ethical stand for change that would make it harder to win elections. They were right about that. The initial discussion among outraged Democrats though was about the expectation that the benefit of the new rule allowing huge amounts of money to be donated/invested in elections would go mainly to Republicans. It pissed them off and their anger was all directed at the sleazy Republicans and there was a lot of anger. But it looks like now that we see that Hillary is smart enough to work that system, along with the almost universal support of the Democratic Establishment, and do it as well or better than any Republican, that everything is alright.

How bad does a system need to get before you will mark any points against a candidate for using that system?

ocean-kat — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 21:44:07 +0000

In reply to How Hillary Clinton Could Ask A Single Donor For Over $700,000

Barney Frank said, "There was this complaint, “Oh she had contributions from Wall Street.” So did Barack Obama. So does almost every Democrat because you can’t unilaterally disarm. "

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a message to supporters that “our campaign has to face the reality of the law as it stands,” which he said gives a large financial advantage to Republicans and their allied groups. “We can’t allow for two sets of rules in this election whereby the Republican nominee is the beneficiary of unlimited spending and Democrats unilaterally disarm,”

Several Democratic financiers said they were alarmed last week by fund-raising reports from the major Republican super PACS. Two groups that were formed with help from the Republican strategist Karl Rove, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, raised $51 million between them last year for the Congressional and presidential races. Groups supporting specific Republican presidential candidates brought in roughly $40 million.

But the major Democratic groups, including Priorities USA Action, raised only $19 million for the year.

Everyone reading the articles on McCutcheon v FEC knew this was exactly what would happen. Please explain why Barney Frank and Obama are wrong when they say democrats cannot unilaterally disarm. Please explain why a 5 to 1 fundraising gap will benefit down ballot democrats. Sanders claims of super PAC purity does not seem to be winning the election for him. If Sanders cannot win with claims of purity do you think down ballot democrats can win with claims of purity if massively outspent by their less pure republican opponents?

How Hillary Clinton Bought

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 02 Apr 2016 20:58:29 +0000

In reply to How Hillary Clinton Could Ask A Single Donor For Over $700,000

How Hillary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties