Politics The 2016 US Presidential Election

Maybe she just used those speeches as opportunities to tell them they couldn't pay her for access and special treatment if she was elected? Maybe she convinced them all she cares more about the common person than being beholden to big business and big money?

 

You know what, I don't care about the paid speeches.
They all do it...some better than others.

What I care about is if they're a good leader.
Will they get things done?
Will they care about us, the citizens?
Will they make the right choices for the nation?
Will they fuck up the world?

I don't give a flying fig about all the red herrings.

And don't want to have a fuckin' beer with them.

 

Technically you may be close to correct. Hillary took ~$22M from big business to give speeches (keep in mind that is personal income, not campaign funds).


Over that same time period, guess how much Bernie was paid for speeches?











Got your guess?





Was it higher or lower than $1867.42?



She's leading in Super-PAC money by almost $50M to $0 too. Nothing to see here though, move along...

 

This is a great example of why, even though I don't agree with his stance on everything, I truly believe Bernie is at least "different" in a positive way than just about everyone else with a real chance:

Flea: Why I Support Bernie Sanders | Rolling Stone

 

Again, I really don't care about the money in this context.

To me, this is not a race in who has the cleanest record.
For me, this is about who will make the best decisions, for the people, the nation and the world...and who can make it happen.

Now, in a way...BOTH Sanders and Clinton would have a VERY difficult time moving anything forward in Congress.
Both are polarizing, both have non-charismatic personalities and both are hated by the opposing side. (which IS in control of Congress)

But the Presidential powers are focused on Foreign and Global agendas...this is where the role has the authority.
And Clinton has MUCH more experience and accomplishments on this...plus I believe her opinion on it to be better.

I do like the projection of power, I do like a strong posture. She's more of this aspect than Sanders.
I'm not into an ideal where I think the world is going to just sing "Kumbya" if we just stop all military action.

And the President doesn't have as much influence on Domestic, this is Congress' baliwick...and they muck it up.
But I do believe her Executive policy AFTER the laws and budgets are passed will be better than Sanders...she's more pragmatic...and again, has more experience.
This is the reality I know about from working inside government...it's not magic, it just doesn't happen...the bureaucrats need to be controlled and directed. Sanders doesn't know how to rein in the territorial players. She does, at least more.

As far as the GOP is concerned, their front-runners are insane, period. And egomaniacs.
Maybe Rubio, but he's a bit too catering. And Kasich, would be good...but he won't win.

I think about who's the best in the role.
I don't care about the background unless it's criminal.

If you want to solve the money issue...then go after the corporations (and the Supreme Court, who let the door open wide)
But the candidates...it's a moot issue for me.

 

I guess we fundamentally disagree on what type of conduct a perspective leader would engage in, or what would show they have good decision making ability.

 

Sorry @Borla this like picking your brain surgeon on their past perks from the pharma industry.
Really, I don't care...as long as I'm getting the best for my mental health. (AND they're not using drugs that would harm me...because of those perks)

Just like I don't pick my politicians because of their brain surgery skills (yes, I'm talking to you Mr. Carson)

Or I don't throw out my president for getting a blowjob (or lying about it to save face)

One doesn't relate to the other.

Now, IF Clinton was truly doing something criminal
Or her speeches were a direct bribe during her time in office...then that would be something to worry about.

But I can't begrudge my favorite QB for taking a multi-million dollar endorsement deal.
Does that mean they can't play Football for my team anymore??
Even if they win because of his skills??

What's the diff??

Are politicians supposed to be saints?
More pure?
Are they supposed to be poorer??

What's the difference between Bloomberg using his money to pop into the race and Trump??
Because he's not as crass?? Doesn't piss off as many people??
What's the difference between how they made their millions legally and Clinton??

I think people are a bit hypocritical and unrealistic about their politicians.

Why can't they call politicians on their REAL bullshit??
How they voted.
Their results.
Isn't that what matters??

Just like we judge our QB's on their play...and their wins.
Not their products.

Why aren't more people upset at Trump because of his past business dealing with the mafia?? (which he doesn't deny)
Do we accept his impurity??
Mostly I see people objecting to him because of his mouth and crassness. Not his ideas. Or past actions. (that was "just business")

So why does the Democratic nominee have to be more "pure"??
Or judging Sanders on his hair or posture??

I just prefer judging them on their ability.
And where they will lead us.
And their results.

 

Bernie Sanders just won the New Hampshire primary.

So that's a thing.

 

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't oversell the NH win. It's impressive but he's got a long way to go.

But even still. I think he's managed to do a hell of a lot better than most people would've guessed.

 

Hell, 538 already has Clinton at 93% win in SC. (or 95% depending)

I don't know what the media is raving about.
Then again, they're like piranha...a hint of blood, they go into a frenzy.

Friggin' horse race fanatics.

It's not going to be interesting until Super Tuesday.

 

A good explanation of "superdelegates" and why they shouldn't be counted yet.

After Sanders' Big Win in New Hampshire, Establishment Figures Want to Scare You with Superdelegates. Here's Why It's Bullshit :: Politics :: Features :: Paste

 

DNC rolls back restrictions on lobbyist donations | TheHillBasically another way for Hillary to take donations from big money.

The DNC Just Declared War on Bernie Sanders' Political Revolution

 

Ohhhh... Whatever happened to the Democratic Party's aversion to PACs and Citizens United?

Or are the Dems only against big money when the Republicans use it?

Does Whillary the power whore dirty everything she touches? Or is it just the end justifying the means, with the party establishment (and you can't get more establishment than Whillary) defending its fertile and lucrative turf by whatever means necessary?