Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
As much as I hate to admit it, I do see some of the logic in this. Taking money from big banks could be and was an angle of attack on her. The nuance I mentioned above is lost on most voters. I don't think she "should have known", though. This election is historic for many (awful) reasons, but one I've not seen mentioned (outside this elite group of brilliant, immaculate, godlike beings) is the degree that social media affected it. Social media amplified the old tactic of mud slinging to an unbelievable degree. Russian propaganda was able to use social media in an unprecedented campaign of antagonistic foreign propaganda. At the time she did them, the bank speeches probably seemed like an acceptable calculated risk and not the weak spot it became. I don't fault her or any politician for not predicting this.
I had a problem with that chain of events, even though I voted for him. Twice.
There are surely plenty of criticisms of Hillary and the primary between her and Obama certainly did get testy at times. Though the idea that she is less out of touch than a billionaire who literally lives (lived?) in a gilded tower seems a bit of a stretch. More out of touch than Obama in 08? probably. But she wasn't running against Obama this year, she was running against Donald Trump.
Shit all the arguments you see in this thread are basically entirely over groups and people with very different ideas about how this primary went down. Like fucking 90% of the arguments in every thread on this topic since the later half of the democratic primary can be boiled down to one single argument. One side feels Sanders behaviour was very obviously a factor in killing enthusiasm for voting for Clinton in the election and the other side doesn't think that is true to any degree that mattered. And neither side has been willing to budge on that one point for months now. Queue arguments.
Beyond the argument itself being intractable, I don't even either side really says anything actionable moving forward.
We can sit here and moralize at each other, exacerbating the split along this thing that we can't go back in time and fix, or we can actually fix the thing that we all agree on; the party needs to get its shit together to oppose Trump.
Unless relitigating the primary is going to produce some amazing insight, which seems rather unlikely at this point, it's just throwing around blame and accomplishing nothing but extending the rancor.
I put an easy one just a few posts above. This primary can show us alot of things about what needs to be done going forward.
Number one is don't delegitimize the process. Don't feed into preexisting biases within the Democratic and left-wing base that encourage a lack of participation. The Democratic party and left wing politics in general in the US, live or die on participation. Turnout is a win for progress. Don't discourage voters.
I would prefer to simply remove the points within the process that only serve to exacerbate such arguments. Because we're going to argue about this stuff, anyway. It's what we do.
Your second point here is the reason your first is inadequate. As you said earlier "In politics, perception is reality." It's not enough to remove the parts of the process that create this perception, one has to actively not cultivate that perception as well. Just cause it's not real doesn't mean people won't believe it if you hammer that point.
But the hitches and complication of the system that exists served to feed the perception. In many instances, it actually served to kick off new waves of anger about the primary being "rigged", which themselves triggered angry responses about how it wasn't.
The lack of standardization and transparency is a huge problem. We can't do this again.
Yes and I said as much already. My point was that this isn't enough, as you claimed it was. There has to be more. You have to not encourage that kind of thinking in your base too. Like seriously, if this whole election season has shown anything, I would think it would be that it's not enough to just not have a fire, you can't have smoke either.
And guys like Sanders were busting out the smoke machines at the end of the primary. You can't have that shit.
Whether or not it's enough, it has to be first. Because these fights are going to break out every 4 to 8 years from now until the end of the republic, and we need to remove the teeth from them out they're all going to look like this one.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
I feel like I'm in crazy land here. I care about my candidate standing behind their promises. You tell me you want to go hard on the finance industry? Cool. So don't cozy up to them and take their money, dont hide it like you're ashamed of it. Put some fucking weight behind your words.
Her history and record showed me Nothing positive on this front. Nada. And then she pulled this stunt. And then she wanted me to believe she was totally on my side her and was going to crack down on the finance industry? Lol no
The speeches were bog standard bullshit of the sort that tons of politicians and celebrities do constantly. She probably didn't even think twice about doing them and I don't see why she should have. They only became a problem when they were made into a problem, when they were portrayed as something unique rather than something boring. The same way how 4 Americans dying in a surprise attack across the world makes Clinton the worst but the previous administration facilitating a war based on lies constructed by the government that led to tens of thousands of Americans being killed or wounded is okay. The same way how having private email on a personal server she was recommended to get by her predecessor was portrayed as worse than said predecessor's use of private email on a public platform. Things just happened to be worse when Clinton did them and only when Clinton did them.
+11
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
once again I will point out that Hillary herself said it's a good idea to have wall street execs forming regulatory policy in DC
which, like, is the thing that caused the 2008 crash
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
As much as I hate to admit it, I do see some of the logic in this. Taking money from big banks could be and was an angle of attack on her. The nuance I mentioned above is lost on most voters. I don't think she "should have known", though. This election is historic for many (awful) reasons, but one I've not seen mentioned (outside this elite group of brilliant, immaculate, godlike beings) is the degree that social media affected it. Social media amplified the old tactic of mud slinging to an unbelievable degree. Russian propaganda was able to use social media in an unprecedented campaign of antagonistic foreign propaganda. At the time she did them, the bank speeches probably seemed like an acceptable calculated risk and not the weak spot it became. I don't fault her or any politician for not predicting this.
My read on her decision was that she thought she'd run mostly uncontested, and did not expect what Sanders brought to the table. She did not expect to have her feet held to the fire on economic concerns when she thought she'd end up running smooth on women/minorities social issue. So she ended up taking a stronger line on these issues which unfortunately did not match up with her priorities or past behaviour.
I don't think it was malicious. I think Hiliary wanted to be likeable. I think she wanted to have the "correct" opinion on everything. The trouble was that the people she pandered to with this one actually really cared about it, and her lack of legits here murdered her credibility.
It sucks. I didn't need her to pretend to champion my cause. I did need her to appear credible and like she really stood behind her words. I absolutely believe she stands behind her education policies, and many social platforms. Her history matches up here. This just didn't match up with her behaviour and that hurt her.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
So basically, to be a reasonably informed voter, you have to pretty much be your own investigative reporter. No wonder Trump won.
"Everybody, specially Republicans do it" is not a particulary compelling defense. Also "politics on this country are always going to be beholded to Wall Street/Silicon Valley, get over it" means that people are just going to vote for one "anti-establishment" candidate to the next. This time, Trump grabbed that flag, last time, Obama did. People just aren't happy with that anymore since after Bush II for some mysterious reason (yes this is sarcasm, people are going to be angry about the bank bailout for DECADES), and will continue to hold that grudge as long as they can.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
So basically, to be a reasonably informed voter, you have to pretty much be your own investigative reporter. No wonder Trump won.
Fuck Everything.
Or you just assume Republicans are full of shit and assume everything they say is wrong. That'll get you like 95% of the way there.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I mean, more reasonably you just have to consolidate the right sources. D&D is pretty good at that by itself, but TPM is the best hard news reporting out there right now. And they have to do a lot of filtering from the wires because they're not big enough to have reporters everywhere. They're just pretty good at filtering out bullshit most of the time (though they do hype polls in obnoxious ways sometimes).
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
I feel like I'm in crazy land here. I care about my candidate standing behind their promises. You tell me you want to go hard on the finance industry? Cool. So don't cozy up to them and take their money, dont hide it like you're ashamed of it. Put some fucking weight behind your words.
Her history and record showed me Nothing positive on this front. Nada. And then she pulled this stunt. And then she wanted me to believe she was totally on my side her and was going to crack down on the finance industry? Lol no
It wasn't a good look. At all.
No, what you seem to care about the vague perception of impropriety. My point is that perception is not grounded in reality.
Giving a speech to a Wall Street bank does not mean you can't also regulate them. Your problem is you, and many other people, act like they do. It's silly and ridiculous and nonsensical. One does imply the other in any way.
But the fact that so many people are silly about the whole thing is predictable enough that she should have been smart enough to avoid it. Because it looks bad. Even though there's nothing there.
Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface.
No, it's not. There's no connection between the two acts that would make it hypocritical. It looks so on the surface the same way niggardly looks like a racial slur on the surface. Yeah, kinda, if you don't think too hard about it.
You look at this argument than look at "I don't pay taxes cuz I'm smart" from Trump and you can really see how Hilary was graded on a totally different curve than her opponent.
Hilary's biggest mistake was playing this election like it was normal.
In a normal election everyone's taken some cash from shady places so it doesn't matter that much.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
So basically, to be a reasonably informed voter, you have to pretty much be your own investigative reporter. No wonder Trump won.
Fuck Everything.
Or you just assume Republicans are full of shit and assume everything they say is wrong. That'll get you like 95% of the way there.
That's the very same thing we harangue Republicans for doing to Democrats. Thus it contributes to the "both sides are wrong" narrative.
Basically the corporate speaking circuit is a place for rich people to flatter themselves into think they are important so actual important people will talk to them. They're not meaningful in any sense.
But it's clearly something that the activists parts of the party that are livid over no banking prosecutions are going to be mad at that you shouldn't do it because fucking obviously. The Clintons never think about how this shit will play. See also the other dumbest optics thing of this campaign: the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
once again I will point out that Hillary herself said it's a good idea to have wall street execs forming regulatory policy in DC
which, like, is the thing that caused the 2008 crash
but yeah how silly of me
Please quote exactly what she said so we can actually know what you are arguing here. Can't argue about something without the full text and context.
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
So basically, to be a reasonably informed voter, you have to pretty much be your own investigative reporter. No wonder Trump won.
Fuck Everything.
Or you just assume Republicans are full of shit and assume everything they say is wrong. That'll get you like 95% of the way there.
That's the very same thing we harangue Republicans for doing to Democrats. Thus it contributes to the "both sides are wrong" narrative.
I don't think you are wrong, though.
Fuck Everything.
Other than white supremacists rebranding, this is the second most annoying thing in politics right now:
The parties are not symmetrical.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
I dunno if anyone could have dealt with it. Every bit of conventional wisdom told us this guy is fucking ridiculous and burying himself is only a matter of time
The emails showed how little there was to the speeches not that it was a smoking gun
You just confirmed my point. You wanted the speeches to be damning evidence and even when the partial contents got leaked you still believe it despite the actual rather boring content
i think you're misreading me here.
the speeches weren't a smoking gun of anything. i agree with you.
the fact that Clinton spent so much energy playing hide the ball with them, that looks bad to voters, makes it look like there's something there.
releasing the emails and transcripts early at the start of the cycle would have burned out the nitpickers, defanged the attacks anyone would have against Clinton. because she would've controlled the narrative from the start.
And this is the sad state of affairs on the left. Clinton literally releases 30 years of tax returns, where liberal zealots could go over in intricate detail to determine just how woefully corrupt she really is, but instead fixate on meaningless bullshit. Her opponent - probably the most corrupt man ever to run for the office - refuses to release his tax returns (a modern presidential standard) and gets a free pass.
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. She was never sold as a good campaigner. A political knife-fighter is not the same thing. I think Obama in many ways illustrates the opposite, especially in his early time and office. And even now to some extent on key issues.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me but I swear her and Bill were better at this shit back in the 90s. Or maybe Bill's charisma just smooths over the rough edges better. But things like the Wall Street speeches are just ... I can't see how you don't get how bad it looks, even though it's literally nothing.
"One of the good ones". Also, for those that think that the Libertarian Techno-Princes of SV are any better:
Yeah, maybe be seen around with those people hurts a Leftist party for some reason.
Facebook comment post on Fox News page is blaming Obama for making Americans feel too unsafe to attend the inauguration. It's hard to believe with so much access to information in the modern day that people can be so stupid.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
It's not like Wall Street executives giving huge sums of money to politicians has ever resulted in anything bad happening in the past.
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. She was never sold as a good campaigner. A political knife-fighter is not the same thing. I think Obama in many ways illustrates the opposite, especially in his early time and office. And even now to some extent on key issues.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me but I swear her and Bill were better at this shit back in the 90s. Or maybe Bill's charisma just smooths over the rough edges better. But things like the Wall Street speeches are just ... I can't see how you don't get how bad it looks, even though it's literally nothing.
There was definitely talk, in here and elsewhere, about how Hillary Clinton was a master of retail politics and a savy campaigner. The sausage thing at the NY state fair was brought up repeatedly.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the entire campaign apparatus was unprepared for how this thing went down. We need to restructure for the next time out, in a major way.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
I feel like I'm in crazy land here. I care about my candidate standing behind their promises. You tell me you want to go hard on the finance industry? Cool. So don't cozy up to them and take their money, dont hide it like you're ashamed of it. Put some fucking weight behind your words.
Her history and record showed me Nothing positive on this front. Nada. And then she pulled this stunt. And then she wanted me to believe she was totally on my side her and was going to crack down on the finance industry? Lol no
It wasn't a good look. At all.
No, what you seem to care about the vague perception of impropriety. My point is that perception is not grounded in reality.
Giving a speech to a Wall Street bank does not mean you can't also regulate them. Your problem is you, and many other people, act like they do. It's silly and ridiculous and nonsensical. One does imply the other in any way.
But the fact that so many people are silly about the whole thing is predictable enough that she should have been smart enough to avoid it. Because it looks bad. Even though there's nothing there.
Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface.
No, it's not. There's no connection between the two acts that would make it hypocritical. It looks so on the surface the same way niggardly looks like a racial slur on the surface. Yeah, kinda, if you don't think too hard about it.
I think we are actually in agreement, here? You and I know there is no connection because we took the time to look into it. Hell, my default stance on it when I first heard about it is "She probably had a good reason to do those speeches and there is nothing to them" because I pay attention. The vast, vast majority of people do not. You said it yourself: "if you don't think too hard about it".
I still ascertain that she knew it was bad optics but thought it would be a small thing, not the smoke machine it became. I don't fault her for that because you would have to be psychic to know.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
It's not like Wall Street executives giving huge sums of money to politicians has ever resulted in anything bad happening in the past.
Boy I'm glad we dodged that bullet.
Now we just have single party rule and a government completely run by them.
+4
Options
imdointhisI should actually stop doin' this.Registered Userregular
I had a problem with that chain of events, even though I voted for him. Twice.
There are surely plenty of criticisms of Hillary and the primary between her and Obama certainly did get testy at times. Though the idea that she is less out of touch than a billionaire who literally lives (lived?) in a gilded tower seems a bit of a stretch. More out of touch than Obama in 08? probably. But she wasn't running against Obama this year, she was running against Donald Trump.
you're focusing on "out of touch" and i was focusing on "is a puppet of"
by running against someone who was not obama, she didn't suddenly stop being a puppet. - once again, I was also extremely uncomfortable with her being secretary of state after that point.
Now, if you were to try to convince me that Obama was lying about her, you'd need to tell me whether he was lying in 2008 or 2016.
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. She was never sold as a good campaigner. A political knife-fighter is not the same thing. I think Obama in many ways illustrates the opposite, especially in his early time and office. And even now to some extent on key issues.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me but I swear her and Bill were better at this shit back in the 90s. Or maybe Bill's charisma just smooths over the rough edges better. But things like the Wall Street speeches are just ... I can't see how you don't get how bad it looks, even though it's literally nothing.
There was definitely talk, in here and elsewhere, about how Hillary Clinton was a master of retail politics and a savy campaigner. The sausage thing at the NY state fair was brought up repeatedly.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the entire campaign apparatus was unprepared for how this thing went down. We need to restructure for the next time out, in a major way.
Here's the pertinent question for me: was it reasonable to predict this? I don't think so. I think 2016 was a once century event, the political equivalent of the magnetic poles switching places. I don't think anybody could or did predict it.
Are we back to "she should have known" style hindsight evaluation of reality? The sort of thing that implies that if any politician does anything that "looks" bad they need to quit being a politician for the rest of their life because now they're tainted, even if they didn't actually do something bad? Maybe that belief is why there's next to no Democrat politicians while the Republicans who don't give a shit about any of that fill their ranks.
Yes, she should have known that taking big money from big banks would come up when she wanted to appear authentic in her desire to strongly regulate big banks. She absolutely should have known this.
Are you arguing that you consider any Democrat who takes so much as a cent from Wall Street and/or the Big Banks to be tainted and thus untrustworthy and impossible to vote for?
I still voted, but my confidence on that front was shattered.
"I'm going to crack down on big banks" and "I'm going to talk to them for ludicrous sums of money and refuse to release transcripts" are two weirdly conflicting things. At the very least, that was terrible optics.
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
It's not like Wall Street executives giving huge sums of money to politicians has ever resulted in anything bad happening in the past.
How terribly vague and lacking in substance. Are you claiming her speeches were a form of bribery by Wall Street?
I think in general Clinton either wasn't anywhere near the political knife fighter she was sold as (and with the people in her employ for the campaign that's particularly disappointing) or just straight couldn't adapt to the new, bizarre reality of campaigning against Trump. I definitely think that she was deeply underequipped for controlling the narrative, in a lot of ways that weren't really her fault.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. She was never sold as a good campaigner. A political knife-fighter is not the same thing. I think Obama in many ways illustrates the opposite, especially in his early time and office. And even now to some extent on key issues.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me but I swear her and Bill were better at this shit back in the 90s. Or maybe Bill's charisma just smooths over the rough edges better. But things like the Wall Street speeches are just ... I can't see how you don't get how bad it looks, even though it's literally nothing.
There was definitely talk, in here and elsewhere, about how Hillary Clinton was a master of retail politics and a savy campaigner. The sausage thing at the NY state fair was brought up repeatedly.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the entire campaign apparatus was unprepared for how this thing went down. We need to restructure for the next time out, in a major way.
National campaigns aren't really retail politics. Of course, she got beat in the Iowa caucuses both times, which is entirely retail politics, so she's probably not very good at it.
Clinton's major campaign skill is she's VERY good at debates. She's not great on the stump or a great manager of her campaign staff, which is her real biggest flaw.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
No they aren't. I'd take millions of dollars to talk to Goldmen Sachs in a heartbeat. Fuck yeah, easy money. That doesn't change shit about what kind of policy I'd want to implement if I could. People give speeches at these kind of things all the time. It's like commencement speeches or graduation speeches or whatever. Hire someone big and famous to come fluff the crowd.
The problem with the speeches is all optics because people are silly.
As much as I hate to admit it, I do see some of the logic in this. Taking money from big banks could be and was an angle of attack on her. The nuance I mentioned above is lost on most voters. I don't think she "should have known", though. This election is historic for many (awful) reasons, but one I've not seen mentioned (outside this elite group of brilliant, immaculate, godlike beings) is the degree that social media affected it. Social media amplified the old tactic of mud slinging to an unbelievable degree. Russian propaganda was able to use social media in an unprecedented campaign of antagonistic foreign propaganda. At the time she did them, the bank speeches probably seemed like an acceptable calculated risk and not the weak spot it became. I don't fault her or any politician for not predicting this.
There are surely plenty of criticisms of Hillary and the primary between her and Obama certainly did get testy at times. Though the idea that she is less out of touch than a billionaire who literally lives (lived?) in a gilded tower seems a bit of a stretch. More out of touch than Obama in 08? probably. But she wasn't running against Obama this year, she was running against Donald Trump.
Which is pretty much what she did if I remember the contents of them correctly. Even managed to Trojan Horse some progressive economics in there.
Whether or not it's enough, it has to be first. Because these fights are going to break out every 4 to 8 years from now until the end of the republic, and we need to remove the teeth from them out they're all going to look like this one.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I feel like I'm in crazy land here. I care about my candidate standing behind their promises. You tell me you want to go hard on the finance industry? Cool. So don't cozy up to them and take their money, dont hide it like you're ashamed of it. Put some fucking weight behind your words.
Her history and record showed me Nothing positive on this front. Nada. And then she pulled this stunt. And then she wanted me to believe she was totally on my side her and was going to crack down on the finance industry? Lol no
It wasn't a good look. At all.
She tried to finesse it a bit more than I did.
once again I will point out that Hillary herself said it's a good idea to have wall street execs forming regulatory policy in DC
which, like, is the thing that caused the 2008 crash
but yeah how silly of me
Gotta disagree here. Taking lots of money from people you say you oppose is very hypocritical, on it's surface. It's totally reasonable for people to be suspicious of Clinton for that. The problem is that this election has been all surface. Once you investigate the speeches and those who rumor monger it, you understand it's all bullshit. Too bad our media is limp dicked and people get political news in 140 characters or less.
It's not like people who read the Times cover to cover would be better informed. It's only the people who track down the original documents that actually know what happened.
My read on her decision was that she thought she'd run mostly uncontested, and did not expect what Sanders brought to the table. She did not expect to have her feet held to the fire on economic concerns when she thought she'd end up running smooth on women/minorities social issue. So she ended up taking a stronger line on these issues which unfortunately did not match up with her priorities or past behaviour.
I don't think it was malicious. I think Hiliary wanted to be likeable. I think she wanted to have the "correct" opinion on everything. The trouble was that the people she pandered to with this one actually really cared about it, and her lack of legits here murdered her credibility.
It sucks. I didn't need her to pretend to champion my cause. I did need her to appear credible and like she really stood behind her words. I absolutely believe she stands behind her education policies, and many social platforms. Her history matches up here. This just didn't match up with her behaviour and that hurt her.
So basically, to be a reasonably informed voter, you have to pretty much be your own investigative reporter. No wonder Trump won.
Fuck Everything.
Or you just assume Republicans are full of shit and assume everything they say is wrong. That'll get you like 95% of the way there.
No, what you seem to care about the vague perception of impropriety. My point is that perception is not grounded in reality.
Giving a speech to a Wall Street bank does not mean you can't also regulate them. Your problem is you, and many other people, act like they do. It's silly and ridiculous and nonsensical. One does imply the other in any way.
But the fact that so many people are silly about the whole thing is predictable enough that she should have been smart enough to avoid it. Because it looks bad. Even though there's nothing there.
No, it's not. There's no connection between the two acts that would make it hypocritical. It looks so on the surface the same way niggardly looks like a racial slur on the surface. Yeah, kinda, if you don't think too hard about it.
Or get the money up front and really dig into them. With at least a couple of quotes that she could have put in television ads.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Hilary's biggest mistake was playing this election like it was normal.
In a normal election everyone's taken some cash from shady places so it doesn't matter that much.
But it's clearly something that the activists parts of the party that are livid over no banking prosecutions are going to be mad at that you shouldn't do it because fucking obviously. The Clintons never think about how this shit will play. See also the other dumbest optics thing of this campaign: the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting.
Please quote exactly what she said so we can actually know what you are arguing here. Can't argue about something without the full text and context.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Other than white supremacists rebranding, this is the second most annoying thing in politics right now:
The parties are not symmetrical.
I dunno if anyone could have dealt with it. Every bit of conventional wisdom told us this guy is fucking ridiculous and burying himself is only a matter of time
And this is the sad state of affairs on the left. Clinton literally releases 30 years of tax returns, where liberal zealots could go over in intricate detail to determine just how woefully corrupt she really is, but instead fixate on meaningless bullshit. Her opponent - probably the most corrupt man ever to run for the office - refuses to release his tax returns (a modern presidential standard) and gets a free pass.
We are so fucked.
I don't think that's entirely accurate. She was never sold as a good campaigner. A political knife-fighter is not the same thing. I think Obama in many ways illustrates the opposite, especially in his early time and office. And even now to some extent on key issues.
Maybe it's my memory playing tricks on me but I swear her and Bill were better at this shit back in the 90s. Or maybe Bill's charisma just smooths over the rough edges better. But things like the Wall Street speeches are just ... I can't see how you don't get how bad it looks, even though it's literally nothing.
"One of the good ones". Also, for those that think that the Libertarian Techno-Princes of SV are any better:
Yeah, maybe be seen around with those people hurts a Leftist party for some reason.
It's not like Wall Street executives giving huge sums of money to politicians has ever resulted in anything bad happening in the past.
There was definitely talk, in here and elsewhere, about how Hillary Clinton was a master of retail politics and a savy campaigner. The sausage thing at the NY state fair was brought up repeatedly.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the entire campaign apparatus was unprepared for how this thing went down. We need to restructure for the next time out, in a major way.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I think we are actually in agreement, here? You and I know there is no connection because we took the time to look into it. Hell, my default stance on it when I first heard about it is "She probably had a good reason to do those speeches and there is nothing to them" because I pay attention. The vast, vast majority of people do not. You said it yourself: "if you don't think too hard about it".
I still ascertain that she knew it was bad optics but thought it would be a small thing, not the smoke machine it became. I don't fault her for that because you would have to be psychic to know.
Boy I'm glad we dodged that bullet.
Now we just have single party rule and a government completely run by them.
you're focusing on "out of touch" and i was focusing on "is a puppet of"
by running against someone who was not obama, she didn't suddenly stop being a puppet. - once again, I was also extremely uncomfortable with her being secretary of state after that point.
Now, if you were to try to convince me that Obama was lying about her, you'd need to tell me whether he was lying in 2008 or 2016.
dunno about you
Here's the pertinent question for me: was it reasonable to predict this? I don't think so. I think 2016 was a once century event, the political equivalent of the magnetic poles switching places. I don't think anybody could or did predict it.
Except @Sleep :razz: .
How terribly vague and lacking in substance. Are you claiming her speeches were a form of bribery by Wall Street?
National campaigns aren't really retail politics. Of course, she got beat in the Iowa caucuses both times, which is entirely retail politics, so she's probably not very good at it.
Clinton's major campaign skill is she's VERY good at debates. She's not great on the stump or a great manager of her campaign staff, which is her real biggest flaw.