Why do Bernie Babies deny helping Trump get elected?

I also wasted my vote as a form of protest, but at least I didn't spend months trying to convince people of falsehoods regarding Trump's actual opposition. Also, I wasn't celebrating his election like the Berniebros were. I was saving my Clinton memes for after Trump's (what I perceived as inevitable) defeat, which I never imagined the Berniebros could successfully sabotage. See that cuts right to the heart of this thread, drop the denial.
 
st0wandgrow said:
Why did she not stick with that then?? It meant nothing as First Lady, and meant everything as a nominee. She could have owned that issue, and been a trail blazer that fought for what she believed in in spite of the opposition.

Was it a political calculation that made her change positions, or was it the obscene amount of money that she accepted from the insurance industry?
Click to expand...
Newt and Republican Congress were swept into control of congress with one their promises being to stop universal healthcare. Washington DC flipped from Democrats fully in control of government to both houses of congress in control by Contract with America Republicans. Universal Healthcare was not just a flop in '93-'94 but soundly rejected by voters.

Is it a political calculation to respond when voters speak loudly on an issue? The memory of that campaign was burned into Democratic Party leaders memory at the time. It's partly why they are so reluctant to grasp the issue today. I keep hearing "corrupt Democrats" as the reason given but the real reason for old line Democratic leadership's reluctance is memory of getting burned by this issue. Not just once either. Obamacare was a losing issue for Democrats too. We may argue about why it was a losing issue but Obama might have done better if he'd made a political calculation to give jobs higher priority and leave all those millions of poor people without coverage.

The plan they finally came up with isn't anything like what Bernie released last week. Clinton's '94 version was an amalgam of mandates for company-paid for plans through insurance providers and Medicare expansion for those that weren't covered through a job. Details of the bill ran over a thousand pages. It was a failed attempt to please everybody and therefore pleased nobody. This, I think, pretty much describes Hillary Clinton's political life.

Here is an interesting quote that describes how effective opposition to the plan was in mischaracterizing and eventually defeating the 1993-1994 campaign:

Last March The Wall Street Journal found that a panel of citizens preferred the provisions of the Clinton plan to the main alternatives—when each plan was described by its contents alone. But when pollsters explained that the preferred group of provisions was in fact "the Clinton plan," most members of the panel changed their minds and opposed it. They knew, after all, that Clinton's plan could never work.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/01/a-triumph-of-misinformation/306231/

 
Last edited:
Chezus said:
How much is Sanders getting for speeches now?
Click to expand...
You claimed "everything else about her is made up bullshit". So without deflecting to Sanders, can you defend your claim or not?

It might be hard for you to understand, but there are many legitimate reasons for progressives not to support Clinton based on her political history and votes while she was in congress
 
Chezus said:
How much is Sanders getting for speeches now?
Click to expand...
You claimed "everything else about her is made up bullshit". So without deflecting to Sanders, can you defend your claim or not?

It might be hard for you to understand, but there are many legitimate reasons for progressives not to support Clinton based on her political history and votes while she was in congress
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You claimed "everything else about her is made up bullshit". So without deflecting to Sanders, can you defend your claim or not?

It might be hard for you to understand, but there are many legitimate reasons for progressives not to support Clinton based on her political history and votes while she was in congress
Click to expand...
Are you pissed people want to pay her to hear her speak?
 
Chezus said:
Are you pissed people want to pay her to hear her speak?
Click to expand...
I was pissed people wanted to pay her to speak because she was positioning herself for a run at president of the United States. It had blatant corruption written all over it and I voiced as much at the time, here, only to be met with denial and accusations of conspiracy theories. Well, it looks like my criticisms were absolutely on point; many people cite the speeches she gave as an example of corruption. No doubt it added credibility to the 'crooked Hillary' image Trump later used against her. Trump didn't make her accept the money for speeches to Wall Street, neither did Sanders or his supporters, or Russia.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
I was pissed people wanted to pay her to speak because she was positioning herself for a run at president of the United States. It had blatant corruption written all over it and I voiced as much at the time, here, only to be met with denial and accusations of conspiracy theories. Well, it looks like my criticisms were absolutely on point; many people cite the speeches she gave as an example of corruption. No doubt it added credibility to the 'crooked Hillary' image Trump later used against her. Trump didn't make her accept the money for speeches to Wall Street, neither did Sanders or his supporters, or Russia.
Click to expand...
What did the payees get from her?
Please expound.
 
Chezus said:
What did the payees get from her?
Please expound.
Click to expand...
How would anyone but Clinton and the firm(s) that paid her know the answer to that question? Regardless of what they got, the answer is irrelevant to the fact that the optics pointed to corruption among the American people.

This is how corruption works in America. That's why the 'crooked Hillary' image stuck. People know the financial industry is one of the highest political contributors in America, people know who was responsible for the 08 economic crash, people know nobody went to jail for causing it, people know how much money the financial industry donated to Obama during his presidential campaign. You end up with a pretty clear picture when you put all the dots together.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
How would anyone but Clinton and the firm(s) that paid her know the answer to that question? Regardless of what they got, the answer is irrelevant to the fact that the optics pointed to corruption among the American people.

This is how corruption works in America. That's why the 'crooked Hillary' image stuck. People know the financial industry is one of the highest political contributors in America, people know who was responsible for the 08 economic crash, people know nobody went to jail for causing it, people know how much money the financial industry donated to Obama during his presidential campaign. You end up with a pretty clear picture when you put all the dots together.
Click to expand...
So your only guessing. You have no evidence of malfeasance. But this is the crap you threw at her all the way up to the election.

Donald Trump thanks useful idiots like you
 
Chezus said:
So your only guessing.
Click to expand...
Can you cite any example of someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who expects no return on their investment?
Chezus said:
You have no evidence of malfeasance.
Click to expand...
The evidence of malfeasance is Clinton's acceptance of $600K for two speeches to Wall Street firms as she prepared to run for president of the United States
Chezus said:
But this is the crap you threw at her all the way up to the election.
Click to expand...
I didn't force Clinton to accept the money from Wall Street. I simply pointed it out. If it looks bad to the American people, maybe she shouldn't have done it. Maybe there's a good reason it looks bad that you're ignoring and/or denying.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Can you cite any example of someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who expects no return on their investment?

The evidence of malfeasance is Clinton's acceptance of $600K for two speeches to Wall Street firms as she prepared to run for president of the United States

I didn't force Clinton to accept the money from Wall Street. I simply pointed it out. If it looks bad to the American people, maybe she shouldn't have done it. Maybe there's a good reason it looks bad that you're ignoring and/or denying.
Click to expand...
You have no evidence getting paid was bad. But you insisted it was.
Trump and the Russians should send you something for your efforts
 
Chezus said:
You have no evidence getting paid was bad. But you insisted it was.
Click to expand...
Again, the evidence that accepting $600K from Wall Street was a bad idea was reflected in the general election vote whether you accept it or not. It added credibility to the 'crooked Hillary' image Trump used against her.

I'm guessing you can't cite any examples of someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who expects no return on their investment since you didn't bother to acknowledge the question
 
Chezus said:
You have no evidence getting paid was bad. But you insisted it was.
Click to expand...
Again, the evidence that accepting $600K from Wall Street was a bad idea was reflected in the general election vote whether you accept it or not. It added credibility to the 'crooked Hillary' image Trump used against her.

I'm guessing you can't cite any examples of someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who expects no return on their investment since you didn't bother to acknowledge the question
 
Padawanbater2 said:
Again, the evidence that accepting $600K from Wall Street was a bad idea was reflected in the general election vote whether you accept it or not. It added credibility to the 'crooked Hillary' image Trump used against her.

I'm guessing you can't cite any examples of someone paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who expects no return on their investment since you didn't bother to acknowledge the question
Click to expand...
They got a return on their investment. They got a former secretary of state to come speak at their event.
Fucking duh. Are you really this stupid?
Why yes you are.
Guess what. I bet she still is getting paid to speak. And she isn't even in politics anymore.
 
Chezus said:
They got a return on their investment. They got a former secretary of state to come speak at their event.
Fucking duh. Are you really this stupid?
Why yes you are.
Guess what. I bet she still is getting paid to speak. And she isn't even in politics anymore.
Click to expand...
Kinda strange how they don't pay former secretary of state's exorbitant speech fees after their political careers are over when they have no ambitions of running for president anymore
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top