RE: Help me confirm or deny some stuff about Hilary Clinton please
April 5, 2016 at 1:54 am
(This post was last modified: April 5, 2016 at 2:02 am by Goosebump.
Edit Reason: I no wurd good.
)
There is allot to go into here. I'm tired of arguing candidate behavior in campaigns so I'm just gonna skip all the specific claims against HRC or Burn. You can google that your self and depending on how you word the search you'll get the answers your looking for. I'll just try and do a run down of the highlights agains the "BurnOrBust" senario.
1. Republicans are not Democrats, anybody who thinks they are are in a false equivalency.
Here's the Right saying it one way: http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...t-the-same
Here is the Left saying it another: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/29/l...icans.html
2. Campaign contributions sorted by industry don't always mean what you think they do. This is an issue of the appearance of impropriety being falsely identified as the fact of it. If we approached the "wallet on the street" scenario in the same way we look at campaign contributions everybody would take the money in the wallet every time, when we know they don't. How much is each candidate in the pocket of "big oil" HRC 0.2%, Burn 0.04% amount of total contributions.
Also the way the Center for Responsible Politics get's these numbers is by industry. So a drill operator in the Dakotas could be feeling the Burn and write a check for $25, does that mean he's got the ear of Burn on oil industry issues? Or how about his brother, also a driller, and his brothers wife that gives $100 to HRC? Is that $100 of big oil influence? Burn has made a good showing by pointing out the whole figure with a wink and a nod but I'm pretty sure he's awair there it's a total of all contributions from the industry, not some cabal of exces in dark basements thinking up conspiracies.
3. There is a case to be made about upset candidates. Ross Pero, Ralph Nader come to mind as examples when a third party upset candidate runs to the left or the right the other side wins. This can also play into apathy with the 1st point. If both parties are the same why turn out when my guy didn't get the nod?
4. The "super pac" is another issue Burn highlights. This is a case of don't hate the player hate the game. If you are going to a gun fight why would you not bring one? If you wana change the game, first you have to win it.
5. Lastly there is the idea of protest from privilege. Not saying anybody here is doing this. It's just something that comes up in these sort of political situations. Basically it's the idea that if your guy doesn't get the nod let the other side win and that will "show em". However your in a position of privilege due to wealth and a slide of government in the opposite direction of your ideology won't have much of an impact on your life. However it may have a great impact on those that don't share in your privilege.
So that's what I got. I hope no matter the primary outcomes everybody comes out to vote. Our turnouts are sad and very discouraging. Also the a real problem in the US is our apathy to local elections and mid terms.
1. Republicans are not Democrats, anybody who thinks they are are in a false equivalency.
Here's the Right saying it one way: http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/op...t-the-same
Here is the Left saying it another: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/03/29/l...icans.html
2. Campaign contributions sorted by industry don't always mean what you think they do. This is an issue of the appearance of impropriety being falsely identified as the fact of it. If we approached the "wallet on the street" scenario in the same way we look at campaign contributions everybody would take the money in the wallet every time, when we know they don't. How much is each candidate in the pocket of "big oil" HRC 0.2%, Burn 0.04% amount of total contributions.
Also the way the Center for Responsible Politics get's these numbers is by industry. So a drill operator in the Dakotas could be feeling the Burn and write a check for $25, does that mean he's got the ear of Burn on oil industry issues? Or how about his brother, also a driller, and his brothers wife that gives $100 to HRC? Is that $100 of big oil influence? Burn has made a good showing by pointing out the whole figure with a wink and a nod but I'm pretty sure he's awair there it's a total of all contributions from the industry, not some cabal of exces in dark basements thinking up conspiracies.
3. There is a case to be made about upset candidates. Ross Pero, Ralph Nader come to mind as examples when a third party upset candidate runs to the left or the right the other side wins. This can also play into apathy with the 1st point. If both parties are the same why turn out when my guy didn't get the nod?
4. The "super pac" is another issue Burn highlights. This is a case of don't hate the player hate the game. If you are going to a gun fight why would you not bring one? If you wana change the game, first you have to win it.
5. Lastly there is the idea of protest from privilege. Not saying anybody here is doing this. It's just something that comes up in these sort of political situations. Basically it's the idea that if your guy doesn't get the nod let the other side win and that will "show em". However your in a position of privilege due to wealth and a slide of government in the opposite direction of your ideology won't have much of an impact on your life. However it may have a great impact on those that don't share in your privilege.
So that's what I got. I hope no matter the primary outcomes everybody comes out to vote. Our turnouts are sad and very discouraging. Also the a real problem in the US is our apathy to local elections and mid terms.
"I'm thick." - Me
