HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "I don't trust her&q...

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:02 PM

 

"I don't trust her"

That is the comment I hear most about Hillary Clinton.

And this CounterPunch article might give a clue as to why. How can we believe that Hillary Clinton will seek to get rid of the very same political bribery system that she USES to her advantage? Oh of course it's LEGAL now, under McCutcheon vs FEC. But it shouldn't be. And any candidate taking advantage of legalized bribery to gain advantage over others in the same party in a primary (along with a national party run by one of her friends), shouldn't be either at least not in PRIMARY season. In the general, perhaps but this is NOT the general election. It's still primary season and the VOTERS voices should be the ONLY ones heard as to who they want their candidate to be.

As is, however, many superdelegates REFUSE to support Bernie Sanders even though he aptly won in their states. The reason? MONEY. BRIBERY. Specifically, money LAUNDERED through their state committees and returned to them all stain-free and clean for their next election bid. And all this BEFORE even ONE vote was cast to chose our candidate in the 2016 primary. And all this from ONE candidate's handywork: Hillary Clinton.

"I don't trust her". Well is it any wonder a lot of people don't? She may well win this money game (I can hardly call it an election at this point) however that people cannot trust her will continue to be an issue for Madam President. Because she USES to her advantage the very systems she vows that she will obliterate.

A whole lot of people don't think so. Why after all WOULD she? This article is well worth the read:

Collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC allowed Hillary Clinton to buy the loyalty of 33 state Democratic parties last summer. Montana was one of those states. It sold itself for $64,100.

The Super Delegates now defying democracy with their insistent refusal to change their votes to Sanders in spite of a handful of overwhelming Clinton primary losses in their own states, were arguably part of that deal.

. . .the tacit agreement between the signatories was that the state parties and the Hillary Clinton Campaign would act in unity and mutual support. And that the Super Delegates of these various partner states would either pledge loyalty to Clinton, or, at the least, not endorse Senator Sanders. Not only did Hillary’s multi-millionaire and billionaire supporters get to bypass individual campaign donation limits to state parties by using several state parties apparatus, but the Clinton campaign got the added bonus of buying that state’s Super Delegates with the promise of contributions to that Democratic organization’s re-election fund.

If a presidential campaign from either party can convince various state parties to partner with it in such a way as to route around any existing rules on personal donor limits and at the same time promise money to that state’s potential candidates, then the deal can be sold as a way of making large monetary promises to candidates and Super Delegates respectable.


THE REST:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

16 replies, 1006 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:07 PM

1. Clinton gamed the system. The whole DNC is in on the scam. They can't resist big money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:18 PM

4. Her buddy is running the DNC. They already decided . . .

 

. . .back in Summer 2015 that they would only support HRC as nominee. We can argue that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat!!". However, we pretty well know that no matter WHO else was running - ANY other Dem candidate that her/their game would be exactly the same in the primary. And that she'd still be out there promising to get rid of this legalized bribery system she's using herself to her own advantage in a PRIMARY election.

The issue isn't that "she's not doing anything illegal". The issue is that it's legal in the first place and SHOULDN'T be. And any Dem candidate with any principles at all would not be using the system (1) and would also work diligently to change the system (2). She is promising to do #2 - get rid of the system. But her promise rings hollow when she's USING it herself.

Nope.

Staunch feminists who WANT to support her still say - and this is what I hear most often - "I don't trust her".

It's not "because she's a woman". It's not "because she's a Clinton". Simply, it's HER BEHAVIOR. It's not what she says. It's what she DOES that makes a lot of what she says ring hollow.

So there you go.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:09 PM

2. Under sniper fire.

If someone can lie so smoothly about something that basic they do not deserve to be trusted. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:14 PM

3. I understand the imperative to raise large campaign funds to have a chance to win

An underfunded candidate is at a significant disadvantage.

It is the source of HRC's funding that should arouse distrust. Wall Street would not give her so much money if they don't expect a good return on that investment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Martin Eden (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:20 PM

6. And then there's that. I agree.

 

The SOURCE should arouse distrust. She's not only using a legalized bribery system to her advantage (which she claims she will obliterate later), but she's also taking a LOT of money from entities and people whose greed and influence she claims she will fight later.

All in all, it just doesn't hold water.

It's true, they don't give her that much money for nothing! It's been shown time and time again that buying politicians is a good investment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:18 PM

5. Toughness over empathy, is how many see her. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:34 PM

8. Toughness over empathy can bring some seriously bad shit. Ask a European.

 

That's why it was so chilling in '08 to hear Republicans mocking Obama's line about empathy. Sociopathy fills the void when empathy isn't present.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:55 PM

12. Yes I agree. I think the main division between progressives and conservatives is empathy.

 

When Pres Obama nominated Sotomayer, stating she had empathy. The leading Republicans all started to scoff and snicker at what they thought was a mistake by Obama. Then someone took them aside and explained that most normal people thought empathy was a good thing, a Christian thing.

The Democratic Party has two distinct wings, the Progressive (Sanders/Warren) Wing and the Conservative or Third Way, Clinton Wing. The progressive Wing values empathy for people while the Third Way Wing values toughness. Richard Perle and the Neocons (not a singing group) love Clinton's toughness, her drive to spread American Democracy (read imperialism) across the globe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:59 PM

13. Thanks for the gentle correction...you're right, it wasn't the campaign, but the Sotomayer nom.

 

Excellent post, rhett.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:36 PM

15. Thanks but your comment, "Sociopathy fills the void when empathy isn't present."

 

Makes the point. In politics today there is a lot of sociopaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:32 PM

7. I don't know

anyone who trusts her. Weaseling and flimflamming since the 1960's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:36 PM

9. I don't trust her and nobody I know does

 

Not a single soul and everybody I know sees her as nothing less than a snake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinebox (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:37 PM

16. Even her fans are leery of trusting her. That's why they don't dare support any of her "positions".

 

They know she could change on a dime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:42 PM

10. We don't trust her because she's not trustworthy. It's very simple.

 

She lies, and runs a sleazy campaign. Sure, she's not a Republican, but that doesn't mean she's not despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 12:42 PM

11. I trust NO politician. But I support some.

Trust is too important a word to use lightly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Original post)

Sat Apr 16, 2016, 01:13 PM

14. You can fool some of the people all of the time-all of the people some of the time..

 

and a special request kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread