Future of the Democratic Party

Irontruth wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.

If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?

Itd probably depend on whether or not i had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life at the time or not.

There are no charitable causes you'd give the money to?

Ryan Freire wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

Guy Humual wrote:

It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.

If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?

Itd probably depend on whether or not i had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life at the time or not.

There are no charitable causes you'd give the money to?

Are you insinuating there's some moral obligation to take that offer to give the money to charity?

Guy Humual wrote:

It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.

If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?

Like I said, it's the optics, I'm not saying she had to turn down speeches, but who she gives speeches to is something she should have considered. Hillary was looking to have another run at President so I don't think she should have given speeches to Wall Street bankers. Theoretically the president is supposed to look out for all Americans, but if you're giving multiple speeches and collecting very large pay checks people are going to question how committed to keeping these big banks in line. I'll also say it didn't look good when Obama gave a speech just recently. As I said, it feels like payment for services rendered. I'm not saying that's what happened, just that's how it looks, and it seems to me making sure you don't appear to be doing anything underhanded is one of those things that's important in politics.

Now if you or I were asked to give a speech for Goldman-Sachs, and we're not running for office or anything, I'd think we'd be fools if we turned it down. We're private citizens and unless we're thinking of running for public office I don't think there's anything wrong taking most public speaking jobs. Bankers aren't inherently evil, but I do feel the industry needs to be regulated, and that's the root of my concerns with politicians taking extremely well paid speaking engagements from banks.

KingOfAnything wrote:

Words used in different contexts have different meanings.

Then how can you be certain how Clinton meant it? You're saying a republican from the south didn't really hate or resent the government or big business? From my reading she's just pointing out how someone who might have experienced the great depression felt about bankers, but her generation didn't feel that same resentment because of the social net that allowed a robust middle class. Again I don't have a problem with the message per se

KingOfAnything wrote:

Hillary Clinton is not a Republican.

Not now, but she was, and so I was pointing out how her father raised her. After getting out on her own she changed her political opinions, which I think is fine, I've never had a problem with people changing their opinions based on new information. In fact I have a lot of respect for people who do.

KingOfAnything wrote:

Are you trying to say that rich corporations and the super wealthy are really good for us? That we shouldn't complain about them?

Not sure how you got that from what I said. I think big business is fine so long as they're regulated. Republicans are the ones who complain about regulations and restrictions on big business designed to keep people safe. Does that make things clear?

That's what the Republican party is now. It's not what it was when she was a kid. Or at least not so intensely.

The idea that any segment of the Republican Party could break off and subsume the democrats is pretty much the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

The idea that any segment of the Republican Party could break off and subsume the democrats is pretty much the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Not so much "subsume the Democrats", but if Democrats really are in the midst of collapse - which I do not think is the case - the period of absolute Republican control that follows is likely to see enough of an attempt to lock down that majority (voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc, etc) to cripple any outside opposition.

I think that's a very long shot, mind you.

Is there a rule in SA that you're not allowed to belong to a major party? Cause I'm pretty sure you could get away with it in reverse (ie. take a position in the DFL but still be a member of something else... just not Republican).

I'm not sure if there is a rule per se, but our organization is predicated upon the political independence of the working class, opposition to the two parties of racist capitalist exploitation, set up a new party of the 99%, etc., etc.

I've never seen the Minneapolis operation on the ground, so I can't comment on stuff I've never seen, but, yeah, seeking or holding positions in the DP (or in Minnesota's case, the DFLP) would be quite the cause for scandal in our ranks.

One exception I do recall (and am not particularly pleased with, but nonetheless) is that we recruited a Bernie delegate out of Washington State and used her position to rally other delegates to walk out of the DNC (yeah, that was, at least, partly us); but that was an exceptional case for a specific purpose. Please let me know if there are any further DFLP/SA shenanigans in your area so that I can rat them out to the rest of my ultraleft friends.

Looks like the thread has taken a real turn since the last time I peeped in; I don't really have the stomach to participate further at the moment and, besides, I'm supposed to be cleaning the house.

Fergie, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but why do you feel that Clinton couldn't credibly claim to serve the people? I don't think she was a strong candidate but when her term as senator included 9/11 and dealing with the short and long term after effects, equating her level of apathy if not outright contempt to Donald Trump's is just ridiculous. I don't mean to scold you for not liking her, or say that you're required to like her, just . . . I don't know, I guess I'm asking you for a more specific definition of serve the people.

That is a good question. I think serving the people implies that the decisions she makes are in the best interests of the vast majority of the people, as opposed to the .01%/donor class.

The Clinton's have raised BILLIONS over their long political careers, and Wall Street has made record profits. However, the middle and lower classes have been almost completely left out of economic growth for decades. The Clinton's have pushed outsourcing, deregulation, and a variety of policies (welfare reform, tough on crime stuff, three strikes, etc.) that have left the vast majority of the country behind, while rewarding the wealthy. They have also pushed some highly militant and anti-democratic foreign policies that have harmed a great many people around the world, and made the world a worse place.

I think Wal-Mart is a great symbol of the Clinton's legacy. The Clinton's are tightly wrapped up in Wal-Mart's history and rise to power. Wal-Mart made the Walton family some of the richest people on the planet, while destroying and degrading small towns and jobs. At the same time, it helped China rise to almost superpower status, in the wake of the human rights atrocities surrounding the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, the Clinton's are just two of many politicians that push similar policies. Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush, and Obama have pushed many of the same policies. I would say that the Republicans are generally worse, often MUCH worse, but in the context of picking between the two parties, it isn't the choice between good and bad, it is the choice between bad and really bad.

EDIT: Since you brought up 9/11, let's take a look at Hillary Clintons actions that day:
"And when I think about keeping America safe, obviously I think about defeating terrorism," she said. "I know what happened not far from here at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. I was in New York City on 9/11 as one of two senators. I will defeat ISIS. I will protect America."

That's just not true. In her book, Hard Choices she says she arrived in the city the day after the terrorist attacks. ..." - CNN

She also used 9/11 as an excuse for taking Wall Street money.

I think asking people to vote for someone who lies about and uses 9/11 as a political prop is highly objectionable. And that obviously applies to Trumps racist lies about 9/11 as well.

All I will say is this: If the investigation of the Trump campaign does at long last result in impeachment proceedings, it won't be because Democrats don't like him. It'll be for other reasons.

Hitdice wrote:

Fergie, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but why do you feel that Clinton couldn't credibly claim to serve the people? I don't think she was a strong candidate but when her term as senator included 9/11 and dealing with the short and long term after effects, equating her level of apathy if not outright contempt to Donald Trump's is just ridiculous. I don't mean to scold you for not liking her, or say that you're required to like her, just . . . I don't know, I guess I'm asking you for a more specific definition of serve the people.

That is a good question. I think serving the people implies that the decisions she makes are in the best interests of the vast majority of the people, as opposed to the .01%/donor class.

The Clinton's have raised BILLIONS over their long political careers, and Wall Street has made record profits. However, the middle and lower classes have been almost completely left out of economic growth for decades. The Clinton's have pushed outsourcing, deregulation, and a variety of policies (welfare reform, tough on crime stuff, three strikes, etc.) that have left the vast majority of the country behind, while rewarding the wealthy. They have also pushed some highly militant and anti-democratic foreign policies that have harmed a great many people around the world, and made the world a worse place.

I think Wal-Mart is a great symbol of the Clinton's legacy. The Clinton's are tightly wrapped up in Wal-Mart's history and rise to power. Wal-Mart made the Walton family some of the richest people on the planet, while destroying and degrading small towns and jobs. At the same time, it helped China rise to almost superpower status, in the wake of the human rights atrocities surrounding the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, the Clinton's are just two of many politicians that push similar policies. Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush, and Obama have pushed many of the same policies. I would say that the Republicans are...

Thanks for the reply. I always appreciate an honest answer. :)