It's fantastic that Hillary Clinton wants to overturn Citizens United, and I also understand that she had to play the game of Super PACs if she wanted to compete with Republican money pouring into their candidates, but the frustrating thing is Hillary Clinton and the same crowd has repeatedly insisted that donations from Wall Street and banks don't have any influence over her future politcal behavior.

You expect a candidate that is getting a lot of money from Wall Street to tighten down on Wall Street? It's just basic conflict of interest.

Just to clarify, it is good that she wants to reduce the influence of corporation and special interest money in politics, and it is also perfectly rational to justify utilizing Super PACs if your opponents are using them, but don't talk to us like we are idiots and have us all believe that where you get your money from doesn't change how you might do things.

This post was edited by ThatAlex on Jul 18 2016 06:22pm

"utilizing super pacs"

don't they do whatever the eff they want and aren't allowed to coordinate with the candidates?

That's true for the most part, but I've also read that you can more or less refuse their money if you want to (like Pollster said, Democrats have offered not to take money if the Republicans don't.)

I don't blame politicians for taking money. Who doesn't want money? Especially when you are trying to win an election and become president.

I fault the system we have in place. It's created this scenario where the majority of people's opinions aren't necessarily represented by their government on some issues.

I also think it's funny when Hillary Clinton says: “I have never, ever been influenced in a view or a vote by anyone who has given me any kind of funding,”

I mean honestly, does anyone actually believe that? It's just common sense. She is just playing politics, I get that, but I'd appreciate it if she was more candid about that queation back in February and said yes I've taken money and this is a system we have to fight against including Citizens United.

So I guess she wants to help overturn things like Citizens United for other politicians who might be influenced by money but not herself since she has never, ever been influenced by her funding.

The timing of it is also great. It makes you wonder why Hillary Clinton didn't so harshly and specifically criticize Citizens United when she was in the middle of a primary with Bernie Sanders. Doesn't seem like that would help her.

Politician is going to politician. I get it. I'm just glad she has made a strong and recent pledge to try and overturn it. I'll take it.

Clint thread: 37
Trump thread: 500+

This is why Trump is winning. Despite a totally rigged system, despite Clinton getting away with crimes, despite the media being extremely biased, regular people understand he's the correct choice.

r u sure tho

Jsp posts in threads are definitely solid indicators of how this cookie is going to crumble

The one ad Clinton has where the kids are watching as Trump says all his dumb shit is pretty powerful

good ad

Spending in June:
HRC campaign: $50++ MM
Trump campaign: $4 MM

guess which one went on and on about "campaign finance reform" promises

I've said many times that Hilary must be doomed without the electoral votes from JSP, to hear kids here talk about it.

Poor Trump, his campaign is going broke, lol.

How is he going to last til November?

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 19 2016 09:53am