Lastest Hillary defense: It's okay to take huge contributions from gazillionaires because ...

[KPN]

IT'S LEGAL!!!!

Now there's a defensible rationale, no?

[Buzz Clik]

1. Actually, it is.

[KPN]

5. Only in a court.

So apparently, the derivatives fueled crash of 2008 was okay in your view too ... because it was legal.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Is that what I said?

[KPN]

8. Extrapolate. Can you do that?

Oh, I forgot, there are two kinds of people, those who can extrapolate ...

[Buzz Clik]

12. You extrapolated that out your backside. I said nothing about 2008.

[KPN]

15. You made my last point for me ... thank you.

[Buzz Clik]

21. Nonsense, but I know your type. Have the last word if that pleases you.

[Armstead]

56. But not defensible...She donlt walk the talk like Bernie

[jmg257]

2. Well - how else do you expect to go from being millions in debt to worth over $130mil in 15 yrs?

$$ $$

[Yurovsky]

11. Think about poor starving Chelsea...

how was she supposed to keep the water & electricity on in her $10.4M NYC home?

Poor little rich girl... Mommy & daddy just couldn't make ends meet with >$600k/yr in federal pensions and millions in book deals... 😖

[jmg257]

18. YES!! Do it for the children! nt

[840high]

67. .heehee

[blm]

3. This Sanders voting GOTV activist disagrees with you. I don't want either Dem

forced to disarm before the laws change and GOP, as well, is forced to adhere to public finance laws.

[Armstead]

57. I disagree....Bernie hasn't disarmed.

Imagine the money that could be raised if the Democratic Party used his strategy on a much larger scale, to appeal to voters of both candidates and all who support a set of cleanly defined progressive goals (even if it's just "Not GOP&quot to be accountable to the people instead corporations, lobbyists and billionaires.

Bernie is doing a workaround of a bad system, and showing it can be done.

[blm]

62. I don't trust that up against a fully armed GOP, Armstead.

I know Sanders wouldn't stick to that in general election if he becomes the nominee, and none of us should expect or WANT him to.

So many of you have forgotten that Kerry, who actually WROTE the Public Financing of campaigns bill he submitted to senate in the 90s, never accepted corporate pac money in any of his senate elections. He could not have gone into the presidential general election in 2004 without it. He wasn't being bought or compromised, he was putting up a fight in the arena that existed, not the one anyone wished.

Sorry, but, I see what goes on in states where all the financial advantages belong to GOP. I'm living in NC and look how quickly this once proud progressive state has regressed.

[Armstead]

64. I should have amended that...It is a little late this time for a complete clean up

But they ought to be looking at what Sanders has achieved as a template and commit to that and start laying the groundwork......instead of waiting for CU to maybe be repealed someday....and planning the next beg-o-rama to the corporate benefactors.

And also start applying it in Congress, to defuse the power of the lobbyists to craft legislation to their whims.

[blm]

66. This is why I fear some of the purity talk - it's actually crazy and impossible to do

what they are insisting be done.

This and the B or Bust talk are both hurting what I do in the party, GOTV, and I take this stuff seriously and personally, just as any GOTV activist/worker will.

It doesn't make me popular with the BoB crowd here, but, it's the reality-based reaction to what is being actively promoted here at DU.

[griffi94]

4. As long as it was legal

then I don't care.
They were going to give the money to somebody.

[KPN]

7. Legal = Good, eh?

[griffi94]

9. Legal = legal

as in not against the law.

[polichick]

14. Legal because those same people bought the politicians who wrote the law for them.

[griffi94]

17. Doesn't make it any less legal

Legal = not against the law.

[polichick]

20. Legal corruption. What a high bar!

[griffi94]

24. It's legal and it's also quite common in politics.

I don't share your sense of moral outrage about something that
is legal.

[polichick]

28. Of course it's legal - bought and paid for legality..

Good grief, get a clue!

[Maedhros]

59. Oh look: a conservative in our midst.

Only one possible response.

/bye.

[griffi94]

60. Been a democrat since 1980

I just don't care about this issue.

[pangaia]

77. Slavery was once legal.

[griffi94]

79. Yep

And now it's not.

[KPN]

16. Your brain can't move beyond that??

Come now. You can do better than that.

[griffi94]

19. I don't need to do better than that

It's not against the law.
It's not a personal outrage to me.

[KPN]

23. Therein the problem

with you, Hillarians and HRC. Moral and ethical corruption.

[griffi94]

29. I don't see a problem

I don't even kind of care.
I hope Hillary has the biggest war chest in the history of war chests
when she has to face the GOP this fall.

[polichick]

30. Really. If it was legal to torture kids, that poster would be cool with it...

using that logic.

[griffi94]

33. Wow you're really comparing campaign finance to torturing children.

That's pretty low.

[polichick]

36. I'm pointing out how shallow your thinking is. If it's legal, it's cool...

in your world apparently.

[griffi94]

38. No you're really not

Nothing was said about torturing anybody.
You seem POd because I'm not outraged.
And in any case torturing children is illegal.

I don't share your outrage that's hardly the same thing as being pro torture.

[polichick]

39. I'm not "POd" - just amused at your inability to connect dots.

[griffi94]

41. I connect dots just fine

I just don't care even a little bit how many billionaires donated to Hillary.
They donate to all campaigns.
I still remember 2008 when Obama was supposedly only taking small donations.
Then after he won it turned out that wasn't exactly true.

There's some PAC supporting Bernie
They all take money from the wealthy.

If it's illegal and a candidate is doing it then I'd be a little more outraged.
Until then I don't care.

[polichick]

42. Good thing Americans fighting for justice over the years didn't think like that...

It would still be legal to beat kids, enslave black people, and keep women from voting.

[griffi94]

46. I'm not sure what your point is

is it that we have a moral obligation to not support laws that are legal but that we find personally immoral.
Maybe we have a duty to changes those laws because we disagree with the on a moral basis.

Or is it just that we should all be more outraged about them.

[polichick]

48. My point is * being legal does not equal being right * and it's especially vile when...

those who benefit from the immoral law have purchased the politicians who write those laws.

It's beyond absurd to believe that politicians don't serve those who intentionally buy them.

[griffi94]

49. Being legal = not against the law

It's not illegal for trillionaires to give candidates money.
Again. I don't care. It's what's legal.

When the law is changed then I'll care.

[polichick]

50. Laws don't change UNTIL people care. Think hard.

[griffi94]

51. Then change it

Until then you seem to be upset because things aren't like they should be.
The OP was about defending Hillary for taking money from billionaires
just because it was legal.

It doesn't need a defense. It's not against the law.
It's not a moral outrage to me.
I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how things should be.

[polichick]

55. "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about how things should be." Obviously.

[KPN]

75. We are trying to change it.

People like you are getting in the way and slowing down progress. It's temporary though. Of course, once the changes are made, you'll pat yourselkves on the back for the fine work you did saving our nation. Shallow.

[jmg257]

25. Interesting - do you disagree with her on this whole PLCAA lawsuit thing?

The crux of which is the AR & ammo based in the lawsuit were legally purchased and marketed, though it shouldn't be?

[griffi94]

35. I don't know enough about that case to render an opinion.

[jmg257]

43. You should check it out - its one of her main arguments against Sanders.

And will likely be the basis of a big contrast in the GE.

[Trajan]

31. Is it against the law to take huge sums of money from a billionaire

And then turn around and restive that billionaires taxes to near zero?

It's legal ... Is it right? ... Should it be right?

Some of us believe this should be CLEARLY against the law .... We reject the argument that it's legal therefore it's ok ...

[griffi94]

34. Then reject it

But I don't care as long as it's legal.
It's not a moral position for me. I'm not outraged.

[seabeyond]

10. Sanders has always been funded by rich, he just lies or omits it.

[Octafish]

45. If that were true, you would show it.

So, please show -- EVEN ONCE -- where: "Sanders has always been funded by rich, he just lies or omits it."

[polichick]

13. Same defense corporations use to avoid taxes.

[brooklynite]

22. But, as an ordinary 1%er, I'm still allowed to give?

[brooklynite]

26. Still waiting to see the Bernie Sanders model applied to the entire election

He'll need 10X his Primary cash for the GE...

He'll need contributions for all the House and Senate races (so far, -three- Democratic Primary races are all that's important)...

He'll need money for each State Party for voter registration and turnout...

Waiting to see the plan.

[NorthCarolina]

27. Seriously though, she has only a very small percentage of $ coming in from average Joe supporters

to the tune of not more than about 20% (if even that). If she didn't take cash from the wealthy to make up for her failure to solicit donations from the average voter, her campaign would have run out of cash a LONG TIME ago.

[Ino]

40. If she didn't take cash from the wealthy...

she would be Bernie-like. And being Bernie-like, I believe she would get donations from the average voter.

I donate to Bernie because he fights for me, because his integrity is not for sale, because he's not wealthy... and so he needs my donation.

She is none of those things. She can go fund herself.

[KPN]

47. If she didn't take cash from the wealthy ...

Bernie would have already wrapped this thing up ... probably long ago.

[wendylaroux]

32. That is what the prez said about arresting wall street crooks too. "It's not illegal."

So quit picking on her!!!!

[uponit7771]

37. Latest Podium Bird Logic: Lets go to a gun fight with a baseball bat cause MORALS!!!!

[hobbit709]

44. Why do I think of that scene in The Magic Christian?

[SwampG8r]

53. +1000000 for the reference

Now lets put on our piggy masks and party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Yep. Legal...just like subprime loans, ARMs, gun shows. All legal.

[merrily]

54. And there you have stated the problem in a nutshell.

[Carolina]

58. She's awful

She accepted the vast sums because that's what they offered

She took the vast sums because it is legal


Well as someone wisely pointed out on FaceBook:

Slavery was legal
Colonialism was legal
The Holocaust was legal
Apartheid was legal...

Legality is a matter of power, not justice

HRC

[Yurovsky]

61. And that has always been her M.O. ...

It's not what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, it's "can we get away with it?"

From a legal standpoint, even if it's not legal, can we create a legal wall around us to deflect, defer, and delay until everyone forgets about it or prosecutors give up.

Taking money from Wall Street disqualifies you from getting my vote when I have an option that is unsullied by such corruption.

[Carolina]

63. Exactly!

Between her tethers to Wall Street and her aye vote on IWR, I will never vote for her

[Sunlei]

65. Jebbie Bush amassed twice as much money as all of them running & no speech for donation needed.

[KPN]

68. So?

[Sunlei]

70. What?

[KPN]

74. Do you have a point?

Jeb Bush having more campaign contribution money isn't a justification. So what's your point?

Didn't you learn from your Mama? Two wrongs don't make a right.

[HereSince1628]

69. Sounds ok to me and perfectly consistent with the personality of Our Lady of the Loopholes

Is coordinating with PACs bad? Well, it was for Scott Walker (R, Gov WI) he had 2 John Doe investigations involving his doing it.

But, you see it's perfectly moral for HRC campaign to do it with David Brock because there's a loophole in the law that makes it legal.

HRC has doesn't need a moral compass, she has the law and it's loopholes. What she -needs- is more PAC money and more PACs producing more flak for Sanders' campaign

[QC]

71. Our Lady of the Loopholes, Pray for Us!

[icecreamfan]

72. I'm still shocked she invoked 9/11 to justify Wall St. donations in a debate

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/15/hillary_clinton_on_her_wall_street_campaign_donations_i_represented_new_york_on_911.html

[HereSince1628]

73. She got those donations the old fashioned way... she earned them

by being Wall Street's senator.

[Joob]

76. My 2 cents on this...

Doesn't mean much but if it was huge, it would mean a whole lot.

And that's, the problem.

[felix_numinous]

78. The idolatry of money

has hit critical mass.