3 ms·

Hillary has claims that her taking tons of donations from Wall Street etc. has no effect on her. From http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/clinton-plays-d

Hillary has claims that her taking tons of donations from Wall Street etc. has no effect on her. From http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/clinton-plays-defense-during-debates-foreign-policy-focus-n463681 http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/clinton-plays-defe... > "I have never heard a candidate," Sanders said, "who has received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate say: 'Oh, these campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm going to be independent.' Well, why do they make millions of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that." > Clinton snapped back, "Wait a minute, he has basically used his answer to impugn my integrity." This pattern is consistent too. She never says, "yes, of course conflicts of interest exist, but here's why this is not one" or "here's what I'm doing to address the influence this could have on my decisions" or anything of that style. She always says that somehow it's wrong and unfair for people to even suggest that she's susceptible to influence relating to who her donors are and the time she spends with them… Effectively, Hillary is exactly making the claims you say are political suicide. And Sanders is continuing to mention that he has avoided this particular source of influence and Hillary has not. He's refusing to do real personal attack ads because Sanders has never run such true negative attack ads in his whole career. He'll never attack Hillary that boldly. He won't go beyond talking about the issues with her influence and priorities. He won't jump to saying she's a deluded or dishonest person or anything like that.

karmelapple 11y ago
I think the claims the parent post meant are political suicide are admitting to being human and that the candidate is "susceptible to conflicts of interest." Saying "how dare you even question that," as Hillary does, has turned out quite well, and she's never had to admit her human frailties that way. I think a good question: do people like to vote for someone who admits to having limitations and weaknesses, even though they are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world?
- prawn 11y ago
  Better to expose the least possible front to attack. Especially when it's potentially your election to lose.
prawn 11y ago
You've misconstrued my argument. The other reply explains what I meant. While Sanders might play a straight bat (cricketing term I think, but you can guess the meaning) you can bet Clinton's potential GOP opponent down the track will not at all. Hell, even amongst the Republican candidates it's an out and out poo-flinging war.
- quadrangle 11y ago
  Oh oh I see. Well, you might be right that "I'm human and have biases" is political suicide, but if that's true, then our system is far more messed up than I even wanted to consider. However, maybe you actually mean that the specific case of someone who has taken huge donations from Wall Street saying "Yes, I'm influenced by my Wall Street donors" would be political suicide. If that's the point, then, I suppose you're quite right. Hillary is indeed in a position where she has to claim to be super-human and immune to influence because the ramifications of acknowledging her influences are too problematic. But I want people to be more offended and distrusting over her claims of super-human objectivity than over her (still quite troubling) Wall Street connections. But I'll admit that isn't likely the case. I hope we'll keep working to educate the general public about basic science of human psychology and conflicts-of-interest… Anyway, apologies for misconstruing your comment.
  - prawn 11y ago
    Cheers for the reply. But yes, I think the system is far more messed up than we think. I am not in the US, but the situation is not always too different here. In Australia, I believe that the biggest companies can gain favour with unspoken pressure (threats of capital flight, unfavourable advertising, etc) as much as any donations. One politician recently suggested that there are 10 companies which basically dictate terms in this country: four banks, two supermarket giants, three mining giants and a telco.

karmelapple 11y ago

I think the claims the parent post meant are political suicide are admitting to being human and that the candidate is "susceptible to conflicts of interest." Saying "how dare you even question that," as Hillary does, has turned out quite well, and she's never had to admit her human frailties that way. I think a good question: do people like to vote for someone who admits to having limitations and weaknesses, even though they are running for one of the most powerful positions in the world?

prawn 11y ago
Better to expose the least possible front to attack. Especially when it's potentially your election to lose.

prawn 11y ago

You've misconstrued my argument. The other reply explains what I meant. While Sanders might play a straight bat (cricketing term I think, but you can guess the meaning) you can bet Clinton's potential GOP opponent down the track will not at all. Hell, even amongst the Republican candidates it's an out and out poo-flinging war.

quadrangle 11y ago
Oh oh I see. Well, you might be right that "I'm human and have biases" is political suicide, but if that's true, then our system is far more messed up than I even wanted to consider. However, maybe you actually mean that the specific case of someone who has taken huge donations from Wall Street saying "Yes, I'm influenced by my Wall Street donors" would be political suicide. If that's the point, then, I suppose you're quite right. Hillary is indeed in a position where she has to claim to be super-human and immune to influence because the ramifications of acknowledging her influences are too problematic. But I want people to be more offended and distrusting over her claims of super-human objectivity than over her (still quite troubling) Wall Street connections. But I'll admit that isn't likely the case. I hope we'll keep working to educate the general public about basic science of human psychology and conflicts-of-interest… Anyway, apologies for misconstruing your comment.
- prawn 11y ago
  Cheers for the reply. But yes, I think the system is far more messed up than we think. I am not in the US, but the situation is not always too different here. In Australia, I believe that the biggest companies can gain favour with unspoken pressure (threats of capital flight, unfavourable advertising, etc) as much as any donations. One politician recently suggested that there are 10 companies which basically dictate terms in this country: four banks, two supermarket giants, three mining giants and a telco.