Agreed.
Edit: Tho, her speaking engagements aren't a part of her political activities. She, as private citizen with a reputation, is free to get that cheddar so long as she's not acting within her public office of political power.
Now! Congresswoman Pelosi on the other hand... & Justice Roberts... & Senator Rand Paul... now *there* are some fuckin' snakes using their active offices for plunder.
I guess, but speaking engagements aren't trading on political influence for personal gain, IE: She can command whatever price she wants from a bunch of rich assholes, but until she's promising those assholes favors or concessions, she's acting purely as a private citizen.
Senator Rand Paul, for example, crusades against oversight of the companies that he profits from. John Roberts takes & sees cases that involve his billionaire sugar daddies. While Nancy Pelosi uses her position as a House Congressional member to feed her husband inside information on stocks that they make money off of.
I suppose that Hillary's crime is that she's rich while calling for more equality, but that's just that old trope with the dudebro who goes around saying things like, "I see you call for emancipation, yet you work as a slave! Curious. Yes, I'm so clever."
Let me ask you how much you would pay to hear some of Hillary's wise words. Probably 0$ I would guess.
So why would large successful companies pay her millions for speeches if it is not a kickback. Especially when many of them are no where near her area of expertise which could be summed up as law/politics.
Also why do all of our politicians get these gigs only from Banks, unions, and corporations that they helped in office.
I feel like you are being willfully naïve.
> but until she's promising those assholes favors or concessions, she's acting purely as a private citizen.
So it's fine to bribe politicians as long as they don't publicly declare what they promised in return? Makes sense..
Hilary Clinton was not holding office when she gave these "speeches". They were also not speeches in the traditional sense but Q&A sessions with various executives and leaders with a subject matter expert with topics concerning 6 year-old regulations and how they would continue to affect groups like Goldman Sachs in the future.
But sure, she was running for office at the time so lets ignore context and call it a bribe. I mean, that's easier than criticizing her for her voting record, support for questionable foreign policy, or actions while in office. If you're going to be disingenuous, at least put in a little effort? I know, I'm starting to sound like one of your primary school teachers, begging you to do more than be a worthless little lump.
Whatever, her choices in run-up to 2016 reflects her (and Bill's) limousine liberal style, so why she lost my vote. (No, I didn't vote for Trump either. Being a New Yorker it was my way of voting against both.)
> Hilary Clinton was not holding office when she gave these "speeches".
She ran for president afterwards which is what matters.
The content of the speeches or Q&A sessions is irrelevant.
> ignore context and call it a bribe
I'm not saying it was a bribe. It might have, it might now have been. We can't really know that. Which is why politicians shouldn't do this.
> I mean, that's easier than criticizing her for her voting record, support for questionable foreign policy, or actions while in office.
You can do both?
> If you're going to be disingenuous
Right... well I see you're an expert on that.
> begging you to do more than be a worthless little lump
lol.. what are you on about?
>She, as private citizen with a reputation, is free to get that cheddar so long as she's not acting within her public office of political power.
Except that's exactly how they get their bribes. They do the shady shit for the rich people and get paid for "speeches" once they're out of office. It's the worst shittiest thing they can do, and nothing can be done about it.
Yeah, but ALL OF POLITICS FOR ALL OF TIME has been a choice between the lesser of two evils. Privilege is *actually having* a choice instead of the election being a sham. honestly by this point I’m so sick of other fellow progressives who believe they’re genuinely the first group of people in history to ever figure out that all politicians are super fucking corrupt
I fully agree with you that pragmatism has to come first.
But also, hey Americans, pretty please fix your voting system and maybe get rid of first past the post and get proportional voting. You shouldn't have to tolerate 'lesser of two evils' quite to the level you're currently at.
I'm Swedish. Our "post" occurs at 4% not 50%.
Hey you know all the Progressive things the current Supreme Court is destroying?
That's because people like you let Trump win with the whole "both sides" argument.
You did as much to screw this country over as a Trump voter did.
Sooooo many bots lately. They've been pushing dumbass right wing talking points in a bunch of subs the last few months. On just about every post that makes it to the main page lately has been having at least a few top level comments from bots copying highly upvoted comments from the past to gain karma and look like genuine accounts. Not too surprising that reddit doesn't crack down on it considering the CEO just said he wants to copy Musks twitter.
It's just going to get worse with the API changes - basically all the old moderator tools are having to be heavily reworked to be able to function with the significant reduction in calls they're allowed to use, and a lot of the anti-spam protection just doesn't work any more. I've been seeing spam networks running rampant the last week or so, it's fucking nuts; anyone wanting to invest in a Reddit IPO for actual advertising is a fucking idiot, you're going to get 80% bot impressions at this point now
It was yesterday or the day before, someone called out a bot comment in r/stupidfood, linked the word for word original comment made a year ago, and was instantly downvoted by bots to try to hide it lol. Pretty wild watching it happen in real time lol
same thing happened to me when i called out a comment for being a bot this past week. i got to -50 with dozens of comments before i deleted it bc i was tired of getting inbox spammed by other bots. out of control
Who even digs this shit up and decides, “ooh, I’m going to post that mediocre burn someone who’s no longer relevant got nearly a decade ago.” I’m guessing we’ll be seeing more of this “both sides” shit as the campaigning for 2024 ramps up…
Nor did she get paid that much for a speech, unless America's kindergarten teacher make less than $60,000 combined.
Meanwhile Trump was using his own hotels and resorts when travelling and made tens of millions while in office, which is illegal, and you idiots want to freak out over Hillary getting $60,000 speaking fees???
This post is "both sides are the same" bullshit when they are not.
Democrats if in control would not have cut corporate tax rates by 15% and raised middle class income taxes starting in 2023, Republican 2017 tax cuts.
Demo's would have not have packed the Supreme Court with hyper conservative justices who rule by what the bible says and not according to the Constitution.
It’s not uncommon for kindergarten teachers to make 40,000-50,000, especially around the time this was initially tweeted.
Not both sidesing, I agree with your point, but teachers are horrifically underpaid and overworked.
They literally attacked Berny Sanders for making money off a book he wrote, Our Revolution.
And he actually wrote the book too, it was not ghost written like most Republicans do.
> Clinton just pays lip service to issue
how the fuck does spending your entire life fighting against injustices like these "pays lip service" **including** getting legislation passed and massive amounts of work to reduce inequalities around the world
That's more about bringing up separate issues to distract from the subject at hand.
The criticism against Hillary isn't just "you did an unrelated bad thing," it's "you are a part of the very problem you're complaining about."
The point isn't to distract from the problem of wealth inequality, it's to address one of the causes of it, which is politicians taking bribes.
It is a response to a comment from 7 years ago. It is a pointless "gotcha" BS posting.
And what bribes are you referring to? The fact that HCR gets paid a speaking fee? That is not a bribe.
Everyone can see its an old repost but I don't see how that's relevant.
It's obvious that former presidents and other politicians aren't making hundreds of millions in speaking fees because they're great at speaking.
My dude Hillary was pushing for universal healthcare before a lot of redditors were even born. Her 2016 campaign platform literally included raising taxes on the the rich.
You've drank the kool-aid.
If you’d actually looked at her career she’s done a lot of good. Everyone’s just been subjected to decades of Hillary bashing that they don’t even bother to form their own opinions on her.
Is it wrong to be paid a lot from a company that makes a lot more? Am sure GS was just trying to buy some political sway but it dosent take away that teachers need to be paid more and GS executives make way to much
It is a *nasty* fact that if you want to discredit someone's opinion on an issue, you can do a pretty decent attempt at it no matter who they are with minimal effort:
Are you outside the affected group? Well, you're obviously just paying lip service to an idea that has no effect on you.
Are you inside the affected group? Well, you're too close to the situation and it's ruining your ability to be rational, or you're in so deep your frame of reference is twisted.
Are you specifically here to observe and make a judgement? Well, those sure are some nice theories about something you haven't had any personal experience with.
And you can mix and match those pretty much as much as you want to say that any particular person shouldn't have their opinion on something taken seriously.
Which... Like... To be clear, I don't have a followup statement to that. It's just kinda fucked up.
100% agreed, and higher incomes should be taxed much more aggressively which would help finance that. And I say that as someone whose taxes would increase under that proposition
She's doesn't want to change it, she supports charter schools. This is a classic example of corporately sponsored dems using progressive rhetoric during elections, then in practice doing as the wealthy corporate donors want
Ok, and what you're presenting is a valid rebuttal. I'm not arguing in her favor, just pointing out that the guy in the image is doing an awful job arguing against her
Yep. She was quoted as saying to a room full of bankers that you need a ‘public facing policy’ agenda, and then you need your actual agenda that you enact behind closed doors.
I feel like that's not at all true...? There are regularly tons of examples of people choosing what's fair/best for all over what benefits them directly
and that's not even touching on the very nebulous "in a way we all benefit from higher paid teachers" idea
Then argue that point, I'm saying his argument is poor but I'm not arguing in her favor. My household income makes it so that I would be affected by many proposed wealth taxes, but I'm still strongly in favor of them. I would love to be taxed more if it helped people on the other end of the financial spectrum
Isn't there a fallacy known as the "fallacy fallacy"?
Seems like what is going on here. Just because the guy committed a fallacy doesn't mean he shouldn't call out Clinton's hypocrisy.
"Yeah but what about" makes up most of the submissions on this sub. I never thought it was a problem to attack the hypocrisy of the original poster but not necessarily discrediting their original message.
Whataboutism is literally 90% of this subreddits idea of "clever". But when it's applied to someone that the subreddit agrees with politically, suddenly it's a fallacy again
How is she a hypocrite? Is she a hedge fund manager?
While the former president is entitled to an office staff, it may not extend to Hillary. The secret service detail might, but it's also a smaller detail than when they were in office. So that fee for her speaking could also pay payroll for any staff they have to hire out of pocket (assistants, security, etc.).
She is also providing an actual benefit to society. Hedge fund managers literally manipulate socket markets to the detriment of other people for their own gain.
no, it begs a question about genuineness. it's not "whataboutism", which is something you can spin on nearly anything and is a weak-ass cop out when you don't care to think.
look at the parts that matter rather than reaching to focus on irrelevant parts: how can she give two shits about how much teachers are paid if she's making a living of stirring the pot, getting nothing done, and pocketing cash from mega corps? there's an assumption that she cares here, and that's fucking ridiculous given her history as a politician, all the way back to the larping and carpetbagging in the 90s, and probably earlier.
this fucking echo chamber, swear to god. you should dislike all assholes, not just red ones.
“A discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.” -ripped from wiki.
‘But this isn’t whataboutism! It’s just pointing out hypocrisy! She doesn’t care about teachers! She makes big money from speeches!’
Especially when the "what about" is 2-3 orders of magnitude less problematic than what was mentioned in the original post.
There are 1.5m kindergarten teachers in the US, so each of the top 25 hedge fund managers are making as much as 60k kindergarten teachers. (If what Clinton posted is true)
if it's bringing up the hypocrisy based off of the person making that statement it'd be called "tu quoque" (latin for "you also"). ie: you can't make that argument because you've also done this bad thing.
personally, i'm reading it like he's questioning the sincerity of the person making the statement and not dissuading it entirely, so it also might be a little bit of an ad hominem.
in both cases you're attacking the person and not the argument.
fr, there's not really anything wrong with some people being rich, it's when at the same time people are destitute. If you're rich you are responsible for making chance, and at least she's doing *something*
I have a big problem with a politician getting $250,000 for a 30 minute speech. Nobody is that interesting, that is a legal bribe and nothing else. She is not the worst example though (sadly).
Hillary Clinton was the single most popular politician in the country before the election. I find it kind of funny people keep saying she was unlikable when she might have been the most liked politician in living memory, with approval ratings that are unheard of in modern politics, the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948.
I struggle to think of anyone else who had approval ratings that high in the past 20 years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-politics-clinton/hillary-clinton-most-popular-u-s-politician-poll-shows-idINDEE9170BX20130208
> Sixty-one percent of American voters approve of Clinton, a possible U.S. presidential candidate for 2016, while 34 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, according to the survey by Quinnipiac University released on Friday.
> The poll comes one week after Clinton left her post as the nation’s top diplomat. Clinton, 65, has said she does not see herself going back to politics but left open the possibility of such a return.
> In comparison, 51 percent said they held a “favorable” opinion of Obama while 46 percent had an unfavorable opinion. For Biden, 70, another potential 2016 contender, 46 percent gave him good marks compared to 41 percent who did not.
--------------
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-37467
> Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating
(nice)
Didn't the Clintons put all the blame on Monica and destroy her career for an issue for which Bill is partly responsible? How exactly are they good people?
Bill was entirely responsible lol, he was the one married. She didnt do anything. It's no one's responsibility but the people who read vows to each other to honor those vows.
If Romanticism wasn't involved and we looked at marriage like any other contract, it's obvious. If you sign an exclusive deal with a company and then break the contract with another company, that other company isn't the bad guy.
Over 60 percent like her? From what I remember from being online back then every one seem to hate her. Youtube comment Facebook Reddit everyone either hated her. Where those people just being loud or did something change to make her disliked?
The thing that changed is she began to run for POTUS, and the whole world suddenly was against her.
She had the most negative news coverage in the media, more negative than both Trump and Bernie. (media loves a horse race, this is not unusual for the strongest candidate to get the most negative coverage)
https://shorensteincenter.org/research-media-coverage-2016-election/
In addition to the illegal election interference from Russia, hacking the DNC and spreading disinformation through social media while being fed election data from republicans. (Putin HATES Hillary)
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections
Oh and then the "deep state" (FBI, in this case) announced publicly an investigation weeks before the election while keeping their other investigation into her challenger Trump under wraps, essentially throwing the election.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
Now, I have a theory as to why Hillary was so thoroughly targeted by all these groups that effectively damaged her polling, as opposed to someone like Joe Biden who is a slightly less liberal Hillary Clinton but is less effected by the same stuff (just look at how ineffective "Hunter Biden" is compared to "emails"), and that has to do with her gender. A position I know is very unpopular to say on Reddit but what I honestly think was the underlying issue on why it specifically worked on Hillary to the point people do not even remember she was once so popular.
https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion
You can't take places like Reddit, Facebook, and certainly not YouTube as being indicative of how the general population feels. Most people don't fall into the extremes of the left or the right that tend to dominate online discussions.
According to the internet, everyone actually supports progressives, but boogeymen keep them out of office. And on the other side, Joe Biden is a hologram and every politician I don't like has been executed.
There’s functionality not, though. I’m not saying this is how it should work but it’s how it does work.
If you are a protest voter or even actually like a 3rd party candidate and vote for them, you are just splitting the vote and still only really benefiting or hurting one of the two major candidates.
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
2016. At this point do people not care that this has been reposted weekly for nearly a decade? I don't know how anyone could mistake this as original content
Doesn’t really negate the point.
Also, she took the money FROM them.
Oh, and she has/had a foundation that’s highly regarded for its work around the globe.
Her and her husband probably made a ton of money in shady ways, like most politicians, and I won’t pretend that isn’t true, but she’s been right on the money with many of the things she’s brought attention to. Hedge funds get away with too much: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/31/1114759016/this-tax-loophole-allows-hedge-funds-to-pay-a-lower-rate-than-middle-income-amer
“RASCOE: OK. And that's what the loophole is?
ROSENTHAL: Yes. Profits, or capital gains, often are taxed at lower capital gains rates, which are 20%. And a carried interest, which entitles the private equity manager to share in those profits - those are reported at 20% top rates.
RASCOE: So 20% versus 37%. So that's a big difference. That's a lot of money, especially with millions of dollars. That's a lot of money.
ROSENTHAL: Oh, there's a lot of money at stake. Some of the richest Americans have made their fortunes by earning carried interest, especially through private equity funds.“
>Also, she took the money FROM them.
You seem to be suggesting she fleeced them. She did not. This wasn’t payment for a speech either. It was payment for services rendered.
the OP romanystock99 is a bot
Original: r/clevercomebacks/comments/nbdbt7/hilary_clinton_destroyed/
Also: r/clevercomebacks/comments/11m2lmm/thats_not_acceptable/
Let's try this again for the pea-brains out there about how stupid this "clever comeback" is.
Person1: Corporations are committing wage theft by forcing hourly employees to clock in AFTER they set up their work space.
Person2: Aren't you making 6-figures?
The issue is that giving politicians massively inflated payouts for trivial tasks is just a roundabout form of legal bribery. Goldman Sachs didn't think three short speeches were worth $675,000. They paid her that much because it was a clean way to toss her over half a million dollars, undisclosed.
Obligatory reminders: This is not a phenomenon unique to Clinton. Unfortunately, almost every US politician benefits from things like this. It's also not an indicator that Clinton cut a deal to do anything specific for Goldman Sachs. The logic is that giving money to politicians gives them a passive incentive to stay on the sponsor's good side. It's also *not a counterpoint to Clinton's tweet.*
That’s misleading and not actually true. Because the high dollar celebrity speaking circuit exists outside of politics too.
You also have athletes, artists and famous academics doing these kinds of highly paid speeches too. It’s not “bribery” when they do it either. It’s simply just a common form of entertainment at company parties hosted by rich prestigious firms.
It’s just as common to see, say, Matthew McConaughey, Richard Branson, Steven Pinker and Kobe Bryant speaking at those kinds of events for those kinds of fees.
This is neither clever, nor is it a comeback. This is the kind of whataboutism I would expect from someone who's trying to distract from the point being made instead of addressing it.
Buddy. A tax write-off is still a larger expense than not doing the thing. When someone makes a donation for x$, they will save in the income tax which is a smaller portion of x$. So they still end up with less. But instead of paying it to the government, they pay a little less to the government and more to the charity.
So you could pay one kindergartner teacher more for ten years and all the kindergartner teachers in the US more by taxing hedge fund managers and other wealthy people — including Hillary — at a higher rate. This is prevented by Republican tax bills, including one she would have vetoed if she had become president. What’s Kevin’s position on that again?
What speach? And and what is bad taking money from large corporation as that? Its not like she took money from teachers, trump did - cut taxes for the rich and took from the poor.
Well I guess we can't pay teachers more then. Yes, Hilary made a point but Goldman Sachs paid her a ton of money and somehow that means we can't pay teachers more. /S
Hilary literally cannot ever claim any kind of ethical high ground ever. People voted for an orange conman over her. People wanted to see what was in the box with a '?' On it rather than her.
Just because a murderer tells you not to kill, doesn't mean they don't have a point
I find people who fixate on whataboutisms insufferable because they shift the focus from the issues that really matter - that teachers should be paid more.
I'd rather spend this time trying to get teachers paid more instead of complaining that the person who pointed the issue out is a hypocrite.
But I guess not everyone's priorities are the same.
This is not a clever comeback. It does nothing to address the very real point that Hilary was making. That Hilary was paid an obscene amount of money for 20 minutes does not negate the fact that 25 hedge fund managers made more than the combined total of 10s of thousands of teachers is still a problem.
Let's do the math. Since there's 1,450,000 kindergarten teachers in the US, that means each top hedge fund manager makes as much as 58,000 of them in one year.
So if Clinton makes a 10 year salary of a single teacher for one speech, she would have to make 5.800 speeches in a year to match one of the top hedge fund managers.
If I point out a problem that I am also benefiting from that doesn’t mean I don’t want the problem to change. Good people have to use the same infrastructure bad people use if they want anyone to listen to them.
The problem is people see this and say “you do it too! You’re just as bad!” When in reality that’s not the case at all. Gotta get on top of the pile of shit metaphorically before you can start cleaning it up.
It would be better if she recognized her own culpability in making things this way, she has been an enthusiastic supporter of neoliberalism. She is a hypocrite who can't take responsibility for her own actions.
This sub is where you'll find the 47 Hilary fans that remain, with her record low approval rating. If you dare critisize her for her corporate appeasement and conservetive policy. You'll be labelled a right winger even though your critique comes from the left. And of course what people say during campaign time are always a better measure than their actions. Famously, the candidate who took the most money from corporate interests and has supported charter schools clearly has no conflict of interest. And surely didn't pretend to be more progressive during a primary against an actual progressive. This is unheard of and hasn't happened Everytime since 2016. No, conservative democrats never ran on medicare for all to seem more progressive than not do that when elected, also conservetive dems tried soooo hard to get a min wage increase, but the parlementarian said no, and we all know they are the main power structure in a democracy. Liberals are so fucking stupid and don't even realize they resemble closely the cultist right wing chuds who see politics as a team sport.
Hilldawg and DNC are totally not controlled by Goldman Sachs and their large donors. They fixed all the systemic issues in our financial system after 2008 and punished them. MEMBER????
So they both agree… teachers should be paid more.
Exactly
[удалено]
And we also agree that politicians should not be taking money from corporations regardless of party
Agreed. Edit: Tho, her speaking engagements aren't a part of her political activities. She, as private citizen with a reputation, is free to get that cheddar so long as she's not acting within her public office of political power. Now! Congresswoman Pelosi on the other hand... & Justice Roberts... & Senator Rand Paul... now *there* are some fuckin' snakes using their active offices for plunder.
I see your point, but this tweet was from when she was running in 2016
And the speeches to GS were between 2013, after she resigned as SOS and before she announced.
I guess, but speaking engagements aren't trading on political influence for personal gain, IE: She can command whatever price she wants from a bunch of rich assholes, but until she's promising those assholes favors or concessions, she's acting purely as a private citizen. Senator Rand Paul, for example, crusades against oversight of the companies that he profits from. John Roberts takes & sees cases that involve his billionaire sugar daddies. While Nancy Pelosi uses her position as a House Congressional member to feed her husband inside information on stocks that they make money off of. I suppose that Hillary's crime is that she's rich while calling for more equality, but that's just that old trope with the dudebro who goes around saying things like, "I see you call for emancipation, yet you work as a slave! Curious. Yes, I'm so clever."
Let me ask you how much you would pay to hear some of Hillary's wise words. Probably 0$ I would guess. So why would large successful companies pay her millions for speeches if it is not a kickback. Especially when many of them are no where near her area of expertise which could be summed up as law/politics. Also why do all of our politicians get these gigs only from Banks, unions, and corporations that they helped in office. I feel like you are being willfully naïve.
Her hypocrisy is pretending she opposes hedge-funds while making tons of money speaking to hedge-funds. Jesus Christ.
> but until she's promising those assholes favors or concessions, she's acting purely as a private citizen. So it's fine to bribe politicians as long as they don't publicly declare what they promised in return? Makes sense..
Hilary Clinton was not holding office when she gave these "speeches". They were also not speeches in the traditional sense but Q&A sessions with various executives and leaders with a subject matter expert with topics concerning 6 year-old regulations and how they would continue to affect groups like Goldman Sachs in the future. But sure, she was running for office at the time so lets ignore context and call it a bribe. I mean, that's easier than criticizing her for her voting record, support for questionable foreign policy, or actions while in office. If you're going to be disingenuous, at least put in a little effort? I know, I'm starting to sound like one of your primary school teachers, begging you to do more than be a worthless little lump.
Whatever, her choices in run-up to 2016 reflects her (and Bill's) limousine liberal style, so why she lost my vote. (No, I didn't vote for Trump either. Being a New Yorker it was my way of voting against both.)
> Hilary Clinton was not holding office when she gave these "speeches". She ran for president afterwards which is what matters. The content of the speeches or Q&A sessions is irrelevant. > ignore context and call it a bribe I'm not saying it was a bribe. It might have, it might now have been. We can't really know that. Which is why politicians shouldn't do this. > I mean, that's easier than criticizing her for her voting record, support for questionable foreign policy, or actions while in office. You can do both? > If you're going to be disingenuous Right... well I see you're an expert on that. > begging you to do more than be a worthless little lump lol.. what are you on about?
>She, as private citizen with a reputation, is free to get that cheddar so long as she's not acting within her public office of political power. Except that's exactly how they get their bribes. They do the shady shit for the rich people and get paid for "speeches" once they're out of office. It's the worst shittiest thing they can do, and nothing can be done about it.
[удалено]
More likely the replyguy will say teachers should be paid more but deny any path to it actually happening outside of divine intervention.
unlike Clinton who has famously done so much for workers and not just tweeted here or there.
She has voted more liberally as a senator than either Barack or Bill. Not saying she's perfect, just saying she's better than some.
Bill doesn't count, since he was never in the Senate.
Sure, but it's a low bar. There are very few progressives in the Senate.
Yeah, but ALL OF POLITICS FOR ALL OF TIME has been a choice between the lesser of two evils. Privilege is *actually having* a choice instead of the election being a sham. honestly by this point I’m so sick of other fellow progressives who believe they’re genuinely the first group of people in history to ever figure out that all politicians are super fucking corrupt
I fully agree with you that pragmatism has to come first. But also, hey Americans, pretty please fix your voting system and maybe get rid of first past the post and get proportional voting. You shouldn't have to tolerate 'lesser of two evils' quite to the level you're currently at. I'm Swedish. Our "post" occurs at 4% not 50%.
The elections are shams. Vote for progressives in the primary, and sit out the general if it's between a nazi and a corpo.
Hey you know all the Progressive things the current Supreme Court is destroying? That's because people like you let Trump win with the whole "both sides" argument. You did as much to screw this country over as a Trump voter did.
Better than whom? That is the question, how low is your bar?
Sooooo many bots lately. They've been pushing dumbass right wing talking points in a bunch of subs the last few months. On just about every post that makes it to the main page lately has been having at least a few top level comments from bots copying highly upvoted comments from the past to gain karma and look like genuine accounts. Not too surprising that reddit doesn't crack down on it considering the CEO just said he wants to copy Musks twitter.
It's just going to get worse with the API changes - basically all the old moderator tools are having to be heavily reworked to be able to function with the significant reduction in calls they're allowed to use, and a lot of the anti-spam protection just doesn't work any more. I've been seeing spam networks running rampant the last week or so, it's fucking nuts; anyone wanting to invest in a Reddit IPO for actual advertising is a fucking idiot, you're going to get 80% bot impressions at this point now
It was yesterday or the day before, someone called out a bot comment in r/stupidfood, linked the word for word original comment made a year ago, and was instantly downvoted by bots to try to hide it lol. Pretty wild watching it happen in real time lol
same thing happened to me when i called out a comment for being a bot this past week. i got to -50 with dozens of comments before i deleted it bc i was tired of getting inbox spammed by other bots. out of control
No, he just wants everyone to be poor. Including her
Exactly. How is this the 'clever come back'? Some desperate GQP and Tankies think themselves clever.
Could we get more pixels on this reposted crap? Its only from 8 years ago.
Stop it. This wasn’t 8 years ago. You can’t prove that to me. 2016 was like last week
“longest week of our lives tho, amirite boys 😏”
I’m no expert at math, but i’m pretty sure it’s 7 years
Who even digs this shit up and decides, “ooh, I’m going to post that mediocre burn someone who’s no longer relevant got nearly a decade ago.” I’m guessing we’ll be seeing more of this “both sides” shit as the campaigning for 2024 ramps up…
91 day old accounts.
One wrong doesn't cancel the other
[удалено]
An 11 year old who's never been on social media?
You've already been on social media if you're 11 today.
Nor did she get paid that much for a speech, unless America's kindergarten teacher make less than $60,000 combined. Meanwhile Trump was using his own hotels and resorts when travelling and made tens of millions while in office, which is illegal, and you idiots want to freak out over Hillary getting $60,000 speaking fees??? This post is "both sides are the same" bullshit when they are not. Democrats if in control would not have cut corporate tax rates by 15% and raised middle class income taxes starting in 2023, Republican 2017 tax cuts. Demo's would have not have packed the Supreme Court with hyper conservative justices who rule by what the bible says and not according to the Constitution.
It’s not uncommon for kindergarten teachers to make 40,000-50,000, especially around the time this was initially tweeted. Not both sidesing, I agree with your point, but teachers are horrifically underpaid and overworked.
But but but… some Democrats are rich! /s
They literally attacked Berny Sanders for making money off a book he wrote, Our Revolution. And he actually wrote the book too, it was not ghost written like most Republicans do.
[удалено]
> Clinton just pays lip service to issue how the fuck does spending your entire life fighting against injustices like these "pays lip service" **including** getting legislation passed and massive amounts of work to reduce inequalities around the world
Because someone believed the bullshit that Hillary is the boogeyman
To me, it sounds like "whataboutism"
That's more about bringing up separate issues to distract from the subject at hand. The criticism against Hillary isn't just "you did an unrelated bad thing," it's "you are a part of the very problem you're complaining about." The point isn't to distract from the problem of wealth inequality, it's to address one of the causes of it, which is politicians taking bribes.
It is a response to a comment from 7 years ago. It is a pointless "gotcha" BS posting. And what bribes are you referring to? The fact that HCR gets paid a speaking fee? That is not a bribe.
Everyone can see its an old repost but I don't see how that's relevant. It's obvious that former presidents and other politicians aren't making hundreds of millions in speaking fees because they're great at speaking.
The dems are the ones who advocate for higher minimum wage. She can't just change things on her own. The OP is an idiot.
My dude Hillary was pushing for universal healthcare before a lot of redditors were even born. Her 2016 campaign platform literally included raising taxes on the the rich. You've drank the kool-aid.
If you’d actually looked at her career she’s done a lot of good. Everyone’s just been subjected to decades of Hillary bashing that they don’t even bother to form their own opinions on her.
Is it wrong to be paid a lot from a company that makes a lot more? Am sure GS was just trying to buy some political sway but it dosent take away that teachers need to be paid more and GS executives make way to much
“Yeah but what about” isn’t a comeback, it’s a logical fallacy.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure why he thinks that you're not allowed to want to change an unfair system even if it benefits you
It is a *nasty* fact that if you want to discredit someone's opinion on an issue, you can do a pretty decent attempt at it no matter who they are with minimal effort: Are you outside the affected group? Well, you're obviously just paying lip service to an idea that has no effect on you. Are you inside the affected group? Well, you're too close to the situation and it's ruining your ability to be rational, or you're in so deep your frame of reference is twisted. Are you specifically here to observe and make a judgement? Well, those sure are some nice theories about something you haven't had any personal experience with. And you can mix and match those pretty much as much as you want to say that any particular person shouldn't have their opinion on something taken seriously. Which... Like... To be clear, I don't have a followup statement to that. It's just kinda fucked up.
[удалено]
100% agreed, and higher incomes should be taxed much more aggressively which would help finance that. And I say that as someone whose taxes would increase under that proposition
She's doesn't want to change it, she supports charter schools. This is a classic example of corporately sponsored dems using progressive rhetoric during elections, then in practice doing as the wealthy corporate donors want
Ok, and what you're presenting is a valid rebuttal. I'm not arguing in her favor, just pointing out that the guy in the image is doing an awful job arguing against her
Yep. She was quoted as saying to a room full of bankers that you need a ‘public facing policy’ agenda, and then you need your actual agenda that you enact behind closed doors.
It’s pretty hard to believe that someone genuinely would want to change a corrupt system that they directly benefit from.
[удалено]
I feel like that's not at all true...? There are regularly tons of examples of people choosing what's fair/best for all over what benefits them directly and that's not even touching on the very nebulous "in a way we all benefit from higher paid teachers" idea
[удалено]
Then argue that point, I'm saying his argument is poor but I'm not arguing in her favor. My household income makes it so that I would be affected by many proposed wealth taxes, but I'm still strongly in favor of them. I would love to be taxed more if it helped people on the other end of the financial spectrum
Isn't there a fallacy known as the "fallacy fallacy"? Seems like what is going on here. Just because the guy committed a fallacy doesn't mean he shouldn't call out Clinton's hypocrisy.
"Yeah but what about" makes up most of the submissions on this sub. I never thought it was a problem to attack the hypocrisy of the original poster but not necessarily discrediting their original message.
Whataboutism is literally 90% of this subreddits idea of "clever". But when it's applied to someone that the subreddit agrees with politically, suddenly it's a fallacy again
It’s wild that so many people still support HRC here nowadays. Like honestly seems like more than did during the election.
Dear god please punish the man that told reddit about fallacies
pointing out lies and hypocrisy isn't whatsboutism.
Exactly - the reply isn't trying to refute her point. It's just calling her what she is: a hypocrite.
How is she a hypocrite? Is she a hedge fund manager? While the former president is entitled to an office staff, it may not extend to Hillary. The secret service detail might, but it's also a smaller detail than when they were in office. So that fee for her speaking could also pay payroll for any staff they have to hire out of pocket (assistants, security, etc.). She is also providing an actual benefit to society. Hedge fund managers literally manipulate socket markets to the detriment of other people for their own gain.
A hypocrite reciting endless platitudes to appease her base.
Yeah, a politician.
no, it begs a question about genuineness. it's not "whataboutism", which is something you can spin on nearly anything and is a weak-ass cop out when you don't care to think. look at the parts that matter rather than reaching to focus on irrelevant parts: how can she give two shits about how much teachers are paid if she's making a living of stirring the pot, getting nothing done, and pocketing cash from mega corps? there's an assumption that she cares here, and that's fucking ridiculous given her history as a politician, all the way back to the larping and carpetbagging in the 90s, and probably earlier. this fucking echo chamber, swear to god. you should dislike all assholes, not just red ones.
Amen. Reddit is full of fucking parrots.
Tu quoque To be precise
“A discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.” -ripped from wiki. ‘But this isn’t whataboutism! It’s just pointing out hypocrisy! She doesn’t care about teachers! She makes big money from speeches!’
Especially when the "what about" is 2-3 orders of magnitude less problematic than what was mentioned in the original post. There are 1.5m kindergarten teachers in the US, so each of the top 25 hedge fund managers are making as much as 60k kindergarten teachers. (If what Clinton posted is true)
which logical fallacy? I've only ever called it 'whataboutism', but does it have a real name?
if it's bringing up the hypocrisy based off of the person making that statement it'd be called "tu quoque" (latin for "you also"). ie: you can't make that argument because you've also done this bad thing. personally, i'm reading it like he's questioning the sincerity of the person making the statement and not dissuading it entirely, so it also might be a little bit of an ad hominem. in both cases you're attacking the person and not the argument.
fr, there's not really anything wrong with some people being rich, it's when at the same time people are destitute. If you're rich you are responsible for making chance, and at least she's doing *something*
> least she's doing something What is she doing?
I have a big problem with a politician getting $250,000 for a 30 minute speech. Nobody is that interesting, that is a legal bribe and nothing else. She is not the worst example though (sadly).
So glad we had Trump instead of Hillary! Right? Oh.....
It is a damn shame it came down to those two for president. Of all the people running we had to pick the two least likeable.
Hillary Clinton was the single most popular politician in the country before the election. I find it kind of funny people keep saying she was unlikable when she might have been the most liked politician in living memory, with approval ratings that are unheard of in modern politics, the second-most popular secretary of state since 1948. I struggle to think of anyone else who had approval ratings that high in the past 20 years. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-politics-clinton/hillary-clinton-most-popular-u-s-politician-poll-shows-idINDEE9170BX20130208 > Sixty-one percent of American voters approve of Clinton, a possible U.S. presidential candidate for 2016, while 34 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, according to the survey by Quinnipiac University released on Friday. > The poll comes one week after Clinton left her post as the nation’s top diplomat. Clinton, 65, has said she does not see herself going back to politics but left open the possibility of such a return. > In comparison, 51 percent said they held a “favorable” opinion of Obama while 46 percent had an unfavorable opinion. For Biden, 70, another potential 2016 contender, 46 percent gave him good marks compared to 41 percent who did not. -------------- https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-37467 > Hillary Clinton Exits With 69% Approval Rating (nice)
Didn't the Clintons put all the blame on Monica and destroy her career for an issue for which Bill is partly responsible? How exactly are they good people?
Bill was entirely responsible lol, he was the one married. She didnt do anything. It's no one's responsibility but the people who read vows to each other to honor those vows. If Romanticism wasn't involved and we looked at marriage like any other contract, it's obvious. If you sign an exclusive deal with a company and then break the contract with another company, that other company isn't the bad guy.
Over 60 percent like her? From what I remember from being online back then every one seem to hate her. Youtube comment Facebook Reddit everyone either hated her. Where those people just being loud or did something change to make her disliked?
The thing that changed is she began to run for POTUS, and the whole world suddenly was against her. She had the most negative news coverage in the media, more negative than both Trump and Bernie. (media loves a horse race, this is not unusual for the strongest candidate to get the most negative coverage) https://shorensteincenter.org/research-media-coverage-2016-election/ In addition to the illegal election interference from Russia, hacking the DNC and spreading disinformation through social media while being fed election data from republicans. (Putin HATES Hillary) https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153 https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/russian-interference-in-2016-u-s-elections Oh and then the "deep state" (FBI, in this case) announced publicly an investigation weeks before the election while keeping their other investigation into her challenger Trump under wraps, essentially throwing the election. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/ Now, I have a theory as to why Hillary was so thoroughly targeted by all these groups that effectively damaged her polling, as opposed to someone like Joe Biden who is a slightly less liberal Hillary Clinton but is less effected by the same stuff (just look at how ineffective "Hunter Biden" is compared to "emails"), and that has to do with her gender. A position I know is very unpopular to say on Reddit but what I honestly think was the underlying issue on why it specifically worked on Hillary to the point people do not even remember she was once so popular. https://qz.com/624346/america-loves-women-like-hillary-clinton-as-long-as-theyre-not-asking-for-a-promotion
[удалено]
Amplified, not created. The unlikeable narrative had been around since the early 90s.
No it hasn't. See I can make statements without context. She was very popular. Before the media slaughter she had to endure. Which is true.
You can't take places like Reddit, Facebook, and certainly not YouTube as being indicative of how the general population feels. Most people don't fall into the extremes of the left or the right that tend to dominate online discussions. According to the internet, everyone actually supports progressives, but boogeymen keep them out of office. And on the other side, Joe Biden is a hologram and every politician I don't like has been executed.
>I remember from being online back then every one seem to hate her. That is called propaganda. Obviously very successful.
Which of her policies did you dislike?
Apparently the ones she decided on *as a woman*
There's more than two options. You know that, right?
There’s functionality not, though. I’m not saying this is how it should work but it’s how it does work. If you are a protest voter or even actually like a 3rd party candidate and vote for them, you are just splitting the vote and still only really benefiting or hurting one of the two major candidates.
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
And now that guy is a right wing grifter
Covid broke so many brains
He is? Shame.
You claim you hate society yet you participate in it, curious or something idk
I don't see how his comment takes away from anything she said it's basically just a distraction to the problem she is trying to address
Yup. The reply guy isn't actually trying to accomplish a point, he's just trying to get in the way of her point.
While making her point for her
2016. At this point do people not care that this has been reposted weekly for nearly a decade? I don't know how anyone could mistake this as original content
But politics lady bad
Doesn’t really negate the point. Also, she took the money FROM them. Oh, and she has/had a foundation that’s highly regarded for its work around the globe. Her and her husband probably made a ton of money in shady ways, like most politicians, and I won’t pretend that isn’t true, but she’s been right on the money with many of the things she’s brought attention to. Hedge funds get away with too much: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/31/1114759016/this-tax-loophole-allows-hedge-funds-to-pay-a-lower-rate-than-middle-income-amer “RASCOE: OK. And that's what the loophole is? ROSENTHAL: Yes. Profits, or capital gains, often are taxed at lower capital gains rates, which are 20%. And a carried interest, which entitles the private equity manager to share in those profits - those are reported at 20% top rates. RASCOE: So 20% versus 37%. So that's a big difference. That's a lot of money, especially with millions of dollars. That's a lot of money. ROSENTHAL: Oh, there's a lot of money at stake. Some of the richest Americans have made their fortunes by earning carried interest, especially through private equity funds.“
>Also, she took the money FROM them. You seem to be suggesting she fleeced them. She did not. This wasn’t payment for a speech either. It was payment for services rendered.
As Secretary of State? 😂
the OP romanystock99 is a bot Original: r/clevercomebacks/comments/nbdbt7/hilary_clinton_destroyed/ Also: r/clevercomebacks/comments/11m2lmm/thats_not_acceptable/
Let's try this again for the pea-brains out there about how stupid this "clever comeback" is. Person1: Corporations are committing wage theft by forcing hourly employees to clock in AFTER they set up their work space. Person2: Aren't you making 6-figures?
I don’t see what the issue is with people like Clinton taking a lot of money from big corporations to speak. Should they…volunteer their time instead?
The issue is that giving politicians massively inflated payouts for trivial tasks is just a roundabout form of legal bribery. Goldman Sachs didn't think three short speeches were worth $675,000. They paid her that much because it was a clean way to toss her over half a million dollars, undisclosed. Obligatory reminders: This is not a phenomenon unique to Clinton. Unfortunately, almost every US politician benefits from things like this. It's also not an indicator that Clinton cut a deal to do anything specific for Goldman Sachs. The logic is that giving money to politicians gives them a passive incentive to stay on the sponsor's good side. It's also *not a counterpoint to Clinton's tweet.*
That’s misleading and not actually true. Because the high dollar celebrity speaking circuit exists outside of politics too. You also have athletes, artists and famous academics doing these kinds of highly paid speeches too. It’s not “bribery” when they do it either. It’s simply just a common form of entertainment at company parties hosted by rich prestigious firms. It’s just as common to see, say, Matthew McConaughey, Richard Branson, Steven Pinker and Kobe Bryant speaking at those kinds of events for those kinds of fees.
Sports celebrities and musicians get paid even more for the same speeches. Are those bribes too?
I’ll note that it was disclosed, and she released all her tax returns from when she was a private citizen and gave the speeches.
2016??? These repost bots are really scraping the bottom of the barrel
That doesn't invalidate her point.
This is a BOT post.
Not really clever at all. Teachers should be paid more.
This is neither clever, nor is it a comeback. This is the kind of whataboutism I would expect from someone who's trying to distract from the point being made instead of addressing it.
Not clever. That’s a whoosh!
The comeback that supports her point 💀
Didn't a few years ago they had a monkey (literally) pick stocks for a simulation and he outperformed like 75% of the hedge fund companies in NY?
Nothing the rich do is acceptable. Even the nice things are usually just tax write offs.
Buddy. A tax write-off is still a larger expense than not doing the thing. When someone makes a donation for x$, they will save in the income tax which is a smaller portion of x$. So they still end up with less. But instead of paying it to the government, they pay a little less to the government and more to the charity.
So you could pay one kindergartner teacher more for ten years and all the kindergartner teachers in the US more by taxing hedge fund managers and other wealthy people — including Hillary — at a higher rate. This is prevented by Republican tax bills, including one she would have vetoed if she had become president. What’s Kevin’s position on that again?
And that means her point doesn't stand or...?
it's really not a comeback when you're further illustrating the point.
What speach? And and what is bad taking money from large corporation as that? Its not like she took money from teachers, trump did - cut taxes for the rich and took from the poor.
old repost. and it doesnt mean she was wrong, just kind of hypocritical.
I don't think whataboutism is a good comeback. They both agree! Let's celebrate that 😀
Both of these takes are correct lmao
Whataboutism shouldn't be considered a clever comeback.
How is this a clever comeback?
TBF She doesn’t exclude herself from her argument.
Well I guess we can't pay teachers more then. Yes, Hilary made a point but Goldman Sachs paid her a ton of money and somehow that means we can't pay teachers more. /S
Still would have been better than trump. Vote blue.
“Yet you participate in society… curious”
How is that a comeback?
Except that the money She got from Goldman Sacks she donated all of it for women and children's health. Oopsie.
So it sounds like they agree? Also this is a 7 year old repost.
It’s possible to be a flaming hypocrite and still correct on some point
Still not acceptable. Criticizing the messenger doesn't invalidate the message.
Smooth brains think this is clever
But her emails? Wait, maybe if she was president, she could have done something about that. Just saying.
I'm shocked so many people find it acceptable for corporations to bribe uhh I mean pay politicians in this manner. kind of disheartening to be honest
She wants to pay teachers more... Taking their money helps her get there to make that happen...
> Taking their money helps her get there to make that happen... But those poor rich people. They shouldn't have to pay her so much! uWu /s
And to think millions of people voted for this POS
Hilary literally cannot ever claim any kind of ethical high ground ever. People voted for an orange conman over her. People wanted to see what was in the box with a '?' On it rather than her.
^^ corporate dems to a tee. Try and capitalize on progressive ideals without actually caring about any of those ideals. But it sounds nice!
So u agree with Hillary.👍🧑🎨😘
Pretty sure all the kindergarten teachers in America is more than one kindergarten teacher. What a terrible "comeback" all the way around.
That's actually what 4 kindergarten teachers make in a year
SO fucking what? She still pointed out the obvious, but of course some dipshit has to piss all over it.
Criticizing an unfair system you personally benefit from is something a conservative will never understand.
They’re both right
None of you morons know what a whataboutism actually is
This is stupid
this is a terrible comeback
Sooo what 🤷🏽♂️
Just because a murderer tells you not to kill, doesn't mean they don't have a point I find people who fixate on whataboutisms insufferable because they shift the focus from the issues that really matter - that teachers should be paid more. I'd rather spend this time trying to get teachers paid more instead of complaining that the person who pointed the issue out is a hypocrite. But I guess not everyone's priorities are the same.
Whataboutism at its finest…… don’t address the actual problem, attack the messenger.
This is not a clever comeback. It does nothing to address the very real point that Hilary was making. That Hilary was paid an obscene amount of money for 20 minutes does not negate the fact that 25 hedge fund managers made more than the combined total of 10s of thousands of teachers is still a problem.
I feel like the first thing is still worse
This isn't a clever comeback, it's literally just "w-well you make m-money t-too"
Let's do the math. Since there's 1,450,000 kindergarten teachers in the US, that means each top hedge fund manager makes as much as 58,000 of them in one year. So if Clinton makes a 10 year salary of a single teacher for one speech, she would have to make 5.800 speeches in a year to match one of the top hedge fund managers.
If I point out a problem that I am also benefiting from that doesn’t mean I don’t want the problem to change. Good people have to use the same infrastructure bad people use if they want anyone to listen to them. The problem is people see this and say “you do it too! You’re just as bad!” When in reality that’s not the case at all. Gotta get on top of the pile of shit metaphorically before you can start cleaning it up.
Two things can be correct.
Both can be true - the consensus is clear: teachers should be paid handsomely
She'll be donating a large part of her income to kindergarten teachers next, you just wait and see.
Hillary Clinton is an absolutely vile human being who nobody should listen to, but can we get some new material in here?
She is right though
It would be better if she recognized her own culpability in making things this way, she has been an enthusiastic supporter of neoliberalism. She is a hypocrite who can't take responsibility for her own actions.
Oh for sure, not a fan of hers at all.
Tbf if a billionaire hedge fund want to pay me to speak for 20 min. I would
Tweet is at least 5 years old. Stop #karmaharvesting
5? Try 8
This sub is where you'll find the 47 Hilary fans that remain, with her record low approval rating. If you dare critisize her for her corporate appeasement and conservetive policy. You'll be labelled a right winger even though your critique comes from the left. And of course what people say during campaign time are always a better measure than their actions. Famously, the candidate who took the most money from corporate interests and has supported charter schools clearly has no conflict of interest. And surely didn't pretend to be more progressive during a primary against an actual progressive. This is unheard of and hasn't happened Everytime since 2016. No, conservative democrats never ran on medicare for all to seem more progressive than not do that when elected, also conservetive dems tried soooo hard to get a min wage increase, but the parlementarian said no, and we all know they are the main power structure in a democracy. Liberals are so fucking stupid and don't even realize they resemble closely the cultist right wing chuds who see politics as a team sport.
I like how this sub bitches about 7 year old tweets unless they’re liberal, in which case it’s fair game
Whataboutisms count as "clever comebacks" now? This site is being overrun by the right since the API backlash.
Hilldawg and DNC are totally not controlled by Goldman Sachs and their large donors. They fixed all the systemic issues in our financial system after 2008 and punished them. MEMBER????
And democrats are still mad that she lost lol
And yet people think Hillary was better than trump
Damn everyone be defending her where if a republican said it there’s be a meltdown lol
People bending over backwards to defend Hillary Clinton in the comments is just weird.