• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    At this point, I’m reading her caginess on a variety of topics as an unfortunate but necessary tactic to combat the fact that big corporate and specific special interest groups (coughAIPACcough) will immediately deploy shitloads of campaign money against her if she says anything more than “wishywashy” about them in an effort to sink her campaign. In the context of Citizens United being effectively the law of the land, this is one of the few pragmatic and effective ways to not run afoul of that whole dynamic. It’s is definitely shitty, but an own-goal in that sense - leading perhaps to a Trump win - is worse. It’d be great if she gets into office, and then drops a TON of detail on these matters, with commentary in the statement indicating that this whole line of reasoning was why she didn’t provide these details before. Something like that might ultimately motivate Congress to do something about that (assuming Democratic (and democratic - small “d”) control after the election, of course).

    • demesisx@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      🤦🏽‍♂

      To paraphrase: “We better do what the AIPAC wants or they will REALY start punishing us!”