This message was self-deleted by its author

[BainsBane]

77. hardly a strawman

This list of donors is meant to be an argument against Clinton. Why would it mess with my head? That assumes I'm entirely uninformed with no understanding of how US elections have been funded in recent cycles.

You are personalizing a systemic issue. Calling my point a strawman only shows your refusal to address the problem. You expect us all to heed your personal views about Clinton. I don't give a shit what you think about her. I do care about the role of money in politics, and when people insist on ignoring the problem in favor of grinding an axe against a single Democratic candidate, I'm going to point out the obvious.

Here is how I see it. Making these issues all about one person reinforces the system that gives capital overwhelming influence in the electoral process. The problem is far, far more serious than Clinton's campaign donors. Big money influences not just presidential candidates but elections at all levels, and even the writing of legislation. Your tirades against Clinton ignore all of that, and in fact seek to create the misperception that the problem lies with her. It makes a major issue small. Perhaps your concerns are only small. Perhaps you don't really care about the influence of big money in our political system. Perhaps all you care about is defeating a single candidate. If that's the case, there is no point in my reading anything you have to say because I can get the same thing from a GOP campaign ad. If on the other hand you actually care about the role of money in politics, you need to get a handle on the scope of the issue and address that.