No you haven't and that's good because it means on this forum we're able to have our ideas attacked vigorously and see whether they're robust or they're flimsy. We're together on how we understand an IPO works and we diverge w/ the idea that share prices have "little impact to companies with stock offerings based on what traders might do in the short term."
Perhaps I should elaborate a little further on my thesis.
Hillary's plan is touted as a way to preserve a fledgling company's capital by creating disincentives for traders. I disagreed with that, saying that the underwriting of the company's shares is where the initial capital originates, and that buying and selling of those shares on secondary markets doesn't impact that initial capital offered by the underwriter.
Once public shares are issued, the company does have to protect its financial position, but I consider that part of its ongoing fiduciary management and a separate matter. Poison pills are often used to prevent external manipulation of a stock price, and to a larger extent, manipulation of the company itself.
All of that is really beyond the scope of my intent, nor do I think Hillary's proposal cares one way or another. She's using this proposed tax as a guise to protect companies, but I think it's more an excuse for taxing anything that moves, breathes, lives, produces, and there's money in it.