CNN - Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire (many times over)

[IGBT]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/


21 most consequential Clinton scandals, ranked from most important



9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor...

 

[shira]

How about Hillary stops being a BIG hypocrite to start? Again, how many fat cats of Wall Street are in jail from the Great Recession (that screwed the working class big time) under this Democrat administration? Yes, D party is working hard for the working men/women indeed. :biggrin:

As I said, stop drinking those kool aid and open your eyes. D or R, they are both sides of the same coin, working for the stinking rich, not for the working class but keep telling yourself otherwise.

So your point is that it's "hypocrisy" to invest your money anywhere? Because if you eliminate every area of the economy where crooks operate, about the only place left for your money is a very, very, very large mattress.

Or are you making the equally absurd claim that those who advocate for the poor and middle classes must take a vow of poverty and live in cardboard boxes, and they're hypocrites if they don't?

 

[Svnla]

So your point is that it's "hypocrisy" to invest your money anywhere? Because if you eliminate every area of the economy where crooks operate, about the only place left for your money is a very, very, very large mattress.

Or are you making the equally absurd claim that those who advocate for the poor and middle classes must take a vow of poverty and live in cardboard boxes, and they're hypocrites if they don't?

Read post #21 again, second sentence. I even quote it for you.

It has to do with taking corporate money while pretending to be for the very middle class the corporate class is screwing over.

See the bolded/underlined part? I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[shira]

Read post #21 again, second sentence. I even quote it for you.



See the bolded/underlined part? I can't make it any clearer than that.

I work for a big company. I "take corporate money" all the time. But I'm a liberal and voted for Bill. I'll vote for Hillary. I don't see their behavior as the least bit hypocritical.

You might also want to review where the Clinton's gave speeches. Some were to big companies. A lot were at big universities. Some were paid for by foreign governments. But the most important point is that a ton of the speaking fees - $26 million - went directly to their foundation, an inconvenient fact which rather undercuts your argument that the Clintons don't actually care about regular people.

 

[kage69]

Read post #21 again, second sentence. I even quote it for you.



See the bolded/underlined part? I can't make it any clearer than that.

It sounds like you're trying to keep it vague enough to avoid having to address why it's bad to advocate future change while still playing by current rules.

Maybe you should cite some legislation Hillary has supported that has been shown to be detrimental to the middle class, help us out here.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the better point is that she is SPEAKING at banking corporations that are gigantic.

What do you think she is saying at her speeches? "Goldman Sachs, you need to be paying more taxes into the system". Of course not, she is catering to them and has absolutely zero interest in the poor. Why would they PAY her to screw them over in taxes? It makes no sense, dolt.

What do I think her speeches are about? Or what are her speeches about? Do you know what her speeches are about? Of course you don't because you are just another dumb idiot who is force fed what to think. Just because you can't fathom what someone could possibly be talking about to wall street doesn't mean there are no other possibilities.

See if you are capable of reading an article and pull out the facts while ignoring the commentary.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...goldman-sachs-private-equity-white-house-2016

 

[BoberFett]

Democrats are hilarious.

"KILL THE RICH!!!! Well not that rich person. She's one of the good'uns."

 

[ivwshane]

How about Hillary stops being a BIG hypocrite to start? Again, how many fat cats of Wall Street are in jail from the Great Recession (that screwed the working class big time) under this Democrat administration? Yes, D party is working hard for the working men/women indeed. :biggrin:

As I said, stop drinking those kool aid and open your eyes. D or R, they are both sides of the same coin, working for the stinking rich, not for the working class but keep telling yourself otherwise.

I don't think you know what the word hypocrite means.

 

[ivwshane]

Democrats are hilarious.

"KILL THE RICH!!!! Well not that rich person. She's one of the good'uns."

Can I get a side of bullshit to go with the straw man you are serving up?

Stay stupid my friend

 

[IGBT]

will hillary wear her flaming pink or flaming orange pant suit tonight??

 

[Newell Steamer]

B-b-but CNN is part of the Liberal media!!shift+1!!!

Yeah, Clinton sucks - no surprise. And, it's things like this the usual Righthadists should be ripping into her for, not e-mails and made up fantasies of her murdering US soldiers. But, that would mean going after a pro-corporate overlord,.. and since she IS a woman and a registered Democrat, the Conservatards must be having a heck of an internal struggle.

 

[BoberFett]

B-b-but CNN is part of the Liberal media!!shift+1!!!

Yeah, Clinton sucks - no surprise. And, it's things like this the usual Righthadists should be ripping into her for, not e-mails and made up fantasies of her murdering US soldiers. But, that would mean going after a pro-corporate overlord,.. and since she IS a woman and a registered Democrat, the Conservatards must be having a heck of an internal struggle.

What's scary is that Democrats seem to have no internal struggle. Clinton is just fine for most of them. Hell, a pretty large portion of Democrats seem to believe Clinton is the best things since... Clinton.

But hey, divert and make this about Republicans. Lord knows you don't have anything of actual substance to say.

 

[Newell Steamer]

What's scary is that Democrats seem to have no internal struggle. Clinton is just fine for most of them. Hell, a pretty large portion of Democrats seem to believe Clinton is the best things since... Clinton.

But hey, divert and make this about Republicans. Lord knows you don't have anything of actual substance to say.

Your lack of self awareness is quite uncanny.

 

[nickqt]

What's scary is that Democrats seem to have no internal struggle. Clinton is just fine for most of them. Hell, a pretty large portion of Democrats seem to believe Clinton is the best things since... Clinton.

But hey, divert and make this about Republicans. Lord knows you don't have anything of actual substance to say.

No, most Democrats will pull the lever for the party that is in the pocket of Wall St. and sucks like every other political party on the planet, but isn't batshit insane like the American Reactionary Party, aka the GOP.

You can BothSidesDoIt™ all you want, but one political party is able to pass legislation, and the other political party is ready, willing and able to continue passing the same repeal of the ACA for the 60th time, while openly cheering on a default on the debt. And let's not forget Benghazi.

Sorry, hoss. The Republican party is a failed party. Unfortunately, throwing away a vote on a third party so that the Republican faithful can put a lunatic into office isn't responsible. So we continue voting for the typical shitheel politician, rather than letting a lunatic sneak past while we feel good about ourselves voting for Eugene V. Debs.

 

[MongGrel]

What's scary is that Democrats seem to have no internal struggle. Clinton is just fine for most of them. Hell, a pretty large portion of Democrats seem to believe Clinton is the best things since... Clinton.

But hey, divert and make this about Republicans. Lord knows you don't have anything of actual substance to say.

You're about as amusing as a bad case of dysentery.

Your lack of self awareness is quite uncanny.

What else is new.

The whole thread is just rehashing nothing eye opening really.

Rants.

 

[MongGrel]

As I said, stop drinking those kool aid and open your eyes.

Do you not realize how old and passe that phrase has become to begin with ?

You're just spewing rhetoric that is well over a decade old at least.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The amount of spinning being done by BOTH sides on this is nothing short of astonishing. The Repubs are all for money in politics EXCEPT when some of that money goes to the Dems. The Dems, OTH, don't seem to give a shit that Hillary is tied to WS and the banking industry. Fuck both sides!

Let's review history one more time...

Back in the 80's the Dems were in the wilderness at the national level and were being outspent by Repubs 2X, 3X even 4X and more and because of that they were simply not in the game -- the money game -- which at the time was all going to the Repubs. The Dems wanted to do something about this and they formed a committee to study the problem, a committee that included Bill Clinton. Just who among them figured it out is unclear, but in 1992 Bill Clinton ran for president and he was openly promoting the trade deals that the Repubs had been pushing for years but had been stifled by the Dems.

In 1992 Bill Clinton not only went against the long standing wishes of labor, but he actually went after them. As it turns out Clinton got a shit ton of money to run and he got much of it from the multi-national companies and wealthy elite that, COINCIDENTALLY, wanted those trade deals passed.

Since then the leading Dems have followed a similar plan and have received approximately equal money as the Repubs, undoing the huge money advantage the Repubs had in the 80's. Turns out, a lot of the wealthy types backing these trade deals and benefiting from them like to pretend they're moderates and favor the Dems largely for there more accepting views on social issues.

In the end the middle class and poor have taken it up the ass from both parties!

What's astonishing to me is that righties can point fingers at the Dems and call them commies -- for fuck sake the Dems are actually Repubs and differ mostly on social issues. The Dems are nearly as bad when they champion the likes of Hillary in spite of the abandonment of the middle class.

Fuck both sides!


Brian

 

[ivwshane]

The amount of spinning being done by BOTH sides on this is nothing short of astonishing. The Repubs are all for money in politics EXCEPT when some of that money goes to the Dems. The Dems, OTH, don't seem to give a shit that Hillary is tied to WS and the banking industry. Fuck both sides!

Let's review history one more time...

Back in the 80's the Dems were in the wilderness at the national level and were being outspent by Repubs 2X, 3X even 4X and more and because of that they were simply not in the game -- the money game -- which at the time was all going to the Repubs. The Dems wanted to do something about this and they formed a committee to study the problem, a committee that included Bill Clinton. Just who among them figured it out is unclear, but in 1992 Bill Clinton ran for president and he was openly promoting the trade deals that the Repubs had been pushing for years but had been stifled by the Dems.

In 1992 Bill Clinton not only went against the long standing wishes of labor, but he actually went after them. As it turns out Clinton got a shit ton of money to run and he got much of it from the multi-national companies and wealthy elite that, COINCIDENTALLY, wanted those trade deals passed.

Since then the leading Dems have followed a similar plan and have received approximately equal money as the Repubs, undoing the huge money advantage the Repubs had in the 80's. Turns out, a lot of the wealthy types backing these trade deals and benefiting from them like to pretend they're moderates and favor the Dems largely for there more accepting views on social issues.

In the end the middle class and poor have taken it up the ass from both parties!

What's astonishing to me is that righties can point fingers at the Dems and call them commies -- for fuck sake the Dems are actually Repubs and differ mostly on social issues. The Dems are nearly as bad when they champion the likes of Hillary in spite of the abandonment of the middle class.

Fuck both sides!


Brian

The problem is that you have no realistic solution. Until one is put forth the option is to vote for the lesser of two evils and it should be pretty obvious that that usually means voting for a democrat.

 

[MongGrel]

redacted, double post.

 

[MongGrel]

The amount of spinning being done by BOTH sides on this is nothing short of astonishing. The Repubs are all for money in politics EXCEPT when some of that money goes to the Dems. The Dems, OTH, don't seem to give a shit that Hillary is tied to WS and the banking industry. Fuck both sides!

Let's review history one more time...

Back in the 80's the Dems were in the wilderness at the national level and were being outspent by Repubs 2X, 3X even 4X and more and because of that they were simply not in the game -- the money game -- which at the time was all going to the Repubs. The Dems wanted to do something about this and they formed a committee to study the problem, a committee that included Bill Clinton. Just who among them figured it out is unclear, but in 1992 Bill Clinton ran for president and he was openly promoting the trade deals that the Repubs had been pushing for years but had been stifled by the Dems.

In 1992 Bill Clinton not only went against the long standing wishes of labor, but he actually went after them. As it turns out Clinton got a shit ton of money to run and he got much of it from the multi-national companies and wealthy elite that, COINCIDENTALLY, wanted those trade deals passed.

Since then the leading Dems have followed a similar plan and have received approximately equal money as the Repubs, undoing the huge money advantage the Repubs had in the 80's. Turns out, a lot of the wealthy types backing these trade deals and benefiting from them like to pretend they're moderates and favor the Dems largely for there more accepting views on social issues.

In the end the middle class and poor have taken it up the ass from both parties!

What's astonishing to me is that righties can point fingers at the Dems and call them commies -- for fuck sake the Dems are actually Repubs and differ mostly on social issues. The Dems are nearly as bad when they champion the likes of Hillary in spite of the abandonment of the middle class.

Fuck both sides!


Brian

I'd tend to say that is a pretty good assessment myself, crib notes version, even if it has continued to spiral even more out of control since NAFTA.


I'm not sure how some people think shouting "wake up" thinks it is going to change the situation, other than just typing old spam again.

The problem is that you have no realistic solution. Until one is put forth the option is to vote for the lesser of two evils and it should be pretty obvious that that usually means voting for a democrat.

 

[Brian Stirling]

The problem is that you have no realistic solution. Until one is put forth the option is to vote for the lesser of two evils and it should be pretty obvious that that usually means voting for a democrat.

Incorrect! The solution is to remove money from the system and to do that elections must be publicly funded. The Repubs have been against that forever and the modern Dems that have weaseled into the current money system would tend to reject the idea now.

So there is a solution though I have little confidence we'll see it in my lifetime.


Brian

 

[ivwshane]

Incorrect! The solution is to remove money from the system and to do that elections must be publicly funded. The Repubs have been against that forever and the modern Dems that have weaseled into the current money system would tend to reject the idea now.

So there is a solution though I have little confidence we'll see it in my lifetime.


Brian

I said realistic solution, as in a solution our politicians will not only run on but will be compelled to act on.

Money needs to be highly regulated in politics period, not just elections. My unrealistic solution would be to require not only transparency in election funding (super pacs for example), as well as require all lobbyist to be publicly recorded when they are lobbying a politician (with exceptions for people lobbying on behalf of themselves).

 

[Knowing]

Hillary is saying she's for raising taxes, and yet they're refiling millions of dollars worth of back taxes that were somehow reported incorrectly.

Hundreds of millions in the bank and they can't find an accountant that didn't get their non-GAAP accounting degree in a box of crackerjacks.

Money in politics is terrible when it isn't going to the correct party, it seems.

With such sizeable donations from the vampire squid itself, Goldman Feds, I'm amazed that the democrats still believe their party isn't just as invested as the republicans.

Seriously, I just don't get it.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I said realistic solution, as in a solution our politicians will not only run on but will be compelled to act on.

Money needs to be highly regulated in politics period, not just elections. My unrealistic solution would be to require not only transparency in election funding (super pacs for example), as well as require all lobbyist to be publicly recorded when they are lobbying a politician (with exceptions for people lobbying on behalf of themselves).

No, we need to remove big special interests from the equation entirely ... ENTIRELY. I'm under no illusions that this is likely in my lifetime but until it is we will continue to be governed by pols that owe there election to special interests. Citizens United should make it clear that limits on big money are not going to happen anytime soon and in fact they're making it even easier for big money to rule the game.

So what would have happened if Bill Clinton hadn't made the deal with the devil to get elected? Answer is he would not have been elected and we'd probably have had nothing but Republicans in the White House since Carter. While that would have been bad the upside is that the American people might have rejected this and demanded change. Crazy, I know, but this slow slide into oblivion isn't the answer now is it!


Brian

 

[Hugo Drax]

Apparently you can't be rich and be dedicated to helping the average American. Is that the point you are trying make?

Retarded logic from a retarded OP.

Don't be a fool. Hillary is all about Hillary. She is not going to bite the hands that feed her.

Do not be fooled one second that she really spends her time thinking about improving the middle class.

She is about improving Hillary.