• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Knowing said:
It's cool that you think that lumber and copper aren't related to housing and completely ignore data about housing, but this is off topic. If you'd like to talk more about that then be my guest and post in the relevant thread. I'll have the charts ready. Fed data over the last couple of days has been... interesting.
Click to expand...

Never said that, I was just noting your continued attempt to argue through vague insinuation, just like you're doing here.

Either you knew that those things were global commodities and stocks and so you are a liar, or you didn't and so you're an idiot. The same applies here.
 
You're still posting in the wrong thread. I'd be happy to address your unbased claims in the correct one. I'll take another off topic post in this thread as a tacit admission of your failure to troll.
 
Knowing said:
You're still posting in the wrong thread. I'd be happy to address your unbased claims in the correct one. I'll take another off topic post in this thread as a tacit admission of your failure to troll.
Click to expand...

Ok, forum police! I'm sorry you took someone telling you that your evidence was bad so poorly.
 
Chiropteran said:
CNN is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner is major contributor to Hillary's campaign. This is known fact, not a rumor.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

So CNN's owner has paid half a million dollars towards electing Hilary directly, do you really think they are offering unbiased coverage?
Click to expand...

Let's start bringing up 24/7 cable channels, their owners, and who the owners contribute money to. Next up Roger Ailes GOP TV, er, I mean Fox News.
 
nickqt said:
Let's start bringing up 24/7 cable channels, their owners, and who the owners contribute money to. Next up Roger Ailes GOP TV, er, I mean Fox News.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious how Democrats deflect corruption of their own party back on to the Republicans as if they aren't already constantly complaining about Republican corruption.

"Republicans are evil and corrupt!"

"Hillary does the same thing."

"But Republicans!!!"

Amazing.
 
Yes, Clinton is a corporatist, that's not news to anyone, in fact it's one of the main reasons Sanders is doing so well.

Clinton is basically the Democratic version of Mitt Romney.
 
Chiropteran said:
CNN is owned by Time Warner. Time Warner is major contributor to Hillary's campaign. This is known fact, not a rumor.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019

So CNN's owner has paid half a million dollars towards electing Hilary directly, do you really think they are offering unbiased coverage?
Click to expand...

That doesn't track the contributions of time warner, they track the contributions of its employees. Additionally, that page logs $500k in contributions over the last quarter century. They have about 25,000 employees, which means that's about $20 per employee over a 25 year period. (Probably really more like a 12 year period of her politics activity.)

That's your measure? Wouldn't contributions in the current cycle be more useful?
 
BoberFett said:
It's hilarious how Democrats deflect corruption of their own party back on to the Republicans as if they aren't already constantly complaining about Republican corruption.

"Republicans are evil and corrupt!"

"Hillary does the same thing."

"But Republicans!!!"

Amazing.
Click to expand...

You know you do basically the same thing you're complaining about, just in reverse, right?

"ARRGH I HATE LIBERALS SO SO MUCH"

"Don't conservatives do the same thing?"

"ARRGH LIBERALS"
 
khon said:
Yes, Clinton is a corporatist, that's not news to anyone, in fact it's one of the main reasons Sanders is doing so well.

Clinton is basically the Democratic version of Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...

If only Sanders were also a woman and didn't ever call himself a "Democratic Socialist" he might have stood a really good chance (being younger and better looking would also help).

But I'll still hold out irrational hope that he wins the primaries. Maybe enough of the populace has been quietly losing confidence in the big segments of the large mass media like CNN that are fawning over her.

The most recent OANN automated poll of random registered Democrats still showed significantly stronger support for Clinton, but this poll also skewed much older (59% 50+) and somewhat more female (54%) than normal. Which is about what you'd expect if the calls were made during the middle of the day when younger correlates with being too busy with work to participate.

On the other hand, if Democratic party membership really does skew this way in general that's bad news, particularly for states without open primaries. I wonder how many young Sanders supporters in those states are going to rush out and become registered Democrats.
 
BoberFett said:
It's hilarious how Democrats deflect corruption of their own party back on to the Republicans as if they aren't already constantly complaining about Republican corruption.

"Republicans are evil and corrupt!"

"Hillary does the same thing."

"But Republicans!!!"

Amazing.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah, Lol Democrats.

Keep riding that one trick pony.
 
I think that very wealthy people realize that the system has allowed them to do extraordinarily well for themselves over the last 35 years. Many of them also realize that working people have taken a beating in the process.

They realize that divergent trend cannot be sustained forever in a democracy. Some of them, anyway. Sooner or later, the population will insist on equitable reforms to the basic relationship between Capital & Labor.

That's only possible through Govt.

So the people at the top are divided into two camps- Those who can be reasoned with & those financing the Tea Party.

Between them, they hold all the cards. And who better to address their concerns & short givings about the future than others of their class?

Short of revolution, they won't listen to anybody else. Some of them obviously won't listen to anybody.
 
eskimospy said:
You know you do basically the same thing you're complaining about, just in reverse, right?

"ARRGH I HATE LIBERALS SO SO MUCH"

"Don't conservatives do the same thing?"

"ARRGH LIBERALS"
Click to expand...
What's the ratio of flaming nut job Democrats to flaming nut job Republicans in this forum? Answer that question and you'll know why I don't go after Republicans in this forum.
 
Jhhnn said:
I think that very wealthy people realize that the system has allowed them to do extraordinarily well for themselves over the last 35 years. Many of them also realize that working people have taken a beating in the process.

They realize that divergent trend cannot be sustained forever in a democracy. Some of them, anyway. Sooner or later, the population will insist on equitable reforms to the basic relationship between Capital & Labor.

That's only possible through Govt.

So the people at the top are divided into two camps- Those who can be reasoned with & those financing the Tea Party.

Between them, they hold all the cards. And who better to address their concerns & short givings about the future than others of their class?

Short of revolution, they won't listen to anybody else. Some of them obviously won't listen to anybody.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree, however I've come to believe the ONLY way this will be resolved is through a second revolution. I hate that this is the case, but I see little chance that the wealthy will willingly reverse the direction and end the transfer of wealth that's been moving from the middle class to the wealthy for decades. I wish there was another way but I see none.

If the wealthy were inclined to fix the problem they would have begun to do so many years ago -- instead they continue to promote economic policies that benefit them AND hurt the middle class. And, as I've said before, this is a problem that's not bordered by party as the wealthy at both ends of the political spectrum tend to promote the same global deals that have been decimating the middle class.


Brian
 
BoberFett said:
What's the ratio of flaming nut job Democrats to flaming nut job Republicans in this forum? Answer that question and you'll know why I don't go after Republicans in this forum.
Click to expand...

Quite amazing when we consider what the opponents believe in, who they follow & what means they're willing to use to fulfill their agenda.

Take a look at what you believe in.

Do you really see charging investment bankers for speeches so that you can give the money to a charitable trust as corrupt?

Or do you just see it that way because Hillary?
 
Jhhnn said:
I think that very wealthy people realize that the system has allowed them to do extraordinarily well for themselves over the last 35 years. Many of them also realize that working people have taken a beating in the process.

They realize that divergent trend cannot be sustained forever in a democracy. Some of them, anyway. Sooner or later, the population will insist on equitable reforms to the basic relationship between Capital & Labor.

That's only possible through Govt.

So the people at the top are divided into two camps- Those who can be reasoned with & those financing the Tea Party.

Between them, they hold all the cards. And who better to address their concerns & short givings about the future than others of their class?

Short of revolution, they won't listen to anybody else. Some of them obviously won't listen to anybody.
Click to expand...


Well said, sir.
 
Brian Stirling said:
Yes, I agree, however I've come to believe the ONLY way this will be resolved is through a second revolution. I hate that this is the case, but I see little chance that the wealthy will willingly reverse the direction and end the transfer of wealth that's been moving from the middle class to the wealthy for decades. I wish there was another way but I see none.

If the wealthy were inclined to fix the problem they would have begun to do so many years ago -- instead they continue to promote economic policies that benefit them AND hurt the middle class. And, as I've said before, this is a problem that's not bordered by party as the wealthy at both ends of the political spectrum tend to promote the same global deals that have been decimating the middle class.


Brian
Click to expand...

Reversals of class fortune have been accomplished by peaceful ends more than once in this country, both during the Progressive Era & the New Deal.

Part of the problem today is that many people have been led to believe that Govt is the problem rather than the corrupting influences placed upon it. That impression has been deliberately created by those wishing to corrupt it into non-existence so that the power of Wealth will be free of the constraints of egalitarian democracy.

How corrupt is it that 9% of the House of Representatives can hold the country hostage to their desires? Who pays for that to happen?
 
ivwshane said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please explain to me how someone who lives in a $2.8M home (only ONE of the Clinton's homes) and rents a summer vacation home for two weeks for $100,000, twice the median US avg. income, is even QUALIFIED to speak or know about "the needs of the common people"?

This is the the same BS Elitism going on in US "politics" for ages already where the exact 1% who ARE the problem are getting into politics, claiming they have solutions and having the audacity to present themselves as representatives of the people.

It's not that Hillary is the exception, by a long-shot.

One can have whatever opinion about Sanders, but when he's saying this is a twisted/sick system that merely benefits the super-rich...and is RULED by the super-rich...he is right. You can deny this as long as you want.

And it's not only the wealth of those having the audacity to see themselves as representatives of "the people", it's also the political inbreeding where now it seems normal that "dynasties" from ONE family want several generations in office. It's appalling what you have there in politics in the US. It makes me want to vomit. People are sick of this, this is WHY they are attracted to outsiders like Trump etc. This system needs a reset.
 
Strk said:
Sadly, a lot don't realize that, which is where Clinton's support seems to stem from. At least on this board it seems those of us on the left are aware of that. I don't really see any big Clinton supporters, although there are a lot for Sanders.
Click to expand...

I fear that Sanders and many of his supporters don't realize that Hillary is INDEED his biggest "enemy". Showing solidarity, patting each other's backs and agreeing with each other at the debates (as nice as it is) WON'T help Bernie, I am afraid.

His campaign is outspokenly "non confrontational", he's avoiding even addressing his rivals and reasons why better not to vote for them. And this could ultimately cost him. Hillary *is* his biggest obstacle, that's how I see it right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top