Senator Warren steps up to the plate

[dank69]

The fact we live in an oligarchy now isn't evidence? What do you want? Oil subsidies, no green energy, endless wars, financial meltdown, for profit prisons, gmo labeling, citizens united, etc... Wtf world do you ppl live in?



Except you cannot pretend it's good enough this time... Either these people can't crash our economy again, or they can, and they most certainly can. Dodd Frank is a placebo!

The "fact" that we live in an oligarchy is evidence that Hillary is corrupt? How do you tie those two things together?

 

[fskimospy]

No, it does not mean donations should be prohibited. We should also not pretend they mean nothing. If they want to give money and have nothing in return, thats up to them. But, if money is given its because they expect something in return. They may or may not get it, but that is their rational expectation.

Also, how many bankers went to jail for what they did? If I were to do anything close to that kind of deception to customers I would go to jail.

I don't see anyone pretending they mean nothing, I see people pretending they mean vastly more than they do though. Also, financial crimes are exceptionally difficult to prove.

No. You can have donations and understand that the person taking them has or will likely be influenced by that money. All donations should be public knowledge. If people dont mind an industry supporting someone thats fine. if they dont like the donations, then they can decide not to vote. We dont need to prohibit anything. The public can decide on what they like.

So all of your conclusion is wrong and does not follow.

Okay so basically you think campaign donations are inherently corrupting but that we should accept that as okay. Considering large amounts of money are required to run for office that means we have two options by your logic:

1. A corrupted public official.
2. A plutocrat.

Presumably that is not an acceptable outcome, so it seems like our answer is public funding of campaigns.

Pretty much. She is a standard political person. Not extreme and will change her mind with changes in political opinion. I would much rather her try to follow the people's will then push shit through we dont want. Its a double edge sword though, because if we did not do things the public did not like, we would not have had civil rights as soon as we did.

100% agree.

None of that has anything to do with the idea that giving a person running for office money can likely carry the implicit understanding of influence. Does not make her corrupt or mean she cant do a good job but it should be looked at as possible influence.

What I take issue with is that people are pretending like he donations mean nothing. There is a reason we dont allow donations to political figures in many other areas, and its because corruption can be hard to spot. We err on the side of caution because of that. Campaigns we allow because they dont have power yet, but nobody thinks that politics and private interests are disconnected.

I think its dumb to argue that the donations mean nothing. I also think its stupid to argue that she is an arm of the banks too.

I don't think anyone thinks they mean nothing, I just don't think they mean that much, and certainly not more for Hillary than for any other candidate.

 

[realibrad]

I don't see anyone pretending they mean nothing, I see people pretending they mean vastly more than they do though. Also, financial crimes are exceptionally difficult to prove.

Wall Street, like all most every industry "invests" in both parties all the time. That's a fact. To see if these contributions actually mean anything, one would need to look at what these industries have received in exchange for their money.

His argument is that unless you can show a direct benefit of their investment, the donations don't mean anything. I think that is stupid and that is what I responded to.

You came in with the comment about how they gave more money to Obama and McCain and asked what they got. I gave examples. I forgot the big one which I included today of no jail time, which is huge to me.

Okay so basically you think campaign donations are inherently corrupting but that we should accept that as okay. Considering large amounts of money are required to run for office that means we have two options by your logic:

1. A corrupted public official.
2. A plutocrat.

Presumably that is not an acceptable outcome, so it seems like our answer is public funding of campaigns.

We should accept it because the cost of doing the other two things is higher than the savings. Kind like how in FL we drug tested all the welfare people that ended up costing way fucking more than it saved.

Even if you tried to have a trust where donations could be sent, I'm sure big contributors would make it know that they put the money in there.

Corruption and influence are part of politics. I don't see any reasonable way to get those things out of politics. If we could find a low cost way, then I'm all in.

You agree with me I bet. You think donations should be limited and regulated. The argument for that stance is what I am saying here. Donations are not inherently corrupting, but they often carry influence. If we know where and what they are, then we can judge ourselves. The regulation I am for is sunlight overall.

I don't think anyone thinks they mean nothing, I just don't think they mean that much, and certainly not more for Hillary than for any other candidate.

Some do. People like ivwshane are making the argument that unless there is proof, it means nothing. They are setting up the argument that unless you have evidence of a return, they dont mean anything. You are not making that argument, but they are.

 

[ivwshane]

They mean something but you just can't show it. You can't provide evidence of corruption so that means she's corrupt.
That's your logic.

According to your logic every politician is corrupt because they received campaign contributions, right? By your low bar standards, Elizabeth warren is corrupt, after all she's received money from the securities and investment industry (number six on her list).

His argument is that unless you can show a direct benefit of their investment, the donations don't mean anything. I think that is stupid and that is what I responded to.

Yeah and that's what the law requires when prosecuting corruption charges. I know, I know, Hillary has been under a microscope for so long that she's turned into the most successful criminal mastermind and will never be caught! She's so good that's she's got dems and repubs protecting her. The decades of smears by the right are simply manufactured to distract people from her crimes right?

You came in with the comment about how they gave more money to Obama and McCain and asked what they got. I gave examples. I forgot the big one which I included today of no jail time, which is huge to me.

Yep, no crimes, just the largest fines the federal government has ever issued and only the largest wall Street reforms ever seen. If that's not evidence of corruption or being in bed with wall Street then I don't know what is! /s

We should accept it because the cost of doing the other two things is higher than the savings. Kind like how in FL we drug tested all the welfare people that ended up costing way fucking more than it saved.

Even if you tried to have a trust where donations could be sent, I'm sure big contributors would make it know that they put the money in there.

Corruption and influence are part of politics. I don't see any reasonable way to get those things out of politics. If we could find a low cost way, then I'm all in.

You agree with me I bet. You think donations should be limited and regulated. The argument for that stance is what I am saying here. Donations are not inherently corrupting, but they often carry influence. If we know where and what they are, then we can judge ourselves. The regulation I am for is sunlight overall.

Oh so now you agree with me, donations don't equal corruption. Does that mean they don't result in quid pro quos or are you also claiming that they do? Do they influence? Possibly, possibly not. How would one ever know? I've been asking for people to back up their charges with actual facts but they not only appear to be unable to do so by many seem unwillingly to do so. Would you accept someone claims without proof? I suspect you wouldn't and yet here we are.


Some do. People like ivwshane are making the argument that unless there is proof, it means nothing. They are setting up the argument that unless you have evidence of a return, they dont mean anything. You are not making that argument, but they are.

No, once again, you distort my view to win an argument. Multiple people have made claims that clinton is corrupt or bought and paid for, I'm simply asking them to prove it. Do you not understand the difference between what I'm asking and what you claim I'm asking? It doesn't appear you do.

 

[realibrad]

They mean something but you just can't show it. You can't provide evidence of corruption so that means she's corrupt.
That's your logic.

Its funny, because I am not accusing her of corruption. I never once said she was corrupt.

What I did say was this.

Does not make her corrupt or mean she cant do a good job but it should be looked at as possible influence.

I think its dumb to argue that the donations mean nothing. I also think its stupid to argue that she is an arm of the banks too.

Its almost like the narrative you are saying I am pushing was refuted by what I actually said. Weird right? lets see if your whole comment is built off of that false narrative.

According to your logic every politician is corrupt because they received campaign contributions, right? By your low bar standards, Elizabeth warren is corrupt, after all she's received money from the securities and investment industry (number six on her list).

Yep, same narrative. No, not all politicians are inherently corrupt because of donations. Lets see, did I perhaps say something that is the opposite of what you just said? Ah, how about this?

Donations are not inherently corrupting, but they often carry influence.

2 for 2 on being wrong.

No, once again, you distort my view to win an argument. Multiple people have made claims that clinton is corrupt or bought and paid for, I'm simply asking them to prove it. Do you not understand the difference between what I'm asking and what you claim I'm asking? It doesn't appear you do.

How did I distort your views? Your argument is that unless there is evidence to disprove, any claim means nothing. Lack of evidence does not disprove anything, but it also does not prove anything either. You asked what wall street is getting in return, and I gave an answer because nobody else seemed to which was influence in the future. You responded with this.

To see if these contributions actually mean anything, one would need to look at what these industries have received in exchange for their money.

So, unless you have Y as evidence, claim X means nothing. That is not true. Lack of evidence is important, but it does not mean they do not have influence. In fact, you clearly said that the banks are investing in both parties. After the shit show of the collapse, what was done to punish them? All I know of are fines that were far less than the profits they made tanking the economy. That seems like an amazing investment. Its like robbing a house and only having to give back some of what you stole, but not all because you paid off the cops.

I don't know if Hillary is going to be like that once she wins (and she will), but that money does show a possible influence that someone like Sanders does not have.

 

[ivwshane]

Maybe you should just sit this thread out. You don't appear to be able to follow the conversation that's been going on. (Hint: you aren't the only one in this thread)

Its funny, because I am not accusing her of corruption. I never once said she was corrupt.

What I did say was this.




Its almost like the narrative you are saying I am pushing was refuted by what I actually said. Weird right? lets see if your whole comment is built off of that false narrative.



Yep, same narrative. No, not all politicians are inherently corrupt because of donations. Lets see, did I perhaps say something that is the opposite of what you just said? Ah, how about this?



2 for 2 on being wrong.



How did I distort your views? Your argument is that unless there is evidence to disprove, any claim means nothing. Lack of evidence does not disprove anything, but it also does not prove anything either. You asked what wall street is getting in return, and I gave an answer because nobody else seemed to which was influence in the future. You responded with this.



So, unless you have Y as evidence, claim X means nothing. That is not true. Lack of evidence is important, but it does not mean they do not have influence. In fact, you clearly said that the banks are investing in both parties. After the shit show of the collapse, what was done to punish them? All I know of are fines that were far less than the profits they made tanking the economy. That seems like an amazing investment. Its like robbing a house and only having to give back some of what you stole, but not all because you paid off the cops.

I don't know if Hillary is going to be like that once she wins (and she will), but that money does show a possible influence that someone like Sanders does not have.

 

[zinfamous]

So, because you want to hear something, you're entitled to hear it?

I'll say it again; Elizabeth Warren doesn't owe you guys shit. She's not running for office, and isn't obligated to make people feel better about their own political outlooks in any way. Regardless of her answer, we all know it wouldn't make any difference to Hillary who has already/still been dragged over the coals. She knows why she isn't releasing them, and so does everyone else.


Non story that changes nothing.

this.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe you should just sit this thread out. You don't appear to be able to follow the conversation that's been going on. (Hint: you aren't the only one in this thread)

I respond to you and make a comment to you. I followed my comments to you and your comments to me. Dont blame me for you trying to respond to things I did not say or arguments I did not make. I quoted what I said and gave the reasons for each comment. Why are you now implying I am not keeping up?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I respond to you and make a comment to you. I followed my comments to you and your comments to me. Dont blame me for you trying to respond to things I did not say or arguments I did not make. I quoted what I said and gave the reasons for each comment. Why are you now implying I am not keeping up?

And good luck with that. But I do admire your patience and tenacity. I gave up on ivwshane long ago.

 

[BoberFett]

The big banks are larger and more powerful than they ever were BEFORE the crash, so I'd say their donations to Obama and others were well spent.

 

[realibrad]

And good luck with that. But I do admire your patience and tenacity. I gave up on ivwshane long ago.

He is not even close to moonie. 🙂

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He is not even close to moonie. 🙂

I think Moonie is awesome! To each his own I guess.

 

[HomerJS]

They mean something but you just can't show it. You can't provide evidence of corruption so that means she's corrupt.
That's your logic.

According to your logic every politician is corrupt because they received campaign contributions, right? By your low bar standards, Elizabeth warren is corrupt, after all she's received money from the securities and investment industry (number six on her list).




No, once again, you distort my view to win an argument. Multiple people have made claims that clinton is corrupt or bought and paid for, I'm simply asking them to prove it. Do you not understand the difference between what I'm asking and what you claim I'm asking? It doesn't appear you do.

When it comes to believing what politicians say would you rather have faith or evidence?

If said politician refuses you to see the evidence what should I conclude? It's not like its national security reasons.

 

[realibrad]

When it comes to believing what politicians say would you rather have faith or evidence?

If said politician refuses you to see the evidence what should I conclude? It's not like its national security reasons.

In this case, I would bet that there is nothing in the speeches. She is worried that the very fact she spoke to Wall Street is enough to cause a problem. If I were her, I would not want to give fodder to my opponents.

 

[realibrad]

I think Moonie is awesome! To each his own I guess.

Probably smarter. Also, awesome is a word that can be used in different ways. You could have awesomely bad gas.

 

[fskimospy]

The big banks are larger and more powerful than they ever were BEFORE the crash, so I'd say their donations to Obama and others were well spent.

If the banks think things went so well under Obama why did they go all out to try and defeat him in 2012? Why has the risk premium evaporated? Why are banks trying so hard to avoid being labeled systemically important as almost all the big banks are?

These are not the actions of people who consider their political donations well spent, haha.

 

[BoberFett]

If the banks think things went so well under Obama why did they go all out to try and defeat him in 2012? Why has the risk premium evaporated? Why are banks trying so hard to avoid being labeled systemically important as almost all the big banks are?

These are not the actions of people who consider their political donations well spent, haha.

Proof?

That's what this is about isn't it? You want proof that Hillary is bought and paid for? Where's the proof that the banks aren't getting exactly what they want?

Not speculation. Proof.

 

[ivwshane]

And good luck with that. But I do admire your patience and tenacity. I gave up on ivwshane long ago.

Gave up? If by gave up you mean you now have me on ignore but still find time to comment about me while whining anytime I respond or call out your bullshit, sure. However, I think the phrase you are looking for is, "lalalalala I can't hear you!"

But you go girl!

 

[fskimospy]

Proof?

That's what this is about isn't it? You want proof that Hillary is bought and paid for? Where's the proof that the banks aren't getting exactly what they want?

Not speculation. Proof.

Here's Wall Street donations by party from 2007-2012. (sorry the dates are cut off at the bottom) They donated ~$23 million to Obama in 2008 and about $20 million to McCain. In 2012 they donated about $36 million to Romney and $10 million to Obama. In short, donations to Democrats decreased by 50% election on election and donations to Republicans increased by about 80%.

Does that look like a group of people that got exactly what they wanted?

 

[BoberFett]

And as a result, Obama has pushed for what legislation that damages banks?

People in this thread are defending Hillary claiming that donations don't mean anything. You don't then get to claim that they do when it's convenient. Either they mean something or they don't.

The fact that you're claiming their donations to Republicans mean something, isn't that pretty damning for Hillary?

 

[fskimospy]

And as a result, Obama has pushed for what legislation that damages banks?

People in this thread are defending Hillary claiming that donations don't mean anything. You don't then get to claim that they do when it's convenient. Either they mean something or they don't.

The fact that you're claiming their donations to Republicans mean something, isn't that pretty damning for Hillary?

Dodd-Frank.

I don't think donations mean nothing, I just think they mean less than people think they do, especially in national races with well funded and well known candidates. I also would not be at all surprised if the Republican candidate gets more money from Wall Street this cycle than Hillary does.

They really, really hate Dodd-Frank. Republicans want to repeal it and democrats want to keep it. That means donations.