View Full Version : Clinton blasts Wall Street, but still draws millions in contributions
She is so blatantly two-faced!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html
Williamsmith
2-4-16, 9:41am
I can so much see her wearing a Maoist suit. I don't care what she says. It's what she does that scares the hell out of me.
She's a "progressive who gets things done" running against Bernie (You say you want a revolution) Sanders.
Is this really a contest about who gets to define what "progressive" means?
Ultralight
2-4-16, 10:04am
She's a "progressive who gets things done" running against Bernie (You say you want a revolution) Sanders.
Is this really a contest about who gets to define what "progressive" means?
"Progressive" is a misleading term. Establishment democrats want lefties to think it means being lefty and they want moderates to think it means being moderate.
"Progressive" is a misleading term. Establishment democrats want lefties to think it means being lefty and they want moderates to think it means being moderate.
What would be a better term? "Liberal" seems to have gone out of style.
Redistributionist? Egalitarian? Democratic socialist?
Ultralight
2-4-16, 10:19am
What would be a better term? "Liberal" seems to have gone out of style.
Redistributionist? Egalitarian? Democratic socialist?
I will admit my fondness for "liberal."
But I think the Democrats should split in two.
The Billary types should be called "Sell outs."
The Bernie types should be called Democratic Socialists. Though I have some real serious questions about that that phrase really means.
Fair enough. My side of the fence certainly expends a lot of energy debating what "conservative" really means.
Ultralight
2-4-16, 10:23am
Fair enough. My side of the fence certainly expends a lot of energy debating what "conservative" really means.
The thing for me is that as a democracy we could morph into total socialism is the vast majority of people voted for such policies. So a democratic society is always potentially socialist. It is also potentially libertarian or what-have-you.
That is different than a socialist dictatorship.
The thing for me is that as a democracy we could morph into total socialism is the vast majority of people voted for such policies. So a democratic society is always potentially socialist. It is also potentially libertarian or what-have-you.
That is different than a socialist dictatorship.
Hayek referred to that process (the majority progressively voting for more state control to provide more benefits) as "The Road to Serfdom". He felt that when all or most institutional power was vested in the state a socialist dictatorship was more or less inevitable.
Ultralight
2-4-16, 10:37am
Our current track seems like a road to totalitarian corporate oligarchy. But who's counting? ;)
Williamsmith
2-4-16, 10:45am
Wealth redistribution is not a new thing, in fact some of the founding fathers were wealth redistributionists when it suited their interests. By the end of the revolutionary war the confederation of states were in so much debt that the new federal government could not pay the army, could not fulfill the promise of a lump sum half buy out for mustering out soldiers and could not supply basic logistics.
President Washingtons finance secretary Alexander Hamilton with the help of Robert Morris created an even deeper crisis on purpose so as to pressure Congress to enact legislation creating exise taxes on the common man. The only way the rich creditors would get their money back was if the general population were footing the bill for the revolution and all the contracts rich creditors were awarded during the war. So they rumored that the army was going to revolt and overthrow the government if they didn't get paid. Kind of a union strike gone violently wrong.
Congress gave in and Hamilton passed the first excise tax which targeted distilled spirits. And the Whiskey Rebellion began. We have been taxed over and over ever since.
I just see Bernie Sanders as the same outcome , shoe on a different foot.
gimmethesimplelife
2-4-16, 11:46am
All I can say here is thanks to Obama being in power, when my gallbladder turned on me in 2014, I didn't have to flee to Mexicali while very ill as I qualified for expanded Medicaid. I've known many people who have been able to get medical issues addressed without having to make survival runs to Mexico due to Medicaid expansion. I believe Hillary would keep the Medicaid status quo and that Bernie would at least try to pass single payer. I doubt it would pass but it would be a chance for what's left of the exhausted and afraid middle class to comparison shop US health care with the rest of the world and realize America has let them down yet another way.....and in an unforgiveable way too that has the potential of involving life and death. Rob
Congress gave in and Hamilton passed the first excise tax which targeted distilled spirits. And the Whiskey Rebellion began. We have been taxed over and over ever since.
I just see Bernie Sanders as the same outcome , shoe on a different foot.
The Whiskey Rebellion was the last time a sitting American president led troops in the field.
I'm trying to picture Bernie leading the 1st Infantry Division against JP Morgan Chase.
Ultralight
2-4-16, 12:07pm
The Whiskey Rebellion was the last time a sitting American president led troops in the field.
I'm trying to picture Bernie leading the 1st Infantry Division against JP Morgan Chase.
You're really zinging them this morning! hahaha
The Whiskey Rebellion was the last time a sitting American president led troops in the field.
Maybe it would do society some good if the president had to actually go risk his life on the battlefield every time he declared a war.
She is so blatantly two-faced!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html
Yeah, I guess. I heard that her response to why she accepted money from big banks for speaking tours was, well, they offered. Unless you're a billionaire or a radical Bernie type pushing campaign reform you need big money to compete in a campaign and there are only a few sources for Big Money.
It would be nice if they would push on the bigger issue where a small number of wealthy groups or individual have an undue influence on our political system. Wall Street encompasses part of a huge part of what runs our economy by financing business operations. It's not inherently evil. It has it's sub groups like big oil or big banks or the Koch brothers and the big lobbies that are entwined with and sway our politics that deserve more attention.
The thing for me is that as a democracy we could morph into total socialism is the vast majority of people voted for such policies.
Luckily we're a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.
“Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." - some dead white guy
Luckily we're a constitutional republic, and not a democracy.
A lot of good that would do.
A lot of good that would do.
It's worked fairly well so far protecting us from the excesses of the mob. Our current system slows down the pace of change, by design, so that it's relatively difficult for the cause-of-the-day to permanently bollix up the works.
It's worked fairly well so far protecting us from the excesses of the mob.
Mere opinion.
Mere opinion.
Well thought out response.... I'd give it an 'F'.
It's worked fairly well so far protecting us from the excesses of the mob.
Which mob and who is us?
Zing!!!!!!!
Which mob and who is us?
Zing!!!!!!!
'F-'
Caught parts of the debate last night. Mrs. Clinton explained that she took the money because they offered it. She then attacked Mr. Sanders for the "artful smear" of raising the issue. I understand the Sanders camp is now insisting she publish transcripts of all her talks. Given the inevitability of the question, I'm a little surprised she didn't have a better response prepared.
It was nice to see the other party embarrass themselves for a change.
Ultralight
2-5-16, 10:36am
Caught parts of the debate last night. Mrs. Clinton explained that she took the money because they offered it. She then attacked Mr. Sanders for the "artful smear" of raising the issue. I understand the Sanders camp is now insisting she publish transcripts of all her talks. Given the inevitability of the question, I'm a little surprised she didn't have a better response prepared.
It was nice to see the other party embarrass themselves for a change.
She is all about the money. She is like the biblical character Judas. She will sell out for a pocketful of silver.
Williamsmith
2-5-16, 10:48am
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
Ultralight
2-5-16, 10:52am
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
I am only voting for The Bern in the primary. Then I will probably go back to not voting.
rodeosweetheart
2-5-16, 11:05am
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
It would depend on who else was on the ballet, William.
Caught parts of the debate last night.I saw the first hour or so, which could realistically be summed up through one modified verse of a Beatles song: "I say I want a revolution, well you know, I'm more Socialist than you."
Ultralight
2-5-16, 11:44am
I saw the first hour or so, which could realistically be summed up through one modified verse of a Beatles song: "I say I want a revolution, well you know, I'm more Socialist than you."
If The Bern said that, then he is correct, sir!
I saw the first hour or so, which could realistically be summed up through one modified verse of a Beatles song: "I say I want a revolution, well you know, I'm more Socialist than you."
That's a reasonable summary. There was the argument about whether Bernie was the "gatekeeper of progressivism" or some such. I thought it went beyond the usual auction process of who would offer the most free stuff into the realm of ideological correctness. Sort of the Democratic Party version of the old RINO insult.
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
Yes. For me she's still light years better than any of the alternatives.
Was it really necessary for Rachel Maddow to hug both participants at the end? You don't expect moderate moderators at MSNBC, but still...
Was it really necessary for Rachel Maddow to hug both participants at the end? You don't expect moderate moderators at MSNBC, but still...
No. But I think I prefer it to the dispute between Megan Kelly and trump after that debate.
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
Never. Ever. Not in a million years, even if it comes down to Hillary vs. Donald. One is as bad as the other.
Was it really necessary for Rachel Maddow to hug both participants at the end? You don't expect moderate moderators at MSNBC, but still...
Ick.
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
In some scenarios, I might be able to talk myself into voting for Bernie, though I will probably as usual vote for a third party candidate.
In no scenario likely in our timeline can I imagine myself casting a vote for Hillary.
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
Good question. Hard question. Let me sit with that one for a while...
Personal rant/anecdote of the day. DS called me today. He was barking violently and was all stuffed up. He said that he was getting over bronchitis. He called me from the courthouse to ask me to look up some information on the internet about his client. He's still trying to get a job with a law firm and in the meantime is working as legal freelancing associate with a firm and as a freelance public defender. Because he's not making that much money doing that, he's working weekends as a bartender/server. His wife is desperately looking for a job, and is pursuing second interviews.
My grandson also had a cold--germs he is probably sharing with his dad--so they sent GS to the doctor, but they couldn't afford for two family members to go. DS doesn't have insurance at the moment, although it starts March 1 apparently. So in the meantime he's self-medicating by taking leftover amoxycillin from his son's ear infection.
I worry about DS's health, so I told him to go to the doctor and don't go to the restaurant but he refuses, saying he has to work and get in the hours. It burns me up that he's not some lazy bum with a sense of entitlement--he's a man who went from being a high school drop-out to being a lawyer who married a rabid Republican political activist and who now works three jobs and can't afford to make sure he doesn't have pneumonia.
Go Bernie!
Williamsmith
2-5-16, 11:44pm
[QUOTE=catherine;231293]Good question. Hard question. Let me sit with that one for a while...
My oldest son went without health insurance for a while and I could totally see stashing away meds for an occasion like that. What is crazy is some meds are so regulated that someone could be committing a felony for providing them. I want to believe that the healthcare quagmire we are in can be improved without going to a totally government controlled system. Certainly other countries have made it work but I wonder if this country and its unique constitution is created for something like that and also can the wealth that will be required be extracted from the rich while preserving their ambition to remain rich.
You see, wealth redistribution from the poor and middle class has occurred mostly because the poor and middle class don't have any alternatives to go to........but try to invert that and make the rich carry more of the burden for financing public programs and they just quit being rich. You know, Gualt like and all.
Bernie's World is a utopian fantasy that is like Evil Knievel's rocket jump over the Snake River. An epic failure.
...but try to invert that and make the rich carry more of the burden for financing public programs and they just quit being rich. You know, Gualt like and all.
I gave away 90%+ of my wealth, and am happily living in the shadows, paying almost $0 in taxes, so I can avoid my life's energy being used to bomb children in far-away lands.
Enjoy!
For Bernie supporters......would you vote for her when she becomes the nominee?
My issues of concern are climate change and the environment, affordable health care, and reducing the influence of big money in politics. With an overriding consideration for integrity. I see Bernie holding a slight edge on these and Hillary second. So, yes. I'm not a fan of wealth redistribution and can imagine ways to address these without any gross transfer of wealth, but that candidate is not in the running. I may reserve the right to write in Megyn Kelly.
Williamsmith
2-6-16, 6:00am
My issues of concern are climate change and the environment, affordable health care, and reducing the influence of big money in politics. With an overriding consideration for integrity. I see Bernie holding a slight edge on these and Hillary second. So, yes. I'm not a fan of wealth redistribution and can imagine ways to address these without any gross transfer of wealth, but that candidate is not in the running. I may reserve the right to write in Megyn Kelly.
After all the hype about voter turnout in Iowa and the upcoming primaries. ....wouldn't it be a kick if we saw a record poor turnout in the general election due to voter apathy?
My preferred candidate is gone already...there is no one similar enough to him to get my vote. Clinton is a chameleon now talkin more left than ever. Is not all politics about wealth redistribution? What is ours is not ours. Keeping it or taking it away is politics.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.