And cronies. But I suspect you think they're just altruistic and patriotic Americans who donate to her foundations, campaigns, and pay her personally for speeches because they want nothing more than for her to champion those who are struggling.

take a crap unless they can find a way to leverage profit out of it. They buy pols, they don't "contribute" to them.

Google is your friend. Anyone can find out just where that picture came from in two clicks.

HINT--it ain't "yesterday's kickoff."

Never a good idea to spread FUD so obviously, and get caught at it. It's a reputation - ruiner.

yesterday's kickoff. "Supposed to be" meaning I am not vouching for it, I didn't take the photo but that's how it was presented to me. It wasn't intentional. It wasn't fud. I'm not a journalist, but I guess you're right. I'll send myself into timeout from OPs while I serve my penance for the mistake.


I think your getting hung up on the lesser important part in order to avoid the actual content.

And if you're using "supposed to be" as a benchmark standard, well, this is "supposed to be" a picture of Senator Sanders, from your friends at Mother Jones.






That's the kind of thing you're doing. It's ugly and it makes DU suck. It suggests that you can only prosecute the case for your candidate by tearing down another.

A photo at a charity event is just that. Maybe you should stop getting "hung up" on innuendo and snark. It's a poor look for you.

I wonder, do people feel safer when they chose to side with the billionaires? Do they think the billionaires will some how shower them with goodies or goodness? The billionaires sure as hell ain't going to do anything about social justice or economic equality.

That is EXACTLY the relevant point.

You gonna apply that admonition across the board, or is your scorn just reserved for "some" people?

Lockheed Martin.

We can do this pointless back and forth all night.

Is it hypocritical to play the lefty-socialist card, and lie down with the manufacturers of swords (to include nuclear weapons)? Is that "integrity" to you?

Last time I checked, Wall Street wasn't in VT, so Bernie never had any need to deal with the financial sector as one of his constituencies demanding his attention. In fact, his entire state has limited commerce sectors, and fewer people in it than the city of Boston--he's not overburdened when it comes to being able to manage constituent services.

When your team has to resort to posting ambiguous pictures with "innuendo" captions, it's clear you're running on empty. Bettter charge your batteries....

Thank you

Right you are.
As I have said before in 2008, Clinton was my last choice among the 6 or so early contender. BHO was next to last. I feared both because there loyalty seemed to be to bankers and corporations.

The rhetoric is a bit different this time, but she always stops just short. Bernie makes no bones about where he stands and what he intends to do. Thus my choice is easy so far.

Politically speaking the man who owns the Clintons lock, stock and barrel, unless I miss my guess.

iirc, he's a thug who grew up in Hell's Kitchen, no?

he grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, and went to Harvard. I don't know what Hell's Kitchen is being a West Coaster, but he doesn't seem to have thug credentials until he grows up and goes to Wall Street.

I could have sworn I read that one of them grew up in the streets of Hell's Kitchen (a once bad section of Manhattan, now gentrified).

Ooooooh, this is "SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN" (synonym for "Let's make some shit up," hmmmmm?) from yesterday's kickoff...

Only it wasn't.

It's not nice to .... errrrrrr ..... MISREPRESENT.

And that's what your OP is doing.

Tsk, tsk.


For what it's worth--your assertion is a falsehood. That picture was taken at the CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE...and YOU ought to be ASHAMED of yourself.

I have proof--scroll halfway down this page: http://still4hill.com/category/cgi/


Man, how LOW will they GO???

from yesterday. I wasn't making shit up, I was communicating what I read from people who are usually pretty on point. I think the date is not terribly important and on reflection I should have left it off.

who first said it!! And it's "not terribly important" because YOU weren't the one who made the shit up....you just REPEATED it. GLEEFULLY. In a DU OP. Without checking!! Because, duhhhhhh.....FACEBOOK!!! Yeah, that's the ticket.

You really don't understand what "low" is, because you just surpassed your OP on that score with post 21.

Do you realize what a slippery moral slope you're on? Probably not. And that's the most telling bit of all!


SMH.

I mean, maybe she changed before going on stage. But she wasn't wearing a high-collar "topper" jacket. Rather it was a more tailored, notched-collar suit jacket over a shell. Hair is also slightly different: in fact, it's not in the same time period I would guess, given the downswept, layered bangs in the Blankfein picture and the single-length, swept-back bangs in the second. I could be wrong. But women notice these things.

?w=1920

Indeed, the OP's picture appears to be from an event of the Clinton Global Initiative from September 2014. Notice the jacket.

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Clinton+Global+Initiative+pziDNQ5KKaEl.jpg

Initiative taken a year ago.

eom

Don't be surprised or frightened - it is what it is. Whether or not you want your next president to be the servant of these people is the question.

He acts like a an extremist libertarian.

Don't need any pictures to figure that out.

When you've represented constituencies, you make associations. They most certainly WERE her constituents, and during a fraught period of our history, too--unless they moved Wall Street from NYC to Idaho and didn't mention it.

In Vermont. Problem is settled, Goldmann Sachs and Wall Street is located in NY so it is okay Hillary votes in their favor. BTW, the World trade centers was also located in NY so voting for IWR was also the right decision. Now all can move along to complain about another subject.

What are you going to do when, in a very possible scenario, she becomes the nominee. Will you vote for someone you have devoted yourself to destroying, who you have painted as the devil incarnate? Or will you help the GOP win office? I don't see how it is possible to vote for someone you despise so thoroughly, that you see as allied with Wall Street and determined to bring about the destruction of America.

Clearly the vitriol against Clinton is unparalleled. Dictators and Republicans are spoken of more favorably around here. Qaddafi, Assad, anyone. I find is amazing that people can work up so much hatred toward a Democrat. But then what will you do if she is the nominee? Pretend you don't despise her? Or work to put the Tea Party in the White House?

Do you think about the general election at all or do you simply not care?

takes his concerns more seriously than she would take mine. How is that a character assassination? No, any character failings are those of her own making, not mine. I didn't choose the company she keeps. She seeks to be hired by a healthy sampling of 100% the people of this country.

She is a rich and powerful woman who helped create a rich and powerful family. She holds the interest of her rich and powerful friends in the highest regard. The economic interests of the rich and powerful are not aligned with those who are not rich and powerful. They showed us this when they started offshoring and outsourcing our jobs. They showed us this when they evict people from their homes. The show us this when they create bubbles in the housing and now rental markets. They show us this when they complain about entitlement spending or when they seek to profit off the transaction fees on welfare assistance electronic debit type cards. They celebrate efficiency where efficiency means the elimination of jobs or the reduction of labor costs. They report, with a not imperceptible air of glee, that the big three banks will collect 4.5 billion dollars $35.00 at a time this year in overdraft fees from people without enough money to avoid said overdraft fees. I should be silent on this point of contention because why?

I want a president who will serve my interest. And why shouldn't I? I assure you that bankers want a president who will serve theirs. I bet it takes a great deal of effort to serve selflessly. No doubt she'll do what she can to try to rise to the task, but at the end of the day, it will be her interest and the interest of those who are much richer than I, the interests of people like her, that will be served while hoping the spoils trickle down upon the rest of us. If all that goes to her character, and if she and her supporters are embarrassed by or ashamed of that, well then maybe she doesn't have the right character for the job.

It is my job as a voter to question her character. If you want to question the character of my candidate, go ahead. I'm sure he will welcome the opportunity to further clarify his positions. I'm sure he will welcome the chance to highlight the problems this country faces and to lay out the solutions he has for the same problems.

A candidate like Clinton will no doubt survive my post on D.U., but if my post can serve to hold any candidate to a high standard well then great. If that makes you scared or sad for your candidate's prospects, well. . . good.

"company she keeps." You could find hundreds of pictures of her with ordinary people, but that doesn't serve your purposes.

How is it that you have decided that Clinton is the only candidate who serves capital? You have lived in a capitalist state your entire life, voted for many politicians--all of whom serve capital. Yet Clinton is the only one you've decided that matters for? How is that even possible?

We've had many rich presidents in this country, including the ones held up as heroes here, JFK and FDR. Yet Clinton's wealth is unacceptable. She made it, like Obama, through writing a book and speaker fees, rather than inheriting it from a wealthy family. It's a fraction of the wealth of those liberal heroes. So why is it unacceptable? I'm pretty sure I know why, which is similar to the reason Oprah's wealth is unacceptable when George Soros' isn't.

I asked about the general election, what you will do if she is the nominee. And that certainly is a very possible scenario. You made clear that your only concern is opposing Clinton, "questioning her character." Therefore I assume you will vote for a third party candidate or the GOP nominee, likely Scott Walker (the two choices amount to the same thing), who you see as more closely serving your interests than someone like Clinton who will work for the interests of people like me and the rest of the "special interests," as someone here referred to the non-white male majority of the country.

BTW, the bankers support Walker and Jeb. If you vote against the Democrats in the general, you will be voting for the bankers. But you'll keep Clinton from becoming president, so it will all be worth it in the end.

Sure, I could post comparable OPs. I could post what the socialist have to say about Sanders, how they don't see anything socialist about him, how their views of him mirror yours of Clinton. But you know what, I won't because I'm a Democrat. I don't want the bankers to have their henchmen in office, and those henchmen are the very ones you prefer to Clinton. Unlike you, I don't fall for every GOP meme fed by the Koch brothers and Murdoch propaganda machine in order to make it easier for the GOP to win the election. I will leave that to you. Besides, if I were to question character, it would be that of the candidates.

The dark and creepy looking picture is a nice touch.

Guess he's only half "evil".

I am finding it hard to believe some are swayed by these things. What is this, fifty shades of feel the Bern?