Best of luck to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110736168

Perhaps you can?

has kept me away for a very long time.
It's cool if you don't have anything for me. Thanks for the kick!

makes your claim of not being back here for forever a tad bit of an exaggeration. I do hope you feel better soon though.

So I have been reading a lot, and wasn't finding an answer to my questions, hence the post.

" Wish me luck" I tend to think that requests for information after that could be a bit insincere. Like you, I being disabled spend quite a bit of time here and have seen many others do that, even in groups that I participate in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110736168

Information like this bears repeating and needs exposure.

So sorry you've had health issues, Lucinda. Hope everything is okay and you're on the mend.

I come up for air when I am able. I've been a DU'er for a long long time, but i've avoided the stressful forums for several years. I have been a fan of both Clinton and Sanders for years, so this election has me digging into the fray.

"As for her speeches, that were given after she stepped down from state - which in total are for a LOT of money - but are in no way out of the ordinary."

At that time, she knew her chances of running for President were high. So between "State" and her announcement to run, she began collecting money, votes and promises for her bid. That's not illegal but don't make it sound coincidental. She went where money and power is in anticipation for getting her expected nomination.

18 million cracks in the glass ceiling according to her 2008 concession speech. She was destined to run and damn near everyone knew it.

over Sanders, since she was actually there talking to groups in person and Bernie is just now reaching widespread recognition (which I think is well deserved btw.)

I happen to think she is a good speaker, though many say the opposite. But at the same I doubt there is anyone over 18 in this country, or probably most countries, who doesn't already know who she is. So far, I've seen nothing yet to lead me to believe she acted improperly, and I also think she has more on her plate than just fishing for votes. When she runs for office, she has a track record of listening as much, or more, than she talks. So I think her speeches were more about promoting Dem ideas and making new connections. The Clinton's are doing good work with their foundations, and speaking fees, as well as meeting new people, were probably a big factor in making the circuit. They would be for me if I were in her situation. I don't doubt the exposure was a extra benefit they were well aware of - though maybe not of primary concern. Just my opinion, nothing to back it up!

I think a HUGE part of her deciding to run was protecting the ACA. Health care has been a huge part of her life's work and I don't think she wants to give the Reps any opportunity to scrap it.

,,, turn them down. If that impression is correct you would be either foolish or disingenuous.

The bottom line is that unless they have been illegally feeding at the public trough, public speaking is one of the only ways of making money unless you are going to work for one of those "evil" corporations.

I understand that Bernie's net worth is under $200,000; that's just sad for someone who has devoted his life to public service. If he doesn't win the nomination, I would not begrudge him the opportunity to make money on a speaking tour. Would you?

I said that her money making speeches may have been after her SOS job but that she was already building her war chest to run for office. That was not a dispute to the OP. It was an explanation as to why she sought to make the speeches.

I do support Bernie and he could have gathered his money too but his ideology doesn't run parallel to Hill. And his decision to run much, much later than Hillary's. Even so, he is now on par to give her another tight race like Obama did.

What I would do is irrelevant but I would have followed Bernie's approach. It seems to carry more authenticity than what she did.

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Please also consider the financial people who have been in a revolving door scenario regardless of party.

Kind of done with that crowd. Bernie is to.

I will definitely read it.

I have never trusted her since, and never will.

look at it. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Thank you!

No photos, no videos, no transcripts, nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1056899

Hillary Clinton: my speeches for Wall Street haven't led to conflict of interest
(....no conflict of interest!! )
6 hours ago
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/hillary-clinton-wall-street-banks-speeches-conflict-of-interest

Meetings maybe, but why is a speech controversial?

would tend to favor their interests.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

Not that 2.9 isn't a lot, but i've seen no indication anywhere that they were shady. It is pretty standard speaking fees for many politicians, sports figures, authors etc. She would certainly be a big draw for their group. And it gets a Democratic viewpoint of the world out there.

I do understand how it would bother you though.

did not ruin this nation's economy either.

in politics works with a notable example

Appreciate the video! Will watch it after dinner!

And i appreciate your reasonable and intelligent question.

When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

Still, she said that the repeal of the law “had a powerful impact to let the big get bigger.” She also contended that its repeal, brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “mattered enormously. It is like holding up a sign to regulators to back up.”

Liberals Roar As Bernie Sanders Joins Elizabeth Warren On Bill To Reinstate Glass-Steagall
July 17, 2015
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/17/liberals-roar-bernie-sanders-joins-elizabeth-warren-bill-reinstate-glass-steagall.html

Sanders: "Today, not only must we reinstate this important law, but if we are truly serious about ending too big to fail, we have got to break up the largest financial institutions in this country. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."

The legislation to reinstate Glass-Steagall was introduced by Democratic Senators Warren and Cantwell (D-WA) along with Republican John McCain earlier this month. At the time, Warren said, “Despite the progress we’ve made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten our economy. The biggest banks are collectively much larger than they were before the crisis, and they continue to engage in dangerous practices that could once again crash our economy. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking and make our financial system more stable and secure.”

Hillary doesn't want to bring back Glass-Steagall like Sanders and Warren. Might not look good on Bill's legacy.
http://observer.com/2015/12/why-hillary-clinton-wont-prevent-the-next-economic-recession/

Ms. Clinton’s comprehensive Wall Street Reform plan has a lot of positive attributes—many of which Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders agree with—but the dismissal of reinstating Glass Steagall weakens her plan significantly. In her Times op-ed she argued that “we need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just the banks.” Ms. Clinton attempts to debunk the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act as ineffective, but given the political power of big banks—with the five largest on Wall Street currently holding 45 percent of the nation’s banking assets compared to just 25 percent in 2000—her cautious reforms are insufficient.

Supporting Ms. Warren and Mr. McCain’s 21st century Glass Steagall Act should be a staple of both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’ Wall Street reforms, but Ms. Clinton is opting for a less aggressive approach, which doesn’t help distance her from Wall Street. Some of the biggest donations to the Clinton Foundation came from Bank of America, CitiGroup and Goldman Sachs.

"...In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”

She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself..."


I do appreciate the other links though. I will look at them.

When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

BUT,

Still, she said that the repeal of the law “had a powerful impact to let the big get bigger.”

and the big BUT:

She also contended that its (Glass-Steagall) repeal, brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “mattered enormously. It is like holding up a sign to regulators to back up.”

So it was a pretty serious factor in the collapse of 2008 because it didn't just affect the size of the institutions, more importantly, it discouraged regulation of those institutions.

Canada didn't suffer nearly as much in the collapse. In part, because better regulation was in place and in part for other reasons, like capitalization for example.

Part of it is selling the idea to the public. The public knows Glass-Steagall came in with the depression and when it went out, we had close to a similar event in 2008. Obe could call it anything they want but using that name to do the spirit of it sells the notion of it because it didn't kill the US economy or banks during the decades it was in place.

McCain and Warren have altered some definitions in it, etc to tighten it up or update it.

Unlike what Hillary is trying to falsely spin, that isn't all they want to do with financial reform.

It provides insight into the kinds of special relationships and friendly regulation which I refer to downthread.

I only speak for myself when I say, do your own homework. Site searches aren't exactly difficult. I'm not here to play fetch for Hillarians.

I'm hoping others will.

But for me it is foremost a character issue.

Hilary is not honest. No qualms about distorting her opponents' messages in order to manipulate voters.
It's an election about values.

Feel better

Seems liberals used to be more compassionate.

I've been bouncing around and stopped to rest a bit and eat, when I came back I started at the bottom of the posts. Weird habit of mine!

....it is a conflict of interest. Who will Hillary help more, the people like me who don't have a lot of money to throw her way or the corporations who do? People always want a return on their money and the corporations are no different.

I think it would be better if corporations and Super Pacs were not involved.

All the money I can find has been from mostly individual donors, and then speakers fees. Is there a money source I'm missing?

I haven't looked at this in detail, so my question is a serious one. I don't think any campaign contribution should be hidden and un-vetted, ever, so I am very anti super PACs...however...

I'll repeat what I said below though, in this case, in this election, I am not hating the fact that the Dem candidate would have the ability to have deep pockets. The GE will be brutal, whoever we put forward. I suspect that may be in Hillary's mind at the moment too and is a factor in her support right now. I don't know why anyone would refuse to make use of those funds as long as your opponent can't pull zillions of dollars out of a hat.

I do hope to see the practice disposed of, and sensible campaign policies put in place. It takes an obscene amount of money to run for office, especially the POTUS. Needs to be severely reigned in. Too many good people are left unable to run, because of money in all areas of government.

Stephen Colbert did a great series of pieces on super PACs.

You may not feel that it is not wrong to use super PACs in a general election against Republicans. But remember that Sec. Clinton is using her super PAC against a democratic rival. Is Sanders some great evil that requires anonymous corporate dollars to defeat for the greater good of the country?

I think not. To me that signifies that super PACs are more than just a tool to beat Republicans to Sec. Clinton

Hillary is working a big ground game and they are expensive, but I don't know what funds she is using in the Primaries. I hope Bernie has a plan to counter the Reps if he becomes our nominee. Social media could be a huge help, and the campaign seems to use it well.

And I'll look for Colbert's PAC pieces. Love him, don't have cable, so I always had to catch him and Stewart when I could, online.

David Brock's PAC has been getting a lot of attention around here because of the attacks they have been generating. And he has been buying online news outlets to print positive pieces about Hillary and diss Bernie.

Just so you know, yes, she is certainly using corporate money against her primary challenger.

I do know it's usually more complicated than it appears though. I'd seen the name and I don't anything about him other than the posts about the ties he has to Hillary. More digging for me to do...

Here is a washington post article about the coordination with her campaign. He is using his corporate funds to coordinate with Clinton's campaign (arguably in violation of FEC regulations, but the FEC is virtually powerless these days):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-20/david-brock-i-was-prepared-to-bring-up-sanders-s-medical-records

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-brock-sanders-black-lives-matter

From this last one, Brock took this lovely little ad:

...and spun it to claim Sanders doesn't care about black lives. This is the kind of behavior that unlimited corporate money is being spent on, with coordination from Clinton's campaign.

Not to mention that Brock's corporate PAC has purchased the online publication Blue Nation Review:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

Now they're putting out anti-Sanders "journalism" pieces.

http://bluenationreview.com/with-bernie-sanders-as-the-nominee-democrats-can-kiss-the-presidency-goodbye/

http://bluenationreview.com/hope-and-rage-are-roves-dirty-tricks-against-hillary-backfiring-on-bernie/

Again, this is all unlimited anonymous donations to a super PAC. And people sometimes mock Sanders supporters for being furious about corporate and wall street money.

thing I came to about him, was a bunch of infighting between different Hillary PACs. Sounds like a bunch of kids squabbling. I can't take anymore tonight, but I really appreciate the links you posted. I'll dig in tomorrow!

The two main reasons why I asked for people to tell me their views, and also share links if they had them was a) - I want to know what real people think not pundits and b) - My time sitting in this chair is limited before it becomes too painful, so not having to start from scratch without vetted links, even if my own opinion ends up flowing differently, is a huge help. There is sooo much junk out there.

And I had to retype almost 50 percent of this twice before it was (mostly I hope) correct. So I am giving up for the night. I'm looking forward to the links. The dude may or may not be as shady as everyone thinks, but anyone who gets so over the top invested that hes fighting with other PACs over who is the "bestest in the land," is worrisome.

My fella and I just finished watching a really great series on Youtube called The Great War, and I was reminded just how far off the range some zealots can go in their crusade to support whatever cause they are rallying behind.

Thanks again for taking the time. Looking forward to peeping through all the links.

Lucinda

between my heading settling down and finally being able to sleep. Talk about going from one side to the other! Fascinating stuff.
I slept most of today, and am dealing with the pain the weather changes cause, but I'll be reading more tonight and tomorrow.

He was a political attack dog for the right-wing. Now he is a political attack dog for the Clintons. It doesn't appear his tactics have changed much, he very much loves personal attacks and character assassinations. It's pretty sad to see him being used in a primary.

the speaking fees are a problem. I read somewhere that she got $600 in speaking fees from Goldman Sacks just in the last few months. Hillary's people say it's speaking fees and not donations. But that's like Hillary is working for them. And what is she telling them in those private meetings where she gets huge speaking fees? And right, they are speaking fees and not political donations but she can always use her own money to run for office and these speeches at private meetings gives her lots of it.

and company VIPs if you look at the link. That said, we don't have a listing of all the speech locations and topics yet. Though my link above has a lot! She was busy.

I again don't have a problem with the speeches. I understand that people think differently though. The Clinton's were worth a whole lot of money before she even started giving speeches after leaving State, so it doesn't seem to me that even 600k would turn her away from her life's work. If it were me, I'd happily take the money if they were willing to pay it, for a chance to give them an exposure to a Democratic point of view on the world.

those amounts of money for one or two speeches mean influence. "If I don't do what they want, they might not continue to let me give them speeches."

The Clintons will never want for money, and what I think they both hunger for is that feeling you get when you make a difference. It boosts your ago, yeah, but in my experience, it goes deeper.

Anyway, I think they could have both stopped after Bill's term, made huge piles of money and done what Bush the lesser has done. Which is mostly stay out of sight and be very very rich. I can't see either of them taking up painting though... Instead they are working all over the globe to help people live better lives. If speaking fees help them live well, make contacts, and raise money for their projects at the same time, I'm good with that.

The dark money donated to Super PACs can be from corporations and/or people. We can only suspect/assume where that money came from and why it was to a Super PAC.

I also think that Hillary's high speaking fees cloaked a donation, but that is only my opinion.

undocumented money is a very very bad thing for politics. I can understand why she might feel the need to make use of it though, since she can... I think she believes she will be the nominee, and will have to have deep pockets to take on the Reps. No matter who we nominate, they better have money to fight with, because it will be ugly.

That is totally repulsive.

in Yonkers, NY. Instead of understanding context you react and don't even understand America. The number one most hated group are African Americans. Jews aren't far behind.

and what you said is just plain ugly. You tried to insult him but all you did was out your own ugly nature.

I am saying how he will be viewed by a lot of people. I am still in touch with all my jewish friends and they would agree with me.

and you renounce Sanders' supporters as being too vocal? Yuck!

and dismiss anyone who isn't a Sanders supporter. There behavior is rather repulsive.

and take your jew-hating insults and attitude with you.

Now it's all the rage here.

and if you point it out, evidently it's only because you hate Hillary. I am thoroughly repulsed that someone is allowed to get away with hate speech like that.

my grandmother was arrested in 1910 for cavorting with chinese people. my dad wasn't allowed to swim in the public pools in St. Louis. When we went to get a mortgage in 1962 with 45% Down we couldn't get a mortgage and had to go to the bank of harlem to get one. I grew up in a jewish clique and you are lecturing me about discrimination.
give me a break.

By someone as disgusted as the rest of us. The hrc mod better step it up or rename the list to reflect the remarks made there. How does this help hrc? Disgusting

Yeesh.

Read your posts in this thread then tell me what, praytell, should a neutral observer think of Clinton supporters based on your comments?

something. My grandmother was arrested for cavorting with chinese people. my dad couldn't sim in the public pools in St. Louis, When we went to get a mortgage in 1962 we had to go to the bank of harlem even though we had 45% down. by the time time republicans get through with him he might as well hve a star of dävid tattoed on his forehead.

and you are going to lecture me about discrimination. you are exactly the white phonies that disgust me.

Being a white southerner you have never actually experienced discrimination.

I'm a white Southerner phony? You know SO much about me. Tell me Carnac, how long have I been in the South? Did I ever live in Yonkers too?

Did I?

How many days, months, years did I live in the Tri-State area?

Was MY grandfather ever discriminated against, or was your family the only one to experience discrimination?

Did my father ever actually play basketball against Wilt in Philly when he was at Roman and Wilt was at Overbrook? Did one of my best friends just complete a tour with the remnants of The Dead? Have I ever met Bobby or Micky or Billy?

You have such a grasp of reality and know me so well, please unseal the envelope and reveal the secrets of my universe.

Stop with the lecturing yourself. You know exactly squat about me. Your purporting to know me makes you the phony.

I guess all that experience mentioned in your post taught you to be an anti-semite or did I misunderstand your comments about Jews? Stop casting aspersions and answer for your comments upthread.

white boy

Its a big tent, you sure you're in the right party?

Jew-baiting, now race-baiting. Anything else you want to share with the class?

Fine, your experinces are significant, and mine are insignificant if that makes you happy.

There is some real non-sequitur stuff happening with your responses. I will chalk it up to a rough day or something.

I've never alerted and I won't now. I can take insults, but I don't know where this bile is coming from. It's on you, not me.

Try to ease up on the Jew and White insults going forward if you could, for all of us.

Now you've doubled down. You need to be banned.

Good riddance.

As a Bernie supporter and a southerner who has never lived outside the south I am insulted by your comments and say that you are wrong. I am not going to justify your comments with a rebuttal. I'm also not going to alert on this post and your broad brush attack, and I ask that no one else do so. Leave it, so everyone can see the ugliness of your remarks in this subthread.

n/t.

and I still talk to them just bout every day. It is how he will be perceived by the time the republican machine is done with him. I have been a democrat since '72. my first vote was McGovern in '72 and that was because I had to wait until I was 21 to vote. I marched on Washington in '69.

My grandmother was arrested in 1910 for cavorting with chinese people(she was German). My dad wasn't allowed to swim in the public swimming pools in St. Louis.
I think I know a bit more about discrimination than you and you are going to lecture me about
discrimination.
How many of you people criticizing me have experienced discrimination like this and don't kid yourself I saw it also.

I'm 65 years old and I understand discrimination more than most.

Give me a break.
Like I need a lecture from you people about discrimination.

21st century?

For the record, I think the poster is an idiot, but if you're replying expecting a response, don't hold your breath. This thread and the hidden response linked here are from January.

You do realize that most people who hate Jews also hate women, right?

[IMG][/IMG]

Allow me to explain why I do not trust Hillary Clinton on corporate and Wall street regulation.

Donations

You are right about the misinformation. Many people do not understand FEC regulations on campaign spending. Of course, those wall street financia sector donations have not ceased since she stopped representing NY. Further, super PACs are allowed to take unlimited anonymous contributions from corporations. Companies like Goldman Sachs contribute to candidates from both parties, which is highly suspicious as they aren't simply backing candidates which are good for them: they're having a net-zero impact on dollars raised (perhaps not quite because they may donate more to one party) while still having st minimum a sense of gratitude from candidates. I'll believe that Clinton has received no direct contributions from Big Banks when she provides a notarized list of contributors to her Super PAC. Trust, but verify. Until then, no I simply cannot trust her.

Speaking Fees

There is nothing illegal in making speeches to big banks. Even big banks which act contrary to the best interests of the American people for profit. Even companies which make calculated decisions to break the law, knowing that the civil penalties (they are too big to prosecute, said Holder) will not exceed the profit from doing so.

As she has done.

But Federal employees working in the Financial sector are warned not just to avoid a conflict of interest, which she has, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest. For example they are not allowed to own individual bank stocks. It was the biggest unkept secret that Hillary was running for President. People knew in 2009 when she became SOS. To resign from one's civil service job and begin making highly paid speeches is appalling to me. I liken it to the banks which offer golden parachutes to top executives who leave their firms to work for civil service (regulatory agency) positions (something the AFL-CIO and Liz Warren are fighting, fwiw). With that amount of money in such a short time, the question is if there is an implied loyalty to the companies in their future positions.

What's worse is, she has laughed off questions asking her to provide some transparency on what was in her speeches to these large firms.

Bernie is right: no speaker is that good. They have to have something else in mind for a return on their speeking fee. Maybe it is simply a friendly ear. Maybe it is more. I would argue a friendly ear is already too much, and that's the most charitable case that can be made for her.

This has made it impossible to trust her on Wall St regulation. For me.

it points me in new directions. Can I come back and ask questions if I have any?

I don't think it is just my cynical nature that leads to this distrust. It is more of a lack of naivete in how the world works. Others view it differently and take HRC at her word. I personally find it impossible to do so, given the many falsehoods and bait-and-switches she has done in her life.

i've been to a true "Did I really just hear that?" moment has been listening to Trump.
I don't consider myself a cynic though. I taught an Intro to Theatre Arts course while working on a graduate degree, and I'm pretty well versed how people get manipulated by the media and the "show" so I don't buy into much until I do my homework. Keeps me from getting cranky. Most of the time. I am about out of steam, so I probably won't do much more digging tonight.

If I may say so: you worded it as though speaking for me and many more of us.

But I'm not buying in ... I'm beyond concern over these issues, and dedicated to moving Bernie forward ...

The choice was made long ago .... THAT is a done deal ....

Good luck ....

for different reasons. I have the utmost respect for people who actually participate in the process.
I posted because I have questions about some of the opinions that weren't clicking with my research, so I thought i'd ask.

All whom donated to the Clinton Global Iniative. Her and Bill's connection to the Carlyle Group an organization whose members are the Bush's and Bin Laden's is enough for me to steer clear from.

Is her relationship w private prison industry.

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/private_prison_lobbyists_are_fundraising_for_hillary_clinton_20150724

Though she may be cutting those ties, not sure.
Edit again to add this linkhttp://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/

When you are, please respond to posts 2, 11, 12, 22, 32 and any others about which you gave passing acquiescence and avoided direct responses.

The money she collected from speeches ARE out of the ordinary in comparison to Sen. Sanders. He hasn't collected millions. Re-instating Glass-Stegall goes much further than any 'Cut It Out' pablum of which Madam Secretary has other speak. Please point me to the specifics you mentioned detailing how she curtailed Wall Street to the benefit of average Americans.

I do hope you are okay. That said, don't hide behind, 'after dinner' and 'I will read it soon' or similar what-have-you. You started the OP. Own it and defend your positions.

If her positions aren't defensible, please do consider swimming downstream with Bernie - no moral pretzel required.

And I intend to get to everyone. I skipped over some, because others were things I could respond to quickly without too much reading.

What can you do but step aside and get on with it.

and anti-Bernie advocate. Despite never having addressed the truths here. Things that make you go hmmm.

Anyway, this is post #125 and will kick it to the front page of Latest...

... he has delivering for fifty years. I think I could recite it from memory.

for visibility. I appreciate a post that addresses the concerns we have

I think much of what you bring up is because donations become shorthand for influence in a world where the two are often connected. It may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it makes it more likely than not. Personally I would like to see the TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY SPEECH HILLARY MADE to G-S and other banking/corporate interests before I declare her guilty of corporate stoogery. Do you think that will be coming soon or will she be taking the (political) Fifth?

videos from three speeches linked, but one was just a short soundbite, the other was about 30 minutes Q & A, and I couldn't get the third to load. I hope the author of the article continues to add info.

Owns a lobbying firm that represents weapons manufacturers, big pharma and Saudi Arabia... During her time as sec of state she reversed numerous policies allowing countries with poor human rights records to buy weapons from the same companies her campaign managers lobbying firm represents.

So there's that...

But there's plenty more reasons to be sceptical of her ability to make good decisions. And her ability to not be influenced by special interests.

"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

NOTE: I have posted much of this before, and reiterate here in response to what appears to be an honest request for the basis of why people feel Hillary Clinton is beholden to the banking and financial industries. I have not reposted these thoughts before, and am not trying to "spam" the site with them. These are just my thoughts on this subject, along with some of the information I think supports them.

This is to me at the heart of substantive, rather than emotional objections to another Clinton in the White House. The wealthiest, most self-interested people and entities in the world are part of their social circle and integral to their personal financial successes, and the lifeblood of their extra-political endeavors.

When the Supreme Court said that massive campaign donations weren't a threat to democracy without a specific, "quid pro quo" exchange of money for influence, we laughed and shook our heads. Wealthy people don't give you a million dollars and expect nothing in return.

How do you, even if you want to, turn on a Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank or Morgan Stanley that like you so much they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear you speak?

And, does anyone think those firms were paying to hear about how their industry has run amok, and needs to be held accountable for the trillions they pocketed from the American economy?

The Clintons are not just friendly to Wall Street -- they are in business with them. They have built their lives and their fortunes out of relationships with the people who bit out the beating heart of middle-class wealth, chewed and swallowed it, then insisted they were doing "God's work."


http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/

They can do that if they want, but no one who thinks the banks and the financial industry need to be better regulated should expect that to come from one of Wall Street's best friends in the world.


____________________________________________________


The issue with Glass-Steagall is not that it either repealing it caused the bank implosion that crashed the world's economy, or could prevent another in the future. But it was part of a rational scheme to prevent banks from gambling with depositor money, and repealing it not only unquestionably contributed to the crisis, but evidenced a wrong-headed belief on the part of the previous Clinton administration that the financial industry was unfairly hampered by regulation, and that letting it self-police would be better for everyone.

Hillary, in denying the role of Glass-Steagall in the banking crisis, appears to be saying she doesn't understand what was wrong with the entire notion of de-regulating the banks so they could be more "creative" in their money-making endeavors.

The real problem, though, is that Clinton is in denial when she blames "shadow banking" and firms like Lehman for being the real cause of the crash. Her theory shades the truth in favor of the banks, who were eyeballs-deep in the wild speculation and reckless underwriting that blew up the world, but she is quite clearly determined not to acknowledge that.

A hedge-fund manager, writing on Forbes:


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

The Washington Post allowing that the repeal was not "the proxmimate cause" but was a factor:



http://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html

dig into your links to respond more fully, but I wan't to give some first impressions.

First of all, I despise the fact that that any campaign donation cannot be publicly viewed and vetted. That needs to end. And at the same time, at this time, I admit that I am glad to see that a Dem candidate can have really deep pockets when approaching the GE. This is going to be a brutal - expensive - election, and that will be the case regardless of who our nominee is. It stinks, and it needs to be fixed, but for this one moment in time, I think it will be of enormous help.

She can't legislate as POTUS, so there is much less of a chance of anything untoward happening than if she WERE corrupt, and sitting in the Senate. Though she and the Reps don't want Glass-Stegall reinstated they are for two very different reasons. I'm looking forward to reading your links on Glass-Stegall, did you look at mine?

I have to go back to my earlier statement about who her constituents were in NY, to talk a little about her ties to the financial district. I am in the minority that doesn't look at the financial institutions as a monolith, and the enemy. I think we need a healthy active Wall Street and banking systems. But they need to be regulated. It isn't surprising that they would have her come speak. She worked hard for NY as a Senator, and even though she takes heat for saying some of her support now may be due to the actions she and Schumer took after the attacks, I don't think it can easily be set aside. There were several financial businesses in the towers. And those people left behind families, and coworkers. In addition, those communities know each other. These are people, not just ledgers and spreadsheets, with some disembodied corporate body at the helm. Morgan Stanley alone, had 13 stories of offices in One World Trade. Our financial industry took a huge hit, and their Senators were there to help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

I've seen some comments that I haven't responded to yet, that deal with her legislation favoring some companies, and I plan on looking at those along with your Glass-Stegall links. I hope it's ok to take a little more of your time after reading them. Thank you again for your response. I know there are broad divisions on the way people view Glass-Stegall, and I appreciate you sharing your point of view.

Lucinda

The Boston Globe lays it out here.

"...She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall Street regulation. With banks enjoying a new era of deregulation that her husband helped create, a neutralized Clinton represented a win for the financial services industry and its perpetual effort to free itself from Washington’s hand..."

The article goes into great depth, too much for me to cut and paste here.

I'm sorry to hear about your chronic health problems, and I thank you for a civil conversation, and for the effort you've put into sharing your research.

If I have any questions can I come back and ask?

But it might take me a few days to get back to you: I'm working on a local campaign which requires a lot of my not-at-work time for the next three days.

Edited to add: I support Bernie over Clinton primarily because of his focus on campaign finance reform, but my fear with Clinton has more to do with her foreign policy views, which strike me as too hawkish. The "we came, we saw, he died" video clip horrifies me, and I was also chilled when she said the Iranians are the enemy she is proudest to have.

I hate everything about the Bin Laden raid. I see no reason why he couldn't have been brought it. It makes me really wonder if the govt wasn't afraid of what he might say....but maybe that is just me being a little

I really admire the care and thoughtfulness you've put into your original post and your many replies. I think you've singlehandedly raised the level of discourse on DU--and you've done it despite being in pain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511056001

Thank you for posting it here too though! If I have to take the thread to my tablet, it will be easier to read from this page downloaded, than to maneuver through DU in a web browser at the same time!

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Because she is now one of them, lock, $tock, and barrel?

Because her husband repealed Glass-Steagall at their reque$t?

there are certain groups which seem to have an allergic reaction to truth, and tend to avoid it at all costs. If you frequent such a group (and I won't name any names) you will only hear the things they want to have heard. It would be like asking a priest what's wrong with the Catholic church, or asking Fox news viewer what's wrong with Fox "News", or asking a full-on Rush Limbaugh ditto head why Rush Limbaugh is full of crap.

In other words, you will isolate yourself, and insulate yourself from unwanted truth, and hear only what you want to hear about whichever candidate you have a crush on. My best advice is to stay away from "the chorus" or the "the echo chamber" and listen openly to all sides of every issue and every candidate. I once tried to raise an honest question in such a group and was immediately (and I do mean immediately) banned from that group. That type of fear of open discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with getting at the truth, and only about controlling what is said so that no member will ever have to hear anything they don't want to hear.