Anyone with any intelligence would spot it.

Next enemy in the War on Terror. Coming soon.

Just wow.

That was early on in the primary ... before I knew all the pay to play and corporate money that was flowing into Hillary's pockets and campaign.

Now I get it completely. Bought and paid for to say that.

If the current claim is that getting millions of dollars from special interests, in the form of speech payments and donations and other dark money does not, can not, will not, influence her policy decisions, does not for anyone she associates with, then why is she against Citizens United?
Why is Koch and other corporate money bad for republicans if money can never influence politicians? If it would never influence her than why won't she keep making millions of dollars giving speeches to Goldman Sachs if she becomes president? Then put all that money directly in her campaign fund for her next election? Why limit what people can contribute or do with it? Clinton says it doesn't influence policy?? Based on her comments and position it is hard to understand why she is against Citizens United. Money never influence policy or political outcomes as far as she is concerned.

to the point where some committed suicide.

We remember when "today XYZ restaurant refused to seat a black family" was a routine news event.

We remember a Reagan and a Bush not lifting a finger to help the AIDS epidemic.

This is why either Bernie or Hillary are light-years ahead better candidates for office than any Republican, and I will cheerfully vote for whoever is the nominee in the fall.

So please, fuck your fucking "BIG BANKS ARE YUUUUGE" memes. FOr a lot of us, there are larger issues at stake.

Not everybody got one of those living wage jobs. Yes, there were some good paying manufacturing jobs in the past. There are still good paying jobs today.

The same thing was true then which is true now - some people got them, and some didn't.

In 1960 30.4% of people made less than 125% of poverty income
in 1970 it was 17.6
in 1980 it was 18.1
in 2014 (the most recent year) it was 19.4

Not huge differences there especially since in 2007, before the Bush recession, it was 17%.

The lowest point in all those years? 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, when it was 15.6%, having fallen from 20% at the beginning of his presidency.

are there more towns...more new neighborhoods...more everything...so that the increase in number of people below the poverty line, even IF the percentages stayed constant, has no effect on the general standard of the economy, let alone the general standard of living?

how about the transfer of wealth since 1980?...maybe addressing where all the money has flowed is more indicative of the general state of what used to be a broad middle class in relation to the overall 'health' of the country...

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/occupy-obama-he-orchestrated-a-massive-transfer-of-wealth-to-the-1-percent/

https://www.popularresistance.org/free-trade-largest-transfer-of-wealth-in-world-history/

http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cwp/pdf/Wealth%20Press%20Release%205.28-9.pdf

http://wallstreetonparade.com/2015/04/wall-streets-wealth-transfer-system-is-imperiling-the-u-s-economy/

and, should anyone be in a position to need advice about THEIR wealth and keeping it out of the hands of the government (who i assume is among the 'third parties' listed):

http://www.ustrust.com/ust/pages/wealth-structuring.aspx