anything else that would show that HRC actions show a conflict of interest or a win at any cost the excuses fly up high in the sky.

And it's far bigger than her. It's the whole system that's broken. "Everyone does it. It's perfectly legal" Yes, that's the problem. "It has no impact on their decision making ability" Bull. Fucking. Shit.

For example, she cast the same vote that several other female Senators on the bankruptcy bill over a provision protecting divorced women. Proves she is a puppet of Wall Street! Or something...

After railing about it for the last year. He looked very foolish.

I think if he was put into a closed room and asked that question, he'd go on and on...


I suspect he was following campaign etiquette and not saying things he knows about, but are not appropriate to say in public in a campaign

Stuff is going to come out that will make her look very bad.

Whatever will she do?

That's all it will take for him to make this close.

And she hasn't been able to reduce those negatives. Fair or not they stick.

For them it's all about Hillary.

All this time I thought that economic justice was one of my key political principles! Even more important than speech transcripts and email servers! Thank you for the enlightenment about myself!

cough. There's a word for that.

If the influence of money on elected officials actions were easy to prove as corruption (that is, a direct correlation) then most of Congress would be in jail.

Yet we are all influenced by money in our daily lives -- and know it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there might be a conflict of interest at play. Research has shown that Congress doesn't listen to and act on the desires of voters. It makes no sense to expect that the President would be different.

At any rate, Hillary was well prepared for Bernie in that debate, and it was a very sly retort.

That's what our White House is going to be used for, should she make it past Trump (which is very iffy, at this point). But there are certainly some hints of what's to come:

--criminal banksters and speculators who turned her into one of theirs by giving her half a billion dollars in pocket change for 20 minute private speeches AND are big donors to her campaign

--okaying weapons deals for the Saudis and other woman-hating Gulf regimes, while they contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation: pay-to-play as SoS, pay-to-play as Prez?

--her opposition to re-instating Glass-Steagall

--her consistent support for "free trade for the rich" (though she currently lies that she's against TPP); many Clinton donors among the "free trade for the rich" crowd

--her support for the private prison industry, and their support for her

--her vote for the Iraq War, boon to war profiteers, many of whom are among her donors

--her waffling on fracking; many frackers & other fossil fuel profiteers among her donors

--her support for the murderous fascist coup in Honduras, which was all about U.S. "free trade for the rich" and U.S. military expansion; many beneficiaries among her donors

So she's already paid some of her donors, and they're all wetting their pants for when she has the power to do more.

Bernie is too much of a gentleman to point all this out. And he really does want to run a positive campaign that lays out the systemic problems in our government and provides solutions, and embodies solutions. And he is right: Clinton is just the tip of the iceberg of our systemic problems. It's all that's underneath that may sink this Titanic.

That's his argument. If you can't show quid pro quo then there is no corruption. The liberal dissent in Citizens United argued the opposite.

He thought that Hillary had enough commonsense not to sacrifice one of the party's main platforms for her own selfish desire to win an argument. She just told Democratic voters that money has no influence on our elected officials, what did you expect him to say? She try's to label Bernie as anti-Obama for months, and in one sentence she destroys 8 years of work that Obama spent making the case to get money out of politics. It worked, half of the Democratic base now believes that money doesn't play a big role in our elections and are fighting to underscore the role it does play. Is her strategy in the GE to go to the right of Trump?

quid pro quo mind you.

The reason it is not viewed as legitimate by many, is that she has proposed reforms that have been judged as tougher on Wall Street than Bernies plan.

THIS TIME she is telling the truth AND not making a mistake!

but there are always S&M clubs and strange things to do while the rest of the world is healing.

Some good ideas....some seem like borrowing from Bernie....some are more specific, but Bernie would be specific in how he does it too...and missing is an overarching vision that is not just apple pie.

Also missing is what is really needed, which is to bring the Way Too Big and Powerful Financial Monopolies down to size, and restore a more broadly based and competitive financial sector

Also, I just don't trust her to do what she says in a campaign....or even to try

For a moment, take the mindset of someone who thinks Clinton may have been corrupted. Would you place a lot of value in the promise of a policy from her? I don't think you would.

What you're saying seems like the sort of thing that a person will agree with only if they're predisposed to agree. IOW, it changes no minds.

then I can see discussing it in that frame as a legitimate debate. Not that I agree.

It's great that you think highly of Hillary. I don't have an issue with that frankly. But it just seems disingenuous and silly for anyone in this day and age to defend taking millions of dollars in payouts from Wall Street bankers on the basis of lack of direct quid pro quo evidence. It just seems really naive to think that the receiver of that money wouldn't somehow favor the giver. I know, call me cynical. That's okay -- because I have plenty of reason to be, including lots of experts have judged Dodd-Frank to be soft on Wall Street and insufficient to avoid another big collapse. We will see that collapse sooner than later I believe.

If you cannot argue from the record then you cannot argue. I know some can make some arguments, their records are not precisely the same. I don't think that the arguments from the record are all that compelling against Hillary, but at least some try to make them.

country in a GE is not going to support breaking up financial institutions without strong evidence of risk on individual cases. Bernie's campaign rhetoric sounds to overreaching to many.

What they WILL support is a plan to reduce risk by improved regulation.

It's a basic question to too much much money and too much power in too few hands. Lack of competition. Consumer abuse. Pressures on corproate investments to make a Profit at Any Cost.

This is just WRONG -- and the chart doesn't depict all of the smaller and regional institutions that were sucked into these monsters before the 90's. That would show an even more glaring depiction of how the economy has been swallowed up.

By things like Campaign Finance Reform, Economic Policies, Small Business Plan.

The reality is that Bernie's platform and hers are closer than you realize.

The trend to massive Corporate Monopolies, the purchase of government, the leaving out of the majority from decisions and policies, the demise of the Middle Class and concentration of wealth....these trends have been escalating uninterrupted since at least 1980.

The elites of both parties have enabled it. Both in a lack of public message opposing it, and in behind the scenes corruption that doesn't make the nightly news.

We have to go at the source, and call it out, or this lobster-boiling will just continue.

are in her plan. Here is a small part from her Economic Plan.

Put an end to “quarterly capitalism.” We need an economy where companies plan for the long run and invest in their workers through increased wages and better training—leading to higher productivity, better service, and larger profits. Hillary will revamp the capital gains tax to reward farsighted investments that create jobs. She’ll address the rising influence of the kinds of so-called “activist” shareholders that focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term growth, and she’ll reform executive compensation to better align the interests of executives with long-term value.

Impose accountability on Wall Street. Nowhere will the shift from short-term to long-term thinking be more important than on Wall Street. Hillary will defend the Wall Street reforms put in place after the financial crisis—and she’ll go further. She’ll tackle dangerous risks in the financial sector, and she’ll appoint and empower tough, independent regulators and prosecute individuals and firms when they commit fraud or other criminal wrong-doing.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/

the majority of average people (and I include minorities, women and all the core demographic constituencies) feel disempowered and abused by the system and alienated from politics. They dislike the immoral nature of the modern economy.

They want a party that will stand up for them, and challenge the Corporate and Wall St' elites.

They also deserve a party that will represent and be responsive to them instead of to those elites.

That, IMO, would be a winning message.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511954521

in the Citizens United decision when you focus on quid pro quo. Yeah, you are agreeing with Scalia and company. Way to go.

To Protect Hillary Clinton, Democrats Wage War on Their Own Core Citizens United Argument

Hillary has pledged to only nominate judges that will overturn Citizens United

Hillary has the tougher plan and smarter plan on Wall Street

You can't use arm waving to attack one persons credibility and not be asked for proof/evidence. Sorry.

My argument makes perfect sense. It is you who are arguing that we must show quid pro quo to show the corrupting influence of money. That my friend is the argument that the majority made in the Citizens United decision. Scalia and the rest in the majority think there is only corruption if you can show quid pro quo. The liberal dissent on the court argued otherwise as do the Sanders supporters.

Your words:

Well in the Senate it is largely the same as Bernie's. So if she is near as terrible as her detractors here claim, then why aren't we wondering about Bernie, whose Senate record is pretty similar?

Of course we can find questionable votes by both of them. I think that a lot of them can be explained well by context, but some are exercising double standards to the hilt in excoriating Hillary while excusing Bernie.

and ask what would happen to any employee, let alone a major executive, who went out and had anything that had even 1/1000000 the appearance of a 'conflict of interest'.

There would be no question at all that that employee or executive would be terminated, no other questions asked .. there would be no need to gather proof that the appearance of conflict actually resulted in a conflict, the very fact that there was an appearance of conflict of interest would be more than enough.

I go on annual courses and take annual tests to assure the company I work for that I understand this fact ... you will be terminated for even the appearance of conflict of interests ... DON"T DO IT.

In Washington politics there seems to be the exact opposite rule in place ... if you won't take bribes, then you're no good to anyone (of importance.)

Same thing with us: appearance of a conflict == conflict. Don't even be in the ballpark.

Does that explain why you don't think evidence is important?

Yes, they made the custodians sit through that shit.

We also had training on insider trading for some reason.

How can you not see that?

it's about the people you serve, your clients, having confidence in your integrity. It's about the most important thing a business can have, their reputation and the trust of the people they deal with.

I'm baffled as to why 3rd way establishment Hillary supporters are incapable of grasping the concept of integrity? Sorry, I take that back ... in the name of integrity it doesn't baffle me, I know full well that integrity is a meaningless word to Establishment politicians and their supporters.

It's about character.

I'm baffled by enthusiasts that claim their hobby horse is the only one worth riding.

I support Clinton for many reasons and I do not support Sanders for many reasons.

Well, as long as your reasons are anything besides bullshit.

I can't say the same for you.

funny how Clinton and her followers have so often found themselves on the wrong side of history, siding with Republican policies so often, and then turn around and insult others with claims of 'republican talking points'?

While Clinton actually holds the most Republican policies her fans claim that anyone pointing this out this 'lack of character' is using a 'Republican talking point".

Yeah, maybe you're right, calling Hillary's integrity into question is indeed a 'republican talking point', but it's a valid one ... progressives use that 'talking point' precisely because of its truth ... but at least progressives can tell the difference between a 'republican talking point' and a fucking 'republican policy'.

Just not ideological purity.

I think Clinton has plenty of integrity. I also see little hard evidence from progressive that prove she lacks integrity, just belief not "truth".

But I also think she is smarter, more competent, a better administrator, more knowledgeable, better prepared and organized, and tougher than Sanders.

I also think there is barely a dimes worth of difference between Sanders and Clinton when it comes to ideology. Most people who claim Clinton's positions are republican haven't read her policy positions.

Sanders is ill prepared and slow on his feet when confronted with novel situation. This was brought home to me when he spoke at Liberty University. Not just because he wasted a chance to confront the right while he was in the belly of the beast, by giving his boiler plate stump speech. No it was his inability to cogently respond to the two questions after the speech. What is his position on abortion and what he planned to do to help black people. He didn't have an answer to either question and literally just dithered.

Hey I'm sure Sanders is on the right side with both issues, but think of it, a politician with decades of experience couldn't respond to two questions that are extremely important. I'm betting you could answer those questions on the fly.

The idea that politicians can take large sums of money from financial institutions and employees or owners of financial institutions and the politicians not be influenced in their legislation and regulation is absurd, especially absurd when the money is to personal accounts rather than campaign accounts.

This is compounded by regulatory capture and the revolving door between the financial industry, quasi-public but private institutions like the Fed and IMF, and lawyers that specialize in the financial industry and associated lobbying.

There are no prosecutions in the financial services industry because what the industry does is almost impossible to regular for various reasons and what is done is quasi-legal however unfair and immoral.

That is why I would recommend a tax on financial transactions.

The tax would be very small (say 3 to 5 basis point, a basis point is one one hundred of one percent).

There would be two direct effects:

1) Large amount of tax revenue.

2) More stable and fair financial markets.

Most of the activity in the various financial markets takes place in rapid trading using automated algorithms that search for arbitrage and are based upon price movement up or down rather than increased value of the securities. The automated program trades feed on market volatility. They benefit from imperfections and unequal access to the markets.

Definition: An arbitrage opportunity is the opportunity to buy an asset at a low price then immediately selling it on a different market for a higher price. http://economics.about.com/cs/economicsglossary/g/arbitrage.htm

The profits from arbitrage are marginal (on the order as what I suggested as a tax) but substantial because of the shear number of trades and allow those in the financial industry to daily bleed a profit margin. The strongest financial service firms with the best mathematicians and programmers reap a bonanza when there is unusual but sure to occur periods of high volatility.

and I'll stop bitchin' about the crooked fucking criminals on Wall Street calling all the shots. It really won't matter what I say.

Wall Street and the financial sector is a huge part of NY city's world class business community. They are, along with all the people they employ and the supporting businesses, are a large and important chunk of her constituency. They have clout and influence, just as any other large business section would in any other state in the country, and that guarantees them access to politicians. Nothing more, and there seems to be a great silence when it comes to actually documenting anything she did quid pro quo.

This has been standard practices for the past half century, and there hasn't been any big groundswell of interest for political reforms until the Citizens United case threw Pandora's Box wide open. If you don't like the current status quo, then you must first change the rules, not just complain about them.

You far, you seem to be looking for a way to support your own biases, but when the best evidence that you can come up with is broad generalities like, "it seems apparent", or "it looks awfully similar", and the "appearance of corruption". You understand these are only a point of view that reflects your personal opinions, yeah? So, yes, I'd have to tell you someone should talk you down, because it is completely unreasonable to let your fantasies replace reason.

I'm game if you want to try again.

And as far as I recall, Wall Street was in New York even back in the 1930s.

So that argument doesn't fly.

For what it’s worth, Glass-Steagall only separated the banks that take your deposits, from the banks where tycoons can gamble with their wheeling and dealing bets. Bernie is narrowly focused on only on Glass-Steagall as in once was, even though it was the newer “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, that tanked the whole system when they failed. Those banks are not covered by the old Glass-Steagall laws as the type of rickety, high risk financial instruments they created didn't even exist back then. Clinton says Glass-Steagall alone will not be enough to rein in the big shadow banks.

I'd say this is an area where Hillary and Bernie can find common ground. Fine, put Glass-Steagall back in place like Bernie want, but also do what Hillary proposes and modernise it and update its provisions to include all the complex new financial products that get off by being mostly unregulated.

she will work to make the regulatory changes she has proposed for financial institutions PLUS bring back Glass-Steagall.

I can't wrap my head around this Glass-Steagall litmus test that Bernie fans have come up with as a measure of whether a politician is “tough” on Wall Street; Bernie is a hero for reviving a depression era Glass-Steagall act, and when Hillary takes a more comprehensive approach, ergo she’s in the pocket of Big Banks. Its an enigma.

Bernie seems to hope that reinstating the outdated Glass-Steagall will fix everything, but it doesn't even touch the problems that created the recession, and doesn't even mention the shadow banking scams, so its just a feel-good proposal that wouldn't actually accomplish much.

Look, we currently have tough new restrictions in place via Dodd-Frank and Hillary is proposing still more restrictions that will target those institutions and financial instruments that are outside Glass-Steagall's regulatory framework. We'd get something that serves the same role, but updated to control the modern financial industry instead of one design almost a century ago.

I read Hillary'sdetailed policy position, and her plans are more extensive and more relevant to the current banking shenanigans, so they're the ones I support. I also gave some consideration to Elizabeth Warren's 5 point plan on what the next Democratic president should do about financial reform. Hillary's plan addresses 4 of the points, and Bernie's plan hit only 2.

to the point of ridiculousness.

At this point it has just become part of the noise of agenda driven "concerns."

There is such a tremendous amount of noise and sniping around here that every discussion starts to look like a slopfest in short order. There's already a pretty nasty fight higher up in this thread.

Underground, I dont dare say it or I will be censored.

It's fine by me.

that we must vote against fascism, but that sentiment is not supported here by enough people to make it safe to say.

Same basic idea.

Unfortunately, the people who sound the alarm when a politician is in the pocket of Wall Street tend to be more nuanced in their thinking and thus are more likely to respond defensively when their legitimate concerns are branded as right-wing smears.

What we should be saying is, "Bull shit. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

But alas, that's not how most of us who oppose warmongering Wall Street suckups work. That's also one of the reasons (aside from the obvious) that left-wing radio hasn't succeeded.

and throwing out vague arguments about lack of quid pro quo evidence. Well, duh!! Why in the heck do these people think corruption is so rampant in Congress? Because they all can get away with it because it is "legal" ... just like the mortgage derivatives, insurance scheme and miniscule capital reserve requirements were "legal."

I suspect that most Hillary supporters would like to see the current big money influence removed from politics, but are too enamored with their candidate to criticize her on this -- so they accept it and in so doing condone it going forward.

Her presidency would be a disaster because if she wins, she would know she could get away with anything.
It'd be Hillary on steroids.

If what she says in private to big corporate donors is at odds with what her stated public fiscal policies are then in fact it is a big issue, and for a candidate that preaches transparency it exemplifies her own hypocrisy.

Even more important it has revealed thus far an inability to lead. She has placed conditions that others must first be transparent before she will. In other words she is demanding others lead the way before she will even entertain it. It is like crossing a rickety bridge. She wants others to go across the bridge and potentially fall before she'll lead the way. It's quite revealing in terms of leadership choices.

it makes any accusation against her personal for the defender--"oh, so you're afraid of STRONG WOMEN?! oh, so you're carrying water for BREITBART?! extremists are all the same!"

co-hosted by lobbyists and corporate executives, including some who have donated and raised money for Republican presidential and congressional candidates this election cycle.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/lobbyists-dnc-2016-convention/

And that is why discussions like this aren't legitimate, because they are based on opinion rather than fact.

You're Obama comparison doesn't work because he is a DINO who signaled his intent to go easy on banks while he was still running in 2008. But of course it was Hillary that was the problem then and now because...reasons.

Granted, the speech transcripts thing is a bit petty,

Between the apparent conflict of interest and the appearance of corruption,

Nobody's impressed.

nt

And, the "perception" by many of us is that taking money from corrupt banks and corporations is "wrongdoing" for someone who is a candidate for president. Whether legal or not.

There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche

Interpretations differ.

manufactured.

One thing Sanders supporters are tone deaf to is that many of the things they criticize Clinton for are the same thing republicans have criticized Clinton for.
Further there is a host of documentation that the republican charges were and are false.

I invite you to read "the Hunting of the President" by Conason and Lyons.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tIEqNExC7_4C&hl=en

Here's a free edited version that foucuses on the Hillary sections from the book.
http://hillarybook.nationalmemo.com/

I'd like to point out that among the many things Clinton supporters like about Clinton is how strongly she has stood up to constant attacks and kept on fighting.

Johnson (civil rights and Medicare), for example. Fact is, most people work for corporations, we depend on them for food, investment brings jobs and tax revenue, etc. Laws should be toughened, but very few here would be better off living like in the he 19th century. I think I might like it, but a lot wouldn't.

The conflict of interests that you discuss in the OP is very real indeed, and in my mind it is quite ominous.

The American people deserve to know more about that conflict of interests. Hillery's speeches to Wall Street probably contain a good deal of information on how she is going to handle the our economy. Is she going to favor the vast majority of her constituents, or is she going to favor the wealthy interests from which she receives so much money, both for her campaign and for her own personal use? I would think that the American people deserve to know what she said to them before they would consider voting for her. And if she isn't willing to share that with us, I can only reach one conclusion.

Never mind that the "queen" constantly criticizes her "subjects" for questioning her judgement.

If a candidate does not, he/she does not understand how the economy works and that's kind of important. And can you PROVE that no one with 'ties to Wall Street' (whatever that means) has not donated to Sanders' campaign?

What you really mean is how can you use this issue against Clinton. Right?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

I don't play that game. If you have a point, make it.

And can you PROVE that Sanders has never received a donation by someone you would consider "too rich" or has some "tie to Wall Street"?

As for Clinton's speaking fees, those are standard fees for someone of her celebrity status, as witness Jerry Seinfeld and Lady Gaga getting paid similar amounts for speeches before Goldman Sachs.

Most of the money Clinton received went straight into the Clinton Foundation, which, despite it bearing her surname, is a public charity and not her personal piggy bank.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Comparing a politician to entertainers does not hold water. Entertainers do not influence the law. Compare politicians to politicians.

Despite the CF being a public charity, it still is tightly associated with Clinton so the conflict of interest remains.

But if the rich control us all -as some apparently want to believe- that surely applies to Seinfeld and Gaga. One could easily make the case that they have more influence on us than politicians since they can operate without the legal strictures that exist in public campaigns.

Assuming that any fees are bribes is where this becomes more of a conspiracy theory or sore-loserism than any attempt to discuss issues.

I also can't prove a negative. I can't prove that Clinton does not do the bidding of Wall Street. But I do note that more threads about Clinton are posted by Sanders supporters than threads about Sanders. The issues have been drowned out by the static about Clinton.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]