Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,468 posts)
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 09:17 PM Jun 2014

Interesting two comments from Stephanopoulos show

DOWD: I think the biggest part of the problem, and you I think highlighted it in the panel before ours about what has gone on in the Supreme Court. The most powerful people in Washington today are the nine unelected people in the Supreme Court.

It's no longer the Congress and it's no longer the president. I think we should have a vibrant Congress who takes on the president legislatively and passes and pushes the president, and doesn't do these things. Both sides are -- I think have been reduced to stunts. The president has been reduced to stunts, and the Congress has been reduced to stunts.

Also

While talking about Hillary's wealth

VANDEN HEUVEL: But think of our history. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, these were not paupers. I mean, it's not about your wealth. It's about which side you're on, what you lay out for working people in this country, and what kind of economy for working people you want to build.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-president-obama/story?id=24347932&singlePage=true

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Interesting two comments from Stephanopoulos show (Original Post) question everything Jun 2014 OP
Thanks, those were good (nt) Babel_17 Jun 2014 #1
add on to Vander Hueval rurallib Jun 2014 #2
"it's not about your wealth. It's about which side you're on," delrem Jun 2014 #3
+1 Scuba Jun 2014 #4

rurallib

(62,406 posts)
2. add on to Vander Hueval
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 09:43 PM
Jun 2014

no poor person will be elected President. But there are people who have empathy for the poor that have been elected.

delrem

(9,688 posts)
3. "it's not about your wealth. It's about which side you're on,"
Sun Jun 29, 2014, 09:47 PM
Jun 2014

That's correct, but it leaves something out: it's about how one attained their wealth, and what that says about their loyalties.

C'mon, Mitt Romney? The Koch Bros.??
Bill and Hillary Clinton are certainly cleaner than that. But by how much? Their speaking fees are astronomical and the wealth they take in from that quarter is vast, and the clients they work for are in large part dubious, at best. A US/Columbia free-trade agreement? Direct pay from Goldman-Sachs of $400,000.00 for 2 hrs work?

definition:
lobby
noun: ...
verb: ...
1. seek to influence (a politician or public official) on an issue.

It passes understanding to suppose that these $billion$ clients would ever spend so much per hour (I mean, these same clients want to eliminate the minimum wage, etc.) just to hear some ephemeral words uttered by two "darlings of the left".

Not possible. It's necessary that some quid pro quo is mutually understood in these exchanges of cash for services.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Interesting two comments ...