Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Bill was Mr. Wall Street

...of one."

Bill is layin' low and won't be a "co-president" the way Hillary was.

Makes you think...

are ignoring the Wall Street, pro-war, and all of the other negatives just because of the Mrs. part. I think many people are solely basing their preference on gender. What other reason could anyone use to pick Hillary over Bernie? They can't even use the ability to win the general excuse anymore as it is becoming more and more obvious that Hillary is more likely to lose in the general than Bernie.

Bernie is the ONLY WAY! He is the truth and the light that will lead us to victory!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Just name recognition and positive feelings from Bill Clinton's presidency. Senator Sanders has just a few months to overcome it. I really hope he is successful. I just can't bring myself to vote for these hedge fund controlled candidates any longer.

delivery of messages like "we're going to bomb your country" or various forms of economic blackmail... makes them more socially acceptable. (Obviously, it would depend on the individual woman.)

Then again, GW Bush himself had a rather soft and gentle quality to his speech and optics. I think a lot of people "loved" his gentle, stupid boy routine and it disarmed them.

This has to be sarcasm right?? You can't honestly think that the Clinton's are so lily white that they would never take money for themselves or their foundation that didn't benefit them personally! If it's a joke, then lol, if you're serious then SMDH

Just wow...

I could point you to numerous stories about the Clinton Foundation and the money scam they have run and you would just ignore the facts and buy in to the sham. Unbelievable....do yourself a favor and Google the Clinton Foundation and Haiti schools. You'll see very clearly that the "foundation" is nothing more than a money making scam. They're successful, as you say, and I agree...successful for the Clintons

and the very private Rose law firm.

Being "first lady" is not a paid position.

Senator and Secretary of State - those are public service (which she can afford to enjoy with the war chest she has banked).

Hillary Clinton net worth: M$45 (that's forty five MILLION dollars)

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/hillary-clinton-net-worth/

but this is a publicly traded company. You need to brush up a bit.

the BOARD hires the CEO & can FIRE him/her at any time. Anyone with any experience in business knows this - it's very basic.

But your attempt to mislead and support Hillary in any way you can (lies be damned) is noted.

Anyone in our party that votes for this corrupt, self-serving, Bush Family loving distorter of the truth should have their head checked and then held accountable if God forbid she sneaks the nomination.

And can you blame her? Look what she's gotten away with so far. Look at all the fools in our own party that fall for her stories.

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:56 AM - Edit history (1)

intermingle regardless of the letter they use after their names.

Money definitely talks in that class. If you have you're in. You won't find any working class person at any of those NY soirees unless they are the caterers.

I think thirty years of Third Way policies have attracted the moderates that used to vote Republican before the GOP became a complete clown car.

Many of these people don't have a clue as to what the Democratic Party stood for prior to Reagan

Lame, lame, lame.

Her anti-capitalism talk sounds hollow.

Supporting regulations is not saying it shouldn't exist.

..for banks?

Take your better-than-nothing medicine now, you ungrateful plebe!



Hillary has used the "Too Big To Fail" label on banks --- but NO don't break them up! Just put more oligarch rubber stamp committees in Congress!

More rubber-stampers are actually a worse-than-nothing solution. It just gives the system an air of credibility.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

They are giving money furiously to the GOP. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251691287
Clinton has a detailed plan for Wall Street reform.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform


Where is Bernie's? His website doesn't provide it. Does he have one?
Just saying revive Glass-Steagall, a law from 1933, does nothing to address the shadow banks that brought about the 2008 crisis.

Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, says Clinton's plan deals squarely with the problems that brought about the crisis, whereas Bernie's ignores it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=2

Can anyone here point to an actual detailed policy plan from Sanders, or does he just have a sound bite?

That article provides evidence of Krugman's point. Wall Street money is going almost exclusively to the GOP. I understand facts get in the way of contrived narratives, but they do matter.

What about Sanders plan for banking reform? You didn't link to one. Does that mean he doesn't have one? Is your contention that no plan is better than Clinton's? Did you read the Vox article? I suspect not. My guess is the policy doesn't interest you at all. If you did, the details would concern you and not just a rather weak effort to pretend that 84k is in the same ballpark as $138 million.

Additionally, that 84k came from people who work at those firms. It doesn't indicate what positions they hold. One thing is clear, collectively they gave very little of the $33 million she raised last quarter. To pretend that buys a president's favor or access is ludicrous. I can guarantee you that educators gave her far more money, as did union members and lawyers.

This is the sort of thing that shows that opposition to Clinton has nothing to do with issues. The facts simply do not support efforts to paint her as a tool of Wall Street.

That article also says that Bush's total from all sources in the same time period was 13.4 million.

I don't doubt that the banks prefer Bush to Clinton, or that they would prefer Clinton to Sanders. Contributing to both Bush and Clinton is, as they say, hedging your bets.

It's all a myth in our heads.



And despite getting no money from the rich via super pacs, somehow she's the only one who can compete financially with the Republicans in the generals even though Bernie is raising almost equal to her in actual campaign money. The disconnect is so severe I don't know how some of them rectify it.

And those donors aren't revealed, so we can't tell exactly how much she gets from these institutions via SuperPACS. All we know is that Bernie gets zero, because he has no SuperPACs.

Here's an interesting article...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-2016-priorities-usa-25-million-213826

What that doesn't include is all the dark money flowing to the GOP through their Super Pacs. Hedging their bets was the pre-2008 approach to donations, as Krugman noted. His point is that now their money goes almost exclusively to the GOP, and it's not subject to $2700 limits.

Lets say that the banks aren't funneling money into her superpacs. I still have a major problem believing that all those speeches her and Bill have given to big banks, for millions of dollars, don't mean anything in the big picture. I feel like that is a really naive position that many HRC supporters hold. Seriously if you haven't gone and looked at her personal income statements on open secrets you should, it shows how wealthy she really is.
p.s. Off topic but if anyone is browsing personal income and wealth filings on opensecrets you absolutely have to look at Ben Carson's. I'm really shocked at how much this man makes off speeches and how many places that I wouldn't think have that kind of money are willing to pay it......looks a little shady.

Speaking fees. Not campaign donations, and it doesn't refute her policy.
I bet any amount of money that after this election is over, Sanders will clean up in speaking fees as well.

Still no link to a banking policy from Sanders. I guess the problem isn't just that I couldn't find it but that he doesn't have one.

About Mrs. Clinton's fortune coming from banks, having a highly criticized policy that is seen as insufficient, having the campaign support of Wall Street, having untold donations in dark money, having a terrible history on financial regulation, and comments from industry that they're not worried about her candidacy having no bearing whatsoever on what's she's saying this week.

And Mr. Sanders' campaign has indeed not released an official position paper, notwithstanding his consistent and strongly held positions regarding the banking sector over the last few decades in office, the informal links supplied ad infinitum by his supporters, and his various speeches about policy.

The banks have clearly had no stronger foe than Hillary Clinton. You win the day sir, I concede.

It doesn't have anywhere near the specificity that either Clinton or O'Malley's bank regulation policies do. Nor does it deal with the shadow banks that brought about the 2008 crisis.
While it's fine to have a general statement like that for people who don't want to get into the policy details, we need to know that he has a more developed plan. He refers to legislation he has supported, but none of it has passed. Additionally, what he has done as a Senator doesn't substitute for a president's policy proposal.

being pistol-whipped by their Republican crazies.

Its Orwellian Inner Party / Outer Party stuff (or Coke vs Pepsi, if you prefer a Huxley take on it).

Bernie is the FDR of our time and the people put FDR into office 4 times. Says it all...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

.....Bernie is a socialist and fdr certainly was not. He ran against and beat four socialists. The American people are not going to nominate , let alone elect a socialist for president .

Bernie is , in my humble opinion , a waste of time .

..... FDR style points, why does he's call himself a socialust? FDR didn't and, in fact, ran against four different socialists.

If you want to nominate a crypto-socialist bernie isn't the right choice . He isn't crypto enough .

....if the bernie platform is simply that "We're all kenisians now" then he doesn't need to call himself a socialist, and shouldn't have done so, since it will doom him electorally. But he did, so he is doomed.

"We are all Keynesians now" - look it up.

It would seem so

.... of a primary candidate does not mean I'm a repubican. Calling a fellow DUer a repubican certainly could be interpreted as being divisive and disruptive. You might want to avoid that.

.... a "democratic socialist" is someone who over 50% of the voters will not vote for. "Socialist" polls worse than "athiest".

"Not electable" is the operational definition of "socialist". And all the interweb copy-pasta ain't going to change that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/17/could-a-socialist-actually-be-elected-president/

We all know what socialism means. I think the biggest issue I have with falling in line behind what Debbie Wasserman Schultz tells me to do is the fact that HRC's Favorability and trust numbers continue to hemorrhage and this has been a trend for about a year. These may not mean much in a primary but in a GE they mean a lot because of the allusive undecided voter. You can continue to believe you "won" an argument but you really aren't furthering the discussion that rational adults are having by name calling.

.... what matters is that the American electorate won't vote for a socialist regardless of what it means.

And, BTW , the American electorate isn't interested in finding out what it means. The more you talk about "what socialism means" the less and less interested the American electorate will be in your canadate.

In other words - negative feedback loop - a.k.a., death spiral.

Bernie is going nowhere . But, have fun while it lasts .

If you don't know the difference then Google can help.

...telling Americans to google "socilism "!!!

Boy, is THAT a winner!

The top one is from Urban Dictionary:

!

I really enjoy your posts on any topic.

..... of truly scarry idelogical rants and screeds. And quite a few bomb throwers and other assorted advocates of various degrees of violence .

Believe me, the Internet is not your friend.

Socialism will be a great platform in the GE. Once Republicans come to understand the differences between Democratic Socialism, Socialist Democracy and Socialism, Bernie will win in a landslide.

Stop picking on poor Hillary.

After all, she HAD to take million$ hand-over-fi$t from Wall St. banksters to finance
her glitzy campaign, so she could "get tough on Wall St. banksters".

who says "Halt! Or I will say 'halt' again!"

Thanks for the thread, portlander.

eom

HA HA

It would NEVER happen.

Look, I see thread after thread like this on the DU. "Hillary did X, why would any one support her?" And all that happens if Hillary supporters step in, is that Bernie supporters pile up on them, and reject anything they say, even if they present actual facts and rational arguments. Not one Bernie supporter that I've seen in these thread (and I'll grand that I could have missed one or two) ever says, "okay, that's a good point...." But then, none of these threads exist for the purpose of a real discussion about the candidates. They exist so that Bernie supporters can "+1000" each other's jabs and put downs of Hillary.

In the end, I think Hilary supporters see most of the problems with their candidate. But I don't think Bernie supporters see any problems with theirs. And I'm afraid there are issues. Like he's not as globally knowledgeable. Like he's never been in a war room. Like he's never advised a president on any action. There is a list of experiences that he hasn't had that Hillary has had. And if supporters of Hillary view these as important, then that is all they need say to defend her.

Putting it another way, if being the President of the U.S. meant that all you were going to deal with was the U.S. economy, then Sanders might be perfect. But, unfortunately, we require a lot of POTUS. He/she must not only deal with congress over taxes and such (remember congress? they kinda/sorta have the power to decide a lot of these things Bernie wants changed, and Bernie can't step into office and wave a magic wand and change them without congress; so...how good is he at getting congress to do as he wishes them to do?), but also with things like, well, bombing of embassies, national emergencies like hurricanes, allies on the other side of the world....etc.

So, all threads like this are doing, in the end, is setting up a "stacked deck"--they pick one issue and word it in a way that makes sure Bernie can crush Hillary on it. Meanwhile, all the other issues, the ones which Sanders might be weak on, don't get mentioned at all. So Sanders always seems to win. I believe that's called a straw man. And such arguments make it pointless for anyone from the other side to enter into the discussion. You should at least be honest about what you really want when you demand Hillary supporters "defend" their candidate. You don't want to actually hear any such defense. You want Hillary supporters to admit their candidate has serious flaws and you want to bully them into admitting that, because of these flaws, they're wrong to support her.

I'm a little mystified as to how you think this will gain you, Bernie supporters and Bernie their love rather than their resentment, given that you get what you want. But then threads this divisive have always mystified me. We are going to need all democrats to vote in the upcoming elections. Anything that makes either side resentful or angry at the other, and refusing to help in the upcoming election, will undermine our efforts to win the White House and more members in Congress.

"For what it’s worth, Mrs. Clinton had the better case. Mr. Sanders has been focused on restoring Glass-Steagall, the rule that separated deposit-taking banks from riskier wheeling and dealing. And repealing Glass-Steagall was indeed a mistake. But it’s not what caused the financial crisis, which arose instead from “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers, which don’t take deposits but can nonetheless wreak havoc when they fail. Mrs. Clinton has laid out a plan to rein in shadow banks; so far, Mr. Sanders hasn’t."

"In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."

...about regulating Wall St, because Wall St lobbyists want a Republican to win.

However, Hillary Clinton can be insincere about regulating Wall St, and Wall St lobbyists can think they'd get even looser rules from a Republican.

Hillary Clinton is the very personification of all that is evil in the world.

It makes you wonder why she's still the front-runner in this campaign.

I guess some people just don't care about how democracy in America will come to a screeching halt if she is elected POTUS.

She will be the Democratic Nominee.... She will be Madam President... When I see the threads such as this, I see Fox news ....yea...so, I won't take the bait.

Stop it please.

Disrespectful.....

The truth.

The more wealth & power Wall St has accumulated, the more the stream of democracy around the world has turned into a drip.

Thanks to them, and to the armies of lawyers, lobbyists, propagandists and other paid liars they sponsor, the spigot is close to being closed completely.

As our natural world crumbles around us, as human rights violations of the most egregious variety occur across their reach, as our children are wrongly imprisoned for profit and shot in the street, they couldn't be more narcissistic nor smug.

"What, me worry?"

Everybody is for regulating Wall Street. The right wingers talk about pure capitalism, but that's performance art. They know it won't be happening.

Insanity is expecting a new and different result after the same action has been repeated time after time causing the same result every single time.

Do you really think these people are going to give her millions and not expect anything in return? And what is your explanation for the fact they are donating to her in the first place, if they expect her to regulate them and make them pay more in taxes, or taxes at all in some cases. The answer is very simple. They know it's all talk.

Exactly!! Why is this so hard to comprehend? Do people think that they give her money just to be nice or fair? How naive do her supporters think we are? If she wins the nomination I will absolutely turn out and vote for her in the GE but I will have no false hopes like I did for Obama of her being or liberal champion, it will likely be another 4-8 years of the same.

It's really bad for so many people. I feel like I'm being asked to vote for the destruction of the planet my grandchildren will inherit. Unlike so many I not only worry about the least of us, but I worry what will happen for future generation be because people were greedy and we didn't have the courage to put a stop to them.

She is on the record opposing re-instituting Glass-Steagall.

Hillary to Wag Finger at Wall Street CEOs, Save Economy
http://www.theniladmirari.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-to-wag-finger-at-wall-street-ceos-save-american-global-economy.html

Turning a $1,000 cattle futures investment into $100,000 (in 1978 dollars!) -- nothing shady about that, no siree.

problems on Wall Street. She understands Wall Street, has connections there, probably will do something about executive salaries and is already pushing for profit sharing for the workers who have had a big part in making the profits. Maybe she will be against the Golden Parachutes for everyone.