|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 18 2016 14:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2016 13:29 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2016 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
you mean coronation. I think DWS and the Republican rule guy have made it clear that the nomination process is supposed to be a grandiose coronation of the candidate they pick, not an awarding of the nomination to the candidate the people choose. That would be fine if they didn't claim the process was about choosing a nominee, but was for generating excitement/press around who the party elites have chosen. You realize it is actually Bernie who's claiming that he doesn't think the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates out of the primary should necessarily get the nomination, right? Of course I do (although that's not what he said). I don't see what that has to do with my point though? You were railing against DWS for her disregard for the choice of the people voting, while the only candidate who's actually saying that the person with the most pledged delegates should not necessarily be the nominee is Sanders. That wasn't railing against DWS, it was merely pointing out both "parties" agree that it's the party elites who (are supposed to) pick the candidate.
So you'd actually be fine with the nominee not being the candidate who has received the most pledged delegates/popular votes? I can't imagine the shitstorm if it had been Hillary saying that a couple of weeks ago. I guess what they say is true: you either concede a hero, or campaign long enough to see yourself become the villain.
|
I was on the side of Bernie letting it go pretty soon but I gotta say, reading this thread makes me want to see him continue as long as possible. Some of your posts are really insufferable.
|
On March 18 2016 14:25 Nebuchad wrote:
I was on the side of Bernie letting it go pretty soon but I gotta say, reading this thread makes me want to see him continue as long as possible. Some of your posts are really insufferable.
Give me a break, the first thing I said when Hillary won on Tuesday was that I hoped Bernie and his supporters would work with Hillary to achieve our common goal of defeating the Republican nominee and push forward a progressive agenda. Instead, Sanders has continued his dishonest and damaging attacks on Hillary's character, and now his campaign is hoping to be able to circumvent a possible Clinton advantage in pledged delegates by courting superdelegates (good luck with that). And GreenHorizons, who has been relentlessly attacking Hillary in this thread, among other things for her "undemocratic" lead thanks to superdelegates, is now acting like winning the nomination with less pledged delegates would be perfectly fine -- only because it might save Bernie (well, not in this universe). The hypocrisy is through the roof, and it's frustrating to still have to deal with this on this forum when anyone with a grasp of reality knows that the primary is basically over and that Hillary will be the nominee. If Sanders wants to keep campaigning to push his message, he should completely stop attacking Hillary, focus on the Republicans instead, and try using his funds and image to help Democratic candidates in House and Senate races. I think his policy objectives are great and he's fundamentally a nice guy, but right now he's only hurting the Democrats' chances in the general election by still going after Hillary and her integrity.
edit: I understand my tone may be a bit confrontational, but honestly it's when I address GH and it's the result of the insane amount of negative posts he's posted about Hillary in this thread in the last few months. I'll just ignore him from now on as we watch Hillary get the nomination 
|
I don't get where you think Bernie has been launching dishonest attacks on Hillary. At the more damaging ones are the ones that hillary herself has been launching at herself.
Bernie sanders has a huge lead in favorabilities and has a lot better schedule in the second half compared to hillary. I wouldn't say that he is on track to win but I don't See how you can argue that the race is basically over at this point.
Plus I don't see how anyone is happy with Hillary winning. At best you're just going to get more years of Obama type governing where nothing gets done and the votes don't matter. Its like GOP people being happy that romney was nominated 4 years ago.
|
Hackers Just Released Donald Trump's Cell Phone Number And Other Personal Info
Whether you're a fan of Trump or not, you can now give him a call on his personal cell phone to tell him how great of a job he's doing...or to tell him how terrible he really is. Regardless, Anonymous made good on their threat to Trump and his campaign this afternoon by not only releasing personal information regarding the Presidential GOP frontrunner, but more specifically, information like his cell phone number, social security number and various home and business addresses.
Here's the video released by Anonymous. The links to the information are in the video's description.
Anonymous goes on to say that they're pointing out how Trump is trying to stop terrorism but instead causing terrorism himself on various ethnicities with white being the exception, using people's fear to get the votes. Anonymous threatened to expose Trump with information that he doesn't want the public to know in the first video released earlier this month, which went on to say...
"We have been watching you for a long time and what we've seen is deeply disturbing. You don't stand for anything but your personal greed and power," the voice in the video says. "This is a call to arms. Shut down his websites, research and expose what he doesn't want the public to know. We need you to dismantle his campaign and sabotage his brand."
Today, the personal information looks to be a pretty tame first step in what Anonymous is trying to achieve, especially in the "what he doesn't want you to know" department. So is there more to come? Using the banner #OPWhiteRose, Anonymous goes on to say...
"To show that we are very serious about stopping any proposed Fourth Reich by the fascist Donald Trump, we have attached a “gift” of sorts: Trump’s social security number, cell phone number and other details that might be able to assist you all in independently investigating this would-be dictator. These are provided for informational purposes only. Do with them what you will, bearing in mind that you alone are responsible for your actions.
Donald Trump, you should have expected us."
I certainly don't condone the use of any of this information released by Anonymous. Just informing you what's going on. ~ http://www.break.com/article/anonymous-donald-trump-celle-number-social-securiy-3009576
|
On March 18 2016 15:29 Sermokala wrote:
I don't get where you think Bernie has been launching dishonest attacks on Hillary. At the more damaging ones are the ones that hillary herself has been launching at herself.
Bernie sanders has a huge lead in favorabilities and has a lot better schedule in the second half compared to hillary. I wouldn't say that he is on track to win but I don't See how you can argue that the race is basically over at this point.
Plus I don't see how anyone is happy with Hillary winning. At best you're just going to get more years of Obama type governing where nothing gets done and the votes don't matter. Its like GOP people being happy that romney was nominated 4 years ago.
Sanders is implying that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. That is a dishonest attack, because there is zero evidence to support that idea. She has the toughest and most serious plans for financial reform, and Obama used to receive plenty of donations from Wall Street and that hasn't stopped him from enacting Dodd-Frank.
I can argue that the race is basically over because that is how it is mathematically. Clinton has a massive lead not only in absolute terms but also with regards to the targets she needed to meet to win the majority of pledged delegates, based on the demographics of the states that have voted so far and of those that remain. See 538's tracker. The targets Sanders now needs to meet to deny her the nomination are completely unrealistic and will not be met.
The GOP is in a very different state than it was eight years ago. I actually expect them to be more conciliatory once Clinton gets elected, since they clearly cannot afford to keep following the direction they've been following. Even if they do try to keep blocking her, perhaps Congress will look different anyway and the Democrats will have more leverage. And even if Republicans don't change course, they are sure to be more likely to work on compromises with Hillary than with Sanders. If your point is that Hillary won't be able to achieve much in Congress, then you can be sure Sanders would accomplish even less of his agenda.
|
On March 18 2016 14:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 14:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2016 13:49 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 13:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2016 13:29 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 18 2016 13:11 oneofthem wrote:
you mean coronation. I think DWS and the Republican rule guy have made it clear that the nomination process is supposed to be a grandiose coronation of the candidate they pick, not an awarding of the nomination to the candidate the people choose. That would be fine if they didn't claim the process was about choosing a nominee, but was for generating excitement/press around who the party elites have chosen. You realize it is actually Bernie who's claiming that he doesn't think the candidate who gets the most pledged delegates out of the primary should necessarily get the nomination, right? Of course I do (although that's not what he said). I don't see what that has to do with my point though? You were railing against DWS for her disregard for the choice of the people voting, while the only candidate who's actually saying that the person with the most pledged delegates should not necessarily be the nominee is Sanders. That wasn't railing against DWS, it was merely pointing out both "parties" agree that it's the party elites who (are supposed to) pick the candidate. So you'd actually be fine with the nominee not being the candidate who has received the most pledged delegates/popular votes? I can't imagine the shitstorm if it had been Hillary saying that a couple of weeks ago. I guess what they say is true: you either concede a hero, or campaign long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Well we have different opinions on how much the elites already put their thumb on the scale to begin with, so I doubt we would agree on what's different about comparing the positions.
On March 18 2016 15:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 15:29 Sermokala wrote:
I don't get where you think Bernie has been launching dishonest attacks on Hillary. At the more damaging ones are the ones that hillary herself has been launching at herself.
Bernie sanders has a huge lead in favorabilities and has a lot better schedule in the second half compared to hillary. I wouldn't say that he is on track to win but I don't See how you can argue that the race is basically over at this point.
Plus I don't see how anyone is happy with Hillary winning. At best you're just going to get more years of Obama type governing where nothing gets done and the votes don't matter. Its like GOP people being happy that romney was nominated 4 years ago. Sanders is implying that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. That is a dishonest attack, because there is zero evidence to support that idea. She has the toughest and most serious plans for financial reform, and Obama used to receive plenty of donations from Wall Street and that hasn't stopped him from enacting Dodd-Frank. I can argue that the race is basically over because that is how it is mathematically. Clinton has a massive lead not only in absolute terms but also with regards to the targets she needed to meet to win the majority of pledged delegates, based on the demographics of the states that have voted so far and of those that remain. See 538's tracker. The targets Sanders now needs to meet to deny her the nomination are completely unrealistic and will not be met. The GOP is in a very different state than it was eight years ago. I actually expect them to be more conciliatory once Clinton gets elected, since they clearly cannot afford to keep following the direction they've been following. Even if they do try to keep blocking her, perhaps Congress will look different anyway and the Democrats will have more leverage. And even if Republicans don't change course, they are sure to be more likely to work on compromises with Hillary than with Sanders. If your point is that Hillary won't be able to achieve much in Congress, then you can be sure Sanders would accomplish even less of his agenda.
Really? What Democrats do you think would be more favorable to Wall st than her? Also, you think that is more dishonest than all of the attacks Hillary has sent Sanders way?
It behooves you to argue the race is over because she's not going to get any further ahead than she is now and you know that losing 15 of the upcoming contests looks really bad for an "inevitable candidate". But you know it's far from over, otherwise Hillary supporters would just ignore us, like Hillary is trying to do. She's going around fundraising from big $$$ donors instead of campaigning while spamming supporters for donations to try to get to 1m donors to have a talking point to counter Sanders' point with. I know she desperately wants/needs it, otherwise she wouldn't ask 2x a day every day for the last week. For context Sanders had that many contributors in January. Which is one of many reasons Bernie is actually a better candidate (grassroots fundraising).
|
Real anonymous died. That's fake anonymous. It's just an SJW proxy now.
|
On March 18 2016 15:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 15:29 Sermokala wrote:
I don't get where you think Bernie has been launching dishonest attacks on Hillary. At the more damaging ones are the ones that hillary herself has been launching at herself.
Bernie sanders has a huge lead in favorabilities and has a lot better schedule in the second half compared to hillary. I wouldn't say that he is on track to win but I don't See how you can argue that the race is basically over at this point.
Plus I don't see how anyone is happy with Hillary winning. At best you're just going to get more years of Obama type governing where nothing gets done and the votes don't matter. Its like GOP people being happy that romney was nominated 4 years ago. Sanders is implying that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. That is a dishonest attack, because there is zero evidence to support that idea. She has the toughest and most serious plans for financial reform, and Obama used to receive plenty of donations from Wall Street and that hasn't stopped him from enacting Dodd-Frank. I can argue that the race is basically over because that is how it is mathematically. Clinton has a massive lead not only in absolute terms but also with regards to the targets she needed to meet to win the majority of pledged delegates, based on the demographics of the states that have voted so far. See 538's tracker. The targets Sanders now needs to meet to deny her the nomination are completely unrealistic and will not happen. The GOP is in a very different state that it was eight years ago. I actually expect them to be more conciliatory once Clinton gets elected, since they clearly cannot afford to keep following the direction they've been following. Even if they do try to keep blocking her, perhaps Congress will look different anyway and the Democrats will have more leverage. And even if Republicans don't change course, they are sure to be more likely to work on compromises with Hillary than with Sanders. If your point is that Hillary won't be able to achieve much in Congress, then you can be sure Sanders would accomplish even less of his agenda.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html
Its hardly dishonest when they give so much or anything to your campaign. Expecially coming from someone who doesn't take money from the same institutions.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/after-five-years-dodd-frank-is-a-failure-1437342607
WSJ says that dodd frank is a failure so I don't know if thats something somone wants to hang their hat on in a liberal nomination process.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
Hillary has 11% of her projected delegates and has about a 300 delegate lead on 2k our of 4k or so total delegates. Thats hardly a massive lead expecialy from states that were tilting tword her to begin with. Also The target Bernie needs is 57 to 43 I belive of the remaining delegates? 10% isn't completly unrealistic. Granted Obama had a much smaller lead over hillary at this point but Hillary's favor-abilities has nosedived from then and Bernies is probably even higher then obama's now with the reamining demographics.
The GOP is in control off both the house and the senate. I don't see any incentive for them not to keep following the direction they have been following. Sanders has a lot more to compromise on then Hillary and you're crazy if you think republicans are suddenly going to start working with Hillary after all the BS scandals they've engineered.
|
1) When someone is attacking you using factual elements and that makes you look dishonest, it is not the fault of the attacker that you end up looking dishonest.
2) I agree with you, I really don't think Sanders wins from there. Which is why it takes a special amount of insufferability on your side to make me still root for him to continue. I guess that's something to be proud of in some circles.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
wall street is not homogeneous i talked about the change in composition of hillary donors between investment banking and hedge fund/strategic trading shops. depending on the strategy of the fund or the politics of the individual it is reasonable to expect some funds liking more oversight affecting rivals, or is healthier for the industry or society.
hillary has proposed tougher regulation of hedge funds and such shadow pools by expanding the volcker rule
|
On March 18 2016 15:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 15:37 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 15:29 Sermokala wrote:
I don't get where you think Bernie has been launching dishonest attacks on Hillary. At the more damaging ones are the ones that hillary herself has been launching at herself.
Bernie sanders has a huge lead in favorabilities and has a lot better schedule in the second half compared to hillary. I wouldn't say that he is on track to win but I don't See how you can argue that the race is basically over at this point.
Plus I don't see how anyone is happy with Hillary winning. At best you're just going to get more years of Obama type governing where nothing gets done and the votes don't matter. Its like GOP people being happy that romney was nominated 4 years ago. Sanders is implying that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. That is a dishonest attack, because there is zero evidence to support that idea. She has the toughest and most serious plans for financial reform, and Obama used to receive plenty of donations from Wall Street and that hasn't stopped him from enacting Dodd-Frank. I can argue that the race is basically over because that is how it is mathematically. Clinton has a massive lead not only in absolute terms but also with regards to the targets she needed to meet to win the majority of pledged delegates, based on the demographics of the states that have voted so far. See 538's tracker. The targets Sanders now needs to meet to deny her the nomination are completely unrealistic and will not happen. The GOP is in a very different state that it was eight years ago. I actually expect them to be more conciliatory once Clinton gets elected, since they clearly cannot afford to keep following the direction they've been following. Even if they do try to keep blocking her, perhaps Congress will look different anyway and the Democrats will have more leverage. And even if Republicans don't change course, they are sure to be more likely to work on compromises with Hillary than with Sanders. If your point is that Hillary won't be able to achieve much in Congress, then you can be sure Sanders would accomplish even less of his agenda. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-blasts-wall-street-but-still-draws-millions-in-contributions/2016/02/04/05e1be00-c9c2-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.htmlIts hardly dishonest when they give so much or anything to your campaign. Expecially coming from someone who doesn't take money from the same institutions.
I'll repeat what I said: there is zero evidence that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies. There is a difference between receiving donations and being the donators' puppet. Again, Obama received plenty of donations from Wall Street. Clinton's donations are perfectly in line with her status of frontrunner and her previous service as NY senator. And again, she has the toughest and most serious plans for financial reform of all candidates. If you have any evidence of her modifying her stance due to receiving donations from Wall Street, please provide it to us. Otherwise, those attacks are dishonest.
ROFL, yes, the WSJ saying so definitely makes Dodd-Frank a failure. While the reform did not go far enough, it was certainly a step in the right direction.
On March 18 2016 15:54 Sermokala wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/Hillary has 11% of her projected delegates and has about a 300 delegate lead on 2k our of 4k or so total delegates. Thats hardly a massive lead expecialy from states that were tilting tword her to begin with. Also The target Bernie needs is 57 to 43 I belive of the remaining delegates? 10% isn't completly unrealistic. Granted Obama had a much smaller lead over hillary at this point but Hillary's favor-abilities has nosedived from then and Bernies is probably even higher then obama's now with the reamining demographics.
"Hardly a massive lead"? "11% of her projected delegates"? I don't think you understand how the process works. She has currently more than 110% (538 numbers are not fully updated for the 03/15 results) of the delegate number she needed to have secured by now to win the nomination, taking into account the fact that many of the early states favored her and the fact that many will now favor Bernie (those demographics are precisely taken into account in the538 targets). Her lead is absolutely massive, and I'm not sure where that 11% number is coming from. If you sincerely believe that Bernie will now get 57,5% of the overall remaining vote, I have a bridge to sell you.
On March 18 2016 15:54 Sermokala wrote:
The GOP is in control off both the house and the senate. I don't see any incentive for them not to keep following the direction they have been following. Sanders has a lot more to compromise on then Hillary and you're crazy if you think republicans are suddenly going to start working with Hillary after all the BS scandals they've engineered.
Republicans hate Hillary when she's running for office, not when they actually have to work with her. See here. The incentive not to keep following the direction they have been following is that it has led them to the current meltdown they're experiencing. We'll see what they do moving forward, but in any case there is zero reason to believe they would be more willing to compromise with Sanders than Hillary considering his plans are much more extreme and antithetical to what the GOP is defending.
|
On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
1) When someone is attacking you using factual elements and that makes you look dishonest, it is not the fault of the attacker that you end up looking dishonest.
He is using factual elements to imply things that are not factual. If I was to imply that (1) Obama is nothing but the puppet of Wall Street because (2) he has received donations from Wall Street, (2) will be factual but it won't make (1) true. The same applies here.
On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
2) I agree with you, I really don't think Sanders wins from there. Which is why it takes a special amount of insufferability on your side to make me still root for him to continue. I guess that's something to be proud of in some circles.
I'm pretty sure if you were on the other side and had had to read GreenHorizons' bullshit posts about Hillary for months, you'd be just as fed up with him as I am.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 18 2016 13:40 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 13:29 oneofthem wrote:
i cant rule out strategic use of political process to advance to at least partial socialism by sanders. i.e. nationalization of a variety of sectors from banking to education The nationalization of economic sectors is not necessarily an indicator of socialism, though it is a "socialist plank", but that's really not that surprising or scary (we've implemented many of those over the last 150 years). For instance heavy subsidization of higher education is something fairly commonplace in other developed countries outside the United States, and saying universal public education is a necessarily socialist institution is rather disingenuous.
there is a difference between establishing new govt organizations and either taking over private domains or excluding them. the mechanism by which the end result of a nationalized sector is reachedr matters and it would be socialist core values to commandeer or strategically squeeze out private outfits
|
On March 18 2016 16:23 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
1) When someone is attacking you using factual elements and that makes you look dishonest, it is not the fault of the attacker that you end up looking dishonest. He is using factual elements to imply things that are not factual. If I was to imply that (1) Obama is nothing but the puppet of Wall Street because (2) he has received donations from Wall Street, (2) will be factual but it won't make (1) true. The same applies here. Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
2) I agree with you, I really don't think Sanders wins from there. Which is why it takes a special amount of insufferability on your side to make me still root for him to continue. I guess that's something to be proud of in some circles. I'm pretty sure if you were on the other side and had had to read GreenHorizons' bullshit posts about Hillary for months, you'd be just as fed up with him as I am.
When there is a clear and easy way for you to clear the suspicion and clearly display your innocence, and you continually refuse to do it, it isn't unreasonable to believe the suspicion is founded.
I'm not sure why you expect me to feel better knowing that you're being a dick for reasons that you deem legitimate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the executive branch can do a ton through agencies. it is also critically important for foreign policy which has important domestic footprint esp long term
|
On March 18 2016 16:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 16:23 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
1) When someone is attacking you using factual elements and that makes you look dishonest, it is not the fault of the attacker that you end up looking dishonest. He is using factual elements to imply things that are not factual. If I was to imply that (1) Obama is nothing but the puppet of Wall Street because (2) he has received donations from Wall Street, (2) will be factual but it won't make (1) true. The same applies here. On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
2) I agree with you, I really don't think Sanders wins from there. Which is why it takes a special amount of insufferability on your side to make me still root for him to continue. I guess that's something to be proud of in some circles. I'm pretty sure if you were on the other side and had had to read GreenHorizons' bullshit posts about Hillary for months, you'd be just as fed up with him as I am. When there is a clear and easy way for you to clear the suspicion and clearly display your innocence, and you continually refuse to do it, it isn't unreasonable to believe the suspicion is founded. I'm not sure why you expect me to feel better knowing that you're being a dick for reasons that you deem legitimate.
I'm not really understanding who's or what speeches specifically she's saying she wants released before she releases hers...
Her defenses of releasing the transcripts have never really made sense either, which only further raises legitimate suspicions.
|
On March 18 2016 16:35 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2016 16:23 kwizach wrote:On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
1) When someone is attacking you using factual elements and that makes you look dishonest, it is not the fault of the attacker that you end up looking dishonest. He is using factual elements to imply things that are not factual. If I was to imply that (1) Obama is nothing but the puppet of Wall Street because (2) he has received donations from Wall Street, (2) will be factual but it won't make (1) true. The same applies here. On March 18 2016 16:06 Nebuchad wrote:
2) I agree with you, I really don't think Sanders wins from there. Which is why it takes a special amount of insufferability on your side to make me still root for him to continue. I guess that's something to be proud of in some circles. I'm pretty sure if you were on the other side and had had to read GreenHorizons' bullshit posts about Hillary for months, you'd be just as fed up with him as I am. When there is a clear and easy way for you to clear the suspicion and clearly display your innocence, and you continually refuse to do it, it isn't unreasonable to believe the suspicion is founded.
Innocence from what? She's served as senator in the past, where is the evidence that she was a corrupt official? Sanders is the one heavily implying that she's in the pocket of Wall Street, the burden of proof lies with him. Are you also going to ask Obama to prove his innocence from being a puppet due to him receiving money from Wall Street?
About her speeches, please don't be naive -- the reason she's not releasing them is obviously that the Sanders campaign would spin the positive comments about the role of the financial sector that they most likely contain out-of-context into their "Hillary is in the pocket of the banks" narrative. She doesn't want to erase the financial sector, so of course she's going to be talking about the need for robust financial institutions, but that doesn't mean she hasn't championed a tough plan to regulate the sector - plenty of left-wing economists have described her proposals as the most serious to address those risks and excesses in the industry. In any case, and like I said, the accusation of corruption does not rely on anything of substance. The exact same accusation could be levied at Obama, and it would be just as baseless.
On March 18 2016 16:35 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not sure why you expect me to feel better knowing that you're being a dick for reasons that you deem legitimate.
Well, let me (1) mention that I find the fact that you're not saying the same to GH pretty funny and (2) point out that if you think I'm being a dick, you can stop reading my posts instead of insulting me. I can assure you it won't bother me.
|
On March 18 2016 08:43 Sermokala wrote:
Whats a desernable difference between socialists and communists in your opinion?
Communists are to socialists what libertarians are to liberals
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you look at hillary top donors for the current cycle, the hedge funds that support her are also trying to help dems win the senate etc. it would be weong to paint all of wall street as evil and driven by sole concern for profit.
also as stated earlier different strategies prefer different regulation. a fund that is only about short term gains with high leverage would not like hillary while a long term fund would not be that burdened by the proposed regulations
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
