EPTI don't think I'm being insulting, that's not my intention anyway. I apologize if that's how you felt. I'm just commenting on the recent posts in this thread as I saw them, and you didn't seem to deny my analysis. But we can stop this any time you want, I didn't post that because I wanted a reaction or a justification from you.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3389
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
I don't think I'm being insulting, that's not my intention anyway. I apologize if that's how you felt. I'm just commenting on the recent posts in this thread as I saw them, and you didn't seem to deny my analysis. But we can stop this any time you want, I didn't post that because I wanted a reaction or a justification from you. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 18 2016 17:08 Nebuchad wrote: I'm not sure why you think Obama is some sort of deterrent for the accusation. Nobody from the crash got punished and the banks are now bigger than they were before if what I heard was correct. I'm not sure that's the picture you want for your being tough on Wall Street campaign. Obama passed Dodd-Frank, which is pretty much the best he could achieve on that front. I'm fine with the accusation that Clinton is just as corrupt at Obama, since their corruption levels are equal at zero. Yet Sanders is implying that Clinton is particularly ready to do Wall Street's bidding, and there is zero evidence to support that. Zero. In fact, the evidence available (her past statements, policy prescriptions, and financial sector reform plan) suggests the opposite. I am still waiting for Sanders to substantiate his accusations. Since we're midway through the primary, if he actually had something, I'm pretty sure he would have mentioned it by now. On March 18 2016 17:08 Nebuchad wrote: I don't think I'm being insulting, that's not my intention anyway. I apologize if that's how you felt. I'm just commenting on the recent posts in this thread as I saw them, and you didn't seem to deny my analysis. But we can stop this any time you want, I didn't post that because I wanted a reaction or a justification from you. I didn't deny that I used a confrontational tone with GreenHorizons, because that was indeed my pretty humane reaction to the latest edition of his months-long dishonest attacks on Clinton with false (and even sometimes conspiratorial) claims and insultingly unfair depictions of her as a person. I was hoping that at this stage the people leaning left could start uniting instead of still having some posters dishonestly attacking the Democratic frontrunner and future nominee (there's plenty of stuff for which Hillary can legitimately be criticized, but that's different from the kind of ridiculous attacks that GH has levied at her). If you can't excuse a pretty harmless reaction of frustration for what it is, well, I guess there's not much I can do. Like I said, I'll ignore him onward while Clinton deservedly - and unsurprisingly - gets the nomination. I'll be happy to do so  | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
Basically Bernie is making a dishonest accusation, but it would be a bad idea to disprove what he says cause he could be dishonest about that too. Yeah that doesn't sound shady at all. But I'm sure when Hillary comes up with her disappointing final plan on Wall Street, it will be the best that she could have done as well. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12363 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 18 2016 17:33 Nebuchad wrote: I'm amused that you're okay with arguing there's no evidence to support the fact that Clinton is not going to treat Wall Street impartially right after and right before the post where you're arguing she's justified in not releasing transcripts of her Wall Street speeches because that would give ammunition to Bernie's camp, because they would spin it. Cause you know, not releasing them doesn't give ammunition to Bernie's camp at all, it's totally impossible to spin that in any way. Basically Bernie is making a dishonest accusation, but it would be a bad idea to disprove what he says cause he could be dishonest about that too. Yeah that doesn't sound shady at all. Let's be factual here. Clinton was in the Senate for several years, representing NY. Do you have anything of substance from those years to indicate that she was a corrupt official? Please share this information with us if you do. Sure, not releasing the transcripts gives ammunition to Bernie's camp as well. She's between a rock and a hard place, because anyone interested in actual policymaking instead of demagogic rhetorical stances knows that it is in the best interests of the country to have a healthy and robust financial sector, which is most likely something that she mentioned in her speeches. Her saying that, however, as non-controversial as it should be, would most probably be used by the Sanders campaign to dishonestly paint her as a Wall Street puppet, playing on caricatures. The fact that she is not releasing them doesn't mean that there's any actual evidence of corruption in them, simply that she thinks her words could be taken out of context against her (since that's already what the Sanders campaign is doing with regards to her donations). I therefore fail to see where the contradiction is supposed to lie. What I can see, however, is that there is still zero evidence to support the accusation of her doing Wall Street's bidding. In the same way, there is zero evidence to support a similar accusation levied against Obama, who received donations from financial institutions just as much (if not more) than her. On March 18 2016 17:33 Nebuchad wrote: But I'm sure when Hillary comes up with her disappointing final plan on Wall Street, it will be the best that she could have done as well. Her final plan is already available on her site, feel free to check it out and tell us about your impressions. With regards to what can actually pass through Congress, I'm not sure how you're going to blame her for not having total control over both the Republicans and the Democrats elected there. It's probably easier to not pass anything and adopt a holier-than-thou attitude than actually compromising and getting things done, though. | ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
Speaking of pay for play and corruptING politicians, check out the $25k Trump gave to the Florida Attorney General's Super PAC and then check out her refusing to pursue fraud charges against Trump's university: "With media scrutiny mounting, the Donald J. Trump Foundation that September contributed $25,000 to And Justice for All, a political committee controlled by Bondi. Florida never followed New York’s lead. Although there were complaints in Florida, the state never opened an investigation. Charles Jacobson of Bradenton was one of the people who filed a Trump University complaint with Bondi’s office. In 2011, he wrote that he “lost more than $26,000” to the college and had “since declared personal bankruptcy because of it.” Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article65995972.html#storylink=cpy See, that is real corruption. If you want to call Hillary corrupt, pony something up like that. And make sure it is good and blatant too. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4360 Posts
| ||
|
JW_DTLA
242 Posts
On March 18 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So you think Hillary will "fix" Wall St when it was her husband who scrapped Glass-Steagal in the first place? Thats what caused the bubble/crash! Are you sure you want to concede that? It will seriously damage your talking points about how the community reinvestment act from 1977 and all the loans to black people caused the crash. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4360 Posts
On March 18 2016 18:08 JW_DTLA wrote: Are you sure you want to concede that? It will seriously damage your talking points about how the community reinvestment act from 1977 and all the loans to black people caused the crash. I have never heard of such an act but lending money to those who have no ability to service the loans is hardly a good idea.We will have a refresher on that when the subprime auto and shale loan bubbles pop over the next few months. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4360 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 18 2016 18:06 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So you think Hillary will "fix" Wall St when it was her husband who scrapped Glass-Steagal in the first place? Thats what caused the bubble/crash! I suggest reading this Politifact article. | ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
What does "I-Vt." mean? A google search leads to Bernie's wiki page.., but can anyone explain the abbreviation? I'm assuming Vt. is Vermont. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21963 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:04 DickMcFanny wrote: " such as presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt." What does "I-Vt." mean? A google search leads to Bernie's wiki page.., but can anyone explain the abbreviation? I'm assuming Vt. is Vermont. I (independent) Vt. (Vermont). The location of his senate seat and the affiliation under which he won it. | ||
Soularion
Canada2764 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:04 DickMcFanny wrote: " such as presidential candidates Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt." What does "I-Vt." mean? A google search leads to Bernie's wiki page.., but can anyone explain the abbreviation? I'm assuming Vt. is Vermont. Independent from Vermont. He only went Democratic so he had a chance to actually have his voice heard in the election- and even though he's pretty much done for in terms of actually becoming president, it's really important to note how great he's done in that regard! | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11643 Posts
Also, i find it very weird to assume that wall street would give loads of money to Hillary and not expect anything in return. Usually, if a bank pays someone a lot of money, they do expect to get their moneys worth back in some way. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Soularion
Canada2764 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:11 Simberto wrote: Independent-Vermont Also, i find it very weird to assume that wall street would give loads of money to Hillary and not expect anything in return. Usually, if a bank pays someone a lot of money, they do expect to get their moneys worth back in some way. The whole 'wall street donation' thing, to me - which doesn't mean much, as I'm not even from america! - just means she'll be more in Obama's vein than Bernie Sanders. Still, I think people way overrate how bad 'Obama-tier' is, and overall Hillary Clintons's domestic policy is quite great. The only big problem I have with her is tone and how sketchy she is and how many ugh-sounding things she said.. But really, she's still a million times better than anyone from the right (other than Rubio) in that regard. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On March 18 2016 12:05 TheTenthDoc wrote: Three ways it could negatively affect republicans: 1) While not holding a hearing on a SCOTUS nominee with this amount of time left has technically been done before, it hasn't been done recently at all. It sets a precedent allowing Democrats to do the same thing-which is not really good for Republicans in the long term unless they plan to control the Senate forever. 2) Trump is a total wild card on nominees unless they can force him to broker a deal with the party. Who knows who he'll nominate if he wins? They'd be forced to go along too. 3) If Clinton wins Obama will just withdraw the nomination and then she'll appoint someone more liberal and the GOP will be forced to stall for 4 more years, which would probably be the single largest piece of obstructionism in American history (well, modern American history, there's probably something wackier out there), or just bite the bullet. It was also a dumb move because if they ever DO actually hold a hearing apparently there's recorded footage of them praising the nominee-and they had to realize Obama could pick someone with that quality. It probably solidifies their House control, though, so maybe it's worth it? Edit: I'm also increasingly suspicious it was an attempt to drive media coverage of Cruz/Rubio over Trump during the primaries. thanks, what do you think of the likelihood for the GOP to change their mind? seems like there is hell of a lot of downsiide | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11643 Posts
On March 18 2016 20:15 Soularion wrote: The whole 'wall street donation' thing, to me - which doesn't mean much, as I'm not even from america! - just means she'll be more in Obama's vein than Bernie Sanders. Still, I think people way overrate how bad 'Obama-tier' is, and overall Hillary Clintons's domestic policy is quite great. The only big problem I have with her is tone and how sketchy she is and how many ugh-sounding things she said.. But really, she's still a million times better than anyone from the right (other than Rubio) in that regard. Well, yes, it goes without saying that the complete republican lineup is just a bunch of complete lunatics, and i am still utterly confused how a single person is still voting for any of these people. So i guess if your choice is "hillary or republican", Hillary is obviously the better choice. I can't think of many people who would be a worse choice than the republican candidates. The only interesting question is "Hillary vs Sanders", and here Sanders does look a lot better than Hillary, mostly because he has a lot of policies that are common sense to Europeans, but which are for some reason "completely impossible" in America. Like public Healthcare or affordable education. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are some big dem donors from finance and these guys have been supporting the party for years, even pushing for more regulation of wall st | ||
| ||
