Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Link?

It was just on MSNBC.

 

[RBM]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Sanders at 9% is easily the scariest part of that poll.

 

[squistion]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

 

[dschuler]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Sanders at 9% is easily the scariest part of that poll.

You don't think the Sun is a terrorist?

 

[cubd8]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Hillary's foreign policy positions (of which Obama is ultimately responsible) is making our country less safe, and making the world far more dangerous.

Donald Trump is an idiot.

Bernie Sanders is off his rocker.

If the choice on foreign policy is between an idiot and somebody who supports a foreign policy that is hurting our country, we are really lost as a country.

 

[The Commish]

I would like Hillary to explain why it is important at this time that we continue to attempt to overthrow President Assad of Syria, and why that is in our best interests, short term and long term. I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with it, but I don't understand the rationale. It doesn't seem to be helping us in the fight against ISIS; only complicating the issue. It's interfering with the possibility of us working with Russia (and maybe Iran). So she needs to explain her thinking here.

Because it's what people want to hear. It's not that complicated.

What people?

The people voting for her

In the primary? I doubt it.. Not sure the American public as a whole is really convinced about the wisdom of removing Assad either.

No, I don't think this is a case of trying to win votes. She and Obama both believe this is an important goal for the USA. I don't understand why that is, and I would like to.

Based on her past and what has been shown to motivate her, I've given you the most likely reason. You can choose to accept it or not. Doesn't matter to me

 

[The Commish]

Wait....so now, a poll shows that people believe Clinton is on par with Trump when it comes to terrorism and that's something other than a bad thing? Squishy has officially taken and insurmountable lead that Tim can't possibly make up. My only hope is he didn't hurt his back digging that hole to put that bar in. The reality of the American people thinking they their choices for our next President are going to be Clinton, Cruz/Trump is pretty sad if not downright shameful. We continue to set new lows.

 

[Sinn Fein]

During the CBS Democratic debate on Saturday, November 14, 2015, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to use the tragedy of 9/11 as a political excuse for her coziness with Wall Street interests, including the millions she has received in Wall Street campaign funding over her career. That defense of the Clinton campaign’s corporate fundraising has been widely assailed in the media and on social media. In an attempt to divert the public’s gaze from Wall Street coziness, the Clinton campaign has launched a false attack on universal health care – something she has previously supported. The Clinton campaign received more contributions from the pharmaceutical industry than any other – Republican or Democrat – through the first six months of the campaign. So, what is this false attack really all about: either Secretary Hillary Clinton is repudiating years of advocating for universal health or she’s playing politics with the health of America’s families.

Follow the money...

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary Can't Explain Wall Street Ties For A Reason

Clinton’s campaign is saying the 9/11 deflection doesn’t matter ‘cause she’s got a “strong record” and the “strongest policies.” She’s the best candidate for “Wall Street reform” because of what she’s done and what she’s calling for now, making her Wall Street donors inconsequential.

But in the Democratically controlled Senate, Clinton introduced 140 bills between 2007 and 2008 (before, during, and after the economic crisis), yet only —

“...Five were related to housing finance or foreclosures… Only one of those five secured any co-sponsors. No Senate committee took action on any of them and they died without any further discussion.”

That runs counter to her “getting things done” claim.

Furthermore —

Clinton in 2007 publicly decried a tax break for hedge-fund and private-equity executives — and continues to do so in her current campaign. But she didn’t sign on as a supporter of a Senate bill that would have curbed the break.

[When] her rival for the [2008] nomination, then-Sen. Barack Obama, became a co-sponsor on July 12… Clinton gave a campaign speech [the next day] criticizing the tax provision. Yet she still didn’t put her name to the legislation, according to records.

Hillary publicly advocates for closing rich people’s tax breaks, but doesn’t back it up in Congress. She follows Obama, she follows Sanders, but only in speeches and campaign trail rhetoric, not in actually supporting legislation to close the loopholes her Wall Street donors enjoy.

Hillary Clinton’s words do not reflect her actions.

Her record is not “strong.” She doesn’t breathe fire for us. She won’t force her donors to stop careening down the dangerous path that economists are worried might crash our economy again, because she didn’t in 2007. Instead, she politely asked them to change voluntarily, and then said, if they still wouldn't, she’d maybe begin to “consider legislation to address the problem.”

Surprise, surprise — they didn’t do what she asked. Despite Hillary shaking a kindly finger at them, Wall Street still plunged this country into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

It’s exactly the vein of policymaking she’s proposing now. Careful, cautious, light regulation — seeing if Wall Street misbehaves yet again before actually putting some bite in our laws.

It works for her, because it doesn’t make Wall Street mad and continues to get her in office. But it doesn’t work for us. We need a little bit more than a “tut tut.” We need a smashing up, a restructuring, an exactly what Bernie Sanders is calling for, of the financial system in this country.

The big banks have got to be broken up, which Bernie wants, and Hillary does not.

 

[The Commish]

I love that Bernie left those answers open ended. It's really the only way to (hopefully) get people thinking and observing instead of mindlessly lapping up the sound bites.

 

[Rove!]

That our politicians are using this crisis in politics at all is pretty pathetic.

It's a legitimate issue to discuss. Its a crisis that we created, and now we have to decide what to do about the refugees...

 

[The Commish]

That our politicians are using this crisis in politics at all is pretty pathetic.

It's a legitimate issue to discuss. Its a crisis that we created, and now we have to decide what to do about the refugees...

First of all, I see that as different from what I posted. Second, they should have thought about this and accounted for it while making the initial decisions to get involved. This was an obvious result of us being part of the crisis. I'm all for the discussion, but I see no real discussion. I see political grandstanding. It's sickening IMO.

 

[Trey]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

 

[The Commish]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

Is this the new establishment position? It's a nice attempt at rebranding, but you hit a significant problem when the rubber meets the road and people ignore the and pay closer attention to the actions.

 

[Trey]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

Is this the new establishment position? It's a nice attempt at rebranding, but you hit a significant problem when the rubber meets the road and people ignore the and pay closer attention to the actions.

I don't know if it's an official position of any kind but it's where I find myself personally.

Socially I'm very progressive (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economically I'm against public unions but for an increase in minimum wage. I don't think the current class warfare is helpful in the least. Foreign policy wise, I'm probably with Clinton as more hawkish than the typical D but less so than the right.

It's very difficult to find candidates these days when everyone gets put through a purity test to make sure they are totally D or totally R and will not compromise at all.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

What is pragmatic about policies and laws that favor Wall Street over Main Street?

I hope you understand that "Wall Street" includes more than simply investment banks. The notion that we continue to over-emphasize shareholder value over employees is what is core to the great wealth re-distribution that has taken place in the last 30 years.

Things like trade agreements are great for the economy, but only in the sense that the add to shareholder value - not in the sense that they add to everyone's economic situation - indeed, these types of agreements hurt the vast majority of Americans - but because people like you look at the "big picture" and see overall growth, you ignore that the growth is only realized by a small number of people.

It does not help Main Street, when Wall Street wins - it is a zero-sum game - for every winner, there is a loser - and right now, the vast majority of Americans are losing.

 

[jon_mx]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

Is this the new establishment position? It's a nice attempt at rebranding, but you hit a significant problem when the rubber meets the road and people ignore the and pay closer attention to the actions.

Sounds like a Timmy alias.

 

[The Commish]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

Is this the new establishment position? It's a nice attempt at rebranding, but you hit a significant problem when the rubber meets the road and people ignore the and pay closer attention to the actions.

I don't know if it's an official position of any kind but it's where I find myself personally.

Socially I'm very progressive (gay marriage, abortion, etc). Economically I'm against public unions but for an increase in minimum wage. I don't think the current class warfare is helpful in the least. Foreign policy wise, I'm probably with Clinton as more hawkish than the typical D but less so than the right.

It's very difficult to find candidates these days when everyone gets put through a purity test to make sure they are totally D or totally R and will not compromise at all.

If you insist.

When you say pragmatic, are you referring to the actions necessary for getting elected? I'd probably agree, but I'm not a fan of "get me elected by any means necessary"....that's what's gotten us into the mess we're in.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

Point: Trump is serious business and he is a problem for this country and Hillary is currently tied with him on her main, maybe singular strong point her foreign policy. This is a guy who doesn't even know who or what Al Quds and Suleimani are. So in short that is a massive problem for not only Hillary but us, you and me both, and this country. Your favored candidate is extremely flawed and she is playing with fire.

 

[McGarnicle]

Lanny Davis is a LYING lapdog for the Clinton's. If the DemonRATS think the 4.7 million is too much for the Benghazi Committee they should ask Killary what happened to the 6.1billion missing from her State Department?

Speaking of Security: Killary failed to provide adequate security in Benghazi, yet when she made her appearance at the hearing room was surrounded by at least 7 secret service agents and 5 uniform police officers.

 

[jon_mx]

Lanny Davis is a LYING lapdog for the Clinton's. If the DemonRATS think the 4.7 million is too much for the Benghazi Committee they should ask Killary what happened to the 6.1billion missing from her State Department?

Speaking of Security: Killary failed to provide adequate security in Benghazi, yet when she made her appearance at the hearing room was surrounded by at least 7 secret service agents and 5 uniform police officers.

See that demonstrates how much Hillary has learned and has grown from her vast experience which no other human can match. /Tim.

 

[Trey]

Lanny Davis is a LYING lapdog for the Clinton's. If the DemonRATS think the 4.7 million is too much for the Benghazi Committee they should ask Killary what happened to the 6.1billion missing from her State Department?

Speaking of Security: Killary failed to provide adequate security in Benghazi, yet when she made her appearance at the hearing room was surrounded by at least 7 secret service agents and 5 uniform police officers.

This is top notch. Keep these hot takes coming.

 

[timschochet]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

Is this the new establishment position? It's a nice attempt at rebranding, but you hit a significant problem when the rubber meets the road and people ignore the and pay closer attention to the actions.

Sounds like a Timmy alias.

Trey was a Hillary fan long before I ever was.

 

[Riversco]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

Point: Trump is serious business and he is a problem for this country and Hillary is currently tied with him on her main, maybe singular strong point her foreign policy. This is a guy who doesn't even know who or what Al Quds and Suleimani are. So in short that is a massive problem for not only Hillary but us, you and me both, and this country. Your favored candidate is extremely flawed and she is playing with fire.

Well, Trump did go to military school.

 

[Riversco]

Hillary will win. I don't think anyone is seriously expecting anything else.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

What is pragmatic about policies and laws that favor Wall Street over Main Street?

I hope you understand that "Wall Street" includes more than simply investment banks. The notion that we continue to over-emphasize shareholder value over employees is what is core to the great wealth re-distribution that has taken place in the last 30 years.

Things like trade agreements are great for the economy, but only in the sense that the add to shareholder value - not in the sense that they add to everyone's economic situation - indeed, these types of agreements hurt the vast majority of Americans - but because people like you look at the "big picture" and see overall growth, you ignore that the growth is only realized by a small number of people.

It does not help Main Street, when Wall Street wins - it is a zero-sum game - for every winner, there is a loser - and right now, the vast majority of Americans are losing.

I don't believe most of this is true. Trade deals are a net benefit overall, though I do agree we need to do more for those negatively impacted when jobs go elsewhere.

I also don't believe in the zero sum game Wall Street vs Main St stuff. I'm with you on the overemphasis on shareholder value and obviously executive compensation is out of control. But Main St and regular Americans are positively affected when capital is properly allocated to its most valued uses, which is the basic function of the market overall.

And while it's true that market gains disproportionately benefit the wealthy, let's not ignore the fact that lots of 401k's, pensions, etc are also tied to market performance. Lots of us are much better off than we were in 2008.

Hillary supported Dodd Frank, the biggest financial reform in decades. So while she's no Liz Warren, let's also not argue that she's Mitt Romney.

 

[squistion]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

Point: Trump is serious business and he is a problem for this country and Hillary is currently tied with him on her main, maybe singular strong point her foreign policy. This is a guy who doesn't even know who or what Al Quds and Suleimani are. So in short that is a massive problem for not only Hillary but us, you and me both, and this country. Your favored candidate is extremely flawed and she is playing with fire.

One poll Tim saw on MSNBC and you do your Chicken Little impression that this is a sign of impending disaster for this country. You used to make some salient observations but lately you have become a caricature of what you used to be.

 

[GrandpaRox]

This what I want for a president.

In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

 

[RCon]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

Point: Trump is serious business and he is a problem for this country and Hillary is currently tied with him on her main, maybe singular strong point her foreign policy. This is a guy who doesn't even know who or what Al Quds and Suleimani are. So in short that is a massive problem for not only Hillary but us, you and me both, and this country. Your favored candidate is extremely flawed and she is playing with fire.

Well, Trump did go to military school.

Yeah, but Clinton applied to NASA and the Marines. Not to mention, she's often thought of becoming a golf club.

 

[The Commish]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Not a good sign IMO.

Please. For you, nothing is ever a good sign for Hillary. She is tied with Trump and ahead of all other candidates, but in your world that is still a big negative. Surprised you didn't spin it to say that it really means 80% don't trust Hillary to handle terrorism.

Point: Trump is serious business and he is a problem for this country and Hillary is currently tied with him on her main, maybe singular strong point her foreign policy. This is a guy who doesn't even know who or what Al Quds and Suleimani are. So in short that is a massive problem for not only Hillary but us, you and me both, and this country. Your favored candidate is extremely flawed and she is playing with fire.

Well, Trump did go to military school.

Yeah, but Clinton applied to NASA and the Marines. Not to mention, she's often thought of becoming a golf club.

don't forget the snipers

 

[Sinn Fein]

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion

To be fair, $2 Billion has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation.

 

[Trey]

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion

To be fair, $2 Billion has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation.

Yes. #### them for raising 2 billion dollars for things like clean water in Africa. Truly disgusting.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion

To be fair, $2 Billion has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation.

Yes. #### them for raising 2 billion dollars for things like clean water in Africa. Truly disgusting.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion

To be fair, $2 Billion has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation.

Yes. #### them for raising 2 billion dollars for things like clean water in Africa. Truly disgusting.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.Vk3y579cJZg

Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist

 

[The Commish]

Two Clintons. 41 years. $3 Billion

To be fair, $2 Billion has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation.

Yes. #### them for raising 2 billion dollars for things like clean water in Africa. Truly disgusting.

oh boy.....

 

[Sinn Fein]

Shaky Foundations - Harper's Magazine

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

 

[squistion]

Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton

Turning away orphans, discriminating against Muslims, slamming the door on Syrian refugeesthat is not who we are.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You have to like the simplicity of this:

John Podesta Verified account ‏@johnpodesta

Hillary's strategy to defeat Isis:

✓Defeat Isis in Syria & Iraq

✓Disrupt & dismantle terrorist infrastructure

✓Harden our defenses

Step one to defeat Isis? - First, defeat Isis.

Great stuff here. Reminds me of the late night commercials with the Vietnamese guy on the yacht with hot chicks in bikinis, and the pitch was how to get rich off of real estate. "First, get some money, then with this money buy some real estate. Then take the profits you've made and invest them in more real estate...."

 

[MaxThreshold]

Shaky Foundations - Harper's Magazine

The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

Of course it was. it was never anything but a money laundering operation.

 

[HellToupee]

Latest poll- which candidate for President do you trust the most to handle terrorism?

Hillary Clinton 20%

Donald Trump 20%

Bernie Sanders 9%

Nobody else is even close (Cruz came in next at 5%)

I don't know whether to be heartened that Hillary is tied for the lead in this question, or disgusted by whom she is tied with...

Sanders at 9% is easily the scariest part of that poll.

Indeed it doesn't add up

 

[Sand]

This what I want for a president.

In what appears to be a first for a serious presidential contender, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club.

A video of the short performance, which is less than three minutes, is posted on the website of the renowned club, Laugh Factory, and the Clinton campaign has tried to censor it. Besides demanding that the video be taken down, the Clinton campaign has demanded the personal contact information of the performers that appear in the recording. This is no laughing matter for club owner Jamie Masada, a comedy guru who opened Laugh Factory more than three decades ago and has been instrumental in launching the careers of many famous comics. “They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

Looks like the Clinton mafia won - that video is gone.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Clinton finally showing some consistency in Iowa - finishes 3rd in Iowa Youth Caucus last night

She is lucky this was a state-wide result - had it been the result at any given caucus, she would not have been viable

Here are the videos submitted by the candidates - might explain why Hillary lost so badly...

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hillary Clinton: "I will Survive"

 

[Slapdash]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

What is pragmatic about policies and laws that favor Wall Street over Main Street?

I hope you understand that "Wall Street" includes more than simply investment banks. The notion that we continue to over-emphasize shareholder value over employees is what is core to the great wealth re-distribution that has taken place in the last 30 years.

Things like trade agreements are great for the economy, but only in the sense that the add to shareholder value - not in the sense that they add to everyone's economic situation - indeed, these types of agreements hurt the vast majority of Americans - but because people like you look at the "big picture" and see overall growth, you ignore that the growth is only realized by a small number of people.

It does not help Main Street, when Wall Street wins - it is a zero-sum game - for every winner, there is a loser - and right now, the vast majority of Americans are losing.

I don't believe most of this is true. Trade deals are a net benefit overall, though I do agree we need to do more for those negatively impacted when jobs go elsewhere.

I also don't believe in the zero sum game Wall Street vs Main St stuff. I'm with you on the overemphasis on shareholder value and obviously executive compensation is out of control. But Main St and regular Americans are positively affected when capital is properly allocated to its most valued uses, which is the basic function of the market overall.

And while it's true that market gains disproportionately benefit the wealthy, let's not ignore the fact that lots of 401k's, pensions, etc are also tied to market performance. Lots of us are much better off than we were in 2008.

Hillary supported Dodd Frank, the biggest financial reform in decades. So while she's no Liz Warren, let's also not argue that she's Mitt Romney.

Not at all. The biggest financial reform in decades came in the 90s when Bill Clinton severely deregulated the industry.

Dodd-Frank only enshrined the too big to fail paradigm and is keeping capital from being properly allocated by propping up zombie banks. No new banks have opened since it passed. Creative destruction is an essential part of the capitalist system, particularly for the banking sector.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

What is pragmatic about policies and laws that favor Wall Street over Main Street?

I hope you understand that "Wall Street" includes more than simply investment banks. The notion that we continue to over-emphasize shareholder value over employees is what is core to the great wealth re-distribution that has taken place in the last 30 years.

Things like trade agreements are great for the economy, but only in the sense that the add to shareholder value - not in the sense that they add to everyone's economic situation - indeed, these types of agreements hurt the vast majority of Americans - but because people like you look at the "big picture" and see overall growth, you ignore that the growth is only realized by a small number of people.

It does not help Main Street, when Wall Street wins - it is a zero-sum game - for every winner, there is a loser - and right now, the vast majority of Americans are losing.

I don't believe most of this is true. Trade deals are a net benefit overall, though I do agree we need to do more for those negatively impacted when jobs go elsewhere.

I also don't believe in the zero sum game Wall Street vs Main St stuff. I'm with you on the overemphasis on shareholder value and obviously executive compensation is out of control. But Main St and regular Americans are positively affected when capital is properly allocated to its most valued uses, which is the basic function of the market overall.

And while it's true that market gains disproportionately benefit the wealthy, let's not ignore the fact that lots of 401k's, pensions, etc are also tied to market performance. Lots of us are much better off than we were in 2008.

Hillary supported Dodd Frank, the biggest financial reform in decades. So while she's no Liz Warren, let's also not argue that she's Mitt Romney.

Not at all. The biggest financial reform in decades came in the 90s when Bill Clinton severely deregulated the industry.

Dodd-Frank only enshrined the too big to fail paradigm and is keeping capital from being properly allocated by propping up zombie banks. No new banks have opened since it passed. Creative destruction is an essential part of the capitalist system, particularly for the banking sector.

Dodd-Frank has made it more likely, not less, that we will have another systemic meltdown.

 

[The Commish]

I have zero issues with Clinton's Wall Street ties and donations.

But then again I'm a moderate, rational Democrat who values pragmatism over idealism.

So that means I'll probably be a moderate Republican (if those still exist) by the time 2020/2024 rolls around...

What is pragmatic about policies and laws that favor Wall Street over Main Street?

I hope you understand that "Wall Street" includes more than simply investment banks. The notion that we continue to over-emphasize shareholder value over employees is what is core to the great wealth re-distribution that has taken place in the last 30 years.

Things like trade agreements are great for the economy, but only in the sense that the add to shareholder value - not in the sense that they add to everyone's economic situation - indeed, these types of agreements hurt the vast majority of Americans - but because people like you look at the "big picture" and see overall growth, you ignore that the growth is only realized by a small number of people.

It does not help Main Street, when Wall Street wins - it is a zero-sum game - for every winner, there is a loser - and right now, the vast majority of Americans are losing.

I don't believe most of this is true. Trade deals are a net benefit overall, though I do agree we need to do more for those negatively impacted when jobs go elsewhere.

I also don't believe in the zero sum game Wall Street vs Main St stuff. I'm with you on the overemphasis on shareholder value and obviously executive compensation is out of control. But Main St and regular Americans are positively affected when capital is properly allocated to its most valued uses, which is the basic function of the market overall.

And while it's true that market gains disproportionately benefit the wealthy, let's not ignore the fact that lots of 401k's, pensions, etc are also tied to market performance. Lots of us are much better off than we were in 2008.

Hillary supported Dodd Frank, the biggest financial reform in decades. So while she's no Liz Warren, let's also not argue that she's Mitt Romney.

Not at all. The biggest financial reform in decades came in the 90s when Bill Clinton severely deregulated the industry.

Dodd-Frank only enshrined the too big to fail paradigm and is keeping capital from being properly allocated by propping up zombie banks. No new banks have opened since it passed. Creative destruction is an essential part of the capitalist system, particularly for the banking sector.

And I like the cut off at 2008 by TGunz....he can't help himself. My 401K still isn't to where it was in 2007 return wise. It's larger today than it was then, but that's because I've been dumping money into for 8 years and having my employer match. It's almost back, but not quite.

 

[Zegras11]

LInebacker for TJMaxx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n083eytJe5g&feature=youtu.be

Why is she trying to have this censored?

 

[squistion]

No proof that Hillary's team tried to censor or have the Laugh Factory video taken down, complaint was from an anonymous phone call:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/11/19/hillary-clinton-comedians-and-how-conservatives/206995

Hillary Clinton, Comedians, And How Conservatives Turned An Anonymous Phone Call Into A Clinton Conspiracy

Slate columnist Michelle Goldberg explained how an unfounded accusation spread throughout conservative media, claiming that Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign team tried to force Laugh Factory to take down a video about her.

According to the right-wing organization Judicial Watch, "Hillary Clinton's campaign is going after five comedians who made fun of the former Secretary of State in standup skits at a popular Hollywood comedy club." Judicial Watch claimed that a Clinton staffer called Jamie Masada, the comedy club's founder, asking for the names of the actors and for the video to be taken down.

In her November 19 Slate post, Goldberg explained that the threat to Masada came from an anonymous call that was not confirmed to be from Clinton's campaign and detailed how the unfounded accusation spread through right-wing media, despite the fact that Masada could not verify that anyone from Clinton's campaign had actually contacted him:

In short order, right-leaning sites including NewsBusters, NewsMax, Mediaite, the Daily Caller, and the Daily Mail aggregated the accusation.

This seemed bizarre. Even if you buy the most grotesque right-wing caricatures about Clinton's humorlessness and authoritarianism, it's hard to believe that the campaign would be so clumsy, especially at a time when it's going out of its way to make the candidate seem fun. Such a demand would only reinforce the worst stereotypes about Clinton while ensuring that the offending video went viral. Besides, there's nothing in the video itself to attract the campaign's notice: It's less than three minutes long and is mostly stale cracks about Hillary's clothes and age, along with familiar insinuations that she's a lesbian. One of those insinuations is even admiring: "I would love if you become president, divorce Bill, and then you marry a #####," says Tiffany Haddish.

Yet there was Masada--a man who has won awards from the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP, and has no discernable right-wing agenda--quoted as saying, "They threatened me. I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don't cut the video."

Masada doesn't actually know that the call came from the Clinton camp.

[...]

How does Masada know that John was actually from the Clinton camp? He doesn't. "I'm glad I'm not in politics or any of that stuff; you might know more than I do," he says. "Maybe it was a prank, I have no idea. Was it real? Not real? I have no idea. He didn't call back, that's all I can say." Nor is Masada sure how Judicial Watch even heard about the call. "The way I understand it, it's because one of the [Laugh Factory] employees told a couple of people," he says.

[...]

What we have here is a small-scale demonstration of how the Hillary smear sausage gets made. It starts with a claim that's ambiguous at best, fabricated at worst, and then interpreted in the most invidious possible light. The claim is reported in one outlet and amplified on Twitter. Other outlets then report on the report, repeating the claim over and over again. Talk radio picks it up. Maybe Fox News follows. Eventually the story achieves a sort of ubiquity in the right-wing media ecosystem, which makes it seem like it's been confirmed. Soon it becomes received truth among conservatives, and sometimes it even crosses into the mainstream media. If you watched the way the Clintons were covered in the 1990s, you know the basics of this process. If you didn't, you're going to spend the next year--and maybe the next nine years--learning all about it.

 

[timschochet]

Yet another example of why Judicial Watch simply cannot be trusted, especially when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Yet people around here keep using them as a source. It's like relying on Free Republic or World Net Daily...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Media Matters is the Clinton campaign. They've done many a hit job themselves, and Brock and Blumethal have a hit list long before MM was created. It's not journalism. It is an arm of the campaign and one day will likely be a propaganda organ directed out of the White House. Scary.

Anyway, let's look at Slate, you know an actual journal:

So I called him. Masada told me that on Nov. 11, he got a call from a man named John—he doesn’t remember the last name—who sounded “distinguished, like an attorney.” John said he represented the Clinton campaign. He asked Masada “who had put him up” to posting the video. In a menacing voice, he told Masada, “This is not good for your business.” John then asked for the email or phone numbers of the five comedians who were featured in the video. “I told him, ‘Eff you,’ and I hung up,” says Masada.

How does Masada know that John was actually from the Clinton camp? He doesn’t. “I’m glad I’m not in politics or any of that stuff; you might know more than I do,” he says. “Maybe it was a prank, I have no idea. Was it real? Not real? I have no idea. He didn’t call back, that’s all I can say.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/11/hillary_clinton_laugh_factory_this_is_how_your_hillary_smear_sausage_gets.html

That's different from what MM has.

Masada did get a call, but he can't verify it beyond someone who claimed to be from the Clinton campaign.

This is JW:

Masada told Judicial Watch...

The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify...

First of all you do indeed have a conflicting story from Masada. JW claims it spoke with Masada. Masada now tells Slate he did not. JW says Masada said he did not want to give the caller's last name, Slate reports Masada claims he uh 'forgot' the name.

I think either way we can accept that Masada says that he got a call of some kind.

It's possible Masada and Laugh Factory have been pushing this themselves for publicity though. Reason also checked it out:

The Laugh Factory has been pushing this story to a number of outlets (Debbie Schlussel's blog printed the exact same email tip Reason received). On Twitter yesterday, T. Becket Adams of the Washington Examiner confirmed that the Laugh Factory had reached out him as well. Adams writes, "I tried to run this story down. He (Masada) won't say who reportedly contacted him and he won't say why."

...To recap, 4 different people spoke with Masada, and he had at least 2 different explanations for why we don't know the identity of the caller. That doesn't mean the call didn't happen, and it also doesn't mean the call didn't come from someone with Clinton's campaign. ...

As Reason points out (but MM does not) Slate goes on to say:

There are a few possibilities about what might have happened here. Maybe someone from Clinton’s campaign really did think it was a good idea to call a major figure in the world of stand-up comedy and make empty threats over a short video. Maybe the caller was a random, overzealous Hillarybot. Maybe it was a practical joker. Or maybe it was a dirty trickster, who then took steps to send the story ricocheting through conservative media.

I think as Reason points out if this was about a Romney or Rubio and came from a typically pro-Clinton source, like oh say MM, this would be "howled" at by conservatives. JW is not journalism, that's not a news story or news flash.

It's pretty clear though that Masada himself has been driving this story, perhaps just to drive traffic to his site.