Clinton vs. Sanders

[SmartAleq]

I saw no attribution.

[BJMoose]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

He's five. So: no.

Thought he was a few years older. Ah, well.



I haven't seen that line attributed to Truman, though he could have said it.

[eleanorigby]

For me, the speeches that Hillary gave are no big deal at all. You could try YouTube or Google--I think some of them were filmed and posted online. If the organization wants to pay any speaker that much money to talk to them for an hour or so, so what? She's been a First Lady, a Senator, and Sec of State; that and the speech circuit is standard practice for pols; (that almost every retired politician goes on, so why the focus on HRC? Bill Clinton was/is well compensated for his speeches, as was/is almost every other politician on both sides of the aisle. The exception is GW Bush, who [if memory serves] opened a supermarket after his Presidency, then retired to BooFoo Texas to "paint").

IOW, if it's the price that you're struggling with, it's what the market will bear. Should she have spoken for free? If so, why, when no one else does that or is held to that sort of standard? I get the hate on Goldman-Sachs, but shunning Wall St will not make it go away or change its practices. What is needed is legislation to curb the excesses. My question is why Bernie supporters (and apparently Bernstein) feel that HRC is 1. responsible for the shady shit that WS does and 2. how giving a speech to them somehow makes her culpable for their loose ethics. I am now even more certain that even if she releases the speech transcript, it won't be enough. We'll be parsing every phrase and word choice, which is bullshit. This is a distraction, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it's shit spread by the far right, but more fool the left for falling for it, if so.

I think there is a double standard when it comes to the Clintons, especially when it comes to the NY Times. They can't decide if Bill is a monster or a frail old man who has lost his touch with crowds; there have been 2 stories recently, each attempting to depict him as stated above. Same deal with HRC--there may not have been 2 articles like that, but she also is never given the benefit of the doubt. Look at Bernstein's overly dramatic language: WH HORRIFED! RUIN! CALAMITY!

He's piling on, with no good reason, except perhaps to gin up more book sales for his bio on HRC in 2007. It's speculation and gossip.

[SmartAleq]

Looks like Hillary won't be attending the black issues forum in Minneapolis.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

A friend had a ticket for a Bernie event in Mason City. He was told (via a group email) that doors would open at 6 p.m. He arrived at 5 p.m., stood in line for an hour. Doors opened at 6. The place was already full, people seated, like they'd been there for awhile. Did they come in another door? Had they been there all night? WTF knows?

He and a few hundred others were directed to another location where they could watch the event on a 19-inch TV screen. He went home.

He's still a supporter but it was a disappointing experience.

They might have let campaign supporters in at an earlier time. One of the things you heard about a few weeks ago, less now, is how Bernie's events are almost always sellout, doorbuster, and setting attendance records with people in the streets.

I don't think you could "engineer" that so many times, for so long, without someone noticing and leaking the truth.

People just want to hear what he's got to say. More people than are willing to go see Clinton. Maybe Clinton's supporters are already convinced, so there's no need for the events, maybe it's because they skew older and can't be bothered to go out in the cold. I wouldn't blame them.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

IOW, if it's the price that you're struggling with, it's what the market will bear. Should she have spoken for free? If so, why, when no one else does that or is held to that sort of standard?

I have no qualms with the price, rather with the market in question.

She's selling to the people least likely to consider the needs / wants / concerns of me and everyone I know. In fact, she's selling to the people I understand to be most at fault for the recent economic upheavals and the general downturn in my earning potential. Sure, policy permitted it, however...that policy was lobbied for and guided heavily by ... wait for it ... Wall St.

[BJMoose]

The market she choose doesn't particularly surprise me. Like Willie Sutton, Clinton went to where the money was. But you are right to wonder if this may influence future decisions. If money talks, three million bucks probably screams.

[BrickaBracka]

This is pretty neat.

Take it in the context of the election or not, it shows a good side of his character. Little town too small to absorb the costs of the politicians visiting, and he foots the bill. I strongly doubt he's gonna pay for the gigantic visits in huge cities, but I don't have any data one way or another on that.

[SmartAleq]

Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches are going to keep on being a burr under her saddle.

From the linked article:

I’m not sure what the correct response to this question is, but this wasn’t it. At a previous debate, when asked about her previous efforts to curb financial corruption, Clinton again dropped the ball. She said she went to Wall Street before the Great Recession and told those crafty bankers to “Cut it out!” and to “Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors.” Obviously this wasn’t a compelling defense of her record.

These kinds of questions aren’t going away. If anything, it’s going to get worse for Clinton. The calls for her to release the transcripts of her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs are getting louder every day. A new report in Politico, with several quotes from Goldman employees who attended Clinton’s speeches, will likely increase the pressure.

According to people who heard Clinton’s remarks, “she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs…She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.” On the one hand, it’s understandable that Clinton wouldn’t condemn the people paying her several hundred thousand dollars to speak. However, the report sharply contradicts her “Cut it out” narrative, which was already unpersuasive.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” said another attendee. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” However accurate these accounts are, it’s a very bad look for Clinton. The discourse on the Left right now is focused on greed and inequality and corruption – reports like this can only undermine Clinton’s campaign.

So on the one hand she claims she went to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street players in the Great Recession Mess and told them to behave themselves--but she has speeches that she alone owns the rights to publish but won't do so. Now, I don't think I'm being paranoid to assume it's because she doesn't think she'll look so good if her actual words to the bad actors are aired in public. I also don't think this is "nothing," because reining in the shadow banking and speculation and derivatives trading that caused the average American to lose a shit ton of what tiny capital they had and the houses they lived in is a gigantic issue. We need a president who will steer the course to placing meaningful limits and regulations on these gigantic banks and someone who has taken millions of dollars from them in campaign contributions, Super PAC money and "speaking fees" is likely not to be the one best suited to do that. On the other hand, we have a candidate who has placed this issue as top priority, who has an unimpeachable record of standing against fraudulent and risky financial chicanery and who isn't afraid to turn his AG loose on the tippy top of management to indict those responsible.

I know which one I want, and if Hillary's comments to GS are as innocuous as she claims then let her prove it. Because it'll come out one way or another, and brown nosing the rich is not a popular look in this election. Aside from the content of her speeches, she really should have exercised better judgment and distanced herself from the appearance of impropriety knowing she was going to be running for president. That she either wanted the cash too much to risk it or that she thinks she's above it all and can't be brought to task for her words or actions makes her a problematical choice for Chief Executive. She has bad judgment or she has arrogance--and I want neither in my candidate, thanks.

[SmartAleq]

Hey, guess which candidate is the only one who pays the interns? C'mon, guess!

_{You guessed right, didn't you?}

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

she has speeches that she alone owns the rights to publish but won't do so. Now, I don't think I'm being paranoid to assume it's because she doesn't think she'll look so good if her actual words to the bad actors are aired in public.

Originally Posted by My Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theory

It's because she has to check with the attendees to see if any of them will narc on her when she changes the substance of the speech to benefit her campaign.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by SmartAleq

Hey, guess which candidate is the only one who pays the interns? C'mon, guess!

_{You guessed right, didn't you?}

Don't you know that Hillary was totally dead broke? I mean, like "selling apples on the street-corner" broke? The ~$3,000,000 house she bought while flat broke? Just a humble shack of tarpaper and old fridge boxes to keep the rain off.

You're being mean to assume that she can afford to pay her interns...

[SmartAleq]

I know, right? I'm SO unreasonable! Why, expecting to get paid for full time work--well, that's just crazytalk!

_{Pssst...you Fenrised up your link AGAIN, dude!}

[Fenris]

My link is perfect and always has been perfect. Also, these aren't the droids you're looking for...

[AuntiePam]

A friend sent me this video clip from the Sanders/Clinton debate.

Clinton accuses Sanders of voting for a bill that favored bankers. As the video narrator explains, Sanders had to vote for the bill -- it was part of an omnibus bill that funded the government.

The kicker is that man who wrote the bill that Sanders is chastised for supporting is currently CFO for the Clinton campaign.

[SmartAleq]

Speaking of favoring bankers, I'll just leave this right here...

Along with this--my question is, if $675,000 is "nothing," what do you call $153,000,000? Where in that continuum do we go from to ?

[JackieLikesVariety]

Bernie wins NH!!

[SmartAleq]

FEEL THE BERN YO!!!

:dance::dance:

[Fenris]

Sanders kicked Hillary's crooked ass! Yay Bernie! You keep doing your thing, you big socialist loon you!**



*I'll still vote for any non-Trump Republican over you, Bernsie, but if it's you or Trump, you win. If it's you or Trump, you got my vote. Hillary vs Trump on the other hand will make me consider moving to Patigonia.

**I don't agree with anything he says, but he's not batshit, frothing at the mouth, rabid-dog crazy like Trump or so fucking crooked that she could thread a corkscrew without getting dizzy like Hillary. So...no snark, Go Bernie.

[BrickaBracka]

Neat. Now let's see what happens in South Carolina. That's the one I'm thinking will be a real indicator of the eventual nomination.

Honestly, with his recent black leadership endorsements, I think Sanders has been pulling more interest in that demo than HRC expected...

I predict if he wins SC then the nomination is his. If not, then Clinton will get it. It's all about the momentum.

I could be completely and totally wrong though.

[BJMoose]

I think that Clinton winning South Carolina is a foregone conclusion. What will matter is whether or not Sanders can keep it close. If he can, he has a chance of getting the nomination. If not, then likely not.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Is New Hampshire divided proportionally like Iowa?

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Is New Hampshire divided proportionally like Iowa?

Yes.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Ah. I find it dumb to insist on somebody "winning" the state when it's divided up proportionally.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

I predict if he wins SC then the nomination is his. If not, then Clinton will get it. It's all about the momentum.

You're not saying Hillary will give up if she loses SC, are you?

You might be right about a Sanders win in NC meaning he'll eventually win, but I can see this going on as long as 2008.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Ah. I find it dumb to insist on somebody "winning" the state when it's divided up proportionally.

Well, there's the publicity value of being first, the psychology of momentum. And it's looking like a big margin for Bernie in this one, over 22 points at last check.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

You're not saying Hillary will give up if she loses SC, are you?

You might be right about a Sanders win in NC meaning he'll eventually win, but I can see this going on as long as 2008.

Hillary will not give up under any circumstances. If you put a wooden stake through her heart, cut off her head and buried her at a crossroads, she'd STILL be screaming how she's entitled to be the first woman president and as GOD IS HER WITNESS, she will never lose the nomination again.

Until Bernie is actually sworn in, she and the sleazebag Clinton machine will be fighting every step of the way.

Hell, I can see her doing a flying tackle and trying to take Bernie down as he gets ready for Justice Roberts to swear him in. Then she she stares at the TV cameras with mad, wide-open eyes, reaches out for the bible and says "I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. Cooper."

[Simple Dog]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Is New Hampshire divided proportionally like Iowa?

The Democratic primaries are all proportional.

[BJMoose]

Unlike Republicans, we have a sense of proportion. . . .

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

You're not saying Hillary will give up if she loses SC, are you?

You might be right about a Sanders win in NC meaning he'll eventually win, but I can see this going on as long as 2008.

No I'm just saying I think the Carolinas are a very good barometer for how the lemmings in the rest of the country will respond.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

No I'm just saying I think the Carolinas are a very good barometer for how the lemmings in the rest of the country will respond.

nm

Less trollish response: other people are no more lemming than you.

Also the idea that lemming commit mass suicide is a fiction anyway.

[Khampelf]

Now that Bernie won 60% of the vote in New Hampshire, the mainstream media is going to have to mention his name now and again.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Oh, jesus fuck. Do you read the news? He has been mentioned "now and again." Christ I hate the trope that "the media isn't covering _____" when they damned well are.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Amazingly, a news.google.com search finds nearly 32 million hits for Bernie Sanders, despite the media never, ever, not even once conceding that he exists.

[Borborygmi]

WHO IS THIS BARNEY SANDERS AND WHY AM I ONLY HEARING ABOUT HIM NOW??

[Mr. Plumbean]

He was a running back for the Detroit Lions back in the 90s.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

Oh, jesus fuck. Do you read the news? He has been mentioned "now and again." Christ I hate the trope that "the media isn't covering _____" when they damned well are.

So you're a hater.

So my comment was glib and stale. But hate? Lighten up, Francis.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Yeah, a hater and a lemming.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

nm

Less trollish response: other people are no more lemming than you.

Also the idea that lemming commit mass suicide is a fiction anyway.

I say lemmings to acknowledge the trope, however factually wrong it may be. You know like I do that there are many in this country who do not decide for themselves but wait for outside influences to cast their vote for them. "I'll only vote for X if everyone else does." or "They're not electable. I'm not voting for a loser"

That's who I mean by lemmings. The people who will blindly follow what they've been told without sticking to their own principles. Not everyone is like this. BUT...enough of the majority is that they end up deciding elections through passive decisions rather than active ones. Why do you think the discussion about "momentum" even exists?

Don't get your panties in a wad about it. No need for you to take offense when none was given.

[Mr. Plumbean]

In my experience people are always quickly mollified when asked to no get their panties in a wad.

[Mr. Plumbean]

Was watching some clips from the Obama candidacy. Man, we got nothing like that this time.

[Mr. Plumbean]

The case for Hillary (and reasonable concerns about Sanders): https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the...24f#.nzbdu4zb7

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plumbean

The case for Hillary (and reasonable concerns about Sanders): https://medium.com/@zacharyleven/the...24f#.nzbdu4zb7

Well written. Thanks for sharing a very coherent viewpoint from the other side.

I gotta wonder just how close to the truth anyone really is...

It will be very interesting to see how things change, if at all, in the next few years.

[AuntiePam]

Here’s what happened next — the bill went to the Republican controlled congress, they stripped out those amendments, sent the bill back to the senate, the Democrats filibustered the bill, and Clinton voted to uphold the filibuster. Another version of the bill later passed that Hillary opposed.

I wonder what was in the bill that Hillary opposed.

The article just makes me think the whole system needs to be changed. I can understand amending a bill if the committee that wrote it neglected to include important stuff, like how to pay for it -- but that's usually not the reason for amendments.

But by the time a bill gets out of committee, shouldn't it be complete and polished and ready for a vote?

[BJMoose]

There is a reason legislation is often compared to sausage making. . . .

[DoubleJ]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I wonder what was in the bill that Hillary opposed.

Going by what was in the article, she voted for the bill the first time because of the child-support and other protections which were then stripped out. She voted against that version, which is consistent with the talk she had with Warren back in the 90s.

[piepiepie]

I just found out that I have the same birthday as Bernie. I think I've made up my mind.

[Khampelf]

Originally Posted by piepiepie

I just found out that I have the same birthday as Bernie. I think I've made up my mind.

That's awesome. I have the same Birthday as Bill Clinton.

[Mr. Plumbean]

I have the same birthday as JFK's assassination.

[LonelySock]

Originally Posted by JackieLikesVariety

Bernie wins NH!!

And yet Hillary still has a huge lead in the 'super secret Democrat delegate - we will chose who we want and damn the actual voters vote'

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/1...shire-primary/