"I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York"

[hedgehog]

Really? I thought she represented the people of New York.

[NanceGreggs]

1. As a senator from NY ...

... Wall Street was part of HRC's constituency.

Is that fact really THAT confusing to you?

[jkbRN]

8. But like she said, she REPRESENTED wall st

Which is not the constituents.

Hopefully THAT isn't THAT confusing to you.

Ps, stop being condescending, it comes off as insanely immature.

Oh yeah, in case you need a reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wall-street

[NanceGreggs]

10. So Wall Street was NOT ...

... a part of NY that Hillary was representing? Or are you contending that Wall Street WAS part of that constituency while the rest of the state wasn't?

What is insanely immature is not knowing that a state senator represents their entire constituency, and not just the people they like.

If you really think HRC was saying that she "represented the interests of Wall Street" to the exclusion of the rest of the NYS populace, I would have to assume you are very, VERY new to politics, which would explain why you don't understand the fundamentals.

[jkbRN]

12. Hold on, maybe you don't get it--

she said she represented wall st, whereas the constituents were not mentioned. The first thing that came to her mind was wall st, not the people who don't work on wall st. By leaving out the majority of new yorks population in her statement shows you who she represented, and her voting record proves her statement to be highly accurate and therefore, correct. Don't know why you are trying to justify this, but it's sad.

If you really think HRC was saying that she "represented the interests of Wall Street" to the exclusion of the rest of the NYS populace, I would have to assume you are very, VERY new to politics, which would explain why you don't understand the fundamentals.

Well, she did vote for the bailout (which is against the needs and values of new yorks people, does occupy wall st rings a bell for you?), so yes, my statement is correct.

[NanceGreggs]

24. What's sad is taking quotes out of context ...

... and trying to craft them into something they're not.

What's even sadder is the fact that the Bernistas are attacking HRC here since it became apparent that he is stagnating in the polls, and is going nowhere.

You'd think that people who really believed in his candidacy would be doubling their efforts to extol BS's positives, instead of pointing to Hillary and saying "but look how horrible SHE is!"

The fact remains that Bernie won't be the nominee - and the hair-on-fire antics of posters on a message board aren't going to change that fact.

[jkbRN]

33. Aw, are you resorting to personal attacks on supporters of Sanders?

What is sad, is how you are handling this.

Nothing was taken out of context, her statement was simple--and doesn't need to be taken out of context, because it can't. In regards to your shameless attack on poll numbers--let us take a closer look at the past 14 days on RCP.

[img][/img]

The lesson: don't attack people based on who they support (in which you are still wrong on the premise of poll numbers), attack the argument they present (which i offered a clear rebuttal to).

Ps, I didn't say "look at how horrible she is!!!" you MADE THAT UP, please do yourself a favor and please stop. Facts cannot be defeated, I told you this a while ago in a different post. Resorting to putting words in my mouth, or the mouths of others, is again, pathetic.

[NanceGreggs]

35. Listen ...

... if you want to believe that Hillary was claiming that she represented the interests of Wall Street while a NY senator, you go right ahead and believe that. Oh, and she did it at a debate in front of an audience of millions, too - she's that dumb.

You are apparently far too politically ignorant to take seriously.

[jkbRN]

37. Everything you have said, I have proven you wrong on,

which is why you keep jumping from topic to topic, trying to justify your statements or trying to back them up. I am ignorant? Based on what, the facts? Or are you ignorant, justifying your statements based on your own opinion as well as your shameless attacks on supporters of a different candidate? I mean, if you are correct, then back it up, if not please back off the topic.

Thanks!

[NanceGreggs]

38. You have proven nothing.

As I said, if you want to believe that Hillary said, in front of a national audience of millions, that she represented the interests of Wall Street as a senator, you go right ahead and believe that.

Amazing the media wasn't ALL OVER THAT immediately - even more amazing that the GOP wasn't all over it: "Yeah, did ya hear that? She admitted that she 'represented Wall Street' right there on the TV'!"

[druidity33]

41. i think

she thought she was making a point.... and the point she thought she was making, didn't turn out the way she thought.

Just a thought...

[NanceGreggs]

50. The point she was making ...

... was that she was familiar with what went on with Wall Street because it was part of her constituency as a NY senator.

If it was construed to be some sort of admission that she represented the interests of Wall Street, it would have been fodder for the bloggers, the pundits, the MSM and especially the GOP - and they would have run with it for days.

No one (except for a few people here, it would seem) took it to mean anything more than any state senator saying they represented a particular district or area as part of their constituency.

[druidity33]

56. if you say so...

[NanceGreggs]

58. Well, being as no one ...

... especially the GOP, tried to make something out of this obvious nothing, I'd say it's more than me who's "saying so".

Even Republicans are sometimes smart enough to know when there really IS no "there" there.

[jkbRN]

43. Do you live in a bubble?

When has the media ever talked openly about wall street? NEVER. Who is in the bag for HRC? Oh the MSM. It's that simple, I didn't think that poorly formed argument needed a response, but I guess it did need some clarification for you to understand.

Also, the media was all over it, although the MSM was not. Get out of your bubble, I seriously feel bad for you.

[NanceGreggs]

52. Oh, right.

I "forgot" that the entire country is engaged in a vast conspiracy against BS - the MSM, the pundits, the bloggers, the polling companies - yep, everyone.

What about the GOP? Are they "in the bag" for Hillary, too? Why didn't they jump all over what you claim was an admission on her part that she represented the interests of Wall Street as a senator? It would have made a great news story AND a fantastic political ad.

But I guess they're "in" on the conspiracy as well.

You're not very good at this.

[willvotesdem]

111. Obviously the GOP is not "in the bag" for HRC. I think you miss the point.

HRC is "in the bag" for Wall St and the 1%. Her financial supporters are the same for many GOP candidates. Citi, Goldman, etc buy her just like they buy many in Congress and have purchased our sitting President. IMHO, you KNOW this but are blind to any alternative as you have become too invested in HRC over the years to change.

While I may have only a few posts I've been reading DU for years.

[questionseverything]

130. we have documented the msm bundling for hc

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/media-fundraisers-presidential/

The National Association of Broadcasters and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, two media lobby groups that employ fundraisers for the presidential candidates, have also lobbied in recent years against legislation to disclose the source of funding for so-called dark money groups.

Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton’s campaign chairman and a lobbyist who has raised at least $55,600 for the Clinton campaign, is registered to lobby on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters. In 2010, his firm helped defeat dark money disclosure legislation on behalf of his corporate media clients.

Another arguable political media bias is in favor of the status quo. Critics have complained that corporate news networks have promoted establishment candidates at the expense of outsiders. FAIR, a media watchdog group, reported in June that “Meet the Press,” NBC’s marquee political program, mentioned Clinton 16 times in the first 17 episodes of the year while failing to invite or discuss Bernie Sanders once. Sanders has no lobbyist bundlers and no Super PAC supporting his campaign.

////////////////////////////

is it still a conspiracy when they do it right in front of us?

[Live and Learn]

75. Some here are impossible to reason with and insist on having the last word.

The majority understand your point and agree that Hillary was showing her true colors with that statement.

[Sunlei]

90. suggest you search the job description of a US Senator. They represent everyone in their district.

[MasonDreams]

73. Ignorant only implies a lack of Knowledge. Then you say "want to believe"?

She's not anywhere near dumb, she's brilliant!!! But her statement was a huge mistake.
I "want to believe" she could take all that $$$ from wall st; then tell'em NO, when what they wanted
conflicted with the best interests of the people of NY & USA. ? "Cut that Out" didn't work
because she was only a Senator. Politically informed folks know who has the power!!
If you thought the media or the repubs would bite the hand that feeds them, think again.
She may be our next President , and she's brilliant, but seriously, what do you believe?

[NanceGreggs]

80. I believe that HRC ...

... is one of the most brilliant women this country has produced.

That said, I also believe she is as prone to gaffs, mis-speaks, etc. as is any politician.

But her statement about representing Wall Street when she was a senator was not one of those gaffs. It was a statement of fact. It was no different than a Louisiana senator saying they represent NOLA, or an Illinois senator saying they represent the south side of Chicago.

Again, if anyone thought there was a "there" there, the GOP would have taken her statement and run with it, non-stop, for as many news cycles as possible. It would have been THE topic of discussion on FOX for days on end, as well as on every Sunday political show the weekend after the debate.

But no one - not even those who could benefit the most from making a mountain out of this less-than-a-molehill - touched it. And the reason they didn't go near it was because even they didn't take it to mean anything other than Wall Street being part of HTC's constituency while serving as a senator for NY.

I find it rather - hmmm - "interesting" that something even FOX-News yawned at as being insignificant is being touted on DemocraticUnderground as an "admission" by HRC - in front of millions of viewers, no less - that she represented the interests of Wall Street.

BS supporters have a lot of valid disagreements with HRC and her policies as they see them. But promoting a non-story like this one smacks of straw-grasping rather than a discussion of serious issues.

[tex-wyo-dem]

103. Jeezus...representing Wall Street...

Has no resemblance whatsoever to representing NOLA or the South Side...

One is a corporate industry, the other two are cities FFS.

[NanceGreggs]

105. Obviously ...

... you are going with the "Hillary admitted that she represented the interests of Wall Street when she was a senator" story.

Fine. Go with that.

You might want to contact FOX-News and tell them what a big anti-Hillary "scoop" they missed - while you were smart enough to catch it. I'm sure they will be impressed with your astuteness, and will wonder why they didn't go with this incredible news story weeks ago!

[tex-wyo-dem]

108. What, no retort to the point I made?

Stay on topic, please

MSM and Wall Street are BFFs, so don't count on them calling out such "trivial" misstatements.

[NanceGreggs]

110. Look, sweetie ...

Just go with the "HRC admitted on national TV that she represented the interests of Wall Street when she was a NY senator" story.

It's a sure-fire winner. So just go with it!

[MasonDreams]

107. It is what it is and it is not something else.

I saw "Its a Wonderful Life" and "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"
There aren't any issues more serious. Who wants to live in Pottersville
when Bedford Falls is possible?
In my mind ,
there's nothing worse than a GOP victory. SCOTUS ruined for
my grandchildren! 2020 gerrymandering!! Unarmed people killed by "law
enforcement"
May the best candidate win the Primary! and continue, to usher in a New Deal!
That's right FDR JFK LBJ and Jimmy Carter. I went to univ. and took poli. sci.
history and philo. I served in the USArmy in Asia and I've caucused. Al Gore's
my hero. Along with MLK Gandhi Jesus and Buddha.
I like Sen. Sanders, he isn't for sale, and he's bringing millions of new young voters
to the Democratic Party and the ballot boxes.

[NanceGreggs]

109. Hmmm ...

"I like Sen. Sanders ... he's bringing millions of new young voters to the Democratic Party and the ballot boxes."

I keep reading this. You wouldn't happen to have any actual evidence of that, would you? Because whenever I've asked other people who say this to provide the evidence, I get a bunch of stories about how someone's nephew's roommate said he was never going to vote, but now he will because of Bernie.

You wouldn't have anything more concrete than that, would you?

TIA!!!

[MasonDreams]

124. I gotta keep trying, hell I do it just so I can sleep @ night.

Just trying to keep Hope alive! If big D's are going to win,
they must have someone to vote FOR not just lesser of 2
26 million w/o no dirty $$$ from super PAC; you know the
$$$ that buys favors. 650,000+ donations w/o strings!
Its a start. Hillary will make a fine Pres. and i"ll vote for the lesser of 2
But I am a Democrat, and I'd prefer to have a candidate philosophically left
of Dwight D. and Kissinger is right out!

[Bread and Circus]

82. Actually I think many of us see the writing on the wall and just don't care anymore...

About the horse race.

I for one am pretty damn sure Hillary is going to win the nomination. She better, the party has practically handed it to her. If she didn't win it this time she would be hopeless.

However she is going to do 2 things:

One: Take us further down a road to murderous military misadventure due to the MIC and other nefarious interests.

Two: Takke us further down the road of economic centrism while throwing out some bread crumbs along the way to keep people from understanding how they are getting robbed.

Thus it is at least reasonable to have this argument to help many of you understand that when the progressive left is proven right yet again u may listen to us next time.

The other thing is you need to realize is that you need Sanders supporters way more than we need Clinton supporters.

You see, Sanders is not likely to win but he can't lose really. No matter what, his message is galvanizing and that has been his point all along.

However, Clinton needs to win in the material sense but she can't do it without the left left. And if she manages to squeek by she cant do shit with the congress we have unless it flips. She needs numbers. And that means us.

So if the establishment wants to keep shitting on progressives and the progressive left many will just sit on their hands and you will get another Clinton Presidency where everything seems fine but is really a big rotten easter egg where bad things are discovered for years to come where nearly everything continues to get worse.

So spare us the sanctimony and righteousness.

[NanceGreggs]

84. So you're going to take your ball and go home ...

... if you don't get your way.

That's fine - you do that.

If you think that all of the people who are supporting Sanders now are going to take their ball and go home if he's not the nominee, you are deluding yourself.

As for the two things that you believe HRC will do once in office - well, you just keep believin' that. It is of no consequence whatsoever.

[Bread and Circus]

86. Some will. And if you don't realize that you are not paying attention.

You better just hope not too many sit on their hands.

Because you care about the Democratic Party as it is. I only care about the Democratic Party as it should be.

I won't get what I want and thus I got nothing to lose.

Whereas you do and thus it keeps you from speaking the real truth.

You also seem worried. You should be.

[NanceGreggs]

92. Oh, if there's anything I am NOT ...

... it's worried.

I've seen the threats from BS supporters here who say they will sit out the GE, or write-in a vote for BS (same as throwing it away), etc.

But when you subtract those who were never going to vote anyway, and subtract those who would never vote for a Democrat in any event, and subtract those who don't think that Bernie is their "last chance to save the country from imminent doom" and will vote for the (D) in any event, what you're left with is a handful of people who aren't going to make a difference in the general election one way or the other.

[Bread and Circus]

94. Well you seem worried. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[NanceGreggs]

101. My candidate-of-choice ...

... is way ahead in the polls - waaaaay ahead.

So no, I am not worried at all.

If, on the other hand, my preferred candidate was stagnating in the polls for almost two months, I would be extremely worried.

I think we both know who's "worried" here and who isn't.

[Armstead]

122. Attitudes like this will add to the number of those people who say...

"I want to vote for the Dems to stop the GOP....but the whole atmosphere within it has become so negative and rigid and regressive and arrogant that I just don't feel like standing in line for hours to vote for for that stuff. Doesn't make any difference. They're not much better then the GOP."

[hedgehog]

127. Wow! I couldn't have said it better myself except

at least Bill kept us out of wars!

[tex-wyo-dem]

83. Actually, seems strange that a senator representing...

The state of New York would "represent" Wall Street at all. Sure, the street baring the name Wall resides in the state, but beyond that, it's dealings have very little to do with the state other than providing revenue with regards to real estate, taxes, employees residing in the state, etc. it's just another corporation that happens to reside in the state of New York.

Hillary saying this would be like Reid saying he represents the gambling industry (although the two are very similar 😊

[NanceGreggs]

85. Reid does represent Las Vegas ...

... it is part of his constituency.

If he says he represents Las Vegas, and you believe that means he represents the gambling industry - well, what can I say as to your lack of understanding that a senator represents his entire state?

[tex-wyo-dem]

91. Reid represents the state of Nevada...

Which has legalized gambling...the entire state. Does Reid represent the gambling industry, or the people who elected him?

[NanceGreggs]

93. He represents ALL Nevadans ...

... and all of the state's businesses and industries.

Why do you find that so confusing?

[tex-wyo-dem]

96. So, does he represent...

The gambling industry first, or the people of Nevada first? Sure, the gambling industry is big in Nevada, probably the biggest employer. But does its interests override the interest of the general society no matter what?

To me, any elected official should not represent any industry, period. That's the job of lobbyists. Elected officials should represent the people that elected them.

Hillary saying she represented Wall Street is blatant...

Oh, wait...I forgot corporations are people...never mind.

[NanceGreggs]

98. So you're assuming ...

... that the interests of the people of Nevada and the interests of the gambling industry are at odds with each other, and Reid has to "choose" who comes first?

The state depends on the revenue that the gambling industry generates - from direct employment in the casinos, bars, restaurants, hotels, to the peripheral businesses that flourish, such as gas stations, roadside eateries, travel agents, other tourist attractions, etc.

The idea that a state's businesses and most profitable industries and its residents are somehow not connected is rather bizarre.

[tex-wyo-dem]

99. I'm not saying they are not connected...

I'm just asking, as an elected official, when it comes to a decision where the welfare of the society in general and that of an industry or corporation are at odds, who does he/she represent first? Who wins?

I don't think I need to tell you what the trend has been.

Btw, the gambling industry means a helluva lot more to the economy of Nevada than the financial industry means to the state of New York.

On edit, since I'm about ready to hit the sack...

This, I think exposes the very core of the difference between Hillary and Bernie. Bernie is a representative of the people, and puts the welfare of the general society first and foremost, ahead of any industry or corporate interest. That's why he identifies himself as a socialist, or more correctly, a Democratic Socialist.

Hillary, on the other hand, views things from a very different perspective from atop the pile of money she receives from moneyed interests.

Her Wall Street comments underscores this assertion.

[NanceGreggs]

100. Okay.

I'm trying to figure out how this has anything to do with the OP.

I thought you were - albeit it slowly, and through some very circuitous route - actually leading up to something relevant to the discussion prompted by the OP.

It appears I was mistaken in that assumption.

But goodnight anyway!

[tex-wyo-dem]

104. Jeez Nance, did I lose ya there?

Thought you were a bit sharper than that, but my mistake.

Or maybe your just being obtuse since you don't have a good comeback...

Whatevs

[NanceGreggs]

106. Truth be told ...

... you lost me a log time ago. I was patient enough to wait until you got to your point - until I finally realized you had no point to make.

[NanceGreggs]

137. Thanks, bravenak!

Gee whiz, this "alert" system works great, eh?

I'm just not sure who got alerted on - me or Nancy Grace?

[Cha]

139. They're so confused.

[bravenak]

140. Lol!

[Cha]

138. So Did I!.. Damn!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=760296

[bravenak]

141. People should chill with the jury comments.

[Cha]

142. Well, since they didn't and think they're so sneaky.. I hope Skinner takes them off jury duty

for life.

[bravenak]

144. Me too. Unless they publicly apologize.

[Cha]

147. Now there's a thought!

[George II]

154. I can't believe that last "explanation"! Does being a juror now give full rein to people...

....to go on a rant and be absolutely cruel and offensive to other members just because they disagree with them?

I'd be willing to bet that if we held a poll on this site asking people if they appreciate Nance Greggs on this site or not, regardless of whether or not they agree with her ideology or candidate preference, the vote would be a landslide.

I've participated on hundreds of juries and seen results of hundreds more since the system was instituted, that was THE most horrible comment I've ever seen on any of them.

[Cha]

136. Jury Results.. I hope you don't mind, Nance. FYI I alerted Abuse on #7.. Right to Skinner.

Truth be told ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=756549

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Snarky, childish personal attack.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 2, 2015, 09:29 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Attack? Really?? I've seen baby bunnies launch meaner attacks.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Give me a break.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Par for the course these days.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I think the alerter is the one who's being "snarky, childish, and personal attacking" the poster.

Nance has a right to her opinion without you trying to censor her.

Deal with it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bad alert
Bravenak
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get over it alerter. Silliest waste of an alert I've seen in a long time.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hate to side with Nance Grace because I think she is an extra-ordinary asshole that substitutes glibness with intelligence. And thank fucking god I no longer have to look at that stupid damn picture that she used to have in her sig line and ultimately led me to turn off sig lines because it made me want to puke.

So here's to you Nance, you Canadian resident that facilitated your husbands health care with little worries while you continue to advocate against U.S. accessing similar by advocating for a candidate who would never fight for universal healthcare.

You have never been a kind person unless it benefits you personally. Just like a republican.

*****************************************************************************

If you want me to delete I most certainly will. I just wanted to bring to light what the BS fans are doing in Bernie's name when they think no one knows who they are.

I was juror #4.

[NanceGreggs]

145. And thanks to you as well, Cha!

So nice to know that you and Brave both have my back. I would have had no idea about this alert, were it not for the two of you.

I really don't recognize this place anymore. When I see the trivia that gets alerted on, and the anti-Democratic, anti-women, and racist bullshit that's "juried" and allowed to stand - it really boggles my mind.

[Cha]

148. I was just going to say.. "We Have Your Back, Nance!".. It's freaking Orwell's Big Brother on

DU.. Good job jury system!

We're livin' it. Oh well .. that freaking bubble is going to burst one day.. and when it does.. watch out the fall out.

[rbrnmw]

159. Why was bravenak's post hidden?

This is beyond ridiculous.

[Live and Learn]

160. I don't understand it either. nt

[Control-Z]

166. Please see post 165.

Thanks.

[Agschmid]

161. Because it was her. It's as simple as that.

[Control-Z]

167. Please see post 165.

Thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

163. I was on the jury for that.

It seemed like a no brainer to me not to hide it, but the alerter and apparently a majority of the jury thought it was an alert on the juror #7, rather than Bravenak. Nothing personal against her, just not a lot of thought process behind most jury votes, it looks like. At least I really hope that people wouldn't be so petty as to vote to hide on a purely personal basis. Here's the results, if anyone is interested


AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Tue Nov 3, 2015, 11:48 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I alerted on the jury comment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=760228

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Juror #7 should be banned from juries at the very least.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Nov 3, 2015, 12:02 PM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Funny, when I serve on a jury, I get a warning in red font that says my jury eligibility may be revoked if I submit abusive or offensive comments. The comment that bravenak re-posted certainly appears to be in that category in the best passive-aggressive tradition. Perhaps not everyone gets the same warning? I know that the same rules don't apply to all posters, so that could explain it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Control-Z]

168. Please see post 165.

Thanks.

[Control-Z]

165. I chose to respond to your post because

it is written so simply and directly.

I alerted out of blood boiling rage at Juror 7. I know I alerted incorrectly but it wasn't until I got mail stating that bravenak's comment was hidden that I realized what an idiotic thing I had done.

In my rage I thought I was alerting on Juror 7.

I can't begin to express how sorry I am for the trouble I've caused. Bravenak, of all people, did not deserve the hide or hassle. She and I have talked privately about it and I have to tell you, bravenak is the most gracious member on DU I have ever spoken with. I'm not sure I am deserving of the understanding and forgiveness she had given me. She's is truly sn amazing person.

I've also communicated with Skinner and he said he was removing it from her record. I don't why it still shows as a hide. It might be a software issue. I hope they can get the hide removed altogether.

Again, I am so very sorry to everyone hurt, angered and confused over the alert and hide, most especially bravenak.

As for Juror #7, if I told you what I thought of you I would be banned on the spot. So just use your imagination.

[rbrnmw]

169. I knew about you

I wanted to know why the jurors hid it. None have come forward to explain why they did it.

[Live and Learn]

179. Looks like the jurors were confused too. nt

[Agschmid]

170. Thanks for that.

[daleanime]

176. I know, it's almost.....

like some one was shouting.

[SusanaMontana41]

193. Context is everything

What was she talking about when she said it?

I need to know that before I can have an opinion.

[dflprincess]

13. I imagine a good many of the people who work on Wall Street

live in Connecticut or Jersey, so they really wouldn't be part of her constituency as she was elected to represent the citizens of New York State - not the interests of those who work on Wall Street.

But she did tell them to "cut it out, guys" when she saw their risky behavior. A statement that was just as effective for her as it was for me when I used the same words when trying to get my nephews stop throwing snow balls at me.

[aspirant]

21. Wall Street Banks can't vote

[Fumesucker]

23. Voting is not required when you own the politicians or have a long term lease anyway

[aspirant]

29. Does that lease expire when a senator leaves the Senate?

[Autumn]

39. Wall Street is obviously a person.

A person, mind you.

[enid602]

74. Wall Street

Wall Street is not a person, but rather the single most important employer in NYC. Unfortunately, NYC does not have a terribly diverse economy; what happens on Wall Street has tremendous implications for the economies not only of Metro New York, but also for the entire Northeast. Wall Street regulation should be made in a very thoughtful manner, keeping in mind the international implications of such regulation. London would love to take over this industry. I don't think Hillary's having represented Wall Street is a negative.

[Autumn]

76. We vote for politicians to represent us, the people. Wall Street is as you say a corporation

it should not be represented by a US Senator, that's obscene. Hillary IMO misspoke.

[enid602]

81. represent

When I read the quote, I think it's tantamount to Barbara Boxer saying that she represents Hollywood, or Debbie Stabenau saying that she represents the automotive industry. It's implicit that they represent the people who are dependent on those industries. There is no NY without Wall Street.

[aspirant]

87. So if Wall Street moved to Los Angeles

the whole state of NY would become ghost towns?

[enid602]

97. NYC

I think the real danger is that much of the financial sector could move to London, which has been courting it for years. But yes, the New York economy would be destroyed if the banks leave town.

[840high]

36. You're always full of excuses for Hillary.

[Unknown Beatle]

89. It's really simple.

Her record shows that Wall St. are her major donors. Just a simple online search will reveal that's the case.

Major Donors

Do you really think that she's accepted tens of millions of dollars from wall st and major banks if they didn't expect a quid pro quo?

[pnwmom]

44. And as she said in the very same sentence, she was telling Wall Street "cut it out"

and "quit foreclosing" and quit engaging in speculative behaviors.

Her point was that even though part of her job was representing Wall Street, she was also telling Wall Street they had to shape up.

CLINTON: "You know, I respect the passion and the intensity. I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007, before the big crash we had, and I basically said 'cut it out. Quit forclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors. I took on the Bush administration for the same thing...."

[sabrina 1]

20. Not to us NYers. We are not happy with Wall St nor with people who represent THEIR interests over

OURS.

[hedgehog]

31. Wall Street doesn't have a vote -

or does it?

[mindwalker_i]

95. They don't need a vote

Politicians, including Hillary, will do what they want regardless of any vote crap.

[rhett o rick]

51. What is amusing is that you trying to pretend that she represents all the citizens of NY.

She gets millions and millions of dollars for her foundation, her campaign, and her personal bank account from the billionaires and Wall Street. They don't give that money, they invest that money and expect quid pro quo. Is that too confusing for you?

[bahrbearian]

112. "Corporations are People my Freind"

[Scuba]

116. You seem unaware that many Wall Street execs live in Connecticut.

Yet Hillary represented their interests over those of the Harlem residents.

[RoccoR5955]

132. That's right, and you do know that corporations are people! n/t

[99th_Monkey]

2. That's probably what her voters thought too..

but they found out different after election day; just like many Democrats
will after Nov. 1 if they buy Hillary's "I told Wall St. to cut it out!" song & dance.

[treestar]

3. People in general

Do not hate Wall Street.

[CentralMass]

4. Ya, sure.

[eridani]

6. Great. People who didn't get their houses foreclosed on can just join the predator class n/t

[pnwmom]

46. Her point was that, even though she represents them, she was telling Wall Street to "cut it out."

CLINTON: "You know, I respect the passion and the intensity. I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007, before the big crash we had, and I basically said 'cut it out. Quit forclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors. I took on the Bush administration for the same thing...."

[Autumn]

149. Yep. "cut it out." will work so much better than regulation.

[eridani]

162. A sternly worded statement being ever so much more effective than legal action? n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

151. It's more than just that, of course

The whole Wall Street concept of perpetual growth at any cost is killing us. For example, if a listed company matures to the point where it reaches its ceiling, and the only way it can increase earnings is to cut jobs, cut quality and/or send jobs overseas, then Wall Street will demand that under the threat of tanking that company's stock price. Or maybe that company will be taken over by another company that doesn't give a crap about anything except the bottom line.

[Armstead]

7. People don't like the effects of centralized concentratd wealth and power

[treestar]

119. I don't think most people see "Wall Street" as that

Nobody wants the stock market to plunge. When that happens, the people don't gain at the expense of "Wall Street." People see themselves as part of the economy for the most part. Very few people in the US want a socialist "revolution." IMO a campaign gets nowhere with this stuff. It only plays on DU.

[Armstead]

120. That's a misrepresentation

With a few exceptions, Sanders, his campaigns and supporters are not advocating an overthrow of capitalism, is rooting for another financial collapse or any of that crap.

One would expect people on the center-to-left half of the political spectrum not to believe that stereotypical nonsense about a candidate who is advocating for reform.

[treestar]

121. Huh? Been here much recently?

Millions of posts demonize "Wall Street."

[Armstead]

123. Wall St. as a symbol. And they do hve a bad imagge and they deserve it

I grew up in an era that was not prefect -- but generally Wall St. was a conservative (small c) place where stocks in companies were traded in a somewhat rational way, and people made or lost money based on the actual value and performance of a company/stock. And investors wre satisfied with a reasonable rate of return.

Since then, it has become the equivalent of a crack house and casino for the ultra wealthy, who win by screwing up companies, screwing over workers, communities and the overall economy, and siphon wealth upward into fewer and fewer hands with outrageous fees to construct indecipherable "deals."

I suggest you read some analysis of about how wealth used to be generated by making things, but is now generated by "transactions." And how hundreds of financial institutions have morphed into a handful of massive monopolies.

Yes that sucks. Bernie (and other progressives) warned of the consequences of this in the 1990's and were told to go away and let the "smart adults" like Clinton and Alan Greenspan run things....We saw the results which culminated in 2008. But we haven't woken up from smelling the coffee, and are allowing the same stuff and rejecting the warnings.

People know how bad the system engineered by "Wall St." has become.

[Armstead]

129. And I contribute my share of them

I'm not opposed to Wall St. in a generic sense. But I am opposed to what Wall St. has become, and what it has come to symbolize.

To paraphrase "It ain't your parents Wall St. anymore."

[MrMickeysMom]

57. ...

May as well have a good laugh over THAT one!

[CharlotteVale]

5. The Bankruptcy Reform Act showed how she represented it, too.

[dflprincess]

16. It also showed just how concerned she is about women and children

as the bankruptcy bill put obligations to financial institutions ahead of spousal (which more women collect) and child support obligations.

But Bernie is the sexist.

[CharlotteVale]

22. Yes, I have a dear female friend that bill hurt very much.

[JonLeibowitz]

66. Liz Warren wrote a great legal review article about that bill. Enlightening. n/t

[davidpdx]

183. Found it

Even better it is open sourced if anyone wants to read it:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310544

[JonLeibowitz]

190. That's the one I meant, yep. Surprisingly readable I found. n/t

[davidpdx]

216. She is a gem

I only wish she had rose to the national prominence 10-15 years ago.

[aidbo]

9. Corporations are people my friend!

[ibegurpard]

11. Well she did tell them to "Cut it out!"...

So she's obviously not completely in their pocket right?

[99th_Monkey]

15. What more could we ask? wink. nod. nt

[Aerows]

18. I even posted the video

so those that need their memories refreshed needn't fear that anyone was making things up.

If you can't believe what Hillary Clinton says about Hillary Clinton, who can you believe?

[Aerows]

14. In case anyone suddenly comes down with amnesia.

You can hear it straight out of her own mouth.

[passiveporcupine]

79. So she went to them in 2007 and told them to cut it out.

Didn't do much good, did it? And it won't do much good in the future either. They don't need a "talking to"...they need rules that prevent them from getting "too big to fail", and to prevent them from using unadulterated greed as an operating principle.

[Vattel]

17. That's just silly. She obviously wasn't saying that she represented Wall Street

to the exclusion of the rest of NY. Your OP is unfair. You should self-delete.

[Aerows]

19. Um, look up thread.

There is video. It came straight from her mouth.

"You know, I respect the passion and the intensity. I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007, before the big crash we had, and I basically said 'cut it out. Quit forclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors. I took on the Bush administration for the same thing...."

[Vattel]

25. I know, I heard it at the debate. The point is that she did represent Wall Street

as well as the rest of NY. So there is nothing in what is being quoted here that merits attack.

[cantbeserious]

26. Au Contraire - Who Are HRC Donors - She Is Owned By Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks

eom

[Vattel]

32. There is nothing in WHAT SHE SAID that merits attack.

Get it?

[tularetom]

34. I can't speak for cantbeserious, but I don't "get it"

IMO, "Cut it out" definitely merits attack. First of all, it sounds forced and juvenile.

More importantly, they obviously did not pay any attention to her, they refused to cut it out, and she did not do jack shit about it. All of this took place while she was still a Senator from NY and she had ample opportunity to take action, But she failed to do so.

Guess she needed their support in the 2008 primaries.

[CharlotteVale]

47. "They refused to cut it out, and she did not do jack shit

about it."

I think that bears repeating.

[frylock]

171. And it doesn't really comport with her claim that she's a progressive who gets things done.

[Aerows]

64. I linked to a video where she said it straight out

and I have somebody acting like they can gaslight me into saying that she didn't say it when it is *RIGHT THERE* words coming out of her mouth.

[Vattel]

126. Oh for pity's sake, we are just miscommunicating.

My point was that the quote in the OP does not merit an attack because Clinton did represent Wall Street as well as the rest of NY. Your quote contains more than the quote in the OP, and I agree with you that the remark about telling Wall Street to cut it out was pretty sad.

I am a hardcore Bernie supporter, but I will call out unfairness towards Clinton and the OP is an example of that.

[frylock]

172. Are there residences on Wall St?

[Vattel]

173. Lol, good point, you win.

[Aerows]

62. Maybe you will tell me to do more "research" too. n/t

[hedgehog]

155. I would maintain that the interests of "Wall Street" do not align with the

interests of the working people of New York State, or even of New York City (check the price of real state there recently?).

[davidpdx]

184. The issue of what relationship Secretary Clinton had with Wall Street during her term as a senator

is an attack? Seriously are you trying to be obtuse? She claims she went to them and asked them to stop, therefore SHE made it an issue.

It does matter to some of us what relationship politicians have to big companies. We keep getting sold down the river by politicians in BOTH parties and yet we are suppose to bend over and say "please give me some more?"

Hey it sounds like the system is working perfectly fine for you, congratulations! Meanwhile some of us are ACTUALLY interested in stopping the money laundering and pandering that is taking place.

[Vattel]

186. I share your views. And I think I was being obtuse and misunderstood the point of the OP.

[davidpdx]

187. Ok, in that case I am sorry for my end of the misunderstanding

[jwirr]

54. To me the most heartbreaking aspect of this statement is

how she describes what was happening before the crash: "Quit foreclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors." She makes it sound like it was such a little issue and total does not see the damage these banks were doing. She does not see the pain of the people who were hurt.

[Aerows]

63. As though people becoming homeless

was just swatting a fly.

[Ed Suspicious]

68. That's the problem with big picture, strategic thinkers. They often seem to fail to recognize the

real damage their ideas bring to individuals who suffer the real life consequences.

[Aerows]

71. I consider them strategic thinkers

merely because they have a strategy that benefits them the most. Like it or not it's a touch of Ayn Randism to get elected at all costs.

Big picture people are far different. They view our lives and our country as a garden where we all flourish, we all benefit, and have a PLAN for heaven's sake to get us there besides killing people in a foreign country.

We have a multitude of gardens that need to be grown in this country, including Black Lives Matter, demilitarizing our police, repairing failing infrastructure and ending trade policies that are killing jobs.

Hell, they have managed to demonize *TEACHERS*. Take a step back and imagine that you demonize teachers. Yet you aggrandize the police and invest most resources there.

If that isn't a canyon of despair that is difficult to cross, I don't know what is. But I guarantee it that one way or another the American people have the spirit to do it. It won't be an equivocation candidate that does so.

[RandySF]

27. She represented Wall Street as Senator

As well as Albany, Terry Town, Long Island, Ithaca and everywhere in-betwween. She was highly regarded statewide and, as a matter of fact, she was far more popular Upstate than she ever was on Wall Street.

[Bonobo]

28. I believe that Hillary doesn't see the difference between representing people and corporations.

In fact, even seemingly intelligent supporters of hers do not see the difference apparently.

It is why I oppose her and consider her as not a good representative of the Democratic party and CERTAINLY not a Progressive.

Representing corporations is NOT part of the duty of a Senator. They are not a constituency.

[stillwaiting]

113. Agreed. And, corporations are NOT people.

If representing corporations were to be as beneficial for average people as neo-liberals claim and like to tout, then average Americans TODAY would be doing very, very well. Our government has been run to benefit large corporations for several decades now. Corporate cash on hand, corporate profits, and executive salaries have never been better. And, that financial wealth and success has NOT benefitted average Americans.

So, they can stop pretending neo-liberal economic policies work for average Americans. They clearly don't.

They need to start representing average Americans, and right now that WILL include cutting in to some of their precious corporate profits. Those corporate profits are built on hugely unfair policies that we currently allow. We need strongly progressive policies enacted to address the obscenely unfair income and wealth inequality that has developed over the past 4 decades. Neo-liberals will almost always be a block to what's needed.

[davidpdx]

185. +1

[RandySF]

30. New York Election results in 2000 and 2006.

2000:
Clinton - 55%
Lazio - 43%

2006:
Clinton - 67%
Spencer - 31%


Stockholm Syndrome?

[hedgehog]

156. You do have to take into account that neither Lazio

nor Spencer seemed capable of crossing the street by themself.

[SoapBox]

40. Big money, big power...

And she's a proud Capitalist as well.

That's anything but being for the 99%.

[pnwmom]

42. Boy, did you ever take THAT sentence out of context! Entirely distorting its meaning.

What she was saying was that EVEN THOUGH part of her job was representing Wall Street, she was telling Wall Street in 2007 to "cut it out" and to "quit foreclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors."


CLINTON: "You know, I respect the passion and the intensity. I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007, before the big crash we had, and I basically said 'cut it out. Quit forclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors. I took on the Bush administration for the same thing...."

[rpannier]

61. Agree with you the title is out of context

Bus, I'd like to know what she did legislatively to get them (try to get them) to stop

[reformist2]

45. No REAL representative of the people would EVER have said that.

You can try to explain it away, but it won't work.

When I think of who politicians represent, I always think of two words, and two words only: THE PEOPLE.

[pnwmom]

48. That sentence was completely ripped out of context. This was the paragraph:

CLINTON: "You know, I respect the passion and the intensity. I represented Wall Street as a Senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007, before the big crash we had, and I basically said 'cut it out. Quit forclosing on homes, quit engaging in these speculative behaviors. I took on the Bush administration for the same thing...."

[reformist2]

49. I remember it. I think it shows that Wall Street has her ear. She was trying to show she talks back.

But in the process, she revealed the embarrassing truth that she listens to Wall Street, as if it was a constituent. It is not.

[pnwmom]

59. The people on Wall Street are constituents, just as much as her other constituents.

And "Wall Street" is shorthand for "people on Wall Street."

[Aerows]

67. Suddenly everyone is an expert on New York City

I linked the video.

I've heard "do research", which obviously I did since I posted what she said coming out of her own mouth.

I've gotten "you misinterpret it" as though I am a dumbass that doesn't understand plain English.

The latest I am now getting is "well you just don't understand the milieu."

I am starting to understand it better than I even did during the Bush years.

It's a small step from circling the wagons to ending up in a circular firing squad.

So I'm going to take a deep breath, and say "proceed".

[Historic NY]

53. You know the place that re-built this country and was the

the nations capitol and the place where George Washington was inaugurated, Federal Hall its still there on Wall St.

[oasis]

55. Republicans, if you're taking notes for your GE attack on Hillary,

add this damning Wall Street Hillary quote to your playbook.

[hedgehog]

157. Why would they? I thought one difference between us and them is that they

gleefully support Wall Street.

[oasis]

158. It won't be an issue in the GE. That's the point. (eom)

[Eko]

60. Wow.

Out of context bull. Its pretty bad when you are worse than the conservatives.

[frylock]

174. Put it in context. Who lives on Wall St?

[Eko]

178. Whats your point?

[frylock]

181. Do the people who work on Wall St live in New York?

[Eko]

182. Wow,

That is your argument? Saying it is weak would be giving it too much credit. Are you really saying that the people that live in another place, say NC, that work in another place, say the Norfolk naval base, of which there are tons of, should be discounted by the Virginia senator? Should the Va senator only look out for the residents of Virgina that work at that base? What about the veterans that live in northern NC but have to come to the Virginia VA for treatment, ahh, flunk them, they live in NC, just .5 miles over the border but the nearest VA in nc is 200 miles away. Not in my district, or nimby. I thought that was a republican thing, guess I was wrong.

[frylock]

188. con·stit·u·ent

adjective
1.being a part of a whole.
2.being a voting member of a community or organization and having the power to appoint or elect.

noun
1.a member of a constituency.
2.a component part of something

[Eko]

191. A senator represents their state and its interests.

[frylock]

192. And also their own interests.

[Eko]

194. Great!

Glad that you finally agree with me that wall street is something that Clinton should have represented.

[frylock]

195. Yeah, great! Hillary represents Wall St..

Boy, does she ever.

[Eko]

196. And Sanders

represents IBM who is Vermonts largest employer, who Uses Dutch Tax Haven to Boost Profits as Sales Slide and paid 5.8 Percent Federal Income Tax Rate Over 5 Years. He did such a great job with that one.

[Eko]

197. Oh, wait,

he owns stock in IBM. Imagine that.

[frylock]

199. What's in Hillary's portfolio?

[Eko]

201. I dont know,

I'm just playing this guilt by association game with you.

[Eko]

203. IBM is the 9th largest doner to Sanders

and they are laying off people in vermont, he must be beholden to them and therefore responsible for what they do.

[frylock]

210. 9th largest donor raises an eyebrow until you see it's a whopping $12,461

[frylock]

204. Ah. You got me!

[Eko]

206. Sure I did.

Anytime you use the guilt by association argument you will loose. Its just so easy to do the reverse on you.

[frylock]

208. Well, you can get back to me when IBM is kicking down with some serious campaign contributions..

to date, it's $12,461.

[Eko]

212. Yeah, I know.

9th largest donor,, its all in how you phrase it,,, kind of like hillary represented wall street, of course she did, as sanders represents IBM. That makes neither of them responsible for the actions of them. You could have easily brought up specific legislation clinton did that helped wall st over main street to make your argument but you did not, you kept with guilt by association.

[frylock]

198. Remember when IBM nearly destroyed the economy?

You remember that, don't you?

[Eko]

200. So its ok

to represent a business that uses a Dutch Tax Haven to Boost Profits only pay 5.8 percent income tax over 5 years?

[frylock]

202. No I don't. Bernie should march right over and tell them to cut it out..

just knock it off, guys.

[Eko]

205. Well here is what he did say.

“Amid all of the rumors and speculation of the last few months, this has been a very difficult period for the highly-skilled and dedicated employees at the Vermont IBM facility. Now, with the purchase of the plant by Globalfoundries, a new era is beginning. We all hope that this new relationship will bring economic security for the employees and for the entire community. I look forward to working with the employees, Governor Shumlin and the new ownership to make this new relationship a success.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-globalfoundries-and-ibm

[frylock]

207. Dang. I was led to believe that Bernie was some sort of Maoist..

really gonna have to rethink my support of him now.

[Eko]

209. Love the sarcasm,

Sanders is great, but guilt by association is not.

[frylock]

211. Neither is quid pro quo..

and Wall St. isn't backing Hillary because she's a nice person.

[Eko]

213. Are they backing her over republicans

or just over sanders?

[Eko]

214. found it,

Clinton. I have no problem with accepting facts, but logical fallacies I do not like.

[frylock]

217. They're backing Hillary as well as Republicans..

hedging their bets, as it were. I'll let our viewing audience draw their own conclusions.

Wall Street Is Putting Money Behind These Presidential Candidates

[Eko]

215. Of course since I am pointing out your logical fallacies

on your argument against clinton I must support her which I do. I support her over any teapublican of which that is all there is nowadays, over bernie, not so much. I would like bernie to win I am just not sure he can, the optimist in me says he can, the pessimist says he cant win the general. But what the hell do I know?

[Duckfan]

65. "Cut it out" does sound a bit insincere.

How about saying something about introducing legislation to punish the bastards who wrecked our economy? That to me would sound more convincing than "cut it out."

[jfern]

69. Hillary solves all our problems with one tweet that says "cut it out"

Don't you know that she sent such a tweet to the Soviet Union on Christmas 1991, and they disbanded the next day?

[RoccoRyg]

70. I hate when people twist words around...

I hate when conservatives do it (which is always) but I also hate when liberals do it. Way to inveigle the truth, folks.

It's a simple logical syllogism.

Hillary Clinton represents New York.
Wall Street is in New York.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton represents Wall Street.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

77. She said those words in the last Dem debate

[Zynx]

115. I understand that raging hatred can cause someone to develop tunnel vision, but this is extreme.

All of you know full well that she didn't mean that she represented Wall Street's interests above those of the people in general in New York. The full context of her answer was very clear about that. Anyone who says differently is in fact a liar because you are attempting to deceive for your own purposes or those of someone you support.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

164. It is the fine print

which you don't seem to recognize

[RoccoRyg]

133. Why did you use this video?

This video is a guy explaining why Secretary Clinton's finger-wagging at the banks is a childish exploitation of economics and reality. He conveniently ignores, or is ignorant of, the banks using foreclosure mills and false dummy companies to foreclose on properties, some that didn't even belong to them, but still, you're using a video that makes the opposite of your point.

Plus, he calls Sanders extreme at the end. Before you use a video, maybe you should watch it first.

[frylock]

175. Who lives on Wall St?

[AllTooEasy]

72. She also represented Broadway, NY Teachers, NY Dockworkers...

...and every other industry, labor group, corporation, small business, and person residing in NY.

To his credit, Bernie did the same for Vermont.

(Unfortunately) That's just how our Representative gov't works.

[Volaris]

78. Actually, the way I was taught it works...

Is that constituents have House Members to represent them to the Federal System,
and that Senators represent State Governments as institutions to the Federal System.

To that extant, her job as a senator was to determine what is in the best interest of the State Government of New York (and as a general rule, that should also be in the best interest of the people of that State, but not necessarily).

I know that a lot of us here were mad as hell that the last vote for the ACA was that conniving little rat-fuck from Nebraska?, Ben Nelson. But since his price for his yes vote was that the State Government of NEBRASKA had their medicare federally subsidized basically FOREVER, I give him full marks for understanding that his job was to get whatever he could for his STATE from Uncle Sam, and the PEOPLE of his State were a secondary consideration.

Wall Street has its own District House Rep, most likely. As that's the case, if she put the interests of Wall Street above the interests of the State of New York, in my opinion she didn't understand very well the parameters of her job.
I also know that my perspective on this matter is very much an outlier.

[BlueStateLib]

88. Geeze, another using 'out of context' quotes Post

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you have to be able to respond. He brought you up.

CLINTON: Yeah.

You know, I -- I respect the passion an intensity. I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 -- before the big crash that we had -- and I basically said, "cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors."

I took on the Bush administration for the same thing. So I have thought deeply and long about what we're gonna do to do exactly what I think both the senator and the governor want, which is to rein in and stop this risk.

And my plan would have the potential of actually sending the executives to jail. Nobody went to jail after $100 billion in fines were paid...

(APPLAUSE)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-oct-13-democratic-debate-who-said-what-and-what-it-means/

[lovemydog]

102. Of course when she was a Senator from New York

Wall Street was part of her constituency. A great many people in the State also have their bread and butter issues somehow tied to it. I know she also said she told them to 'cut it out.' I know it can be interpreted negatively, or as weak. I don't really hold it against her.

The question to me is what she is proposing to reign in Wall Street excesses, and how effective she could be in making those regulations pass and be enforced. Those left of center have wildly different perspectives on it. I tend to feel she could be very effective, especially with a more liberal Congress. I would like to see her call for reinstating Glass-Steigal, though I think her explanation that it goes far deeper than that and requires far more extensive reform is an interesting one.

[Zynx]

114. I watched the debate. That's a freakishly dishonest way you've represented that quote.

The full context of that quote wasn't that she represented Wall Street exclusively. It was that, as a Senator from New York, she was responsible for representing the financial services industry in the state, which is one of the key industries for the state. It was never meant as she represented Wall Street and Wall Street alone.

Frankly, you and anyone who uses that quote in that way should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Desert805]

125. Yeah, cut it out, you guys!

[NorthCarolina]

117. Now she would like the honor of representing Wall Street as POTUS. eom

[raouldukelives]

118. Thanks to Citizens United. She does.

Of course they are the most racist, misogynistic, greedy, climate denying, war mongering, slave labor loving people one could have the pleasure to know.
But hey, gotta go along to get along, amiright?

[L0oniX]

128. Stop being so mean to Hillary!

No ...don't stop.

[Babel_17]

131. Recommending, due in part to the conversations

A good, but basic, idea for a thread really blossomed.

[pa28]

134. Moments of candor happen so rarely with Hillary Clinton.

The accidental nature just makes their honesty more special.

[Segami]

143. It was a Pavlovian slip...

Upon hearing the opening bell, she said Wall Street.......

[sabrina 1]

146. Yes she did, I was here!

[Cosmic Kitten]

150. Corporations are people, don'tchknow ;-/

[riversedge]

152. I represented gun owers as a Senator and Rep from Vermont..

see how that works

[Autumn]

153. Did he say he represented guns and gun manufacturers?

People own guns. So yeah I represented gun owners seems to work. "I represented Wall Street". Who owns Wall Street?

own·er
ˈōnər/Submit
noun
noun: owner; plural noun: owners
a person who owns something.
"the proud owner of a huge Dalmatian"
synonyms: possessor, holder, proprietor/proprietress, homeowner, landowner, freeholder, landlord, landlady
"the owner is no longer interested in selling"

[Smarmie Doofus]

177. Strange. I *never* thought that. From the moment she parachuted in.

Oh... you mean *pretended* to represent the people of New York.

Got ya'.

[kelliekat44]

180. Wall Street is part of the people in NY and they were her constituents. nt

[UglyGreed]

189. K/R