I'd like to know why you feel Hillary favors Wall Street and Corporate America (VERY LONG POST)

[Lucinda]

Last edited Mon Jan 25, 2016, 09:16 PM - Edit history (2)

I mean that. I really want to know why you have come to that conclusion.

But first, I want to address a few comments that I've seen here on DU since I've returned, and provide a little information that I found while looking for answers. For the record, I support Clinton, I like a Bernie a lot, and have been sharing his Face Book posts for a very long time, and will be voting for the Dem candidate in November.

I've heard lots of complaints about Hillary and Wall Street money, and I honestly haven't run across any real support for that point of view yet. If you have some, I truly would like to see it.

I've seen this graphic from the Sanders campaign floating around Pre and Post debate and I think it needs to be addressed.



The Sanders team posted this graphic on January 17th on Face Book with a comment that said
"I don't get personal speaking fees from Goldman Sachs #DemDebate " which implies that this supported Bernie's comment about Hillary accepting 600k in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs. This was the first time that I have ever been disappointed in Sanders.

The graphic, has NOTHING to do with speaking fees. It represents the career donations to Hillary from these companies and covers a period from 1999 to August 2015. You can find the information here:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019&type=I

You can use the drop down to look at the figures in two year increments. And if you'd like to see the graphic on Sanders page it is here:
https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/a.324119347643076.89553.124955570892789/963633427024995/?type=3&theater

If you recall, Clinton ran for public office from the state of New York which is pretty much the financial hub of this country, and many, many, people work in those companies. Fortunately, some of those people are Dems, and they contributed to Clinton's campaigns for public office. If you look across the row at the link, you will see the breakdown for each company listed. As you can see the bulk of each listing come from individuals - not some big corporate dude smoking a cigar handing Clinton a big fat check.

The link states:
This table lists the top donors to this candidate in 1999-2016. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Bernie's numbers are also listed on the graphic, presumably to show how much less he had received, and from more benign donors. But the truth here is that Bernie wouldn't need to raise as much money to run for office as Hillary would from a huge state like New York. He also wouldn't have donors from Wall Street companies, because those people work in New York. The graphic is very misleading, but I think it is important because it may be what people have been using to make a lot the noise that gets airplay about Clinton receiving money from these companies.

The graphic that the Sanders campaign used to support their claim that she took big money from Wall Street wasn't for speeches. It was donations. Mostly from individuals. In support of her campaigns for public office. And I was sad to see this misinformation coming from the Sanders campaign. I haven't looked in to the people running his campaign, but I don't think this serves the man that I admire very much.

~~~

As for her speeches, that were given after she stepped down from state - which in total are for a LOT of money - but are in no way out of the ordinary. The only thing remarkable about the amount of fees, is that she is one of the few women in the world who make as much as her male peers on the speaking circuit. She was the First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the United States, Senator from New York, and The SOS of the United States. I don't find it unusual that people would want to here what she had to say. Everyone from other politicians, to sports figures, authors, and motivational speakers get these big paydays. I agree with those of you that think it's a heck of a lot of money to pay someone to talk, but it is the standard for successful people making the circuit. The link below contains an incomplete, but pretty comprehensive list, of where she went, who she spoke to, what the event was about, and how much she was paid. (where available)

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-12/the-very-valuable-words-of-hillary-clinton

There is a wide range of groups that heard Hillary speak. Some look fascinating. Some look downright boring!

~~~
In regards to her views on Glass-Stegall,I agree with her that reinstating something that was crafted in 1933 doesn't really solve the problems that exist in 2016. I know some of you believe that killing Glass-Stegall caused the crisis, but I agree with those that say it didn't. This article I am linking presents a point by point breakdown by Andrew Ross Sorkin - with quotes from Elizabeth Warren. I'm not trying to change your mind if you favor reinstatement, I'm just pointing out HRC's take on it in terms of those who think she would be soft on wall street.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/reinstating-an-old-rule-is-not-a-cure-for-crisis/?_r=0

The last link I'm going to bore you with is what Hillary's actual plans are in dealing with the serious issues of the financial industries.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash

My purpose for this post is to provide and also receive information.
I find absolutely nothing in the areas above that leads me to believe that Hillary would in any way favor banks or corporations over the work of her lifetime, which has been in the pursuit of improving the lives of the people of this country.

For anyone reading this far I thank you for your time. If your view that she is beholden to the banks or corporations comes from some other source, I would really like you to share it with me. I've been ill for quite a while now, and have missed lots of stuff.

I did not deal with Bill Clinton's income from speeches, because I haven't finished my research. I know some of you feel there is a conflict of interest there, and I would appreciate any links you can share about it. All I know right now, is that the work he has been doing globally takes a lot of money.

If you do respond, it may take me a little while to answer. We've got a storm coming in, and that tends to make the pain from my health issues go into overdrive, but I will answer when I can. And I may edit a lot. I'm a bad typist, but I tried to be very careful! Thanks again for reading!

Lucinda

EDIT 3 to add - I over did it the night I posted, got a massive headache, and then couldn't get to sleep until this morning when it finally calmed down. I know how to tweak my usual health issues, but I don't usually have headaches. Then our weather changed, so I am dealing with that too, but didn't want to let this drop, so I will be back to finish my reading tomorow.

Editing to add that I am working my way through still - answering quick ones, and collecting links to read, to answer the others...Thank you all again for responding!


Editing again because I am too tired to keep reading and my head feels like it's cracking open! If I missed you, I'll be back!... and to those kind enough to add links for me to look at, and I haven't finished commenting, I'll be back for you too!

[Autumn]

1. Stay safe in the storm. I'm sure the Hillary group will provide you with the answers you seek.

Best of luck to you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110736168

[Lucinda]

3. Well they aren't the people who feel that way, so I doubt they can answer.

Perhaps you can?

[Autumn]

6. The links have been posted over and over.

[Lucinda]

9. I haven't been back forever, which is why I asked for information. My health

has kept me away for a very long time.
It's cool if you don't have anything for me. Thanks for the kick!

[Autumn]

18. You're welcome. But I must say that 113 posts in the last 90 days

makes your claim of not being back here for forever a tad bit of an exaggeration. I do hope you feel better soon though.

[Lucinda]

24. That represents about a week and a half, I think. I'm disabled and have more time than many.

So I have been reading a lot, and wasn't finding an answer to my questions, hence the post.

[Autumn]

67. When one asks for thoughts about the candidate one supports and then posts in a group,

" Wish me luck" I tend to think that requests for information after that could be a bit insincere. Like you, I being disabled spend quite a bit of time here and have seen many others do that, even in groups that I participate in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110736168

[Lucinda]

68. I was just looking for a little morale boost. GDP can be scary when you aren't a regular poster.

[MissDeeds]

23. I appreciate your post

Information like this bears repeating and needs exposure.

So sorry you've had health issues, Lucinda. Hope everything is okay and you're on the mend.

[Lucinda]

27. Thank you. It's chronic, and pretty permanent, but every now and then

I come up for air when I am able. I've been a DU'er for a long long time, but i've avoided the stressful forums for several years. I have been a fan of both Clinton and Sanders for years, so this election has me digging into the fray.

[floriduck]

83. In your own words and this is key;

"As for her speeches, that were given after she stepped down from state - which in total are for a LOT of money - but are in no way out of the ordinary."

At that time, she knew her chances of running for President were high. So between "State" and her announcement to run, she began collecting money, votes and promises for her bid. That's not illegal but don't make it sound coincidental. She went where money and power is in anticipation for getting her expected nomination.

18 million cracks in the glass ceiling according to her 2008 concession speech. She was destined to run and damn near everyone knew it.

[Lucinda]

92. I think it is fair criticism for Sanders supporters to think her speeches might giver her a leg up

over Sanders, since she was actually there talking to groups in person and Bernie is just now reaching widespread recognition (which I think is well deserved btw.)

I happen to think she is a good speaker, though many say the opposite. But at the same I doubt there is anyone over 18 in this country, or probably most countries, who doesn't already know who she is. So far, I've seen nothing yet to lead me to believe she acted improperly, and I also think she has more on her plate than just fishing for votes. When she runs for office, she has a track record of listening as much, or more, than she talks. So I think her speeches were more about promoting Dem ideas and making new connections. The Clinton's are doing good work with their foundations, and speaking fees, as well as meeting new people, were probably a big factor in making the circuit. They would be for me if I were in her situation. I don't doubt the exposure was a extra benefit they were well aware of - though maybe not of primary concern. Just my opinion, nothing to back it up!

I think a HUGE part of her deciding to run was protecting the ACA. Health care has been a huge part of her life's work and I don't think she wants to give the Reps any opportunity to scrap it.

[CajunBlazer]

114. You give the impression that if you had her opportunties to make money you would....

,,, turn them down. If that impression is correct you would be either foolish or disingenuous.

The bottom line is that unless they have been illegally feeding at the public trough, public speaking is one of the only ways of making money unless you are going to work for one of those "evil" corporations.

I understand that Bernie's net worth is under $200,000; that's just sad for someone who has devoted his life to public service. If he doesn't win the nomination, I would not begrudge him the opportunity to make money on a speaking tour. Would you?

[floriduck]

117. You said that. Not. Me.

I said that her money making speeches may have been after her SOS job but that she was already building her war chest to run for office. That was not a dispute to the OP. It was an explanation as to why she sought to make the speeches.

I do support Bernie and he could have gathered his money too but his ideology doesn't run parallel to Hill. And his decision to run much, much later than Hillary's. Even so, he is now on par to give her another tight race like Obama did.

What I would do is irrelevant but I would have followed Bernie's approach. It seems to carry more authenticity than what she did.

[berniepdx420]

127. let's see the transcripts !!

[Wilms]

2. Have a look at this article from last July.

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Please also consider the financial people who have been in a revolving door scenario regardless of party.

Kind of done with that crowd. Bernie is to.

[Lucinda]

7. Thanks very much. I appreciate you taking the time to respond!

I will definitely read it.

[CharlotteVale]

4. She voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.

I have never trusted her since, and never will.

[Lucinda]

93. I haven't looked at her reasons why - thank you for mentioning it. I will

look at it. I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Thank you!

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Money.

[Fumesucker]

8. No one has been able to actually prove Hillary made those speeches to the banks

No photos, no videos, no transcripts, nothing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1056899

[RiverLover]

11. Does Hillary saying she gave speeches to wall street banks count?

Hillary Clinton: my speeches for Wall Street haven't led to conflict of interest
(....no conflict of interest!! )
6 hours ago
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/hillary-clinton-wall-street-banks-speeches-conflict-of-interest

[Fumesucker]

14. Does Hillary saying she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia count?

[Lucinda]

17. Why do you think there is a conflict of interest in a speech?

Meetings maybe, but why is a speech controversial?

[wilsonbooks]

60. Some might tend top think when you get 12 million dollars from a group that you

would tend to favor their interests.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

[Lucinda]

64. Your link says she made 2.9 million?

Not that 2.9 isn't a lot, but i've seen no indication anywhere that they were shady. It is pretty standard speaking fees for many politicians, sports figures, authors etc. She would certainly be a big draw for their group. And it gets a Democratic viewpoint of the world out there.

I do understand how it would bother you though.

[MrChuck]

10. Vermont Bankers

did not ruin this nation's economy either.

[Jarqui]

12. Elizabeth Warren spends a few minutes to explain how money

in politics works with a notable example

[Lucinda]

13. Thank you! Did you read her quotes about Glass-Stegall in the link above?

Appreciate the video! Will watch it after dinner!

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I would second the recommendation about the Warren video.

And i appreciate your reasonable and intelligent question.

[Jarqui]

32. Do you mean these quotes?

When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

Still, she said that the repeal of the law “had a powerful impact to let the big get bigger.” She also contended that its repeal, brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “mattered enormously. It is like holding up a sign to regulators to back up.”

Liberals Roar As Bernie Sanders Joins Elizabeth Warren On Bill To Reinstate Glass-Steagall
July 17, 2015
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/17/liberals-roar-bernie-sanders-joins-elizabeth-warren-bill-reinstate-glass-steagall.html

Sanders: "Today, not only must we reinstate this important law, but if we are truly serious about ending too big to fail, we have got to break up the largest financial institutions in this country. If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist."

The legislation to reinstate Glass-Steagall was introduced by Democratic Senators Warren and Cantwell (D-WA) along with Republican John McCain earlier this month. At the time, Warren said, “Despite the progress we’ve made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten our economy. The biggest banks are collectively much larger than they were before the crisis, and they continue to engage in dangerous practices that could once again crash our economy. The 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act will rebuild the wall between commercial and investment banking and make our financial system more stable and secure.”

Hillary doesn't want to bring back Glass-Steagall like Sanders and Warren. Might not look good on Bill's legacy.
http://observer.com/2015/12/why-hillary-clinton-wont-prevent-the-next-economic-recession/

Ms. Clinton’s comprehensive Wall Street Reform plan has a lot of positive attributes—many of which Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders agree with—but the dismissal of reinstating Glass Steagall weakens her plan significantly. In her Times op-ed she argued that “we need to tackle excessive risk wherever it lurks, not just the banks.” Ms. Clinton attempts to debunk the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act as ineffective, but given the political power of big banks—with the five largest on Wall Street currently holding 45 percent of the nation’s banking assets compared to just 25 percent in 2000—her cautious reforms are insufficient.

Supporting Ms. Warren and Mr. McCain’s 21st century Glass Steagall Act should be a staple of both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Sanders’ Wall Street reforms, but Ms. Clinton is opting for a less aggressive approach, which doesn’t help distance her from Wall Street. Some of the biggest donations to the Clinton Foundation came from Bank of America, CitiGroup and Goldman Sachs.

[Lucinda]

54. So she said no it didn't cause the crash, might have helped a little...and she also said:

"...In my conversation with Ms. Warren she told me that one of the reasons she’s been pushing reinstating Glass-Steagall — even if it wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis — is that it is an easy issue for the public to understand and “you can build public attention behind.”

She added that she considers Glass-Steagall more of a symbol of what needs to happen to regulations than the specifics related to the act itself..."


I do appreciate the other links though. I will look at them.

[Jarqui]

63. Not exactly. Here it is again

When I called Ms. Warren and pressed her about whether she thought the financial crisis or JPMorgan’s losses could have been avoided if Glass-Steagall were in place, she conceded: “The answer is probably ‘No’ to both.”

BUT,

Still, she said that the repeal of the law “had a powerful impact to let the big get bigger.”

and the big BUT:

She also contended that its (Glass-Steagall) repeal, brought about by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, “mattered enormously. It is like holding up a sign to regulators to back up.”

So it was a pretty serious factor in the collapse of 2008 because it didn't just affect the size of the institutions, more importantly, it discouraged regulation of those institutions.

Canada didn't suffer nearly as much in the collapse. In part, because better regulation was in place and in part for other reasons, like capitalization for example.

Part of it is selling the idea to the public. The public knows Glass-Steagall came in with the depression and when it went out, we had close to a similar event in 2008. Obe could call it anything they want but using that name to do the spirit of it sells the notion of it because it didn't kill the US economy or banks during the decades it was in place.

McCain and Warren have altered some definitions in it, etc to tighten it up or update it.

Unlike what Hillary is trying to falsely spin, that isn't all they want to do with financial reform.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. I would third the recommendation to watch the Liz Warren video.

It provides insight into the kinds of special relationships and friendly regulation which I refer to downthread.

[Lucinda]

66. Will definitely watch! n/t

[99Forever]

15. What you ask has been provided 100s if not 1000s of times.

I only speak for myself when I say, do your own homework. Site searches aren't exactly difficult. I'm not here to play fetch for Hillarians.

[Lucinda]

19. If you don't want to tell me your reasons that's ok with me.

I'm hoping others will.

[Voice for Peace]

55. I can't address the specific question

But for me it is foremost a character issue.

Hilary is not honest. No qualms about distorting her opponents' messages in order to manipulate voters.
It's an election about values.

[Rose Siding]

84. Sorry you got called a name, kid

Feel better

Seems liberals used to be more compassionate.

[Lucinda]

91. If I did I missed it! But thank you for your kind words!

I've been bouncing around and stopped to rest a bit and eat, when I came back I started at the bottom of the posts. Weird habit of mine!

[Bjornsdotter]

16. For me....

....it is a conflict of interest. Who will Hillary help more, the people like me who don't have a lot of money to throw her way or the corporations who do? People always want a return on their money and the corporations are no different.

I think it would be better if corporations and Super Pacs were not involved.

[Lucinda]

20. Thats what I am not understanding though...what money do you think has created a conflict?

All the money I can find has been from mostly individual donors, and then speakers fees. Is there a money source I'm missing?

[JonLeibowitz]

49. Yes, unlimited anonymous contributions to super PACs which she embraces.

[Lucinda]

96. Are those funds accessible for personal use?

I haven't looked at this in detail, so my question is a serious one. I don't think any campaign contribution should be hidden and un-vetted, ever, so I am very anti super PACs...however...

I'll repeat what I said below though, in this case, in this election, I am not hating the fact that the Dem candidate would have the ability to have deep pockets. The GE will be brutal, whoever we put forward. I suspect that may be in Hillary's mind at the moment too and is a factor in her support right now. I don't know why anyone would refuse to make use of those funds as long as your opponent can't pull zillions of dollars out of a hat.

I do hope to see the practice disposed of, and sensible campaign policies put in place. It takes an obscene amount of money to run for office, especially the POTUS. Needs to be severely reigned in. Too many good people are left unable to run, because of money in all areas of government.

[JonLeibowitz]

97. I do not think they can be used directly for personal use, no.

Stephen Colbert did a great series of pieces on super PACs.

You may not feel that it is not wrong to use super PACs in a general election against Republicans. But remember that Sec. Clinton is using her super PAC against a democratic rival. Is Sanders some great evil that requires anonymous corporate dollars to defeat for the greater good of the country?

I think not. To me that signifies that super PACs are more than just a tool to beat Republicans to Sec. Clinton

[Lucinda]

98. They need to go. No doubt. I'd rather no one have them, but it isnt the climate we are in right now.

Hillary is working a big ground game and they are expensive, but I don't know what funds she is using in the Primaries. I hope Bernie has a plan to counter the Reps if he becomes our nominee. Social media could be a huge help, and the campaign seems to use it well.

And I'll look for Colbert's PAC pieces. Love him, don't have cable, so I always had to catch him and Stewart when I could, online.

[JonLeibowitz]

99. Well you know that the super PACs are trying to destroy Sanders.

David Brock's PAC has been getting a lot of attention around here because of the attacks they have been generating. And he has been buying online news outlets to print positive pieces about Hillary and diss Bernie.

Just so you know, yes, she is certainly using corporate money against her primary challenger.

[Lucinda]

101. I've seen some really ugly stuff out there, and I don't really know what masters they are serving

I do know it's usually more complicated than it appears though. I'd seen the name and I don't anything about him other than the posts about the ties he has to Hillary. More digging for me to do...

[JonLeibowitz]

102. Well, Brock is definitely vile. Here are some links, but Hillary Clinton is definitely his master

Here is a washington post article about the coordination with her campaign. He is using his corporate funds to coordinate with Clinton's campaign (arguably in violation of FEC regulations, but the FEC is virtually powerless these days):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-20/david-brock-i-was-prepared-to-bring-up-sanders-s-medical-records

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-brock-sanders-black-lives-matter

From this last one, Brock took this lovely little ad:

...and spun it to claim Sanders doesn't care about black lives. This is the kind of behavior that unlimited corporate money is being spent on, with coordination from Clinton's campaign.

Not to mention that Brock's corporate PAC has purchased the online publication Blue Nation Review:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

Now they're putting out anti-Sanders "journalism" pieces.

http://bluenationreview.com/with-bernie-sanders-as-the-nominee-democrats-can-kiss-the-presidency-goodbye/

http://bluenationreview.com/hope-and-rage-are-roves-dirty-tricks-against-hillary-backfiring-on-bernie/

Again, this is all unlimited anonymous donations to a super PAC. And people sometimes mock Sanders supporters for being furious about corporate and wall street money.

[Lucinda]

103. Thanks! I had started searching on my own a little, while my meds kick in, and the first

thing I came to about him, was a bunch of infighting between different Hillary PACs. Sounds like a bunch of kids squabbling. I can't take anymore tonight, but I really appreciate the links you posted. I'll dig in tomorrow!

The two main reasons why I asked for people to tell me their views, and also share links if they had them was a) - I want to know what real people think not pundits and b) - My time sitting in this chair is limited before it becomes too painful, so not having to start from scratch without vetted links, even if my own opinion ends up flowing differently, is a huge help. There is sooo much junk out there.

And I had to retype almost 50 percent of this twice before it was (mostly I hope) correct. So I am giving up for the night. I'm looking forward to the links. The dude may or may not be as shady as everyone thinks, but anyone who gets so over the top invested that hes fighting with other PACs over who is the "bestest in the land," is worrisome.

My fella and I just finished watching a really great series on Youtube called The Great War, and I was reminded just how far off the range some zealots can go in their crusade to support whatever cause they are rallying behind.

Thanks again for taking the time. Looking forward to peeping through all the links.

Lucinda

[Lucinda]

110. Brock's story is amazing. Did a little more reading about him

between my heading settling down and finally being able to sleep. Talk about going from one side to the other! Fascinating stuff.
I slept most of today, and am dealing with the pain the weather changes cause, but I'll be reading more tonight and tomorrow.

[JonLeibowitz]

119. I don't consider Brock's story to be amazing, but it is certainly interesting.

He was a political attack dog for the right-wing. Now he is a political attack dog for the Clintons. It doesn't appear his tactics have changed much, he very much loves personal attacks and character assassinations. It's pretty sad to see him being used in a primary.

[cannabis_flower]

53. For me..

the speaking fees are a problem. I read somewhere that she got $600 in speaking fees from Goldman Sacks just in the last few months. Hillary's people say it's speaking fees and not donations. But that's like Hillary is working for them. And what is she telling them in those private meetings where she gets huge speaking fees? And right, they are speaking fees and not political donations but she can always use her own money to run for office and these speeches at private meetings gives her lots of it.

[Lucinda]

58. They don't seem to be private meetings, but more perks for employees

and company VIPs if you look at the link. That said, we don't have a listing of all the speech locations and topics yet. Though my link above has a lot! She was busy.

I again don't have a problem with the speeches. I understand that people think differently though. The Clinton's were worth a whole lot of money before she even started giving speeches after leaving State, so it doesn't seem to me that even 600k would turn her away from her life's work. If it were me, I'd happily take the money if they were willing to pay it, for a chance to give them an exposure to a Democratic point of view on the world.

[cannabis_flower]

61. And for me..

those amounts of money for one or two speeches mean influence. "If I don't do what they want, they might not continue to let me give them speeches."

[Lucinda]

77. I don't think she is worried about her next paycheck.

The Clintons will never want for money, and what I think they both hunger for is that feeling you get when you make a difference. It boosts your ago, yeah, but in my experience, it goes deeper.

Anyway, I think they could have both stopped after Bill's term, made huge piles of money and done what Bush the lesser has done. Which is mostly stay out of sight and be very very rich. I can't see either of them taking up painting though... Instead they are working all over the globe to help people live better lives. If speaking fees help them live well, make contacts, and raise money for their projects at the same time, I'm good with that.

[Bjornsdotter]

56. The Dark Money

The dark money donated to Super PACs can be from corporations and/or people. We can only suspect/assume where that money came from and why it was to a Super PAC.

I also think that Hillary's high speaking fees cloaked a donation, but that is only my opinion.

[Lucinda]

62. I dont see the speaking fees the same way you do, but I agree that

undocumented money is a very very bad thing for politics. I can understand why she might feel the need to make use of it though, since she can... I think she believes she will be the nominee, and will have to have deep pockets to take on the Reps. No matter who we nominate, they better have money to fight with, because it will be ugly.

[farleftlib]

25. Sanders's (sic) is an old and crusty "jew" OMG, Are you for real??

That is totally repulsive.

[wilt the stilt]

29. I grew up in a jewish clique

in Yonkers, NY. Instead of understanding context you react and don't even understand America. The number one most hated group are African Americans. Jews aren't far behind.

[farleftlib]

31. Oh I understand plenty, trust me

and what you said is just plain ugly. You tried to insult him but all you did was out your own ugly nature.

[wilt the stilt]

35. I am not insulting him

I am saying how he will be viewed by a lot of people. I am still in touch with all my jewish friends and they would agree with me.

[farleftlib]

40. ugly, ugly, ugly

and you renounce Sanders' supporters as being too vocal? Yuck!

[wilt the stilt]

41. Do you see how they try to belittle

and dismiss anyone who isn't a Sanders supporter. There behavior is rather repulsive.

[farleftlib]

46. Go away, gross little man

and take your jew-hating insults and attitude with you.

[Autumn]

71. Call it what it is, antisemitism. Posters at one time would get banned for it. Before Bernie.

Now it's all the rage here.

[farleftlib]

73. Yes, that's exactly what it is

and if you point it out, evidently it's only because you hate Hillary. I am thoroughly repulsed that someone is allowed to get away with hate speech like that.

[wilt the stilt]

81. like i need a lecture from you

my grandmother was arrested in 1910 for cavorting with chinese people. my dad wasn't allowed to swim in the public pools in St. Louis. When we went to get a mortgage in 1962 with 45% Down we couldn't get a mortgage and had to go to the bank of harlem to get one. I grew up in a jewish clique and you are lecturing me about discrimination.
give me a break.

[roguevalley]

94. on please. my granny stories. you need a lecture and that remark will be alerted on I am sure

By someone as disgusted as the rest of us. The hrc mod better step it up or rename the list to reflect the remarks made there. How does this help hrc? Disgusting

[Deny and Shred]

57. Repulsive behavior?

Yeesh.

Read your posts in this thread then tell me what, praytell, should a neutral observer think of Clinton supporters based on your comments?

[wilt the stilt]

82. So let me tell you

something. My grandmother was arrested for cavorting with chinese people. my dad couldn't sim in the public pools in St. Louis, When we went to get a mortgage in 1962 we had to go to the bank of harlem even though we had 45% down. by the time time republicans get through with him he might as well hve a star of dävid tattoed on his forehead.

and you are going to lecture me about discrimination. you are exactly the white phonies that disgust me.

Being a white southerner you have never actually experienced discrimination.

[Deny and Shred]

85. Wow. I lectured you?

I'm a white Southerner phony? You know SO much about me. Tell me Carnac, how long have I been in the South? Did I ever live in Yonkers too?

Did I?

How many days, months, years did I live in the Tri-State area?

Was MY grandfather ever discriminated against, or was your family the only one to experience discrimination?

Did my father ever actually play basketball against Wilt in Philly when he was at Roman and Wilt was at Overbrook? Did one of my best friends just complete a tour with the remnants of The Dead? Have I ever met Bobby or Micky or Billy?

You have such a grasp of reality and know me so well, please unseal the envelope and reveal the secrets of my universe.

Stop with the lecturing yourself. You know exactly squat about me. Your purporting to know me makes you the phony.

I guess all that experience mentioned in your post taught you to be an anti-semite or did I misunderstand your comments about Jews? Stop casting aspersions and answer for your comments upthread.

[wilt the stilt]

86. like you ever experienced anything

white boy

[Deny and Shred]

87. Aren't you precious

Its a big tent, you sure you're in the right party?

Jew-baiting, now race-baiting. Anything else you want to share with the class?

[Deny and Shred]

89. Ok dude. Simmer down.

Fine, your experinces are significant, and mine are insignificant if that makes you happy.

There is some real non-sequitur stuff happening with your responses. I will chalk it up to a rough day or something.

I've never alerted and I won't now. I can take insults, but I don't know where this bile is coming from. It's on you, not me.

Try to ease up on the Jew and White insults going forward if you could, for all of us.

[tazkcmo]

112. White boy?

Now you've doubled down. You need to be banned.

[Dr. Strange]

136. Annnnndddd...gone.

Good riddance.

[ms liberty]

74. Your comments are what is repulsive.

As a Bernie supporter and a southerner who has never lived outside the south I am insulted by your comments and say that you are wrong. I am not going to justify your comments with a rebuttal. I'm also not going to alert on this post and your broad brush attack, and I ask that no one else do so. Leave it, so everyone can see the ugliness of your remarks in this subthread.

[Ken Burch]

135. After what you posted here, you may not have any "Jewish friends" left.

n/t.

[wilt the stilt]

78. and you grew up in a jewish clique

and I still talk to them just bout every day. It is how he will be perceived by the time the republican machine is done with him. I have been a democrat since '72. my first vote was McGovern in '72 and that was because I had to wait until I was 21 to vote. I marched on Washington in '69.

My grandmother was arrested in 1910 for cavorting with chinese people(she was German). My dad wasn't allowed to swim in the public swimming pools in St. Louis.
I think I know a bit more about discrimination than you and you are going to lecture me about
discrimination.
How many of you people criticizing me have experienced discrimination like this and don't kid yourself I saw it also.

I'm 65 years old and I understand discrimination more than most.

Give me a break.
Like I need a lecture from you people about discrimination.

[Exilednight]

132. What the fuck is wrong with you? You seriously think that kind of language is okay in the

21st century?

[TwilightZone]

133. Just FYI: you're replying to a post from four months ago.

For the record, I think the poster is an idiot, but if you're replying expecting a response, don't hold your breath. This thread and the hidden response linked here are from January.

[Ken Burch]

134. So we should respond to hatred by deferring to it? by appeasing it?

You do realize that most people who hate Jews also hate women, right?

[nc4bo]

30. Just ewwww.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Lucinda]

100. Yep. This whole sub-thread is a giant WTH?

[JonLeibowitz]

22. Great post.

Allow me to explain why I do not trust Hillary Clinton on corporate and Wall street regulation.

Donations

You are right about the misinformation. Many people do not understand FEC regulations on campaign spending. Of course, those wall street financia sector donations have not ceased since she stopped representing NY. Further, super PACs are allowed to take unlimited anonymous contributions from corporations. Companies like Goldman Sachs contribute to candidates from both parties, which is highly suspicious as they aren't simply backing candidates which are good for them: they're having a net-zero impact on dollars raised (perhaps not quite because they may donate more to one party) while still having st minimum a sense of gratitude from candidates. I'll believe that Clinton has received no direct contributions from Big Banks when she provides a notarized list of contributors to her Super PAC. Trust, but verify. Until then, no I simply cannot trust her.

Speaking Fees

There is nothing illegal in making speeches to big banks. Even big banks which act contrary to the best interests of the American people for profit. Even companies which make calculated decisions to break the law, knowing that the civil penalties (they are too big to prosecute, said Holder) will not exceed the profit from doing so.

As she has done.

But Federal employees working in the Financial sector are warned not just to avoid a conflict of interest, which she has, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest. For example they are not allowed to own individual bank stocks. It was the biggest unkept secret that Hillary was running for President. People knew in 2009 when she became SOS. To resign from one's civil service job and begin making highly paid speeches is appalling to me. I liken it to the banks which offer golden parachutes to top executives who leave their firms to work for civil service (regulatory agency) positions (something the AFL-CIO and Liz Warren are fighting, fwiw). With that amount of money in such a short time, the question is if there is an implied loyalty to the companies in their future positions.

What's worse is, she has laughed off questions asking her to provide some transparency on what was in her speeches to these large firms.

Bernie is right: no speaker is that good. They have to have something else in mind for a return on their speeking fee. Maybe it is simply a friendly ear. Maybe it is more. I would argue a friendly ear is already too much, and that's the most charitable case that can be made for her.

This has made it impossible to trust her on Wall St regulation. For me.

[Lucinda]

36. Thank you for this. I really appreciate your time and

it points me in new directions. Can I come back and ask questions if I have any?

[JonLeibowitz]

39. Sure. If you need sources on the Golden Parachute analogy I am happy to provide them.

I don't think it is just my cynical nature that leads to this distrust. It is more of a lack of naivete in how the world works. Others view it differently and take HRC at her word. I personally find it impossible to do so, given the many falsehoods and bait-and-switches she has done in her life.

[Lucinda]

95. I've seen a bit myself, and I stopped being surprised a long time ago. The closest

i've been to a true "Did I really just hear that?" moment has been listening to Trump.
I don't consider myself a cynic though. I taught an Intro to Theatre Arts course while working on a graduate degree, and I'm pretty well versed how people get manipulated by the media and the "show" so I don't buy into much until I do my homework. Keeps me from getting cranky. Most of the time. I am about out of steam, so I probably won't do much more digging tonight.

[hedda_foil]

120. Lucinda, do you or did you once live in Chicago?

[Betty Karlson]

122. Great response.

If I may say so: you worded it as though speaking for me and many more of us.

[Trajan]

28. You're sweet ...

But I'm not buying in ... I'm beyond concern over these issues, and dedicated to moving Bernie forward ...

The choice was made long ago .... THAT is a done deal ....

Good luck ....

[Lucinda]

33. I'm not selling anything Trajan. A vote is a precious thing and we all come to ours

for different reasons. I have the utmost respect for people who actually participate in the process.
I posted because I have questions about some of the opinions that weren't clicking with my research, so I thought i'd ask.

[JRLeft]

51. Not mention defense contractors whom benefited from her being SOS.

All whom donated to the Clinton Global Iniative. Her and Bill's connection to the Carlyle Group an organization whose members are the Bush's and Bin Laden's is enough for me to steer clear from.

[Voice for Peace]

59. Another thing that bothers me a lot

Is her relationship w private prison industry.

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/private_prison_lobbyists_are_fundraising_for_hillary_clinton_20150724

Though she may be cutting those ties, not sure.
Edit again to add this linkhttp://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/

[Deny and Shred]

69. Are you finished with dinner yet?

When you are, please respond to posts 2, 11, 12, 22, 32 and any others about which you gave passing acquiescence and avoided direct responses.

The money she collected from speeches ARE out of the ordinary in comparison to Sen. Sanders. He hasn't collected millions. Re-instating Glass-Stegall goes much further than any 'Cut It Out' pablum of which Madam Secretary has other speak. Please point me to the specifics you mentioned detailing how she curtailed Wall Street to the benefit of average Americans.

I do hope you are okay. That said, don't hide behind, 'after dinner' and 'I will read it soon' or similar what-have-you. You started the OP. Own it and defend your positions.

If her positions aren't defensible, please do consider swimming downstream with Bernie - no moral pretzel required.

[Lucinda]

75. I'm not hiding. Things take longer for me than some people :)

And I intend to get to everyone. I skipped over some, because others were things I could respond to quickly without too much reading.

[artislife]

113. Reading through this thread and thinking the same thing....nt

[JonLeibowitz]

123. Interesting that no real responses or justifications were made to the many facts listed here

[artislife]

124. Typical bs from that side.

What can you do but step aside and get on with it.

[JonLeibowitz]

125. No doubt, but what is amusing is that the OP is becoming a rather prolific pro-Hillary...

and anti-Bernie advocate. Despite never having addressed the truths here. Things that make you go hmmm.

Anyway, this is post #125 and will kick it to the front page of Latest...

[CajunBlazer]

115. Could it be that no one wants to pay to hear Bernie talk aboutthe same message....

... he has delivering for fifty years. I think I could recite it from memory.

[ejbr]

34. K & R

for visibility. I appreciate a post that addresses the concerns we have

[Lucinda]

38. Thank you. And your sig line made me laugh! n/t

[ejbr]

48. .....

[Uponthegears]

37. Wasn't too long

I think much of what you bring up is because donations become shorthand for influence in a world where the two are often connected. It may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt but it makes it more likely than not. Personally I would like to see the TRANSCRIPTS OF EVERY SPEECH HILLARY MADE to G-S and other banking/corporate interests before I declare her guilty of corporate stoogery. Do you think that will be coming soon or will she be taking the (political) Fifth?

[JonLeibowitz]

42. She already took the political Fifth by laughing off a reporter's question. n/t

[Lucinda]

43. I think it would put a lot of minds at ease should she become the nominee. The link above has three

videos from three speeches linked, but one was just a short soundbite, the other was about 30 minutes Q & A, and I couldn't get the third to load. I hope the author of the article continues to add info.

[EdwardBernays]

44. Hillary's campaign chairman

Owns a lobbying firm that represents weapons manufacturers, big pharma and Saudi Arabia... During her time as sec of state she reversed numerous policies allowing countries with poor human rights records to buy weapons from the same companies her campaign managers lobbying firm represents.

So there's that...

But there's plenty more reasons to be sceptical of her ability to make good decisions. And her ability to not be influenced by special interests.

"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[DirkGently]

45. How would anyone legislate against their friends and benefactors?

NOTE: I have posted much of this before, and reiterate here in response to what appears to be an honest request for the basis of why people feel Hillary Clinton is beholden to the banking and financial industries. I have not reposted these thoughts before, and am not trying to "spam" the site with them. These are just my thoughts on this subject, along with some of the information I think supports them.

This is to me at the heart of substantive, rather than emotional objections to another Clinton in the White House. The wealthiest, most self-interested people and entities in the world are part of their social circle and integral to their personal financial successes, and the lifeblood of their extra-political endeavors.

When the Supreme Court said that massive campaign donations weren't a threat to democracy without a specific, "quid pro quo" exchange of money for influence, we laughed and shook our heads. Wealthy people don't give you a million dollars and expect nothing in return.

How do you, even if you want to, turn on a Goldman Sachs or Deutsche Bank or Morgan Stanley that like you so much they pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear you speak?

And, does anyone think those firms were paying to hear about how their industry has run amok, and needs to be held accountable for the trillions they pocketed from the American economy?

The Clintons are not just friendly to Wall Street -- they are in business with them. They have built their lives and their fortunes out of relationships with the people who bit out the beating heart of middle-class wealth, chewed and swallowed it, then insisted they were doing "God's work."

Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire.
As Clinton tries to talk tough about how she will stand up to America's biggest banks, her Democratic rivals are likely to remind voters just how cozy she's been with Wall Street.
Clinton made $3.15 million in 2013 alone from speaking to firms like Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and UBS, according to the list her campaign released of her speaking fees.
"Her closeness with big banks on Wall Street is sincere, it's heart-felt, long-established and well known," former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has said on the campaign trail.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/

They can do that if they want, but no one who thinks the banks and the financial industry need to be better regulated should expect that to come from one of Wall Street's best friends in the world.


____________________________________________________


The issue with Glass-Steagall is not that it either repealing it caused the bank implosion that crashed the world's economy, or could prevent another in the future. But it was part of a rational scheme to prevent banks from gambling with depositor money, and repealing it not only unquestionably contributed to the crisis, but evidenced a wrong-headed belief on the part of the previous Clinton administration that the financial industry was unfairly hampered by regulation, and that letting it self-police would be better for everyone.

Hillary, in denying the role of Glass-Steagall in the banking crisis, appears to be saying she doesn't understand what was wrong with the entire notion of de-regulating the banks so they could be more "creative" in their money-making endeavors.

The real problem, though, is that Clinton is in denial when she blames "shadow banking" and firms like Lehman for being the real cause of the crash. Her theory shades the truth in favor of the banks, who were eyeballs-deep in the wild speculation and reckless underwriting that blew up the world, but she is quite clearly determined not to acknowledge that.

A hedge-fund manager, writing on Forbes:

It was Glass-Steagall that prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers. This ability along with financing provided to all the other players was what kept the bubble-machine going for so long.

Now, when memories are fresh, is the time to reinstate Glass-Steagall to prevent a third cycle of fraud on customers. Without the separation of banking and underwriting, it's just a matter of time before banks repeat their well-honed practice of originating garbage loans and stuffing them down customers' throats. Congress had the answer in 1933. Congress lost its way in 1999. Now is the chance to get back to the garden.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis

The Washington Post allowing that the repeal was not "the proxmimate cause" but was a factor:

The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 was part of a broad deregulatory push, championed by the likes of Fed chief Alan Greenspan, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, that eliminated much of the oversight on Wall Street. Freed from onerous regulation, the banks could “innovate” and grow.

● After the repeal, banks merged into more complex and more leveraged institutions.

● These banks, which were customers of nonbank firms such as AIG, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, in turn contributed to these firms bulking up their subprime holdings as well. This turned out to be speculative and dangerous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html

[Lucinda]

90. Thank you so much for taking the time to post this great response! I'm going to

dig into your links to respond more fully, but I wan't to give some first impressions.

First of all, I despise the fact that that any campaign donation cannot be publicly viewed and vetted. That needs to end. And at the same time, at this time, I admit that I am glad to see that a Dem candidate can have really deep pockets when approaching the GE. This is going to be a brutal - expensive - election, and that will be the case regardless of who our nominee is. It stinks, and it needs to be fixed, but for this one moment in time, I think it will be of enormous help.

She can't legislate as POTUS, so there is much less of a chance of anything untoward happening than if she WERE corrupt, and sitting in the Senate. Though she and the Reps don't want Glass-Stegall reinstated they are for two very different reasons. I'm looking forward to reading your links on Glass-Stegall, did you look at mine?

I have to go back to my earlier statement about who her constituents were in NY, to talk a little about her ties to the financial district. I am in the minority that doesn't look at the financial institutions as a monolith, and the enemy. I think we need a healthy active Wall Street and banking systems. But they need to be regulated. It isn't surprising that they would have her come speak. She worked hard for NY as a Senator, and even though she takes heat for saying some of her support now may be due to the actions she and Schumer took after the attacks, I don't think it can easily be set aside. There were several financial businesses in the towers. And those people left behind families, and coworkers. In addition, those communities know each other. These are people, not just ledgers and spreadsheets, with some disembodied corporate body at the helm. Morgan Stanley alone, had 13 stories of offices in One World Trade. Our financial industry took a huge hit, and their Senators were there to help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tenants_in_One_World_Trade_Center

I've seen some comments that I haven't responded to yet, that deal with her legislation favoring some companies, and I plan on looking at those along with your Glass-Stegall links. I hope it's ok to take a little more of your time after reading them. Thank you again for your response. I know there are broad divisions on the way people view Glass-Stegall, and I appreciate you sharing your point of view.

Lucinda

[femmedem]

52. Some of it is based on her record from her days in the Senate.

The Boston Globe lays it out here.

"...She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall Street regulation. With banks enjoying a new era of deregulation that her husband helped create, a neutralized Clinton represented a win for the financial services industry and its perpetual effort to free itself from Washington’s hand..."

The article goes into great depth, too much for me to cut and paste here.

I'm sorry to hear about your chronic health problems, and I thank you for a civil conversation, and for the effort you've put into sharing your research.

[Lucinda]

65. Thank you so much for the link and the kind words! I'll add it to my reading list.

If I have any questions can I come back and ask?

[femmedem]

105. Sure!

But it might take me a few days to get back to you: I'm working on a local campaign which requires a lot of my not-at-work time for the next three days.

Edited to add: I support Bernie over Clinton primarily because of his focus on campaign finance reform, but my fear with Clinton has more to do with her foreign policy views, which strike me as too hawkish. The "we came, we saw, he died" video clip horrifies me, and I was also chilled when she said the Iranians are the enemy she is proudest to have.

[Lucinda]

109. I am having physical issues, so my responses may be slow too

I hate everything about the Bin Laden raid. I see no reason why he couldn't have been brought it. It makes me really wonder if the govt wasn't afraid of what he might say....but maybe that is just me being a little

[femmedem]

118. Take your time and don't exhaust yourself!

I really admire the care and thoughtfulness you've put into your original post and your many replies. I think you've singlehandedly raised the level of discourse on DU--and you've done it despite being in pain.

[Cal33]

70. I don't know if you will find the link below satisfactory:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511056001

[Lucinda]

80. I have that one bookmarked to watch from earlier today!

Thank you for posting it here too though! If I have to take the thread to my tablet, it will be easier to read from this page downloaded, than to maneuver through DU in a web browser at the same time!

[mhatrw]

72. Because they have purchased her many time$ over?

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:35 PM - Edit history (2)

Because she is now one of them, lock, $tock, and barrel?

Because her husband repealed Glass-Steagall at their reque$t?

[Binkie The Clown]

76. The truth is out there, however...

there are certain groups which seem to have an allergic reaction to truth, and tend to avoid it at all costs. If you frequent such a group (and I won't name any names) you will only hear the things they want to have heard. It would be like asking a priest what's wrong with the Catholic church, or asking Fox news viewer what's wrong with Fox "News", or asking a full-on Rush Limbaugh ditto head why Rush Limbaugh is full of crap.

In other words, you will isolate yourself, and insulate yourself from unwanted truth, and hear only what you want to hear about whichever candidate you have a crush on. My best advice is to stay away from "the chorus" or the "the echo chamber" and listen openly to all sides of every issue and every candidate. I once tried to raise an honest question in such a group and was immediately (and I do mean immediately) banned from that group. That type of fear of open discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with getting at the truth, and only about controlling what is said so that no member will ever have to hear anything they don't want to hear.

[Lucinda]

79. I'm not here enough, nor am I the cliquish type, so I don't form those bonds. Though I did when

I was well enough to post in Cooking and Baking a lot. We weren't, as a rule, a very rowdy bunch though.
I'd venture into GD to find out what was happening back then - we don't do cable, and DU has been an excellent source of news for me for years, but I can't handle drama and stress that happens a lot here, so my visits here have been rare the past few years.

The election is too important to not be informed, so here I will be, at least on the days when I can.

Editing to say that I think your advice was very good, and I hope it finds it's way to anyone new who may read this thread. I have very strong beliefs about who the enemy is, it's probably a lot different than some here, but it's not other Dems.

[Maedhros]

104. Regarding your point that the contribution totals represent her entire career from 1999-2015:

Precisely. She has an established record of taking political contributions primarily from the corporate and financial sectors. Corporate contributions are the norm, not an aberration explained away by an increased need for contributions to fund a Presidential bid.

[Lucinda]

107. She was the Senator from NY - lots of corporations based there

as is the financial community. I don't see that as unusual for the circumstances. Their employees donated, it wasn't big corporate paydays.

Guess we are just going to have to disagree about this! But I thank you for your post.

[Maedhros]

111. I work for a large bank. I'm sure my employer makes political donations, but I have never been

asked to make a personal donation on behalf of my employer. I doubt that the donations from Goldman Sachs or Citibank or Bank of America came from anywhere but their lobbying offices.

[mmonk]

106. Because I have lived through the changes in the party

from pre Clinton/Gore and the DLC/New Democrats/Third Way to the present.

[Lucinda]

108. Yep. Me too. It's such a different world now. n/t

[CajunBlazer]

116. K&R - a very intellegent and respectful post

I hope by the time you read this you are feeling better.

You have to forgive some of Sanders folks. Some of them - but by no means all - get a bit upset when someone asks legitimate questions about why they believe as they do. It's almost as if you are attacking their religion, if they have one, or their favorite hero. On some subjects hey are not logical; facts too often get in their way with their emotional preferences.

Again I appreciate the effort you have made to determine the truth, whatever that turns out to be.

[elana i am]

121. let me be frank

clinton got over half a mil in speaking fees from goldman sachs. when they, as well as her other financial industry suitors, tanked the economy, i got 2 years of unemployment and all the absolute joys that come with it.

and i'm not stupid enough to believe all those six figure speeches she gave at financial institutions were the explicit, straight forward declarations to go fuck themselves they should have been.

clinton is on my bad side. period. the end.

[berniepdx420]

126. Two Clintons. 41 years. 3 billion.

A Washington Post investigation reveals how Bill and Hillary Clinton have methodically cultivated donors over 40 years, from Little Rock to Washington and then across the globe. Their fundraising methods have created a new blueprint for politicians and their donors.
By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy
Published on Nov. 19, 2015

41 years. $3 billion. Inside the Clinton donor network.
By Matea Gold, Tom Hamburger and Anu Narayanswamy
HOW WE DID IT
This project is an effort to identify every known donor who contributed to support Bill and Hillary Clinton over their four decades in public life.

Read about our methodology.

LITTLE ROCK — Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family’s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/

[berniepdx420]

128. Maybe take a wider viewpoint .. think about how money plays a part in everyday life including

politics..then know that the Clintons have raised the most money in politics ever.. why are there such large donations.. not for fun.. here's a really good list with short concise ideas...

While it is true that you don’t typically have to bribe your postman to deliver the mail in the US, in many key ways America’s political and financial practices make it in absolute terms far more corrupt than the usual global South suspects. After all, the US economy is worth over $16 trillion a year, so in our corruption a lot more money changes hands.

1. Instead of having short, publicly-funded political campaigns with limited and/or free advertising (as a number of Western European countries do), the US has long political campaigns in which candidates are dunned big bucks for advertising. They are therefore forced to spend much of their time fundraising, which is to say, seeking bribes. All American politicians are basically on the take, though many are honorable people. They are forced into it by the system. House Majority leader John Boehner has actually just handed out cash on the floor of the House from the tobacco industry to other representatives.
When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was defeated in 2012, soon thereafter French police actually went into his private residence searching for an alleged $50,000 in illicit campaign contributions from the L’Oreale heiress. I thought to myself, seriously? $50,000 in a presidential campaign? Our presidential campaigns cost a billion dollars each! $50,000 is a rounding error, not a basis for police action. Why, George W. Bush took millions from arms manufacturers and then ginned up a war for them, and the police haven’t been anywhere near his house.
American politicians don’t represent “the people.” With a few honorable exceptions, they represent the the 1%. American democracy is being corrupted out of existence.

That's just the first one.. you should check out the other 4 here...

http://www.juancole.com/2013/12/corrupt-country-world.html

[djean111]

129. Hillary is for war and fracking and the TPP and cluster bombs and increased H-1B visas.

Those things are bad for people.
That is my bottom line, and that is why I will not support Hillary. End of discussion.

[JonLeibowitz]

130. Kick. Lots of raised issues left unresolved and unanswered here. n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

131. Kick.