How Hillary Clinton will bring down the Democratic Party and it is not what you might think

[fourcents]

In the vein of the psychology of Rorschach test, when the electorate thinks of Wall Street or the to big to fail Banks, which politician would most of the electorate think of?.......... Most would think of Hillary Clinton. To some she is the poster girl for Wall Street and the big Banks. Although I think we know most of the GOP would sell their soul to Wall Street, actually most already have but when it comes to the majority of Wall Streets political investment, Hillary is their pick this election cycle.

I predict that they will be damaging videos, audios or transcripts of Hillary's big money speeches to those financial institutions turning up. I'm thinking some are sitting on them patiently for a release of an opportune time. They're probably was a bounty for them, I mean think about how much they are worth to the opposing party. The attack ads would be something like Hillary saying one thing then juxtaposed would be the proof of the money she received and what she told them which is the opposite of what she is telling the public. She needs to get rid of her Wall Street ties in her campaign now, they will use that against her unlike anything Senator Sanders has.

Now this is what can really ruin it for a lot of our Democratic Party. The multiple economic and financial bubbles that are due to burst because not enough has been done to stop them and what has been done has since been weaken. Weakened by deregulation, people with influence and the ones who's job is to police it are the very ones that help create the problems. The fact that not one went to jail for the past financial meltdown adds to the outrage of the populous. All this compounds to voter turning out like a lynch mob. Reminds me of, remember the last crash when the Tea party was corralled by the Kochs and the media. The corporate media ignored occupy. The corporate media will not help the Democratic party if this comes to be, because to them they do just as fine with Republicans as they did with the corporate wing of Democratic party.

Pundits and others keep saying Senator Sanders has not been vetted. His history of winning by large margins by having Independents and Republicans voting for him adds to the proof that he does very well from attacks. One of the strategies he uses is, he utilizes the attention of the media from the attacks to push his issue that the populous agrees with backing it up with a record to prove it. Kinda of politico Aikido. Plus there is the internet and army of people using social media on his side. If something akin to the scenario I laid out happens and Bernie Sanders was the democratic nominee or POTUS it would not hurt the party because he has nothing to do with Wall Street and their corrupted ways. He along with the right cabinet picks can do things from preventing it from happening or fix it if it if it already did happen and save the party either way. Statistically or historically shows another party is due to win this election but being that Bernie use to be a independent is our way of beating those statistics and getting a FDR like Democratic candidate as President of the United States.

A lot of people think her server will get her in big trouble and it may? hence the title.
Please add your comment if you agree, disagree or feel free to add anything to the conversation. Respectfully, I personally am highly against censorship at DU. I think it hinders ideas and seeing other points of views. If you are strong with your democratic beliefs it can only make you a stronger advocate.

[revbones]

1. Hillary followers don't care. It's her turn!

Integrity, consistency, etc... not words in Hillary's dictionary.

[BernieforPres2016]

3. Exactly right. Hillary supporters don't care what she said to Wall Street.

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

They could catch her on camera discussing how much money they would pay for which legislation and her supporters wouldn't care.

[AgerolanAmerican]

26. Hillary is a woman!

Woman woman right wing conspiracy is is!

[elljay]

28. But she's a progressive like DWS

They've pushed the definition of progressive so far to the right because they're either embarrassed to admit that they are moderates or they are ignorant of her actual positions (at least today's positions). I've explained her positions to a couple of supporters who were surprised- they had just assumed she was a liberal. At least one is now voting for Bernie and I'm still working on the other.

[Punkingal]

33. I think a lot of her voters are voting on past perceptions.

[Hoyt]

2. What do you expect to find in those speeches? Heck, hundreds of people attended, including

Democrats. Everyone there had phones, cameras, recorders. If Clinton had talked about stealing money from the poor, it would have been on Youtube long ago. Her saying typical keynote speaker stuff, isn't very exciting.

So why doesn't she release them? Because just like Obama's birth certificate, for her critics it will never be enough -- they'll take a phrase out of context, ask what was said during breaks, want to know if she went off script, was she winking at audience, ah she was just paying lip service to the poor, and similar BS.

A good example, at one speech she said "bankers were not the only ones responsible for the housing bubble bursting and the recession." Well that's true, in addition to bankers, government, appraisers, small company retirement plans, real estate brokers, home furniture vendors, brick makers, construction workers, roofers, insurers, investment advisers, and a lot more, were all for selling more houses to more people, including those who just couldn't afford them. As long as housing prices were increasing, it was a good ride. If someone found they couldn't pay, they could sell their house for little loss, maybe even walking away with a little money. Yet, Sanders's supporters went nuts because she said "bankers weren't the only ones at fault."

[Gwhittey]

5. Slosh Slosh

[revbones]

9. yeah, nevermind that her contract said only she could record it

Since all the crooks in attendance had cell phones, and she was praising them - I'm sure they would have wanted to film it to expose her right?

[Dem2]

16. Exactly

[DanTex]

4. When people think of Hillary, they think a progressive former first lady and SoS.

[polichick]

7. Only uninformed people.

[DanTex]

8. The opposite, actually. The Bernie Bros on twitter are the uninformed ones in a bubble.

[revbones]

12. Yep, she's certainly well-liked... oh wait. She isn't...

[polichick]

13. I've never been on Twitter - just been paying attention to the party...

for decades and watched what the Clintons' Third Way bullshit did to it.

[revbones]

10. Apparently by her favorables, not so much...

[DanTex]

11. By their actual votes.

[revbones]

14. Not over yet. But you keep telling yourself everyone likes her...

[DanTex]

15. Yeah, it pretty much is. You'll see soon enough.

[revbones]

17. Sure. And she has really high favorables too. rofl

[DanTex]

18. Time will tell. But given how wrong Bernie fans have been so far, I like her chances.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. nope

They think same as the republicans, why bother voting.

[DanTex]

22. Only the crazies, and there aren't many of those.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

27. over 50% of the population never votes for just this reason

I was one of them for many years until Obama came along. I knew he was more conservative than i wanted, but i also knew that hillary was even farther right. He seems like a good guy at heart, but he got bought out too.
If Bernie hadn't come along i was going to re register indie. But thats all mute now, cause the kids are berning up and it's the responsibility of us elders to educate them about true democratic principals and help them learn the system.

[DanTex]

30. Mostly, it's complacency. But it's certainly not because the Dems haven't been nominating enough

leftys.

I understand that you personally won't vote for anyone other than die-hard socialists, but where do you get the idea that you are representative of anything other than a tiny left-wing fringe? You do realized that it's a big country, and people believe a lot of different things, right?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

34. i live in Oregon

And i grew up in colorado farm country. I understand why CO went for him, he reminds me of FDR and Carter and my grandparents values that they taught our family.
I see all these leftys here in pdx, like me who have never been able to vote for a real liberal before now, so they didn't bother.
Not only are they planning to vote this time (in the primary which they usually don't) but they are even talking about actively campaigning for him.

[Punkingal]

6. No one really knows what will happen with the investigations, server and Clinton Foundation.

We just have to wait and see. I hope nothing, because I don't want us screwed in the GE if she gets the nomination. But we just don't know. One of the things that is most disturbing to me is that we have a candidate under investigation, and not enough people seem to be concerned about the long term effects of that. I remember Watergate...no one in the media paid any attention to that "third-rate burglary" either until after the election, and then it brought down a President.

I am NOT saying this is another Watergate. What I am saying is, questions are not being asked. I thought all along that the Watergate break-in was the Nixon campaign, nothing else made any sense. Why have a private server, when no one else ever did? I don't know the answer to that, but someone in the media should be asking the question, over and over again. I know Secretary Clinton says there is nothing there, and maybe there isn't. But I do remember a President, her husband, who looked us all in the eye and said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Presidents DO lie, and so do candidates. It worries me. I wish they would wrap this whole thing up, and sooner rather than later. And I hope it's nothing.

[yourpaljoey]

25. This is not going away

The dirty deeds are done... juicy names and dates and amounts and quid-pro-quo all recorded well enough in emails... this train is just about to leave the station.
This will we a sad year for Hill, but you cannot say she does not have it coming.

[Skwmom]

19. It the money and her actions as SOS that is the real scandal. There is a pattern of conduct that

can't be written off as mere coincidence.

[amborin]

23. ^this^

[brooklynite]

20. "I predict....." based on no evidence at all.

[kgnu_fan]

24. Appreciating this post.... thank you for creating a space to talk rationally about it

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. The Democratic Party has become as stuck in the mire of soft corruption

as the GOP. That's not to say the two parties are the same, as Nader claimed; they're not. But the "establishments" of both - that is to say, the elite politicians and their big contributors - are completely immersed in a culture where they only ever see and talk to other rich people, and where their daily life is mostly a schmooze, direct or indirect, for campaign contributions. They no longer even recognize the inherent corruption, or at least the corruptibility, of speaking engagements for which a too-big-to-fail bank pays them the equivalent of four ordinary families' yearly incomes for an hour's work.

Everybody does it; they say, so what's the problem? In a culture where everybody does it, nobody notices that there's something wrong with it. In a room where everybody's farting, nobody notices the odor. The days are gone where a congressman would be handed a plain envelope full of cash in exchange for a promise of a vote. They don't need to do that any more; the "soft" corruption of absurdly overpriced speeches that are effectively campaign contributions characterized as payment to an individual for services rendered make that tawdry process unnecessary. All the corruption is out in the open and has become normalized. As a result they - and a lot of us, too - think it's OK. But it isn't OK; it stinks.

[creon]

31. Rhetoric

People do get enthused over a candidate; people get exercised over a candidate.
No problem.

I do neither.

I have no problem with either Sanders or Clinton; and, I will have no problem voting for either one in November.

[dana_b]

32. but... but... Dodd-Frank!

"Now this is what can really ruin it for a lot of our Democratic Party. The multiple economic and financial bubbles that are due to burst because not enough has been done to stop them and what has been done has since been weaken. Weakened by deregulation, people with influence and the ones who's job is to police it are the very ones that help create the problems. The fact that not one went to jail for the past financial meltdown adds to the outrage of the populous."

This scares the hell out of me. It seems pretty clear that we are going to go through this shit all over again and soon because NOTHING of real substance was done to stop Wall St/banks. They are still up to their tricks and between the student loan debts and the real estate bubble (again), things will be getting ugly (again) soon.

Hillary keeps saying that "no bank is too big to fail and no one can't be jailed" or something like that - but it's all b.s. NO ONE has gone to jail nor will they under this system (that she wants to maintain) and we are going to pay for it ALL OVER AGAIN!!

But the Democrats keep sticking their fingers in their ears while simultaneously stuffing their pockets.