Pyrrhic Victory -- Tantamount to Defeat

[hellofromreddit]

If we win by kowtowing to the people that corrupted the system in the first place, what do we win?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/hilary-clinton-bush-donors-222872
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/

Sanders' campaign has proven that big donors can be gleefully ignored, so Hillary now has that option if she just chooses it. But she has chosen to stick with the corrupt system.

No, I don't hate Hillary. But she is clearly taking her campaign in the wrong direction. Hillary has pointed out that Obama took money from Wall Street but it didn't corrupt him. However, the stark lack of prosecutions for proven fraud speaks otherwise. Why is there an expectation that she will be immune?

[COLGATE4]

1. How about some actual proof for the "proven fraud" that

you believe President Obama is guilty of?

[hellofromreddit]

2. I did not accuse Obama of fraud.

[COLGATE4]

3. "Hillary has pointed out that Obama took money from Wall Street but it didn't corrupt him. However,

the stark lack of prosecutions for proven fraud speaks otherwise."

[hellofromreddit]

4. The lack of prosecutions (from Obama's executive branch) for fraud (from wall street).

Glad I could clear that up.

[COLGATE4]

6. OK. So show me where the 'proven fraud' is. "Proven"

[hellofromreddit]

8. Happy reading!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619

[COLGATE4]

13. Interesting article. However it doesn't say anything about fraud, much

less "proven fraud". It does show that Obama's administration sued S&P for 5 billion dollars, however.

"In February, the Obama Justice Department, in an action that seems belated, filed a $5 billion civil suit against Standard & Poor's, drawing upon some of the same data and documents that were part of the Cheyne and Rhinebridge suits. As part of that action, high-ranking officials at S&P were interviewed by government investigators and admitted that they had shaded their ratings methodologies to protect market share."

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-20130619#ixzz48DvutTao
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[hellofromreddit]

15. "admitted that they had shaded their ratings methodologies to protect market share"

Shading ratings = fraud. But they got off scot-free. A fine paid by not them kinda doesn't count.

Lots of low-level criminals would love that kind of arrangement.

[COLGATE4]

20. Please point out the relevant statute that designates that practice as fraud.

I'd be very interested in seeing it.

[hellofromreddit]

22. I will not.

You posted a quote about the fines levied. If you think fraud isn't the right word, choose the one that is, and my point does not change.

[COLGATE4]

27. No. I asked if the payments were a fine or a settlement. If they were a settlement

then there's no evidence of any wrongdoing. And I certainly have seen exactly zero evidence of fraud. So now, when you're challenged to produce some actual proof of fraud you try and spin it. essentially saying "well, maybe it's not fraud, you call it what you like". Nope. It doesn't work that way. You made the charge, it's up to you to support it. Apparently you cannot.

[hellofromreddit]

29. Not a game I play. Evidence was provided for you; not my problem if you ignore it.

Your claim that settlement = "no evidence of any wrongdoing" is absurd.

[COLGATE4]

31. It's obvious you've never actually seen a settlement document.One of the first things that goes into

it is a statement to the effect that 'nothing herein shall be construed to be an admission of liability by either party'.

[Dems to Win]

9. Billions and billions have been paid by the banks as settlements. Because they committed fraud.

No one went to jail, so the fines were just written off as the cost of doing business. They'll do it again whenever they get the chance, probably are doing it again as we speak.

Yes, I believe that Obama and Holder went easy on the banksters because banks funded Obama's campaign.

[COLGATE4]

14. Were those settlements in civil suits or were

they settlements for fines? There is a difference, you know.

[CrowCityDem]

26. Would those be the actions where Bernie couldn't point to any laws they broke?

[hellofromreddit]

30. Fix your English.

[CrowCityDem]

32. What do you prosecute them for, when Bernie couldn't come up with a law they broke?

[hellofromreddit]

33. That matters how?

The fact that you're poking at Bernie's WAPO interview, I mean.

Robosigning was fraudulent.
Falsified credit ratings were fraudulent.
Betting against their own investments was fraudulent.
etc.

[CrowCityDem]

34. Are there statutes that make those CRIMINAL actions with prison time? If not, it's all hot air.

[hellofromreddit]

35. Last I heard, falsifying financial documents was a no-no.

[lagomorph777]

28. Uh, Goldman Sachs just admitted to fraud and paid a $5 billion fine.

And how many of them are in jail, versus how many are (or were) sitting in the Obama administration?

[CentralCoaster]

5. She might go down before the convention, or she might go down after.

but she's going to go down.

It will go down in planetary history as one of them most egoistic clusterfuck campaign fuck ups in history.

I still hope for a turnaround and Sanders win.

That's our only hope.

[COLGATE4]

7. You keep hoping for a Sanders turnaround.

It'll keep you warm at nights through 8 years of Hillary's presidency.

[griffi94]

10. What turnaround

The stark reality is that after Vermont and New Hampshire Bernie never got
close enough to even see the nomination.

Those large acre low delegate wins in red states. Excluding MI and MN but
losing OH FL TX VA NC SC by huge margins put him in a hole
he had no hope of climbing out of.

Bernie had a good run.
He got his 15 minutes of being relevant.

ButHillary's got this.

[hellofromreddit]

11. She also seems to have a growing collection of dirty backers.

Does that not concern you?

[griffi94]

12. So what

All politicians who get very far attract all kinds of backers.

It's easier for Bernie to be pure.
He's always been and is about to go back to
being irrelevant.

Hillary is in this to win.
Bernie is just an old angry guy who missed his window.

[hellofromreddit]

16. "Hillary is in this to win." A win for who?

[griffi94]

17. The millions of Democrats

who put her way ahead of Bernie.

They didn't go to rallies, they didn't do a lot
of yard signs and bumper stickers.

They did however show up and vote.
And on votes. States Won. Pledged delegates. Superdelegates.
They gave Hillary a lead that Bernie has zero hope
of catching.

It's a win for those millions of voters.

[Ned_Devine]

18. That doesn't matter to them

[hellofromreddit]

21. I have noticed.

[Hydra]

19. We're being asked a very strange thing

To invite Bushco into our party openly, and to share policy with them.

Ironic, no? DU was built on the outrage of all of us over Bushco's illegality. Now they are our brothers and sisters under the banner of "Love and Kindness"?

Orwell on line 3.

[Orsino]

23. If we don't win our first major election, we keep trying.

And we make the most of the delegates who listen.

[EndElectoral]

24. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. It is the direction and not the magnitude which is to be taken into consideration. Thomas Paine K&R