HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Guess Which Candidate Top...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:09 PM

Guess Which Candidate Top CEOs Prefer? Hint: It's Not Trump.

There's a reason none of the banks, other large corporations, and the Chamber of Commerce never took her populist talk seriously.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/01/guess-which-presidential-candidate-top-ceos-prefer-hint-its-not-trump

A majority of chief executives of the world's biggest companies say they would support Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for president, according to a new survey that upends the usual Republican leanings of corporate CEOs.

Fortune magazine in May sent a poll to all of the executives on its 500 list asking them to rank their preference between the two candidates. (No other options were given.)

Of those who responded, 58 percent said they would choose Clinton, while 42 percent said they favored Trump.

...Meanwhile, Clinton has seen a surge of financial sector donations since Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee.

63 replies, 4634 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply Guess Which Candidate Top CEOs Prefer? Hint: It's Not Trump. (Original post)
GRhodes Jun 2016 OP
Ash_F Jun 2016 #1
GRhodes Jun 2016 #3
mikeysnot Jun 2016 #2
OKNancy Jun 2016 #4
NurseJackie Jun 2016 #6
auntpurl Jun 2016 #12
jfern Jun 2016 #49
leftynyc Jun 2016 #5
GRhodes Jun 2016 #9
Darb Jun 2016 #11
GRhodes Jun 2016 #15
Darb Jun 2016 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #7
GRhodes Jun 2016 #14
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #16
GRhodes Jun 2016 #19
pmorlan1 Jun 2016 #59
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #60
Darb Jun 2016 #20
GRhodes Jun 2016 #27
Darb Jun 2016 #31
Marr Jun 2016 #23
pampango Jun 2016 #35
azurnoir Jun 2016 #8
Darb Jun 2016 #10
GRhodes Jun 2016 #22
Darb Jun 2016 #26
GRhodes Jun 2016 #30
Darb Jun 2016 #34
GRhodes Jun 2016 #41
Darb Jun 2016 #43
GRhodes Jun 2016 #48
seabeyond Jun 2016 #13
GRhodes Jun 2016 #17
Darb Jun 2016 #21
GRhodes Jun 2016 #25
Darb Jun 2016 #29
GRhodes Jun 2016 #33
Darb Jun 2016 #39
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #42
Darb Jun 2016 #45
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #47
Darb Jun 2016 #51
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #54
GRhodes Jun 2016 #44
Darb Jun 2016 #46
GRhodes Jun 2016 #50
Darb Jun 2016 #52
seabeyond Jun 2016 #55
GRhodes Jun 2016 #61
Dem2 Jun 2016 #24
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #28
LibDemAlways Jun 2016 #53
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #63
still_one Jun 2016 #32
auntpurl Jun 2016 #36
still_one Jun 2016 #38
GRhodes Jun 2016 #37
still_one Jun 2016 #40
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #58
seabeyond Jun 2016 #56
beachbum bob Jun 2016 #57
GRhodes Jun 2016 #62

Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:18 PM

1. Well Trump is a bad businessman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:23 PM

3. Yeah, he's also a buffoon

but he's running against the only Democrat he has a chance to beat, and those running the largest companies like her better. I doubt you'd see these results if Sanders were the nominee.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:19 PM

2. File this in the no-Duh folder

Bernie wants them to pay their workers and not themselves at workers expense or out source, H1B1, etc.. etc.

And tRump will tank the economy....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:40 PM

4. because she is sane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:45 PM

6. Perfect response ... only four words needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:50 PM

12. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:45 PM

49. Her Syria policies are 100% batshit crazy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:43 PM

5. Gee

 

Can't imagine why his talk of trade wars with China, rounding up people and deporting them and building a multi billion dollar wall would create such uncertainty on Wall Street that these people may be against him. It's a mystery. Are you kidding me with this crap?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:47 PM

9. Yeah

they also haven't shown how much they like her by being her largest donors over her career and her getting more money from Wall Street banks than all the other candidates combined this election cycle, or her record on things like the horrible free trade deals and institutions like the WTO have nothing to do with that what so ever. Those things haven't benefited them. Think they take any of Trump's insane talk about the wall with Mexico any more seriously than they do her populism? What a joke of an election this is going to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:48 PM

11. They give her money because

 

they know that she is going to win. Derrrrrrrrr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:56 PM

15. Brilliant

So I guess she's been "winning" her entire career, cause she's gotten massive amounts from them and she's backed policies that have benefited them at the expense of working people. Yay for her and Bill, nuts to the working stiffs. Wall Street would surely give the Communist Party candidate money if he or she were on course to win, right? My god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:03 PM

18. Perhaps you have been living on a different planet.

 

Campaigns are privately funded. Business people often hedge their bets. Deal. The sky is blue here, when not cloudy, FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:45 PM

7. Because she is sane. Why would businesspeople want chaos? Why would anybody?

In an anarchic situation only the Tony Sopranos of the world would prosper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:54 PM

14. LOL!

Seen any of the data on financial crisis in the neoliberal era compared to previous decades? Much more frequent and increasing in size over time. Seen the data on the size of the worldwide derivatives market? The BIS says it is at least 14 times the size of worldwide GDP. The size of the banks that posed a systematic risk to the economy in 2008 have gotten bigger. You think anyone in power takes Trump's nuts talk any more seriously than they do her populism?

Besides, her top donors over her career are almost entirely large corporations. She's gotten more money from banks than all the other candidates in both parties combined this election cycle and she and her husband have (according to the Washington Post, which is owned by a supporter of hers) gotten over three billion since they've entered politics. They've shown her the love her entire career, it's just telling that the Democrats are sent to nominate someone that they prefer over the right wing Republican Party, and they don't prefer policies that benefit working people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:57 PM

16. Do you really expect Trunp's efforts to demonize and deport Hispanics

Do you really expect Trump's efforts to demonize and deport Hispanics won't result in violence here and his efforts to demonize Muslims won't lead to retaliation against the United States?

Oligarchy seems preferable to chaos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:04 PM

19. Great election choice you just proposed

Oligarchy versus chaos. I have to ask, is she likely to bring less chaos in the ME? Is Honduras better off because of her and what she has supported there? Haiti? Are those Muslims are little mad at the war she supported in Iraq, or the disastrous policies she supported in Syria and Libya?

Thanks for letting me vote for oligarchy. I was so foolish to want another option, and am even stupider for not supporting that moving forward. Hillary 2016: A vote for oligarchy, but not chaos!

"Do you really expect Trump's efforts to demonize and deport Hispanics won't result in violence here?"

I suspect it would, but it won't happen and is impossible. I also suspect that if things don't radically change, there will be civil unrest in the future, as people are pissed and the oligarchy you seem to think is okay has no answers to the problems we're facing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:57 PM

59. Oligarchy seems preferable to chaos.

Think about that. Maybe that's what they are counting on voters to think, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pmorlan1 (Reply #59)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:00 PM

60. Ever been in an anarchic situation...

I have friends that lived in the Valley after the 1994 Northridge earthquake... There were parts of the Valley where people were scared to go out of their homes because order had broken down is some areas.

Sane people will chose Clinton and safety over Trump and chaos.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:04 PM

20. Another flogger of the neo-liberal canard.

 

Just what the world needs, more polibabble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:09 PM

27. Why type

when you're saying nothing? Seems to be a waste of time. Calling me names isn't an argument. Grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:14 PM

31. Try to pretend you have some experience with politics.

 

Maybe then we can talk. Obviously, you do not remember much of the past 30 years. Maybe you could explain how everything is Hillary's fault. Doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:08 PM

23. Is that why they wanted Bush, too?

 

And Reagan?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:17 PM

35. Indeed, I suspect they would support Sanders over Trump to avoid chaos.

Trump will 'rip up' trade and other international agreements. Sanders will 'renegotiate' them. I know which business people would prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:47 PM

8. well she say as a Senator Wall Street was her constituency

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:47 PM

10. Good.

 

They would rather not see a global trade war and hot wars escalating like wildfire with us in the middle of them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:06 PM

22. Great

I think Clinton is far less likely to get us involved in hot wars, cause she isn't hawkish at all and doesn't have the approval of the war criminals Kissinger, right? She surely didn't support that wonderful war in Iraq, and the disastrous policies in Syria, Libya (obviously didn't learn a lesson from her Iraq war vote), Ukraine, Haiti, Honduras and elsewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:09 PM

26. Stop with the Kissinger canard, will ya?

 

That's on par with the Obamaphone. One African American woman says she's got an Obamaphone and all of a sudden Obama is giving away millions of them.

There is some simpleton shit being spread around these parts and it sure dow stink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #26)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:13 PM

30. What the hell are you talking about?

Do you know what Kissinger did? Why is that man endorsing her, her being proud of his endorsement, and her praising him time and time again, not something worth discussing? How is that on the same level as the freaking Obamaphone? What an absurd thing to say. You told me to grow up, then say these nonsensical things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:17 PM

34. Stop being obtuse. Kissinger

 

was Secretary of State, so was Clinton. I think they probably had many encounters, conversations, even a dinner or two. What should she have done, shot him?

Damn life is simple in your world.

Ahhh, to be with the bernies. Life is so simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:25 PM

41. I will ask one more time

Do you know what Kissinger did? Do you know what she has said about him? How much she has chosen to work with him? Are you claiming that everyone outside your little bubble doesn't acknowledge that she is hawkish and that maybe her liking him so much is telling? I will have more time tonight, and will post links showing what he did, if you're too damn lazy to know what you're talking about. I can also point out what she's said about that damn war criminal. What the man did was a crime against humanity, no other damn way of putting it.

"Ahhh, to be with the bernies. Life is so simple."

Again, you say stuff like this but then say things that have no basis in reality, and spend most your time attacking me personally. What do I say to someone that says nonsensical things, drops the mic and thinks, "nailed it?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:33 PM

43. Everyone knows Kissinger's act.

 

Quit pretending you are privy to some sort of secret. I also know things are never as simple as they seem. Do you? This is a strange world we live in disparate, corrupt, complicated, despicable, deadly place. Hillary blowing smoke about Kissinger carries about as much weight as a fart in a whirlwind.

I am going to bow out of this your holyness. I cannot ever seem to get through to the puritans.

You can't always get what you want, sometimes you gotta punt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:45 PM

48. If I took away your personal attacks against me

there'd be a pile of periods. Now, if you were arguing against a Republican and were making a logical case, what would you think of that person responding by only attacking you personally? Would be a sign that they have dick to say about actual issues, right?

"I cannot ever seem to get through to the puritans."

Ever tried a logical argument and facts to back it up? Puritans love that stuff, objective reality.

"Hillary blowing smoke about Kissinger carries about as much weight as a fart in a whirlwind."

She wasn't blowing smoke, she's said glowing things about him for years, worked closely with him, and has a close personal relationship with him. Would you say this to a room of people whose loved ones died as a result of what he did? Would you say this about someone from another country if they did to us what he did to the countries he attacked? It means nothing to people that, like yourself, take pride in willingly ignoring objective reality and not caring about the real world impact his decisions have had on people. I personally don't see the lives of human beings as pieces on a chessboard, but I'm not a "serious" realpolitik intellectual. I need to take a shower after talking to you. Good night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:51 PM

13. A strong and healthy economy works better for them. As it does for all of us.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:58 PM

17. Care to provide data

That working people have benefited in recent decades? Have wages for most grown? De-industrialization been good for workers? Is inequality more or less? Is there a multi-trillion dollar infrastructure gap? Has private debt grown since about Reagan? Have poor communities not been all but abandoned? It's a nice bumper sticker though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:05 PM

21. And Hillary Clinton is the God of Everything, and should be

 

held to account. Grow up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:08 PM

25. Translate into English please

I am critiquing her record, the policies she supports, her outright corruption, and her worldview. Does that make me immature? Are you mature by repeating talking points I've heard a thousand and one times? She would have immense power if she is elected president, so this stuff matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #25)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:11 PM

29. That whole post of yours is complete BS.

 

Are you new at this? Is it that simple really? If only we had known how easy it is to get things done in our form of government. Who knew.

You do know how our government works right? Let me ask you this, have you ever heard of the Republican Party?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:17 PM

33. More nothing from you

Just talking nonsense. If you want to address my logic, go ahead.

I don't get the point of your silly questions. What do the Republicans have to do with Clinton in isolation? We are, well I am, discussing the person that would have to battle the Republicans. You seem to want to discuss everything but that, including myself. Your aim ain't true Elvis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #33)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:23 PM

39. My aim is true.

 

You are a novice and you do not know of what you speak. Quit cutting off your nose to spite your face. You get that reference, smart guy?

Now go look up the filibuster, the veto, the rules of the Senate of the US, the role of the House of Representatives, check the make-up of the Supreme Court for the past 20 years and their rulings on collective bargaining, guns, voter rights, class action, etc. etc., then get back to me.

Stop running your mouth about Hillary and just support the Socialist for fuck's sake. Doing what you are doing is less than smart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:30 PM

42. CEOs would rather have Obama 2.0 than Trump X...

As does the rest of the world, save China, Russia, and North Korea...


See a trend, my friend....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #42)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:36 PM

45. What trend is that again?

 

Mindlessly looking out for the bottom line? Got it. What else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:44 PM

47. ? The trend is they don't want to see the world set ablaze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:48 PM

51. Right.

 

A bit defensive over here. Battling the noseless puritans makes one touchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:52 PM

54. She is the small c conservative in a race versus Trump...

Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution but supported the American one. I suspect he would endorse Hillary against Trump....

DU does not do nuance...

My gf works for a real estate development firm in L A. Christmas parties are as close as DSB is ever going to get to a one percenter... Trump scares the hell out of the owners.


At the end of the day a majority of Americans will vote for the sane and safe candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:34 PM

44. I know the damn economic data

I know the record of the trade model she supports, I know what the WTO has done and the decisions at the WTO (as well as recent NAFTA Chapter 11 challenges to environmental and economic regulations), I know the decades long economic decline domestically and the data associated with that, I know her actual foreign policy, I know about her decades of corruption, and I know how horrible it is for her to cite Kissinger (because I know what Kissinger freaking did). I don't need lectures from someone like yourself, someone saying stupid things and someone avoiding all of that, on being smart. You're arrogant for no damn reason. You seem to think you're brilliant because you're good at sticking your head in the sand.

"Now go look up the filibuster, the veto, the rules of the Senate of the US, the role of the House of Representatives, check the make-up of the Supreme Court for the past 20 years and their rulings on collective bargaining, guns, voter rights, class action, etc. etc., then get back to me."

So, this argument is what exactly? That Clinton and her husband were closet social democrats but the Republicans got in the way (actual reality be damned), that the Democrats haven't moved to the right in recent decades, that the Democrats aren't horribly corrupt? What does any of that have to do with NAFTA, the WTO, the Telecommunications Act, the gutting of New Deal financial regulations, deregulating derivatives, doing a u turn on the bankruptcy law (which Warren called out), her opposing a financial transactions tax (care to argue how high frequency trading benefits the domestic economy?), her opposing the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, her opposing breaking up the banks (which even the Treasury and Fed supports), her backing every free trade bill other than CAFTA since she entered politics? Care to address her obvious corruption? Nope, you haven't shown you can do anything but call me names.

Get lost, done with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:41 PM

46. She did it all. Or was that Bill? Or anyone else?

 

Or was it the result of our having checks and balances in our government that prohibit one person, or even one party rule. She has been the only person making decisions about the economy for the past 30 years? We should hold her singularly responsible for it all.

Clue in. Support the socialist, nobody gives a shit. Whine about the Democratic front-runner on The Democratic Underground and you might get a little pushback. Spew forth with bagger-like rubbish (or puritan whinings) and you will get called out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Darb (Reply #46)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:47 PM

50. You've said drivel

nothing but, and are now arguing that what she personally wants to do and has done doesn't matter. She supported every damn thing her husband did, pushed for them, and bragged about it for years. You say these mindless things then want to pretend you're a deep thinker. Fucking nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:50 PM

52. I thought you were done with me. Darn.

 

Support the socialist and quit running down the democrats. you don't have any answers, bank on that. Neither does the socialist. This isn't tiddlywinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #17)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:56 PM

55. Economics 101. Healthy economy behooves all of us. Simple enough, or.... Play like it is a

 

conspiracy when Clinton gets the corporate, and she will get wall street, and others... because she is smart, stable, capable unlike the other two running. This is her advantage that hands her the win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:22 PM

61. "Clinton gets the corporate"

Freudian slip there, when she gets the nomination I think you meant.

I also don't get the economics 101 comment, especially since you didn't say anything about economics after you said that. I have a strong background in economics, would love to see a clarification as to what you meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:08 PM

24. CEOs don't want a fascist state?

Odd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:09 PM

28. The One they've Bought and paid for of course.

Sorry..........invested in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ferd Berfel (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:52 PM

53. This^^^^

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:12 PM

63. it was a trick question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:16 PM

32. whoa, all corporations bad, all banks bad, DNC bad, Jerry Brown bad, any group or individual that

endorses Hillary, bad


So when a candidate promises to break up the banks within his first year as President, with or without Congress, either it demonstrates that candidates lack of knowledge of how the government works, or he is not being honest. It is this kind of sloppiness about details that have encompassed that candidates entire campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:19 PM

36. Barbara Boxer, Jerry Brown, John Lewis, (soon to be) Elizabeth Warren

Planned Parenthood, Sherrod Brown, NRDC, Dolores Huerta...

If you are against all of these people and organisations, you really need to ask yourself if you are still a Democrat or a progressive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to auntpurl (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:20 PM

38. Thank you for that purl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:19 PM

37. Didn't say any of that Mr. or Mrs. Strawman

If you want to argue with yourself, start a thread and start debating the other side of your brain. It's fun.

"So when a candidate promises to break up the banks within his first year as President"

Provide the evidence he said this. He said that it should be done, which the Treasury and the Fed have said as well. Our own government has said that the banks which brought the economy down in 2008 have gotten bigger and pose a systematic threat. The Minneapolis Fed not only calls for them to be broken up, they call for banks to be regulated like utilities.

Is this what it's like in the Clinton bubble? Scary place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:23 PM

40. PBS News hour disagrees with your assessment

"WASHINGTON — Characterizing Wall Street as an industry run on “greed, fraud, dishonesty and arrogance,” Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders pledged to break up the country’s biggest financial firms within a year and limit banking fees placed on consumers, should he become president, in a fiery speech on Tuesday."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/sanders-vowing-to-break-up-banks-during-first-year-in-office/

In addition, many of the things he said he would do, have already been done in Dodd-Frank

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:13 PM

58. Please tell me...

 

...you don't actually expect logically rigorous argument from Camp Weathervane...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:58 PM

56. Almost like going to NYC and trashing wall street while demanding wall street vote. ALL the people

 

profiting from wall street, from business to employees. Like... Brilliant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GRhodes (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:08 PM

57. verifies what an awful business man trump is and how he would be a

 

disaster for america....I'll take these endorsements any day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbum bob (Reply #57)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:28 PM

62. Yes, Hillary Clinton is less bad

than the guy that was wrestling in WWE matches and getting roasted on Comedy Central by the Situation a few years ago. She's polling even with the most disliked major party nominee in polling history. Those people have been "endorsing" her and Bill for decades now, to the tune of 3 billion dollars. Wonderful choices we all have come November.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread