2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSarah Silverman: "Look, I Love Hillary Too, But Goldman-Sachs OWNS HER"
~snip~
Her humor is calibrated to the times, especially these days with the presidential campaign going full throttle and candidates trundling across the nation like a beguiling smorgasbord. She said Hillary Rodham Clinton is "strong and bold on women's issues," including equal pay, an enduring topic in Hollywood most recently raised by Jennifer Lawrence. "Women deserve equal pay to men. It seems so trite to say it," Silverman said. "It's bizarre."
But she's passionate about Bernie Sanders, who, like her, is another New England Jew who speaks his mind even if it's always not popular.
"Bernie is the only politician not for sale," she said. "Look, I love Hillary too, but Goldman-Sachs owns her. She might as well be wearing race car driver (logos). ... Everybody's for sale, and here's this guy who's been a senator for a million years from Vermont who is just simply not for sale." She lowered her voice and smiled, "When I met him I said, 'Keep the Jewish thing down for as long as you can.'"
http://www.theolympian.com/entertainment/movies-news-reviews/article41429820.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Segami
(14,923 posts)
Isn't that the truth!
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)But here's the reality:
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
peacebird
(14,195 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)It would be definitely a moneymaker and a posh 1% fashion statement......Look at me, I'm own by.....
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
reformist2
(9,841 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sach's is backing the GOP
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I'll take Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz expertise for the win.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Krugman says Hillary has a much better far reaching policy.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)So it's little wonder that he supports Hillary. He has supported the very trade treaties that have gutted our manufacturing base and shipped millions of U.S. jobs overseas. Perhaps you should come up with own ideas on why Hillary has much better "far reaching" policies rather than always bringing up Krugman as the center of all truth and knowledge.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)too.
You would think he had stood on the correct side of NAFTA and that he knew enough to convince his boss (Bill Clinton) to not go signing off on the Bank Modernization Act.
But he is guilty of promoting the NAFTA and Bank Modernization swindles.
He also smacks of Academia, issuing proclamations that show he is very isolated from reality.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)While what you say is true, I do think he recognizes the struggles of average Americans. He did a townhall with Elizabeth Warren and I thought he came across as compassionate, if a bit stuff because of the academic vibe.
Give it a watch:
riversedge
(80,810 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)"Cut it out!"
Of course!
And then exchanging money with them and being paid for by them is always a great way to keep them in control.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)while also doing heavy business with them. lol
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)if she told her buddies Blankfein and Dimon that folderol in person. No way she could keep a straight face.
As some dumbass Texas pol once said "I call you my base! Heh, heh, heh!"
1monster
(11,045 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)saturnsring
(1,832 posts)desperate bernistas will clutch at anything -
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)even in private but especially in public. Not if you hope to cash in, that is.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)You do NOT cross your owners. Period. When you are bought you had damn well better STAY bought.
It's Chinatown, Jake.
saturnsring
(1,832 posts)Stevepol
(4,234 posts)He says what he's going to do about the banks. He wants to "break them up"! What was Teddy Roosevelt's plan when he broke up the huge monopolies? Bernie is not running on one issue only. His plan is pretty damned specific. Put all the specifics together and you have a plan. What's Hillary going to actually do about the fact that these banks are "too big to fail"? Whatever it is, that's not her whole "plan."
If you check Bernie's web site you will find specific proposals on a large number of the issues he covers with great specificity.
If you want the whole thing try this:
http://feelthebern.org/
Add it together and you have his "plan."
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)"Adding that together" does not form a plan.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
DhhD
(4,695 posts)His Plan:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-financial-regulation/
His Bill:
http://www.juancole.com/2015/05/sanders-introduces-break.html
Video of Sanders telling us his Plan to break up the big banks that are too big to fail:
Where is Hillary's, You Guys Cut That Out Plan?
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)That is not a plan. That is campaign window dressing. It has no chance of passing and he knows it.
cprise
(8,445 posts)His policies really do require a democratic revolution to usher in politicians who will regulate capitalism according to capitalism's rules (apparently it takes a socialist to do this).
What we've got now is a Congress full of oligarch cronies, due in part to the Democratic Party's insistence on running crony candidates (especially in the last mid-terms).
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)
cprise
(8,445 posts)will just intensify Republican support in Congress and make Obama's terms look like a cakewalk. Most people will just end up seeing a dynasty they hate.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Yes indeed, bring that back!
Republicans are going to hate us no matter what. We shouldn't pick our leaders based on who the Republicans hate least.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Also, his DOJ will prevent new anti-competitive mergers.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Congress has squeezed the budgets of the antitrust division of the Justice Department and the bureau of competition of the Federal Trade Commission. Politically-powerful interests have squelched major investigations and lawsuits. Right-wing judges have stopped or shrunk the few cases that get through.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7435868
Even if he could bring the lawsuits, it will take years, with no guarantee of success. Meanwhile, the economy goes nowhere, since this does nothing to add jobs, leaving people to ask, "What is Sanders' economic plan?"
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)in the DOJ. Also, it's ability to squelch new deals is real. I used to sit in corporate boardrooms. They worry about stuff like that and it can change their plans.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)And has not been reality for decades.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)It helps me a little. I hope you are well also. Peace and out.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)What makes anyone think that Sander's DOJ wouldn't do the same thing?
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)doing the people's business! Thanks for posting it.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Then why are the Big Banks still "Too Big to Fail".
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Remember, Sanders' economic "plan" is to break up big banks, not block a few mergers. Sure, they could block telecom mergers when the FCC also opposes it. In the ATT/T-Mobile case, DOJ didn't win at trial, ATT just gave up without a trial since the deal appeared doomed: "...the Federal Communications Commission had signaled its intent to fight the merger as well." http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/att-withdraws-39-bid-for-t-mobile/?_r=0
The anti-trust section at DOJ are incredibly smart, hard working attorneys, but they are woefully understaffed and lack the resources to take on the breakup of mega, multi-national banks. That is very different than scaring off the parties in an already doomed merger. And the elements would be a lot tougher to prove, especially if they ended up in front of a Bush appointee.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)of the Sherman Anti-Trust acts. So far none of our DLC Presidents has attempted to enforce them since they owe favors to the companies that got them elected. I would venture a guess that Sanders might start off in that direction. Even if he fails he won't give up, unlike a sitting current president who is busy trying to shove free trade in our faces.
You're also assuming that Clarence Thomas and some of the old farts who vote with Roberts are going to live forever. The next president will decide the makeup of the Supreme Court and if Sanders gets elected you might start seeing things like Corporate Personhood disappear. Sanders is not going to fix 30+ of Reaganomics and Clintonomics in four years, but at least he'll lead us in the right direction (being a law maker helps in creating law).
It would also change the way we elect Congress Critters since the old "big government" crowd would have to take notice of liberal candidates running for office.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)Just saying you want to break up big banks will not get you that money back. Nor is it an economic plan.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)He'd said its a step in the right direction. The rest would have to come from repealing NAFTA, WTO, and all these trade agreements we signed. Bringing back manufacturing to the states is an economic plan. Getting those off shore tax havens to pay for government projects like infrastructure puts people to work. I've heard Sanders on the Thom Hartmann show talk about these sorts of issues when asked by both the host and his callers.
BTW what's wrong with breaking up the big banks that:
A) Aren't lending
B) Get cash from the Government for foreclosed homes
C) Can tank our economy at any time by making risky loans (2008 financial melt down)
D) Are tanking world markets (see Goldman Sachs Greece Debt)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)doesn't. She doesn't think it's a good idea to regulate Wall St. Airc, she will let us know what her plan is, soon.
For over 40 years, Wall St was reigned in by Glass Steagal, put in place after the 1929 Crash to make sure such a thing would not happen again.
For all those years, Right Wingers and Wall St Banks wanted to repeal that legislation so they could do exactly what they did which brought down the Global Economy.
Republican presidents just couldn't get the job done. Democrats used to fight for these things back then.
So it was a Democratic President who finally deregulated the Big Banks leading to the Wall St crash in 2008.
Bernie's plan is to reinstate those regulations, making it impossible for them to do what they did again.
Hillary disagrees.
fbc
(1,668 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)I'll stick with the experts.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)natch.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)promise to start a nuclear war, and host a kitten barbeque with Dickkk Cheney and many would continue swooning for her like bobby-soxers over that Frankie Sinatra.
It really is beyond sad.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and it took me a couple of minutes to find this all too germane Looney Tunes excerpt.
cprise
(8,445 posts)Which is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.
Putting bandaids on the system won't work anymore. Structural change is absolutely necessary.
BTW, it does not reflect well on Clinton to have a champion of quantitative easing supporting her.
harun
(11,381 posts)Wall. St. donors.
Translation: "I will tell you sternly to stop and then take your campaign contributions and do nothing about it."
retrowire
(10,345 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)I thought Clinton already "fixed" Wall St., no?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)
Segami
(14,923 posts)DUzy........
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)she will say "Halt!" again. And they they will give her a dumptruck full of cash - unmarked small bills of course - and no further yaps or yips will be heard ever again.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It all comes down to Wall Street.
By Robert Reich / Robert Reich's Blog October 13, 2015
Giant Wall Street banks continue to threaten the wellbeing of millions of Americans, but what to do?
Bernie Sanders says break them up and resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated investment from commercial banking.
Hillary Clinton says charge them a bit more and oversee them more carefully. Most Republicans say don’t worry.
Clearly, there’s reason to worry. Back in 2000, before they almost ruined the economy and had to be bailed out, the five biggest banks on Wall Street held 25 percent of the nation’s banking assets. Now they hold more than 45 percent.
Their huge size fuels further growth because they’ll be bailed out if they get into trouble again.
This hidden federal guarantee against failure is estimated be worth over $80 billiona year to the big banks. In effect, it’s a subsidy from the rest of us to the bankers.
And they’ll almost certainly get into trouble again if nothing dramatic is done to stop them. Consider their behavior since they were bailed out.
In 2012 JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank on Street, lost $6.2 billion betting on credit default swaps tied to corporate debt – and then publicly lied about the losses. It later came out that the bank paid illegal bribes to get the business in the first place.
Last May the Justice Department announced a settlement of the biggest criminal price-fixing conspiracy in modern history, in which the biggest banks manipulated the $5.3 trillion-a-day currency market in a “brazen display of collusion,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
Wall Street is on the road to another crisis.
This would take a huge toll. Although the banks have repaid the billions we lent them in 2008, many Americans are still living with the collateral damage from what occurred – lost jobs, savings, and homes.
But rather than prevent this by breaking up the big banks and resurrecting Glass-Steagall, Hillary Clinton is taking a more cautious approach.
She wants to impose extra fees on the banks, with the amounts turning not on the bank’s size but how much it depends on short-term funding (such as fast-moving capital markets), which is a way of assessing riskiness.
So a giant bank that relies mainly on bank deposits wouldn’t be charged.
Clinton would also give bank regulators more power than they have under the Dodd-Frank Act (passed in the wake of the last banking crisis) to break up any particular bank that they consider too risky.
And she wants more oversight of so-called “shadow” banks – pools of money (like money market mutual funds, hedge funds, and insurance funds) that act like banks.
All this makes sense. And in a world where the giant Wall Street banks didn’t have huge political power, these measures might be enough.
But, if you hadn’t noticed, Wall Street’s investment bankers, key traders, top executives, and hedge-fund and private-equity managers wield extraordinary power.
They’re major sources of campaign contributions to both parties.
In addition, a lucrative revolving door connects the Street to Washington. Treasury secretaries and their staffs move nimbly from and to the Street, regardless of who’s in the Oval Office.
Key members of Congress, especially those involved with enacting financial laws or overseeing financial regulators, have fat paychecks waiting for them on Wall Street when they retire.
Which helps explain why no Wall Street executive has been indicted for the fraudulent behavior that led up to the 2008 crash. Or for the criminal price-fixing scheme settled in May. Or for other excesses since then.
And why even the fines imposed on the banks have been only a fraction of the banks’ potential gains.
And also why Dodd-Frank has been watered down into vapidity.
For example, it requires major banks to prepare “living wills” describing how they’d unwind their operations if they get into serious trouble.
But no big bank has come up with one that passes muster. Federal investigators have found them all “unrealistic.”
That’s not surprising because if they were realistic, the banks would effectively lose their hidden “too-big-to-fail” subsidies.
Given all this, Hillary Clinton’s proposals would only invite more dilution and finagle.
The only way to contain the Street’s excesses is with reforms so big, bold, and public they can’t be watered down – busting up the biggest banks and resurrecting Glass-Steagall.
Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. His latest book is "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few." His website is www.robertreich.org.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
Facts don't exist. FACTS DON"T EXIST!
Ten to one Citi and Goldman wrote HRH's toothless "proposals."
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm all to familiar with ALEC.
Distortion of the sort being used by the Clinton campaign epitomizes the reason Bernie is receiving the reception he is.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)floriduck
(2,262 posts)pantsuits for $400, Alex.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)Oh my, that was Hall of Fame good.
houston_radical
(41 posts)Argue the point
She is owned by the banks - like Obama - like her husband - like all the blue-dog dems
PatrickforO
(15,425 posts)investment and commercial banking for a start. And a transaction tax on equities trades will tone down the growing derivatives bubble (again). The thing is, I'd say both those things are plans.
The other plan I like to address wealth inequality is to adjust the corporate tax code to force the growing number of big multinationals like GE, Wells Fargo, Paccar, Mattel and about 50 others to pay their fair share of federal income tax, and at the same time tax the $2 trillion plus in untaxed profits that sits in places like the Cayman Islands. I also like Bernie's plan to remove the payroll tax cap to expand Social Security.
His platform, if implemented would do much to rectify income inequality and would make America a MUCH better place to live, because right now for about half of us, life is a living hell - and we ourselves are a hell of a lot better off than the hundreds of thousands overseas we're bombing.
Bernie's the man.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I listened to her speech at New School for Social Research. She did not talk about her plan in any detail. She did not say how she would fund things. She talked about setting up a commission. That's a loser in my view.
Do you have a link to the details of her economic proposals?????
Thanks.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)KEY ACTIONS
> Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and would prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities.
>Led the fight in 1999 against repealing the Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money; is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions.
>Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education.
>Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs.
>Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free
>Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15 percent.
>Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations. Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008.
>Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions
https://berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/
sammythecat
(3,597 posts)They don't put money anywhere unless they expect a nice return.
Sanders wants to do what he can to get us off this fucking road to nowhere. That is his ambition. He's a highly motivated, pissed off public servant. That is why he is running for President. He will not be bought by the oligarchs.
Hillary is a fully owned politician. She is running just because she wants, desperately, to be President. That is, and always has been, her ambition and she will do anything to achieve that ambition. Anything.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And Bernie winning. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8388316?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013
GoneOffShore
(18,021 posts)All it takes is talking to independent voters and Republicans who were thinking of switching to get this.
Anecdotally it would seem that there are a lot of people outside of DU will sit this general election out if HRC is the nominee.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)that garbage filth like Cruz and Bush and Rubio are truth tellers and HIllary isnt
wow
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Two lying families in bed with each other since the 80s.
randys1
(16,286 posts)billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Are you educated at all? Hillary was anti-gay marriage. She's a war hawk too. Wake up.
randys1
(16,286 posts)to question your motives.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)I said she supported not allowing gay marriage. Because she served herself and politically her calculation was that it wouldn't benefit her to support gay marriage. Why even bother with someone you can't trust like that. Now as far as the war goes she's in bed with military contractors, spy agencies and the Bush family so expect more of the same treason.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I think Bernie's authenticity and honesty will bring him the victory. He is connecting with progressives, independents, and even republicans. The kore people hear him, the more they love him. The same simply is not true for Hillary. Her numbers get a bump after the ridiculous Benghazi hearings, but they will resume their slow descent next week....
punguin54
(76 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)No More Corporatists EVER, whatever their sheerly nominal label is.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
SoapBox
(18,791 posts) grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)Here they come.
davemac
(28 posts)Exactly right. After 40 years of Corporatist Presidential puppets the 99% have been decimated. If you think voting for another Corporatist puppet politician like Clinton is going to have a different result, you might want to visit your Shrink. Just remember, it was her husband who gave the game away. After Bill, there was absolutely no difference between the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee for the Presidency. Either way, they won. Stand and Bern you SOB's...
Couldn't agree with you more...
maindawg
(1,151 posts)I like Hillary too , but you are right about her. She is a cameleon. But she is a very smart person. Shes not a slick politician, she sometimes says things that make you go,'huh?' Like when she said Iran was her enemy. Whats up with that? A Freudian slip? The fact that she has Bill as close adviser is a good thing. I like that too. She is only 68.
Hillary has earned the job too. She worked , she was a Senator , a very effective SOS. She could not beat Obama, but she never lost her cool. That was hard for her to deal with, I was impressed.
She has changed her mind, but the president has himself admitted that its ok to change your mind, and hes right. Is she sincere? I don't know, I think she is a good person.
I like Bernie, but I am a realist. A new President will be limited to a very structured agenda. He will face stiff opposition from the teabaggers,a poison crew that we foolishly allowed to infest our government with hatred. Just pure white supremist hate.
Hillary will have some republican allies. She has spent her life building alliances in Washington. She has always been active and working toward this election.
We are witnessing history.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)The odds of that happening are so high Vegas wouldn't even give you book on it.
As surely as the pope is catholic and ursine quadrupeds defecate in forested areas.
Job Number Two will be starting another nice little boots-on-the-ground war within 90 days of being sworn in. You can take that one to the bank, too.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/26/federal-reserve-new-york-leak-goldman-sachs-criminal-charges-rohit-bansal
Is Hillary now going to give all that money back to the criminal bankster cabal called Goldman Sachs??
Inquiring minds want to know.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Is going to lecture us on Goldman Sachs?
http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/richest-comedians/sarah-silverman-net-worth/
think
(11,641 posts)By Robert Schmidt, Clea Benson and Phil Mattingly - April 14, 2011 — 6:36 PM EDT
“In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled the Congress,” Levin said at a press briefing yesterday where he and Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, discussed the 640-page report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-04-14/goldman-sachs-misled-congress-after-duping-clients-over-cdos-levin-says
TBF
(36,669 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Go Hillary!
Rich comedians don't do anything for me.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Congratulations!
wilsonbooks
(972 posts)Or other working folks.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And she was "dead broke" when Bubba left the WH in 1/01.
If my Minnesota math is correct she has managed to rebound to the tune of about $3 million per year for each of the last 15 years. Nice work if you can get it.
How anyone can do this honestly, without selling their soul - unless you are an athlete, actor, or pop star or perhaps J.K. Rowling, I cannot begin to imagine.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Nothing.
It must really burn a lot of Politician asses, seeing someone run for President who did not sell his soul like the other 99 percent were forced to under our corrupt system. I mean, if they have any soul left, any conscience whatsoever, it must really, really force them to reflect deeply on how evil it is to vote in opposition to the calling of one's own conscience. To know what is right and vote for what is wrong: to betray the trust of those you were elected to help, those who have no voice other than yours? That's a heavy trip. Heavy karma.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)It does on the reichwing preachercreatures once in a while, but not on the pols: that overflowing chamber pot of pure evil in human form GHW Bush is still wealthy beyond Croesus' dreams of avarice and above the ground and so are his idiot sons and Satan himself, DicKKK Cheney.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)The Bush family just purchased that land over the world's largest untapped water aquifer (in Brazil).
So when we're finished fighting for oil rights, we get to go to War to protect their water interests. 
merrily
(45,251 posts)Silverman is not getting speaking fees or donations from GS. Her audiences made her wealthy by paying to see her performances. They own her, much as Sanders' small donors own him--though their donations will fund his campaign, not make him personally wealthy.
Duval
(4,280 posts)will change things in not only Wall Street, but our MSM, also. They are scared of Bernie, rightfully so!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)
?w=300frizzled
(509 posts)nt
MADem
(135,425 posts)Such is life.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
MADem
(135,425 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)I call your claim baseless.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PORK accrues to the states, which provides the distributor of said pork with power and influence--everyone loves he or she who brings home the bacon.
He's not taking SUPERPAC dough, anyway--at least not yet. But he is taking bundled money.
Again, I wasn't even going there, but have a look at his top contributors--I don't think that's an accident, there:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000528
Yep, those guys are in LM shops:
http://www.goiam.org/index.php/imail/latest/12401-iam-negotiations-underway-for-5600-at-lockheed-martin
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/june/120628ae_new_labor_agreement.html
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)I call your claim baseless.
MADem
(135,425 posts)From my link:
I call your post pointless. How's that?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
TBF
(36,669 posts)http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/democrats/hillary-clinton-net-worth/ Net worth Hillary Clinton $45 Million
I know who I want representing me, and it's not Mrs. Moneybags.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Proof, follow his voting record. Lockheed Martin has the F-35 and the drone manufacture.
TBF
(36,669 posts)worth $45 million? She didn't make that in Arkansas. Unless being on the Board of Directors for Walmart pays a lot more than you'd think ...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And has accumulated a sizeable net worth. Would you want others to begrudge you if you accumulated a sizeable net worth? I am happy for anyone to get ahead.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)post-presidential life. And he did it without engaging in what amounts to influence-peddling and selling himself and his name to the highest bidder. One of the many, many reasons to admire that great American.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)utter, complete, and total lack thereof, embodied in those decisions. I know I have.
Spoiler - James Earl Carter, Jr. wins by an indescribable landslide.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Carter is up with the likes of Billy Graham. Sanders will never come close to Jimmy Carter.
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)Anti-feminist Billy Graham?
MADem
(135,425 posts)He should be doing well. His sales aren't in Clinton territory, but then again, he generally eschews the massive tome, and he writes more frequently:
Books authored by Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States (1977–1981).
Carter, Jimmy (1975). Why Not the Best?. Nashville: Broadman Press. ISBN 0-8054-5582-5.
Carter, Jimmy (1977). A Government as Good as Its People. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0-671-22815-3.
Carter, Jimmy (1982). Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. New York: Bantam Books. ISBN 978-0-553-05023-3.[1][2]
Carter, Jimmy (1984). Negotiation: The Alternative to Hostility. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. ISBN 0-86554-137-X.
Carter, Jimmy (1993). The Blood of Abraham: Insights into the Middle East. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-293-5.
Carter, Rosalynn; Carter, Jimmy (1995). Everything to Gain: Making the Most of the Rest of Your Life. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-388-5.
Carter, Jimmy (1994). An Outdoor Journal: Adventures and Reflections. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press. ISBN 1-55728-354-0.
Carter, Jimmy (1993). Turning Point: A Candidate, a State, and a Nation Come of Age. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-8129-2299-9.
Carter, Jimmy (1995). Talking Peace: A Vision for the Next Generation: Revised Edition. London: Puffin. ISBN 0-14-037440-X.
Carter, Jimmy (1995). Always a Reckoning, and Other Poems. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2434-7.
Carter, Amy; Carter, Jimmy (1996). The Little Baby Snoogle-Fleejer. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-2731-1.
Carter, Jimmy (1998). Living Faith. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-3034-7.
Carter, Jimmy (1997). Sources of Strength: Meditations on Scripture for a Living Faith. New York: Times Books. ISBN 0-8129-3236-6.
Carter, Jimmy (1998). The Virtues of Ageing. New York: Ballantine Pub. Group. ISBN 0-345-42592-8.
Carter, Jimmy (2001). An Hour Before Daylight: Memories of a Rural Boyhood. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-1199-5.
Carter, Jimmy (2004). Christmas in Plains: Memories. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-2715-8.
Carter, Jimmy (2002). The Nobel Peace Prize Lecture: Delivered in Oslo on the 10th of December, 2002. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-5068-0.
Carter, Jimmy (2003). The Hornet's Nest: A Novel of the Revolutionary War. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-5542-9. A historical novel about the American Revolution, and the first work of fiction written by a U.S. President.[citation needed]
Carter, Jimmy (2005). Sharing good times. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-7068-1.
Carter, Jimmy (2006). Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-8501-8. Won a Grammy Award for best spoken-word album.[3]
Carter, Jimmy (2006). Faith & Freedom: The Christian Challenge for the World. [London]: Duckworth. ISBN 0-7156-3610-3. UK edition of Our Endangered Values.
Carter, Jimmy (2006). Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-8502-6.
Carter, Jimmy (2007). Leading a Worthy Life: Sunday Mornings in Plains: Bible Study with Jimmy Carter. Simon & Schuster Audio. ISBN 0-7435-6176-7.
Carter, Jimmy (2007). Measuring Our Success: Sunday Mornings in Plains: Bible Study with Jimmy Carter. Simon & Schuster Audio. ISBN 0-7435-6726-9.
Carter, Jimmy (2008). A Remarkable Mother. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1-4165-6245-1.
Carter, Jimmy (2007). Beyond the White House. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1-4165-5880-2.
Carter, Jimmy (2009). We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land: A Plan That Will Work. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 1-4391-4063-4.
Carter, Jimmy (2010). White House Diary. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 0-374-28099-1.
Carter, Jimmy (2012). NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan. ISBN 0-310-95081-3.
Carter, Jimmy (2014). A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-476-77395-7.
Carter, Jimmy (2015). A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5011-1563-9.
Jimmy Carter also does paid speeches--he's good for between fifty and a hundred thousand or more per gig. The more you speak, the more you make. He's not pulling in Bill Clinton money, but he only did one term in office, too:
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers
So--I guess it's OK to do these things for SOME politicians....and not for others? Or is it that you object that one politician might be more POPULAR a speaker/writer than the other?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)In my lifetime Carter is the finest person who was also president. I love the Clintons but Carter will be hard to beat.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Running a small town with a tiny population and a tiny budget is not the same as running a complex state or the most senior US cabinet agency with a massive budget and reach around the globe. He lacks sufficient executive experience. He also lacks a history of cooperation with others, and, given the number of years he has been in legislative service, a history of real accomplishments. Yes, he has his stamp on a couple of things, but he damn well should after all these years. It's not an accomplishment at this point in time--it's expected.
Jimmy Carter was "the" guy who introduced the whole concept of "personal morality" to governance. Unfortunately, the GOP took that idea, ran with it, and used it to beat on our crew (with a lot of "Do as I say, not as I do" going on, too), for a time with some success--finally, it would seem, they are being hoisted upon their own finger-wagging petard. The thing with Jimmy, though, is that while he talked the talk, he also walked the walk--then, AND now. He has absolute integrity. It's why Presidents down the years have USED him, quietly but regularly, as a personal envoy to talk to troublemakers (like Bashir Assad, for example).
Jimmy Carter was also an "actions and solutions" kind of guy. He led by example. He didn't simply lay out the problems, he led the way. I can remember when the GOP acted like it was the fricken Crime of the Century to ask (which the GOP whiningly interpreted as "demand"
Americans to turn the thermostat down to 68 and put on a damn sweater. Hell, nowadays 68 is the norm and no one needs the stupid sweater. He put the first solar panels on the White House--Reagan ostentatiously pulled them off. Carter carried his own bags. Reagan returned the WH to an Imperial Presidency.
Both Carter and Bill Clinton have continued to impact humanity with their charitable efforts, and Carter has kept a hand in with his election-monitoring work as well. Both have served as envoys in difficult situations, some often downplayed. Who can forget Clinton going to North Korea to rescue Lisa Ling's sister and another woman being held hostage? That could have been a very ugly start to the Obama Presidency; Clinton turned it into a triumph. Both Carter and Clinton put their heads down, put their shoulders to the wheel, and they Get Shit Done. They don't complain, they DO. I think that's the difference, ultimately. They still believe--as I do--that America's best days are ahead. It's not all about a litany of what is "wrong" --and sure, there are things that need fixing--it's about what we can do moving forward to improve our lot. That's a key element of leadership, and it's one Sanders lacks. I don't think America could bear listening to four years of "America sucks, Sweden - Denmark - Finland is better." I think we'd get sick of that in a month or less. It's why his appeal--notwithstanding the youthful enthusiasm--is limited; many of his supporters just don't appreciate that Rome wasn't built in a day, and complaining about a problem isn't the same as solving a problem.
I think Sanders has been useful in focusing the debate on real issues of concern to all of us (and some, like #blm that he probably would have rather avoided, but he served as a foil and a sounding board, nonetheless) and I think his role in that regard has been positive. But I don't think he'd make a good chief executive, I don't think he has the foreign policy chops, and I don't think he has the ability to manage so many competing cabinet and national security entitities. I think his solutions would tend towards isolationism, and turning our backs on allies and ceding the global leadership role to China. I just don't see that as a smart move.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Qualified.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Right you are, pick again!
TBF
(36,669 posts)Bernie has won 14 elections while she won 2.
Bernie: Mayor, House of Representatives, Senator --> 30+ years
Hillary: Senator, Secretary of State --> 12 years
Being first lady does not qualify you to be president.
You may not "dwell on wealth" but most folks in this country are busy dwelling on their poverty.
A quote: The 85 richest people on earth own more wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion, that is according to Oxfam. This means a group of individuals who could fit on a London double-decker bus owns as much as half the world's population. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2015/10/reality-check-inequality-stupid-151009172648920.html
Hillary is just more of the same - a pro-establishment millionaire protecting her banking buddies.
Americans deserve better.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Not everyone takes money in their own little greedy hand--they make deals for votes, for influence. For some, POWER is the name of the game. With power, you really don't need money--in fact, you are more powerful if you are regarded as someone who eschews lucre--Ralph Nader played that card well (even though he is worth a fortune, and didn't actually live in that crappy apartment he kept to craft a clever persona for the public).
Lots of people are NOT happy.
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2015/5/15/burlington-f-35.html
And lots of people (who make helmets) are happy....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/26/f-35-helmet-costs-400000-4-times-predecessor/74650574/
Lockheed - Martin makes drones, too.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/
And, near as I can tell, Sanders has never written a SINGLE book--never mind a couple-- that a publisher has seen fit to give him a multi-million dollar advance on.
And if we really want to "go there," HRC has never hired family members to work on her campaigns, since you're getting all "moneybags" up in here, and paid them out of campaign funds. So, there's that, too....
TBF
(36,669 posts)we are already paying at least one of them ...
Bill Clinton - former president (we still pay for him) - http://work.chron.com/much-us-president-make-retirement-23058.html (this is funded by taxpayers); Also his net worth is $80 Million (http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/president/bill-clinton-net-worth/) so he isn't really looking for a minimum wage job
Chelsea Clinton - HRC's daughter - net worth $15 million. Chelsea Clinton's first home: $10.5 million: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/celebrity-homes/chelsea-clintons-house-the-former-first-daughter-drops-10-5-million-on-a-high-profile-home/. She can afford to tag along on campaign stops and do photo ops at homeless shelters. Maybe she can run against George P. Bush in a few years. Establishment candidates a plenty!!
MADem
(135,425 posts)And Clinton's is HALF of what Bush's is.
OK--we won't pay Bernie his House/Senate pension either, if you feel that way. Fair is fair, after all--you don't "like" people named Clinton, you think they don't deserve their pensions? I'm sure there are citizens out there who don't "like" people named Sanders and think they don't deserve their pensions, either.
And bringing in HRC's married daughter? You are gish-galloping. How do you know what she can afford? How do you know how much of her assets are liquid and available to her? Are you her accountant? Last I checked, she was never on a government payroll.
What I know is that you aren't the arbiter of who "deserves" a government pension that they've earned.
smh. What a lame reach.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Looks like we have CEO thinkers posting here.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't think Sanders would be too thrilled with some of these comments.
neverforget
(9,513 posts)Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it’s the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history.
It is also the defense project too big to kill. The F-35 funnels business to a global network of contractors that includes Northrop Grumman Corp. and Kongsberg Gruppen ASA of Norway. It counts 1,300 suppliers in 45 states supporting 133,000 jobs -- and more in nine other countries, according to Lockheed. The F-35 is an example of how large weapons programs can plow ahead amid questions about their strategic necessity and their failure to arrive on time and on budget.
“It’s got a lot of political protection,” said Winslow Wheeler, a director at the Project on Government Oversight’s Center for Defense Information in Washington. “In that environment, very, very few members of Congress are willing to say this is an unaffordable dog and we need to get rid of it.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-map-explains-the-f-35-fiasco-2014-8
MADem
(135,425 posts)In a state with an entire population that is only about the size of the city of Boston.
Go along, get along! Bring home that bacon--even if it's rancid, can't beat an F-16 in combat, and crashes on take-off.
neverforget
(9,513 posts)They spread out these contracts over many Congressional districts/states so as to make the weapons program hard to kill because of jobs.
The F-35 is a boondoggle that needs to be killed but it won't because of what Lockheed did. We're on the same side. The MIC has far to much power and far to many jobs are dependent on feeding the war machine.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)could see that HRH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and has been for decades.
It takes oceans of denial not to see and comprehend that fact.
And I 
Sarah Silverman.
George II
(67,782 posts)
HubertHeaver
(2,539 posts)
Uncle Joe
(65,134 posts)Thanks for the thread, Segami.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Truth...
senz
(11,945 posts)Not too hard to figure out. 
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)as the Brits say.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
K and R
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The writer of this article seems to me to be too focused on that.
JI7
(93,616 posts)<When I met him I said, 'Keep the Jewish thing down for as long as you can.'">
Which would different coming from a non jew.
merrily
(45,251 posts)that they are both New England Jews. Is anyone confused about Sarah Silverman's Jewish heritage? Or Sanders'?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and a number of other "comedians" infinitely farther than I trust anyone working for the M$M. The latter are required to shill and lie to get those nice, fat, juicy paychecks from their corporate masters (I've seen reports that Tweety, for one, makes $5 million per year - let THAT rattle around in the ol' brainbox for a while). Comics and social critics can be honest without fear of drastic financial repercussions from their unhappy employers, who demand obedience to the Corporate Line at ALL times.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)A demographic seemingly more "laugh-in" than Greg the bunny.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)The second laugh-in looks at the news painted her as neo-Nixon they'd be done.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)He is owned by nobody, he relies on myriads of people, tired of the plutocracy, sending him what they can. I'm one of them, maybe donating more than some, but we all want to take this nation back from the 1 %.
Hillary does take tens of millions of super pac money. They expect nothing for that? Why can't the in the tank for HRC grasp this?
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)...To borrow a phrase from the 1972 presidential campaign of Shirley Chisholm.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)entity? You have to be at the table to deal.
ProgressiveVC
(79 posts)What does that even mean?
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)There's also Larry Lessig, who is hoping to be allowed to participate in the second Democratic debate.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)but I'll do my due diligence to figure out who he is.
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Lessig's positions are much like Bernie's. The one difference is that Lessig would make campaign financing his top priority, because you can't get anything else done until Congress ceases to be bought.
Lessig started out saying he would do *only* changes to campaign financing; he would resign once his Citizen Equality Act was passed. I fantasied that he would make Bernie his VP. Then they'd get elected, Lessig would get his law passed, and Bernie would become president within 2 weeks. But Lessig has given up on the plan to pass that one law and resign, and now he is a regular candidate. I hope he'll be there for the second Dem debate.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)He might leap frog O'Malley in terms of my second choice for Prez. I'm always keeping an open mind about other possible candidates that aren't Hillary Clinton. Thanks for that!
freedom fighter jh
(1,784 posts)Here he is in a discussion with Cenk about his candidacy:
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)Segami!!!! Sorry for posting threads that you have already taken care of. Feel the Bern!!!!
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Things about her when/if she becomes the nominee and we are trying to convince the rest of America to vote for her.
I really don't know who this tackiness serves in the long run. She could have attached the policy position but chose to go after the candidate personally, which is unnecessary.
red dog 1
(33,063 posts)I love Sarah Silverman!
(I love Bernie too)
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)I was a staunch HRC supporter until this moment - but this OP has completely opened my eyes and turned me around!
I hope you BS supporters never give up posting stuff like this - because it really makes a difference - IT REALLY DOES!!!
To think I supported Hillary without waiting for Sarah Siliverman's opinion - well, don't I feel like an idiot now!
I am just grateful for being enlightened - before it was too late.