General Discussion

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

210. And I believe that Democrats can and must do much better than Hillary Clinton.

Sun Feb 15, 2015, 11:50 PM

Feb 2015

If we nominate Hillary in 2016 and she is unable or unwilling to regulate Wall Street and limit profits to providers of war material and allow American jobs to be further shipped overseas, we will end up with a government that makes the Republican right wing look moderate.

We are at a turning point. The big issue, the issue that surpasses all other issues is corruption. And Hillary and Bill are not in a position to do much to end the corruption.

income and wealth disparity and corruption. All the other issues from the environment to our endless war are derived from the two primary issues of wealth disparity to the corruption. And those two issues work hand in hand to perpetuate each other.

We Democrats risk becoming entirely irrelevant if we nominate Hillary Clinton.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

217 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Clinton’s Top Corporate Donors Are Among The Most Hated Companies in America [View all] Ichingcarpenter Feb 2015 OP

a Government "of the people, by the people and for the people". Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2015 #1

Corporations are people too, my friend... Fumesucker Feb 2015 #3

Hillary Inc is living proof of that, though her poll-tested personality is majorly lacking. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #63

And that's the law Jack Rabbit Feb 2015 #68

WTF ? father founding Feb 2015 #70

Why do I laugh every time I hear that? Probably shouldn't. kairos12 Feb 2015 #82

Do they want Campaign Finance Reform, specifically: publicly financed elections, too? Octafish Feb 2015 #87

Quite frankly; yes Half-Century Man Feb 2015 #203

And it's the best government some 'people' can buy! HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #4

It's as if the non-governing elite control the governing elite. Rex Feb 2015 #11

I suppose the only if is -if- there is such a thing as a non-governing oligarch HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #18

I prefer non-governing plutocracy. The word oligarchy give some here the vapors. Rex Feb 2015 #24

Yea, but to be a real Player you buy Republicans and Democrats! A Democrat can get you Dustlawyer Feb 2015 #192

The ones spreading the corporatist Third Way gospel or the Party uber alles gospel merrily Feb 2015 #174

A lot of the governing elite were once the non-governing elite. If not, many sure made money merrily Feb 2015 #182

Honorary Member Of The Bush Family billhicks76 Feb 2015 #138

Centrist swarm attack in 3...2...1... Rex Feb 2015 #2

No doubt! Populist_Prole Feb 2015 #33

obama's apologists would prefer you not mention the TPP thanks :-) nt msongs Feb 2015 #54

Well if Obama is for the TPP it's for our own good. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #126

Do you believe that a person can run a serious and credible national camapaign cheapdate Feb 2015 #52

Bernie may be doing just that. hope hope. -nt- 99th_Monkey Feb 2015 #61

Then what is the point of the little people participating? AllyCat Feb 2015 #62

I believe it's a social truth that accepting a gift creates a bond or an obligation, cheapdate Feb 2015 #81

If Warren Buffet contributed $10 BILLION to a candidate he still gets only one vote. George II Feb 2015 #194

Really? laundry_queen Feb 2015 #209

Wow, I didn't know! So that's how Romney won. n/t A Simple Game Feb 2015 #89

No, Romney obviously lost. cheapdate Feb 2015 #97

No I believe you, I already knew Romney outspent Obama. A Simple Game Feb 2015 #130

Warren gets lots of donations from ordinary people. The corporate dollars add up faster, but JDPriestly Feb 2015 #165

Why should we bother to vote if the candidates are bought by corporations before we have any JDPriestly Feb 2015 #164

Moot Point Joe Turner Feb 2015 #96

It matters to me. cheapdate Feb 2015 #98

"she won't radically change the system of environmental protections" Joe Turner Feb 2015 #116

I couldn't disagree more. cheapdate Feb 2015 #122

That's what you don't get Joe Turner Feb 2015 #133

Who are you talking to? cheapdate Feb 2015 #140

How about Hillary giving her campaign funds to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders and JDPriestly Feb 2015 #168

Do Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer serve the interests of the 1%? /NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #144

Actually I think they do Joe Turner Feb 2015 #154

You do know the dissenters were Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and ... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #155

No, they decided that certain private property rights outweight other private property rights hatrack Feb 2015 #159

Actually Bush issued an executive order restricting the use of eminent domain... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #160

So the best we can hope for is the status quo and we can have that only provided that we behave JDPriestly Feb 2015 #167

Everyone can make their own strategic decision. cheapdate Feb 2015 #198

And I believe that Democrats can and must do much better than Hillary Clinton. JDPriestly Feb 2015 #210

How much more irrelevant will Democrats be if Republicans win the White House? cheapdate Feb 2015 #212

If you live in a red state, you are partly responsible for changing that red state blue. JDPriestly Feb 2015 #213

+1. cheapdate Feb 2015 #214

+10 (nt) PosterChild Feb 2015 #139

Do you believe a person can accept limitless corporate donations and remain a "credible" candidate? hatrack Feb 2015 #147

The problem, as Barack Obama and others have pointed out, cheapdate Feb 2015 #153

Couldn't agree with you more on gift/obligation . . . hatrack Feb 2015 #157

At the end of the Gilded Age, after the horrific corruption, the vote-selling, the cnadidate-buying, JDPriestly Feb 2015 #169

TR was a complicated figure tomp Feb 2015 #193

Yes. JDPriestly Feb 2015 #211

Obama outspent McCain by a lot. By the time he ran against Romney, he was a wiar time incumbent and merrily Feb 2015 #175

Hillary has been a candidate in three elections. cheapdate Feb 2015 #196

What does that have to do with my post #175? merrily Feb 2015 #197

I'll try to be more direct. cheapdate Feb 2015 #202

No one interpreted your comment. I simply made my own observation merrily Feb 2015 #204

Seriously? No one interpreted my comment? cheapdate Feb 2015 #205

I replied to your comment and made an observation of my own. If you don't believe that, oh, well. merrily Feb 2015 #206

The fact that you replied and made an observation is not in dispute. cheapdate Feb 2015 #207

LOL. merrily Feb 2015 #208

I absolutely believe that dreamnightwind Feb 2015 #216

I don't disagree entirely with your arguments. cheapdate Feb 2015 #217

The Washington Free Beacon? WTF?... SidDithers Feb 2015 #5

Would this be a better source? HappyMe Feb 2015 #10

Easy now...their narrative has no support structure. So expect no answer. Rex Feb 2015 #27

It's his modus operandi. Attack the source, ignore the substance. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2015 #35

Sources matter... SidDithers Feb 2015 #41

Dispute it with facts or accept as fact glasshouses Feb 2015 #49

Welcome to DU... SidDithers Feb 2015 #51

thank you glasshouses Feb 2015 #102

You are arguing in support of a textbook logical fallacy LittleBlue Feb 2015 #65

I gave what I think is a better source. HappyMe Feb 2015 #45

Facts are hard to counter glasshouses Feb 2015 #50

Does anyone else remember when the Democratic Party wasn't controlled by corporatists? Broward Feb 2015 #14

Google the headline and you'll see the other "news" outlets that have jumped on this... George II Feb 2015 #46

Do you and Sid not see reply #10, with links to opensecrets.org? That's the source of the data. Electric Monk Feb 2015 #64

I did see that, later on. But the way the numbers are presented here is misleading... George II Feb 2015 #67

In addition, you can see the breakdown of where the contributions came from on opensecrets... George II Feb 2015 #72

What's your point? nm rhett o rick Feb 2015 #99

The point is that Hillary Clinton is being criticized for the (misleading) sources.... George II Feb 2015 #104

I think that HRC will be influenced by corporate money more than either Sen Sanders or rhett o rick Feb 2015 #107

I really don't know. George II Feb 2015 #109

Just look at opensecrets.org and the candidates liabilities and main donors. Rex Feb 2015 #115

Elizabeth Warren's primary donors: JDPriestly Feb 2015 #171

^^^this!^^^ peacebird Feb 2015 #186

Do you think either can finance a national campaign for president? George II Feb 2015 #191

Jamie Dimon is an individual. So is Bernie Madoff. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #135

Actually, I think I mentioned it here a couple of weeks ago. JDPriestly Feb 2015 #170

Who will you be voting for? L0oniX Feb 2015 #118

I welcome their xenophobia...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #124

I remember when flamebait was frowned upon shenmue Feb 2015 #148

Yep, meta, too. sic transit gloria Canada. merrily Feb 2015 #177

It's names and numbers, ffs, not commentary. Disprove the info, if you think it's wrong. merrily Feb 2015 #176

Sid is the media decider. Iteration 2. DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2015 #199

You're OK with using conservative sources to attack Democrats at DU?... SidDithers Feb 2015 #200

I don't see Comcast. GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #6

Wait. merrily Feb 2015 #178

I counted maybe 4 donors that I think I could trust. We are in big trouble. jwirr Feb 2015 #7

Golly! What a surprise. 99Forever Feb 2015 #8

I'm torn-votin 4 a warmonging corporatist just doesn't appeal. Wud hate 2 have that on my conscience. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #90

This! hifiguy Feb 2015 #94

Me too. Fool me once, shame on you........... Enthusiast Feb 2015 #127

k & fucking r! n/t wildbilln864 Feb 2015 #9

Couple of issues I see with this Egnever Feb 2015 #12

Stop being nuanced, you are supposed to be outraged, just kidding. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #15

Sorry Egnever Feb 2015 #23

She will get there by taking... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #26

Of course it is from individuals. former9thward Feb 2015 #103

Nice, the free beacon sharp_stick Feb 2015 #13

Exactly. The Right hates Clinton.. The Fringe Left hates Clinton... SidDithers Feb 2015 #16

Reminds me of when Stalin wouldn't let the Communists in Germany work with the Socialists... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #20

And with predictable results, but some didn't learn... freshwest Feb 2015 #125

It's called "maximizing the contradictions" or the "worse the better" DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #143

Thanks so much for saying that better than I could! Saving that. freshwest Feb 2015 #146

You mean the Left wants a candidate that will represent the people and not the Big Banks. rhett o rick Feb 2015 #100

It's all predetermined by the Oligarch Rulers anyway, right rick?... SidDithers Feb 2015 #101

Yes the fringey Left believes that money has too much influence in politics. rhett o rick Feb 2015 #105

+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #129

There is no "fringe left." Hasn't been one since the Rosenbergs. hedda_foil Feb 2015 #162

Even more than that, FDR, Truman and JFK were plain ole Democrats, not even liberal Democrats. merrily Feb 2015 #184

The Right wants to help the rich. The left wants to help the 99%. merrily Feb 2015 #183

I like the extra large tight lens GIF of Hillary Clinton laughing DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #19

It's taken directly from opensecrets.org fbc Feb 2015 #22

That's not the point. Notice they never actually talk about the point of the OP. Rex Feb 2015 #25

Everyone takes money from them Egnever Feb 2015 #29

Emily's List was close to the top. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #32

That's why I unsubscribed from Emily's list. Enthusiast Feb 2015 #131

Wow./NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #141

Yes, everybody does it, so I guess that makes it right. InAbLuEsTaTe Feb 2015 #93

The OP is a flat-out lie, since those companies did not give the money NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #75

Take it up with www.opensecrets.org. since that is where the data came from. Rex Feb 2015 #91

Yes that is where I'm looking. And opensource.org clearly distingushes NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #112

Well individuals are not corporate donors and the poll is lifted right from the harris pdf. Rex Feb 2015 #113

No I have a problem sharp_stick Feb 2015 #69

The information is valid. Maedhros Feb 2015 #95

Sure the stuff in there might be valid sharp_stick Feb 2015 #108

Carping over the source as a means to derail discussion is always malignant. [n/t] Maedhros Feb 2015 #121

If you can't be bothered sharp_stick Feb 2015 #145

If you had anything that rebutted the OP you would have already posted it. Maedhros Feb 2015 #152

There is not enough money to defend this nationwide, along with the Epstein crapola. TheNutcracker Feb 2015 #17

Who does Hillary Clinton work for? fbc Feb 2015 #21

Doh... GummyBearz Feb 2015 #28

Well isn't this a nice piece of Republican garbage... surprised they didn't list labor unions OKNancy Feb 2015 #30

Exactly. Those corp's aren't hated by the rightwing. JaneyVee Feb 2015 #34

It's from the Washington Free Beacon... SidDithers Feb 2015 #37

No facts to counter the poll? Ok ...got it. L0oniX Feb 2015 #119

And when GOP throws a hat in the ring.... JaneyVee Feb 2015 #31

That OUGHT to make her one of the most hated candidates among Democratic voters FiveGoodMen Feb 2015 #36

Are you kidding? She's the most progressive candidate EVAH. Read it right here. Scuba Feb 2015 #38

LOL L0oniX Feb 2015 #120

Goldman Sachs was top Obama donor DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #40

Elizabeth Warren Endorses ‘Free Money’ for Wall Street wyldwolf Feb 2015 #39

Warren refused to speak at a Koch Foundation (Heritage) event for phasing out Ex-Im bank RiverLover Feb 2015 #83

Those contributions/contributors go back to 1989 (!!!), 26 years. How about current numbers only... George II Feb 2015 #42

The Washington Free Beacon............... George II Feb 2015 #43

The right is trying to undermine HRC from the left. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #44

+1...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #47

And some who consider themselves "the left" or "progressive" lap it up like crazy. George II Feb 2015 #48

It is what it is DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #55

A lot of those companies got US taxpayer bailouts in the Great Looting of 2008. Octafish Feb 2015 #53

You have posted the standing membership of the US Central Committee, The US is an industry run state whereisjustice Feb 2015 #56

Why are you dissing our next president like this? ybbor Feb 2015 #57

As long as the other side is raising tons of dough don't you think it's incumbent on us to raise... DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #58

Yes I agree with you on that ybbor Feb 2015 #66

A "woman of the people"... Sienna86 Feb 2015 #59

If I have a bug up my ass it's people who don't judge other people by the same standards, ergo: DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #60

More of the same shit father founding Feb 2015 #71

Misleading tripe. Those companies did not contribute; People WORKING FOR those companies did. NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #73

Exactly... SidDithers Feb 2015 #76

Some of the stuff that gets posted here these days is disgusting. NYC Liberal Feb 2015 #161

Yep, some haters can't see a few inches ahead of their noses. Makes me want to vote HRC now... freshwest Feb 2015 #156

Yes, I'm sure it was only the poorest of the poor at those companies too NorthCarolina Feb 2015 #189

Looks like the same companies that contributed to Obama AgingAmerican Feb 2015 #74

Res ipsa loquitur DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #78

*Shudder* AgingAmerican Feb 2015 #84

"Don't hate the playa, hate the game."/NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #86

"It's not either/or." merrily Feb 2015 #181

It is but I notice a big difference. Obama doesn't really have any big liabilities. Rex Feb 2015 #117

In 2008, yes. Not in 2012. Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #173

Better Believe It!!...nt SidDithers Feb 2015 #77

The selective outrage would be comical if the stakes weren't so high./NT DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2015 #79

you should see what those companies Cryptoad Feb 2015 #80

The bottom line is this Pakid Feb 2015 #85

I'm surprized that Monsanto is not in that list. BeanMusical Feb 2015 #88

Everyone who is surprised by this stand on your head... hifiguy Feb 2015 #92

Sockpuppets for Hillary stand up! Enthusiast Feb 2015 #132

The conclusion one draws will indicate more about their effort to understand than about Hillary BootinUp Feb 2015 #106

Warren admitted she has taken Wall Street Money, she understands financing a campaign. Thinkingabout Feb 2015 #110

re reddread Feb 2015 #111

The best candidate corrupt money can buy... blkmusclmachine Feb 2015 #114

I guess it's time to tell ... NanceGreggs Feb 2015 #123

Of course they would..... workinclasszero Feb 2015 #128

Interesting, yes ... NanceGreggs Feb 2015 #136

If the past is any indication of the future Egnever Feb 2015 #151

So, we are talking the Herbert Hoover section? Would they put a chicken in every pot, too? freshwest Feb 2015 #158

''Among the most hated companies.'' DeSwiss Feb 2015 #188

This is how America is run LiberalLovinLug Feb 2015 #134

OK, I see some banks...but how are other companies HATED? Countdown_3_2_1 Feb 2015 #137

This stuff makes me sick. davidthegnome Feb 2015 #142

Of all the hypocritical nonsense!!!!! Beacool Feb 2015 #149

Obama received a lot in '08 but hardly any support from Wall Street in 2012. Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #172

Wall Street probably did prefer Romney. Also, Obama didn't need as much in 2012 as in 2008. merrily Feb 2015 #179

I think his rhetoric turned Wall Street off too. Drunken Irishman Feb 2015 #187

Dunno. First term rhetoric was very different from post 2014 mid term rhetoric. merrily Feb 2015 #190

I didn't support Obama LWolf Feb 2015 #215

That list looks familiar MyNameGoesHere Feb 2015 #150

K&R. JDPriestly Feb 2015 #163

I'd be interested to know the date of this report. calimary Feb 2015 #166

The beginning of the OP says over the course of her political career. merrily Feb 2015 #180

. stonecutter357 Feb 2015 #185

K&R woo me with science Feb 2015 #195

Another Wall Street shill CountAllVotes Feb 2015 #201