2016 Postmortem

hellofromreddit

(1,182 posts)

90. Nobody can prove a negative.

Sun May 15, 2016, 09:48 AM

May 2016

Comparing a politician to entertainers does not hold water. Entertainers do not influence the law. Compare politicians to politicians.

Despite the CF being a public charity, it still is tightly associated with Clinton so the conflict of interest remains.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is concern over Clinton's wall street ties not a legitimate issue? [View all] hellofromreddit May 2016 OP

Every time something has been said involving Wall Street and HRC or election fraud or bkkyosemite May 2016 #1

It absolutely is! TDale313 May 2016 #2

That's right Arneoker May 2016 #91

Even Bernie in the last debate couldn't come up with one instance of corruption redstateblues May 2016 #3

OK, Bernie looked foolish. So what's your point with that observation? hellofromreddit May 2016 #6

I suspect he was biting his tongue Armstead May 2016 #13

This is exactly what happened...Trump will not be so hesitant to dish on Hillary... Human101948 May 2016 #32

Well gee, THAT'S never happened before! Arneoker May 2016 #92

Trump will inflate Hillary's negatives until her ratings are equal to his... Human101948 May 2016 #100

I agree. He's been trying to keep his campaign clean, and of course he gets no credit for it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #39

He had nothing. That had been the centerpiece of his campaign redstateblues May 2016 #31

The centerpiece of his campaign? That is obviously not true. hellofromreddit May 2016 #38

Corruption not the centerpiece? He hammers it in every speech. redstateblues May 2016 #58

Income inequality. hellofromreddit May 2016 #60

People who have contempt for the very idea of economic justice wouldn't understand. delrem May 2016 #83

Gee, I never know I had contempt for the very idea of economic justice! Arneoker May 2016 #93

271 posts and you already figure I'm singling you out? delrem May 2016 #104

That was a sly response from Hillary. KPN May 2016 #34

We won't know what the payoffs are until she's in a position to pay them off. Peace Patriot May 2016 #67

And it is all legal so we had better like it. kpola12 May 2016 #103

Scalia would be very proud of you pmorlan1 May 2016 #72

He was shocked .99center May 2016 #82

The voters have heard this for months from Bernie himself, no evidence of BootinUp May 2016 #4

the "cut it out, Glass-Steagall wasnt the problem" reform? reddread May 2016 #7

Read it yourself. nt BootinUp May 2016 #10

sorry, lost me at "Hillary believes" reddread May 2016 #15

Perhaps there are more open minded folks that will read it. nt BootinUp May 2016 #18

you mean suckers reddread May 2016 #19

We are going to have 8 years to argue about this. nt BootinUp May 2016 #21

that wish wont be coming true reddread May 2016 #23

I read it.... Armstead May 2016 #43

That seems like a bit of a stretch. hellofromreddit May 2016 #9

If this is a "Bernie is the stronger GE candidate" argument BootinUp May 2016 #11

That seems fair. Thanks. hellofromreddit May 2016 #17

Silly. KPN May 2016 #36

What's the record, what's the record, what's the record Arneoker May 2016 #95

can't get much tougher than proposing to break up the banking monopolies Armstead May 2016 #40

And Clinton has said she would based on risk to the economy, but the BootinUp May 2016 #46

It's not just risks to the economy.... Armstead May 2016 #47

Agreed, and that is also addressed in her platform BootinUp May 2016 #48

Hers lacks the necessary framework... Armstead May 2016 #49

That kind of rhetoric doesn't win the WH. But the policies to address the problem BootinUp May 2016 #51

We'll have to disagree -- I think that kind of rhetoric can win the WH and Congress Armstead May 2016 #54

You are siding with the majority pmorlan1 May 2016 #68

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense at all BootinUp May 2016 #69

Makes Perfect Sense pmorlan1 May 2016 #70

Knock yourself out then. nt BootinUp May 2016 #71

Bottom line, what does her record show? Arneoker May 2016 #94

I'm sure Trump has the transcripts to her speech to Wall Street. October Surprise? B Calm May 2016 #5

Go to any large company beedle May 2016 #8

Yeah, even when I was at the bottom of the totem pole I had to sit through training about it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #26

So you were warped by corporate group think. Buzz cook May 2016 #56

Your attack is weak. I mopped floors. hellofromreddit May 2016 #59

And yet you still reject evidence. Buzz cook May 2016 #64

It's not about 'evidence' of a crime beedle May 2016 #73

Yup that's another republican talking point Buzz cook May 2016 #80

Protip: you can make that point without the insults and lying. hellofromreddit May 2016 #84

Sorry Buzz cook May 2016 #99

Yes, and integrity obviously does not come into play in your calculation beedle May 2016 #98

Integrity does come into play Buzz cook May 2016 #102

because it's inconvenient? Armstead May 2016 #12

There should be a transaction tax on the financial services industry. PufPuf23 May 2016 #14

Pay me $200,000 dollars for a speech JEB May 2016 #16

Because it might make her look kinda neoCon Ferd Berfel May 2016 #20

As the Senator from New York, you want her to dismiss a huge part of her constituents? procon May 2016 #22

Make your argument without the insults. hellofromreddit May 2016 #25

Defend your allegations with something more substantial than opinions. nt procon May 2016 #37

Whatever you came here to achieve you've failed. hellofromreddit May 2016 #41

An ex-Gov of NY, FDR, enacted Glass-Steagall, which Hillary opposes TheDormouse May 2016 #35

Hogwash. procon May 2016 #50

Explain why Hillary doesn't say TheDormouse May 2016 #62

I'm not her archivist, a soothsayer, or a reader of tea leaves, but opinions, I got 'em. procon May 2016 #79

take your time ... TheDormouse May 2016 #75

Here's that ex-Govenor of NY talking about Wall St TheDormouse May 2016 #65

Because - All Things Hillary - have been exaggerated Bobbie Jo May 2016 #24

Well, that is a pretty good point. hellofromreddit May 2016 #33

I have something to say that is liberal and pro Democrat, but as this is Democratic Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #27

Would you say it in a PM? hellofromreddit May 2016 #28

No point in a PM. I was hoping to use Democratic Underground to promote the idea Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #29

If you opposed the 2003 Iraq invasion, you supported Saddam RufusTFirefly May 2016 #30

As you can see, it is virtually unexplainable without just poo-pawing the questioner ... KPN May 2016 #42

it's scary what she gets away with. Joob May 2016 #44

The transcript issue is not petty. It's reflective of her fiscal policy going forward and leadership EndElectoral May 2016 #45

Clinton's rewired the party into becoming one big protection mechanism for her MisterP May 2016 #52

Apparently there is also little concern that the Democratic National Convention is being bjo59 May 2016 #53

"To me it seems apparent" Buzz cook May 2016 #55

You didn't make your point. You just tossed out a few lame insults. hellofromreddit May 2016 #61

Bullshit nt Buzz cook May 2016 #63

The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #66

And perceptions can be and are Buzz cook May 2016 #81

Some of our best Presidents had connections to wall Street and were weak hy, FDR, JFK, Hoyt May 2016 #57

I don't believe that the speech transcripts thing is petty at all Time for change May 2016 #74

IOKIYHRC? Beartracks May 2016 #76

Yeap, her camp stole SBS data from 11 states.... she cheated !! Oh wait uponit7771 May 2016 #77

To criticize Hillary Clinton is to criticize the Democratic Party. She is our "queen", you know. w4rma May 2016 #78

It is a legitimate issue, but if you hear the love fest for yourself you might choose Bernie. Vinca May 2016 #85

Every candidate has "ties to Wall Street". randome May 2016 #86

Not all candidates are paid big money to talk to them. October Surprise B Calm May 2016 #87

"What you really mean is how can use this issue against Clinton. Right?" hellofromreddit May 2016 #88

I made it: every candidate has some degree of a "tie to Wall Street". randome May 2016 #89

Nobody can prove a negative. hellofromreddit May 2016 #90

You're right, you can't prove a negative. Clinton's fees & contributions are well known, though. randome May 2016 #96

I'm not sure where you're going with this hellofromreddit May 2016 #97

Asking is legit. Unfounded blanket statements about corruption aren't. CrowCityDem May 2016 #101