25
   

The Pro Hillary Thread

 
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Fri 6 May, 2016 12:36 pm
@Lash,
He released one tax return, finally on the last few days left of tax season, less than any presidential candidate past or present other than Trump. When Trump releases his tax returns and it is decided all the candidates have to release their speeches transcripts and Trump actually releases his paid speeches, then she can release hers.
Lash
 
  0  
Fri 6 May, 2016 12:42 pm
@revelette2,
You really are being completely ridiculous. Taxes weren't even due til the day Jane did their taxes, like a lot of other Americans. I was doing mine while Jane was doing hers.

And what is the reason Hillary made so much noise about Bernie's taxes? To try to deflect attention from the fact that she gets $335,000. to talk to Wall Street people. What she's really getting is cash on the barrel head in exchange for a promise to protect Wall Street's interests over yours.

Why do you give her the power to do it and make excuses for her? Don't be a tool.
engineer
 
  6  
Fri 6 May, 2016 12:50 pm
@revelette2,
I don't think that candidates should release their tax returns. I remember when Bill Clinton was running and the press was having a good time looking at the deductions the Clintons took for giving clothes to charity. There is a lot of personal information in a tax return and the public really doesn't have a need to know. It's mostly just voyeurism. I did enjoy going through Romney's return to compute his overall taxation rate though.
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:01 pm
@engineer,
I agree, it has become a tradition during election season and now they are pressuring Hillary to release her paid speeches which no one else has had to do.
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:03 pm
@Lash,
The following is from Motherjones, hardly biased in favor of Clinton.

Just How Cozy Is Hillary Clinton With Wall Street?

Quote:
Hillary Clinton has received a lot of campaign money from the financial industry over the years, and after she left the State Department she gave several lucrative speeches to Goldman Sachs and other big banks. As Michael Hirsh puts it, this has given her a reputation for being "more than a little cozy" with Wall Street.

But is she? The truth is that I haven't paid much attention to this question. In terms of the presidential campaign, it's pretty obvious that Bernie Sanders is a lot tougher on the financial industry than she is. The details of their plans don't really matter. Sanders has practically made a career out of attacking Wall Street. As president, he'd make financial regulation a top priority; he'd appoint tougher watchdogs; and he'd use the bully pulpit relentlessly to call out Wall Street's sins.

Still, what about Clinton? How cozy with the financial industry is she? I asked about this on Twitter over the weekend, figuring that all the Bernie supporters would give me an earful. But no such luck. Mostly they just told me that she had taken Wall Street money and given Wall Street speeches. The only concrete criticism was one that Elizabeth Warren made in 2004: that Clinton had changed her view on the bankruptcy bill after she accepted lots of Wall Street money to get elected to the Senate.

But that didn't really hold water. She opposed the bill in 1999 because she wanted alimony and child-support payments to take precedence over credit card companies during bankruptcy proceeding. The bill passed anyway, but Bill Clinton vetoed it. In 2001, she brokered a compromise that gave priority to alimony and child support, and then voted for the bill. It didn't pass at the time, and in 2005 her compromise was removed from the bill. She said then that she opposed it.

This is classic Hillary. Once George Bush was president, she had no way of stopping the bill—so she worked hard behind the scenes to get what she could in return for her vote. Love it or hate it, this is the kind of pragmatic politics she practices. But there's no hypocrisy here; no change of heart thanks to Wall Street money (she supported the bill when it protected women and children and opposed it when it didn't); and no real support for the financial industry.

What else? Clinton says she gave several speeches in 2007 warning about the dangers of derivatives and subprime loans, and introduced proposals for stronger financial oversight. Apparently that's true. I'm not aware if she took a stand on the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, but I don't think this was responsible for the financial crisis and wouldn't hold it against her either way. (And it was supported by nearly the entire Democratic Party at the time.) The CFMA did make the financial crisis worse, but Bernie Sanders himself supported it. Clinton voted for Sarbanes-Oxley, but everyone else did too.

Clinton has consistently supported increasing the minimum wage—though not to $15. She supported the Lilly Ledbetter Act. She supports higher taxes on the wealthy. She supported repeal of the carried interest loophole in 2007. The Boston Globe, after an extensive review of her voting record in the Senate, summed up her attitude with this quote from a lobbyist: "The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful." Citizens for Tax Justice gives her a generally favorable grade on financial issues.

The word "cozy" does a whole lot of heavy lifting in stories about Hillary Clinton and Wall Street. But what does it mean? Does she have an actual record of supporting Wall Street interests? By ordinary standards, is her current campaign proposal for financial regulation a strong one? (I've been impressed by her rhetorical emphasis on shadow banking, but it's not clear just how far her proposals go in real life.) Has she protected financial interests against the Bernie Sanders of the world?

I think it's safe to say that Clinton has hardly been a scourge of the banking industry. Until recently, her main interests were elsewhere. But if there's a strong case to be made for "coziness," I've failed to find it. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?


0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:05 pm
@revelette2,
gotta give props to Jeb Bush for laying it out back to the 1980's
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:07 pm
Clinton Releases a Brutal Anti-Trump Ad
Quote:
And she gets Republicans to do the dirty work for her.

With Ted Cruz and John Kasich out of the race, Donald Trump has become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton's campaign wasted no time switching to general election mode, releasing a web video criticizing Trump. But Clinton didn't do it in her own words; the ad is a compilation of unkind things Trump's fellow Republicans have said about him during the party's nomination campaign.

It's harsh. Mitt Romney calls Trump a misogynist, Marco Rubio claims he's the most "vulgar person to ever aspire to the presidency," and Jeb Bush says Trump needs therapy.

It looks like the Clinton campaign isn't going to let any of the #NeverTrump Republicans forget that stance anytime soon.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:08 pm
@ehBeth,
yeah, I noticed that after I already said, "more than any other candidate..." I noticed it too late to edit. oh well.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:13 pm
@revelette2,
I liked that politifact bit for a couple of reasons. One was the info. Secondly, they didn't try to use hideous photos of all the candidates (or candidates from one side, which you see on some sites). Everyone except Ms. Fiorina looks pretty good.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:23 pm
@revelette2,
Don't you hate it when truth trumps slander. Too many people just hate her, they have the right to hate her for whatever reason, they just can't make up things hoping it will stick. I can't stand Ted Cruz, but that doesn't mean I can allege he is a child molester , then refuse to admit I made it up.

Apparently, not everyone thinks truth is important. Thats sad, don't you think? No one is obligated to like office seekers, thats why we vote.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:26 pm
Why Hillary Clinton Is Uniquely Suited To Take On Donald Trump

Quote:
This particular investigation, titled “Expert Decision Making in Evolving Situations,” gave 11 groups of Army intelligence analysts a realistic battlefield scenario and asked them to assess the most likely avenue for an enemy attack. The scenarios were largely the same, though with slight variations to produce different answers. Each group was given time to study and each expressed confidence in their answers.

The noteworthy stuff is what came next. The groups were given updated intelligence reports and asked to reconsider their assessments. Some reports contained items confirming initial judgements. Others were designed to spur skepticism. The majority were neutral. The process was then repeated two more times.

In the aggregate, the level of confidence should have stayed roughly the same. But what the researchers found was that the groups grew more convinced in their initial judgements the more information they received. Only one of the 11 teams changed its assessment of how the enemy would attack. Seven of the 11 teams expressed more confidence in their call over time.

Additionally, the subjects gave significantly more weight to information that reinforced their earlier decisions. Not only that, but when presented with contradictory evidence, they were dismissive or downplayed its significance. ...

“The results of this experiment lend support to the general conclusion that trained subjects in an evolving, realistic, decision environment demonstrate performance characteristics similar to those of novices working with less realistic and relatively more static scenarios,” the study read. “Specifically, confidence in an initial hypothesis is generally high, regardless of the hypothesis.”...

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, filleted a field of 17 Republican primary candidates by branding them in uniquely terrible ways: Little Marco Rubio, Lyin’ Ted Cruz and Low Energy Jeb Bush. With his attention shifting to November, the fear among preternaturally panicked Democrats is that he will do the same against his likely opponent: Hillary Clinton. Trump has already begun trying, adding the descriptive “Crooked” to her first name.

But political scientists and branding experts aren’t so sure that he’ll find much success. And it goes back to “Expert Decision Making in Evolving Situations.” Referencing that specific study, Timothy Calkins, a clinical professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, noted just how hard it is to mold perceptions when people have already thought through their choices.

“It is very hard to reposition a well-established brand, and what we have here are two really well-established brands,” Calkins said of the election matchup. “There is a whole idea of mental exhaustion. When you force people to really think about something, it is difficult and challenging. And the easy thing to do is to just not think about it. For someone to really challenge and change their beliefs requires a lot of energy.”


We've seen a lot of that effect here. Once someone has a metal picture of what is true, it doesn't matter how much evidence you present, they will ignore or discount it. Trump had a lot of success tarring his previous opponents because they weren't well known. Clinton has been attacked so often that everyone is has locked down their opinions. It is going to be hard to move the needle on her (while she has already started branding him.)
Lash
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 01:57 pm
@revelette2,
No one else is banking the GNP of a small country for giving a "speech" either. Think about it!!!
parados
 
  2  
Fri 6 May, 2016 02:28 pm
@Lash,
Actually Trump got 3 times what Hillary got per speech.

Think about it!!!!

Oops.. He got over 7 times what she got.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fight-over-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-is-ridiculous/2016/02/05/ca4d8952-cc4e-11e5-ae11-57b6aeab993f_story.html
Lash
 
  0  
Fri 6 May, 2016 02:40 pm
@parados,
Let's connect some dots.

Trump was a private citizen. He wasn't possibly selling influence politically. He didn't have any.

Sheesh!
snood
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 02:51 pm
@engineer,
I agree with that article. I think Trump might not be able to insult and wisecrack his way through a series of policy based questions. A whole lot depends on the moderators.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Fri 6 May, 2016 03:23 pm
@snood,
At the Presidential Debates the audience is reminded to hold applause until after the debate is over. Trump needs a receptive group off which to bounce his happy patter. In his interview with the Washington Post, it was shocking to read the transcript, it was a whole lot of nothing, full of all the carnival barker stuff, like a used car salesman on the last day of the month. I sincerely hope he can't back out of the debates because without the jeering masses everyone can see what kind of a leader he would be.
parados
 
  2  
Fri 6 May, 2016 03:31 pm
@Lash,
Gosh.. Hillary was a private citizen at the time she gave the speeches. She didn't have any more influence than Trump did.

Sheesh!
glitterbag
 
  3  
Fri 6 May, 2016 03:38 pm
@snood,
I also don't think he can praise Putin and recommend allowing South Korea to have nukes will sound responsible to the American voter.

I don't know how many folks watched Sec. Clinton during the eleven hours of testimony in front of the umpteenth Bengazi inquisition, but her tormentors treated her like a child molester and hammered her with innuendo and acquisitions hoping against hope she would crack. She didn't. If a group of highly motivated republican hell bent on proving guilt of some sort couldn't do it, I doubt Trump is disciplined enough to make a dent. He can't just make a negative remark, he always follows with, "I hate to tell you", "it's not true and I'll tell you why" and then he never tells you why. I don't think insulting impressions or remarks about how disgusting it is that women use bathrooms is going to move adults. It goes over big with the crowds of former Jerry Springer guests, and the folks who think fart jokes are high comedy, but who knows if it can elevate him to POTUS..
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Fri 6 May, 2016 03:42 pm
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

At the Presidential Debates the audience is reminded to hold applause until after the debate is over. Trump needs a receptive group off which to bounce his happy patter. In his interview with the Washington Post, it was shocking to read the transcript, it was a whole lot of nothing, full of all the carnival barker stuff, like a used car salesman on the last day of the month. I sincerely hope he can't back out of the debates because without the jeering masses everyone can see what kind of a leader he would be.

I sure hope the debates are that orderly, but we both know the ones that Fox news hosts won't be. And yeah, I saw that Washing Post interview transcript - freaking pathetic. Seeing that would (or at least should )scare anyone with half a brain trying to get this guy into the white house. I hope they don't let him back out as well.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  1  
Fri 6 May, 2016 03:50 pm
@glitterbag,
Watching Trey Gowdy (sp) go after Clinton was also disturbing. It was painful watching the veins pop out on his shiny forehead as he tried desperately to get Clinton to agree with his imaginary cooked up scandal. It also distressed me that a member of Congress was so woefully ignorant of the risk to diplomatic personnel in a terror attack. I don't know if the American people think there is always a rescue group of Navy Seals in the air ready to dash off to protect Federal employees, but there isn't. When we are TDY or stationed in another country, we sign forms acknowledging we know the American government might be powerless to help us. I'm sure every nation tells its citizens the same thing before they travel on official business.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 05:35:05