Hillary took $ from Koch bros!

This is hysterical and sexist garbage. And why do you capitalize "people"? The People? That's populist garbage that could come out of the mouth of Trump. We live in a republic. 

Even your headline is garbage. The Republican Bush administration didn't protect our investments, did it? And they should have. 

springgreen2 said:

While accusing Bernie Sanders of not being a Democrat, Hillary might as well be a conservative Republican. Having started in late adolescence as a Goldwater girl, she seems to have come full circle. Laughing and cackling at the "incompetent" she is running against, she has no specific goals or plans other than to win the White House by attacking her enemies and strategizing and making as much money as possible. Cynical, sarcastic, mean, abrasive, demeaning and cutting, she reflects the values of the nouveau riche spoiled, bourgeois brats of the wealthy suburbs. She is the mirror image of the Trump, in the guise of a progressive, having captured the willing hearts of many older African Americans. She is so awkward at campaigning that her vain attempts at opportunism are transparent bungles, ( see jumping all over the imagined misspeaking of Sanders, in his tabloid interview.) Then, when he returns the compliment, by saying she is unqualified, she acts like she doesn't know where that came from. She has no moral compass. She and Donald, if they become the nominees, will both take our great nation into a Dark Age, from which we won't return in our lifetimes.

Are not his colleagues representatives of the people?

librarylady said:

Are not his colleagues representatives of the people?

That idea of people electing their representatives seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes.

I kinda agree with the thread title in that WS will probably support the candidate most likely to help keep the markets stable.

Maybe Bernie's folks can point to some quid pro quo that HRC has either already offered or is likely to offer. Short of that, why not take their money?

GL2 said:

I kinda agree with the thread title in that WS will probably support the candidate most likely to help keep the markets stable.

Maybe Bernie's folks can point to some quid pro quo that HRC has either already offered or is likely to offer. Short of that, why not take their money?

If she were not so coy about releasing the transcript of her $250,000 WS speech, he might be able to offer that to you.

The problem, simply put, is what must we non-WSers, non-banker, people, Americans, citizens, have to sacrifice in exchange for WS "stability."

She has a problem articulating just what it is she is fighting/working for. Sanders seems to setting his platform, and she just takes it and waters it down. "Well, instead of free tuition, maybe we can refinance tuition." Ummm, newsflash, you can already do that. 

She's got nothing new under the sun.

bump  zridski, Cztraska, etc, etc, answer this without a personal attack. 

What is she for?

How can I say I'd vote for someone who has no platform. Should I vote for her just because she is a woman? That's sexism!

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

GL2 said:

I kinda agree with the thread title in that WS will probably support the candidate most likely to help keep the markets stable.

Maybe Bernie's folks can point to some quid pro quo that HRC has either already offered or is likely to offer. Short of that, why not take their money?

Well up to now, he hasn't needed to, and I believe being able to say that he's not taking their money has inspired lots of people to give him their own.  

springgreen2 said:

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

Try going to HillaryClinton.com, and read the many position papers posted there. That would be a great place for you to do your own research. It's not our job to teach you reality.

Red_Barchetta said:

GL2 said:

I kinda agree with the thread title in that WS will probably support the candidate most likely to help keep the markets stable.

Maybe Bernie's folks can point to some quid pro quo that HRC has either already offered or is likely to offer. Short of that, why not take their money?

Well up to now, he hasn't needed to, and I believe being able to say that he's not taking their money has inspired lots of people to give him their own.  

Thanks, Red.

Works out well, I guess - you campaign on this giant un-thought-out "break 'em up" (banks, Wall Schtreet) platform and claim you take none of their money.

I'm gonna bet HRC takes no Heritage Action or Focus on the Family money; I'm guessing she could boast about taking no Koch money.

I'm guessing Trump could add "no Planned Parenthood money" to his boasts.

springgreen seems to think any non-Bernie dem is somehow either rich or heavily invested in the market(s). I'm a former working-class first-generation American union member who retired with security because of the left...the realistic left.

GL2 said:

Works out well, I guess - you campaign on this giant un-thought-out "break 'em up" (banks, Wall Schtreet) platform and claim you take none of their money.

I'm gonna bet HRC takes no Heritage Action or Focus on the Family money; I'm guessing she could boast about taking no Koch money.

I'm guessing Trump could add "no Planned Parenthood money" to his boasts.

springgreen seems to think any non-Bernie dem is somehow either rich or heavily invested in the market(s). I'm a former working-class first-generation American union member who retired with security because of the left...the realistic left.

You've made it clear who you are and what your background is. For the most part, I've enjoyed your lengthy, popular MOL online social studies seminar. (I actually tried to do that before you did, coming from a similar social studies teacher background.) It is entirely possible that if Bernie were to become President, he would make serious mistakes.

However, these might not be as serious as deciding to incarcerate people with drug problems,citing "superpredators" and coming back years later to scream about them and defend the policy,  or making trade deals that force thousands of Americans out of work, or having sex in the Oval Office and denying it (granted that wasn't Hillary, but the question remains, does she enable this kind of desecration of the Office of President?); or as far as Hillary is concerned, emailing classified and/or sensitive material as Secretary of State, lying about "arriving in Kosovo under a hail of gunfire" where in reality she sashayed across the tarmac to receive bouquets from smiling children,  and more significantly, voting for the war in Iraq; taking months to oppose the Keystone pipeline, not doing much for the economy of New York State as a two-term, carpetbagging Senator;  just generally looking like she'll do anything to further her career and, oh yes, taking millions from Wall Street through her superpacs. In all, looking back, the Clintons behave in an often cavalier, pseudo-sophisticated, entitled, "inevitable candidate" sort of approach, sincere on the surface, but cynical at its heart. It's sometimes hard not to see them as an opportunistic, highly ambitious, liberty-taking, political Bonnie and Clyde, taking advantage of America, "because that's where the money is."  Bottom line, they've done mighty well for themselves, given the '"vast right-wing conspiracy"  these poor victims have had to deal with over the decades.

'

@GL2, regarding breaking up the banks, breaking up corporations that are too big to fail goes back generations in the US.

In fact, if you look at the reason the US came into being, it was to counter the overbearing wealth and power of the British monarchy. 

We, as Americans, have often been in favor of the underdog, and breaking up monoliths,even such as that one cited by Robert Reich, in the eighties,breaking up A T and T, is entirely possible. These banks will be ordered to break up, and how they do it will be up to them.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

springgreen2 said:

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

Try going to HillaryClinton.com, and read the many position papers posted there. That would be a great place for you to do your own research. It's not our job to teach you reality.

Yet, no response to that from spring.

Because, looking at Clinton's position papers and reading economic blogs and comments about Bern's economic revolution takes work.

Its much easier to scream - STICK IT TO THE BILLIONAIRES, PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION, WALL ST, BREAK UP THE BANKS, blah, blah, blah, etc.

How do we break up the banks? I don't know (per Bernie). How do we get his programs through? The PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION will force congress to do what BERNIE wants because BERNIE is the people and they will REVOLT for him.

If Bernie loses maybe he can start a new career huckstering the Brooklyn Bridge.

BG9 said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

springgreen2 said:

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

Try going to HillaryClinton.com, and read the many position papers posted there. That would be a great place for you to do your own research. It's not our job to teach you reality.

Yet, no response to that from spring.

Because, looking at Clinton's position papers and reading economic blogs and comments about Bern's economic revolution takes work.

Its much easier to scream - STICK IT TO THE BILLIONAIRES, PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION, WALL ST, BREAK UP THE BANKS, blah, blah, blah, etc.

How do we break up the banks? I don't know (per Bernie). How do we get his programs through? The PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION will force congress to do what BERNIE wants because BERNIE is the people and they will REVOLT for him.

If Bernie loses maybe he can start a new career huckstering the Brooklyn Bridge.

No response from me? That's because I was working on my response. Some people think about what they are writing before they post. 

So put your outrageous spewing of lies and defamation under your hat.

springgreen2 said:

GL2 said:

Works out well, I guess - you campaign on this giant un-thought-out "break 'em up" (banks, Wall Schtreet) platform and claim you take none of their money.

I'm gonna bet HRC takes no Heritage Action or Focus on the Family money; I'm guessing she could boast about taking no Koch money.

I'm guessing Trump could add "no Planned Parenthood money" to his boasts.

springgreen seems to think any non-Bernie dem is somehow either rich or heavily invested in the market(s). I'm a former working-class first-generation American union member who retired with security because of the left...the realistic left.

You've made it clear who you are and what your background is. For the most part, I've enjoyed your lengthy, popular MOL online social studies seminar. (I actually tried to do that before you did, coming from a similar social studies teacher background.) It is entirely possible that if Bernie were to become President, he would make serious mistakes.

However, these might not be as serious as deciding to incarcerate people with drug problems,citing "superpredators" and coming back years later to scream about them and defend the policy,  or making trade deals that force thousands of Americans out of work, or having sex in the Oval Office and denying it (granted that wasn't Hillary, but the question remains, does she enable this kind of desecration of the Office of President?); or as far as Hillary is concerned, emailing classified and/or sensitive material as Secretary of State, lying about "arriving in Kosovo under a hail of gunfire" where in reality she sashayed across the tarmac to receive bouquets from smiling children,  and more significantly, voting for the war in Iraq; taking months to oppose the Keystone pipeline, not doing much for the economy of New York State as a two-term, carpetbagging Senator;  just generally looking like she'll do anything to further her career and, oh yes, taking millions from Wall Street through her superpacs. In all, looking back, the Clintons behave in an often cavalier, pseudo-sophisticated, entitled, "inevitable candidate" sort of approach, sincere on the surface, but cynical at its heart. It's sometimes hard not to see them as an opportunistic, highly ambitious, liberty-taking, political Bonnie and Clyde, taking advantage of America, "because that's where the money is."  Bottom line, they've done mighty well for themselves, given the '"vast right-wing conspiracy"  these poor victims have had to deal with over the decades.

'

I repost this because while I was working on the language so as not to be offensive, other posters were launching and posting personal attacks directed at me.

springgreen2 said:

BG9 said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

springgreen2 said:

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

Try going to HillaryClinton.com, and read the many position papers posted there. That would be a great place for you to do your own research. It's not our job to teach you reality.

Yet, no response to that from spring.

Because, looking at Clinton's position papers and reading economic blogs and comments about Bern's economic revolution takes work.

Its much easier to scream - STICK IT TO THE BILLIONAIRES, PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION, WALL ST, BREAK UP THE BANKS, blah, blah, blah, etc.

How do we break up the banks? I don't know (per Bernie). How do we get his programs through? The PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION will force congress to do what BERNIE wants because BERNIE is the people and they will REVOLT for him.

If Bernie loses maybe he can start a new career huckstering the Brooklyn Bridge.

No response from me? That's because I was working on my response. Some people think about what they are writing before they post. 

So put your outrageous spewing of lies and defamation under your hat.

Sure you were. That's why you responded to comments given later but not that one.

And what lies did I spew? Certainly not about the constant repetition and screaming over Bernie's few talking points. Certainly not about the people's revolution to force congress to do his bidding (sometimes he does use the word POLITICAL instead of PEOPLE's).

Please continue your great research project so you can give that response you just promised.

ps -  And I hope Madame Clinton does protect our investments. Many, many people depend on investments for their pensions including civil service pensioners. When the market tanked many were really truly scared, retirements put off, pension funds losing significant value, etc.

Or do you imagine Wall St is only for billionaires?

springreen2,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee will you:

1. Vote for a Third Party

2. Stay home

3. Write in Bernie or someone else

4. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary

Bernie said that Hillary on her worse day is better than the Republicans. I agree with that. Do you?

BG9 said:

springgreen2 said:

BG9 said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

springgreen2 said:

So could someone tell me what the platform is Hillary is running on? I brought this question forward a while ago, and people have attacked me for it, but not been able to tell me what it is. Hmmm. Maybe she is waiting to see what Bernie comes up with next?

Try going to HillaryClinton.com, and read the many position papers posted there. That would be a great place for you to do your own research. It's not our job to teach you reality.

Yet, no response to that from spring.

Because, looking at Clinton's position papers and reading economic blogs and comments about Bern's economic revolution takes work.

Its much easier to scream - STICK IT TO THE BILLIONAIRES, PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION, WALL ST, BREAK UP THE BANKS, blah, blah, blah, etc.

How do we break up the banks? I don't know (per Bernie). How do we get his programs through? The PEOPLE'S REVOLUTION will force congress to do what BERNIE wants because BERNIE is the people and they will REVOLT for him.

If Bernie loses maybe he can start a new career huckstering the Brooklyn Bridge.

No response from me? That's because I was working on my response. Some people think about what they are writing before they post. 

So put your outrageous spewing of lies and defamation under your hat.

Sure you were. That's why you responded to comments given later but not that one.

And what lies did I spew? Certainly not about the constant repetition and screaming over Bernie's few talking points. Certainly not about the people's revolution to force congress to do his bidding (sometimes he does use the word POLITICAL instead of PEOPLE's).


Please continue your great research project so you can give that response you just promised.

Who is screaming? You lied about that. I am not screaming.

Springgreen, Please tell me in detail why the big banks need to be broken up, and why Dodd Frank legislation, that greatly decreased their ability to leverage, isn't good enough. Personally, I think Bernie's proposals are extremist and disruptive, particularly any attempt to undo Obama's great achievements in healthcare. As far as foreign diplomacy: he just doesn't have the chops, even if he did vote the right way on the Iraq war. When I listen to him what I hear is a vain, cranky man for whom no achievement by a Democrat is ever good enough, because it's not pure and uncompromised. A personality like his would never, ever have the patience to negotiate with China over carbon emissions, or Iran over its nuclear program. 

Now, more "spewing and defamation" from Paul Krugman, from whose blog I take the liberty of copying: Note to Springgreen: Krugman is a Nobel prize winning progressive economist. He is untiring in his work exposing the shams of the Republican con men, particularly regarding their  budgetary tricks. He supports Clinton.

...As I see it, the Sanders phenomenon always depended on leaving the personal attacks implicit. Sanders supporters have, to a much greater extent than generally acknowledged, been motivated by the perception that Clinton is dishonest, which comes — whether they know it or not — not from her actual behavior but from decades of right-wing smears; but Sanders himself got to play the issue-oriented purist, in effect taking a free ride on other peoples’ character defamation. There was plenty of nastiness from Sanders supporters, but the candidate himself seemed to stay above the fray.
But it wasn’t enough, largely because of nonwhite voters. Why have these voters been so pro-Clinton? One reason I haven’t seen laid out, but which I suspect is important, is that they are more sensitized than most whites to how the disinformation machine works, to how fake scandals get promoted and become part of what “everyone knows.” Not least, they’ve seen the torrent of lies directed at our first African-American president, and have a sense that not everything you hear should be believed.
So now, in a last desperate attempt to beat the arithmetic, the Sanders campaign is turning the implicit character attack explicit, and doing so on the weakest possible ground. Clinton, who has said that coal is on its way out, is a tool of the fossil-fuel industry because some people who work in that industry gave her money? Wow. 
Still, maybe it can work — although you need to remember that Sanders needs landslide victories in what’s left of the primary. The problem is that if it doesn’t work, Sanders will have spent a couple of months validating Republican attacks on the Democratic nominee (or, if he somehow pulls off an incredible upset, deeply alienating lots of progressives he’s going to need himself.) 
But what an ugly way to end a campaign that was supposed to be positive and idealistic.

LOST said:

springreen2,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee will you:

1. Vote for a Third Party

2. Stay home

3. Write in Bernie or someone else

4. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary




Bernie said that Hillary on her worse day is better than the Republicans. I agree with that. Do you?

@Lost, in all honesty, I am studying this, for the reasons listed here. I wouldn't be so involved in all this if I could answer this question easily. As with my heart, I don't give my vote lightly. From my early twenties to my mid-sixties, I've done phone-banking, door-to-door knocking, organizing, poll monitoring, planning (as far north as Berlin, NH...brrrr! in 1979, as far west as Madison WI)) for such people as John Lindsey, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama (Easton PA) and plenty of marching, including civil rights in the sixties in DC, anti-war in the seventies, anti-nukes in NYC in the eighties, and many more. I do it because I am in love with my country. My grandparents came here as kids, with nothing, and built lives for their children and grandchildren. I am amazed at how much strength and wisdom Americans have when you wait patiently. I have always voted in the Presidential races.

So since you asked this question with respect, I respectfully answer...I don't know. Bernie articulates all my thoughts, feelings, dreams and hopes. So it is really possible it will be Bernie or nobody.

Oh Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

Here you go visit Brooklyn. Your phony posturing as Brooklyn's native son, just like the posturing when politicians ride a subway or claim to have done so.

You left when you were 10. How often have you stepped into Brooklyn until now? Now that you need those NY primary votes? Suddenly we see you trotting around as if you never left the borough.

Give it up. You claim to be above the political fray, to be "better." Give up those  those fake staged managed events.

But I don't think you will.

Bernie Sanders returned on Friday once again to Brooklyn, the borough where he grew up and picked up his distinctive accent, as he squares off against Hillary Clinton in the New York Democratic primary.

The brief visit on Friday notwithstanding, Mr. Sanders, 74, seemed to be viewed by residents of his old neighborhood less as a native son and more as a novelty. Nowhere was that more the case than in the apartment building where he lived with his family as a boy.

Standing in front of 1525 East 26th Street, the slightly down-at-the-heels apartment building in the Midwood section of Brooklyn where he lived as a boy, Mr. Sanders, a Vermont senator, rallied neighbors with a stump speech spiced with only-in-Brooklyn references about hanging out on a corner of nearby Kings Highway and whiling away the days playing “punch ball.”

Their returned son might be back and he might have an outside chance to be president, but with the April 19 primary nearing, some of Mr. Sanders’s neighbors (so to speak) seemed to be little affected by his ties to the borough — and to the building.

BG9,

First, I believe the article said that Sanders moved away from Brooklyn when he went to College. He may be smart but I don't think he was 10.

More importantly, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Spring (just switch "Hillary and "Bernie).

LOST said:

springreen2,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee will you:

1. Vote for a Third Party

2. Stay home

3. Write in Bernie or someone else

4. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary




Bernie said that Hillary on her worse day is better than the Republicans. I agree with that. Do you?

LOST said:

BG9,

First, I believe the article said that Sanders moved away from Brooklyn when he went to College. He may be smart but I don't think he was 10.

More importantly, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Spring (just switch "Hillary and "Bernie).

LOST said:

springreen2,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee will you:

1. Vote for a Third Party

2. Stay home

3. Write in Bernie or someone else

4. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary




Bernie said that Hillary on her worse day is better than the Republicans. I agree with that. Do you?

I'll vote for Sander's. I think I implied that in a previous post.

Cruz is dangerous. Heaven knows what kind of theocracy he'll try to impose. We can assume that the next president, if Obam fails in his nomination, may easily have the opportunity to seat three new SC justices.

Trump is also dangerous. We can hope that a lot of his rhetoric was posturing to the Republican primary voter base. But don't count on that. And if he does get elected and he meant what he said in this run then you can count on Trump disregarding whenever he feels the SC rules against him. He'll just say "we can't listen to these old unelected judges because they are endangering the country." If he does that, there is nothing that can be done short of impeachment.

I'll chime in too...I admire both Bernie and Hillary, but feel Hillary brings more accomplishment (real and potential) to the table. I will vote for her in the primary. If Bernie does achieve the Dem nomination, I will happily and enthusiastically support him, and work for his victory. I only wish the more ardent Bernie supporters had the same outlook, but they seem more about being anti-Hillary than about pro-progressivism.

BG9 said:

Trump is also dangerous. We can hope that a lot of his rhetoric was posturing to the Republican primary voter base. But don't count on that. And if he does get elected and he meant what he said in this run then you can count on Trump disregarding whenever he feels the SC rules against him. He'll just say "we can't listen to these old unelected judges because they are endangering the country." If he does that, there is nothing that can be done short of impeachment.

The unelected judges that feel corporations are people and allow unlimited election spending that may be endangering the country.  Speaking of hypothetical scenarios, which candidate would be best in the White House if martians attacked?

I'll chime in, three. Of course I'd vote for Bernie if he's nominated. I'm past the day when I need to fall in love with a candidate. I now feel that, partisan politics being what they are, I will always vote for the Democrat in a national election. Look at the Democratic platform, and at the Republican one : no choice.

lord_pabulum said:

BG9 said:

Trump is also dangerous. We can hope that a lot of his rhetoric was posturing to the Republican primary voter base. But don't count on that. And if he does get elected and he meant what he said in this run then you can count on Trump disregarding whenever he feels the SC rules against him. He'll just say "we can't listen to these old unelected judges because they are endangering the country." If he does that, there is nothing that can be done short of impeachment.

The unelected judges that feel corporations are people and allow unlimited election spending that may be endangering the country.  Speaking of hypothetical scenarios, which candidate would be best in the White House if martians attacked?

Not as hypothetical as you think, a president acting as a strong unitary executive. A president can ignore a law congress passes or a SC ruling.

In its most extreme form, unitary executive theory can mean that neither Congress nor the federal courts can tell the President what to do or how to do it, particularly regarding national security matters.

Bush is a good example. Bush added signing statements to passed laws saying "I will not implement some part of this law because I find it unconstitutional." In German terms the "Führerprinzip."

If a president doesn't like a law, veto it which congress can override. But don't say, I'll disregard what I don't like by claiming its not constitutional. Leaqve that up to the courts.

Again, the remedy is "stop disregarding what we passed and if you don't we'll impeach you."

The great recession occurred because the financial system came close to collapse.  So someone who pledges to keep the system stable would be great. Unless you somehow think the current situation in Venezuela is great. 

LOST said:

BG9,

First, I believe the article said that Sanders moved away from Brooklyn when he went to College. He may be smart but I don't think he was 10.

More importantly, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Spring (just switch "Hillary and "Bernie).

LOST said:

springreen2,

If Hillary is the Democratic nominee will you:

1. Vote for a Third Party

2. Stay home

3. Write in Bernie or someone else

4. Hold your nose and vote for Hillary




Bernie said that Hillary on her worse day is better than the Republicans. I agree with that. Do you?

You're right, Lost. He did move when he went to college. So it does seem he has deeper Brooklyn roots.

He was also very popular, which is a plus (unlike Cruz).