Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Tony Stark]

She's obviously angling for a VP slot, and is on Clinton's short list. It's a little risky, but what are white males who don't like women going to do, vote for Trump twice? Picking Warren would certainly energize the base.

And what do you expect leading Democrats to do when Trump is the opponent? NOT be enthusiastic? Clinton could give speeches to ExxonMobil and still be cheered at the convention.

So she wants to be the VP of someone she doesn't believe in? She's lying when she says that Hillary would be a good President? And someone who would do this is someone you think should be President instead?

And Hillary had the backing of most in the party before it was even known that Trump would be the nominee. You know, the superdelegates that Bernie endlessness whines about. Are they all hacks who care more about Wall Street than they do the American people?

 

[RobRoy]

The takeaway is that Clinton is a terrible establishment candidate who is hated and distrusted by over half the electorate. But you Democrats wanted her and allowed the coronation to happen, so congrats. Trump still might win this.

BWAHAHAHAHA. I love how you consider me a Democrat! Thank you!

 

[Fudbucker]

So she wants to be the VP of someone she doesn't believe in? She's lying when she says that Hillary would be a good President? And someone who would do this is someone you think should be President instead?

I think Warren thinks she could do more good fighting Wall Street as a VP than as a Senator, and she would be old in 2024, but not outrageously so.

And Hillary had the backing of most in the party before it was even known that Trump would be the nominee. You know, the superdelegates that Bernie endlessness whines about. Are they all hacks who care more about Wall Street than they do the American people?

They're almost all a bunch of Wall Street phonies, yeah.

My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the victory of Wall Street Democrats
A former Clinton aide on how Democrats lost their way chasing Wall Street cash, and new populism the party needs

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_...ama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/

Wall Street has continued to be generous to Democrats (as well as to Republicans).

The Democrats’ unwillingness to close the carried-interest loophole when they could also goes some way to explaining why, almost six years after Wall Street’s near meltdown, the Obama administration has done so little to rein in the Street.

Wall Street’s biggest banks are far bigger now than they were then, yet they still have no a credible plan for winding down their operations if they get into trouble.

The Dodd-Frank Act, designed to prevent another Wall Street failure, has been watered down so much it’s slush. There’s been no move to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment banking from commercial banking.

Not a not a single Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for his involvement in the frauds that caused the mess.

Wall Street was the fourth-largest contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and is already gearing up for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run.
http://robertreich.org/post/104684097130

Read up on this. Educate yourself. Robert Reich is not a nutjob. The Democrats have gotten way too cozy with Wall Street and many of you remain oblivious.

 

[Fudbucker]

BWAHAHAHAHA. I love how you consider me a Democrat! Thank you!

It was directed more at the Hillary supporters who are Democrats.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It was directed more at the Hillary supporters who are Democrats.

Yes because you just can't imagine for the life of you why we aren't all BernieBros.

 

[SOdhner]

I doubt it, that choice makes little sense.

I like her and would be excited to see her as VP. That being said, I am skeptical about her being picked. I know for a fact they're keeping her on the list for now and vetting her, but in the end I think she won't be the pick. I think Clinton will pick someone a little more boring, that she won't have to compete with.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think Warren thinks she could do more good fighting Wall Street as a VP than as a Senator, and she would be old in 2024, but not outrageously so.



They're almost all a bunch of Wall Street phonies, yeah.

My party has lost its soul: Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the victory of Wall Street Democrats
A former Clinton aide on how Democrats lost their way chasing Wall Street cash, and new populism the party needs

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/27/my_...ama_and_the_victory_of_wall_street_democrats/

Wall Street has continued to be generous to Democrats (as well as to Republicans).

The Democrats’ unwillingness to close the carried-interest loophole when they could also goes some way to explaining why, almost six years after Wall Street’s near meltdown, the Obama administration has done so little to rein in the Street.

Wall Street’s biggest banks are far bigger now than they were then, yet they still have no a credible plan for winding down their operations if they get into trouble.

The Dodd-Frank Act, designed to prevent another Wall Street failure, has been watered down so much it’s slush. There’s been no move to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act separating investment banking from commercial banking.

Not a not a single Wall Street executive has been prosecuted for his involvement in the frauds that caused the mess.

Wall Street was the fourth-largest contributor to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and is already gearing up for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 run.
http://robertreich.org/post/104684097130

Read up on this. Educate yourself. Robert Reich is not a nutjob. The Democrats have gotten way too cozy with Wall Street and many of you remain oblivious.

The only power that Warren would have to do much of anything as VP would be what Hillary allowed her. If Hillary is so beholden to Wall Street surely she would not allow her to do anything. Do you think that you know more about Hillary's intentions than Warren does?

I guess you were lying when you said that Hillary is some super right wing Democrat. She is within the party norm after all.

And the Democrats, against unanimous opposition from the Republicans passed significant Wall Street reform. Maybe not ideal or what many would want, but still significant and something Wall Street absolutely did not want. They could have choose to do nothing but they did something.

Your purity tests remain stupid, ridiculous, and counterproductive. Focus on the real enemy, the Republicans, who want Wall Street to be as unregulated as possible.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is being formally vetted as a possible vice presidential pick for Hillary Clinton, according to a source familiar with the process.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-...lary-clinton-vice-president/story?id=40161546

Here is a list of each potential candidate and what we know:

TOP TIER

Tim Kaine

...

Elizabeth Warren

...

Sherrod Brown
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/here-s-who-hillary-clinton-could-pick-her-vp-n598011

OK, I was just offering my opinion.

Another female, NE state, does more good in the senate, didn't endorse her until a few weeks ago, ... none of that screams good pick.

Kaine - male, semi-contested swing state, executive experience, but boring. I think he would be a much more sensible choice.

Brown - idk what he brings other than ohio, kind-of.

 

[RobRoy]

The takeaway is that Clinton is a terrible establishment candidate who is hated and distrusted by over half the electorate. But you Democrats wanted her and allowed the coronation to happen, so congrats. Trump still might win this.

It was directed more at the Hillary supporters who are Democrats.

Sure it was.

Yes because you just can't imagine for the life of you why we aren't all BernieBros.

Yep, that's the problem. My candidate didn't get nominated so I must hate the alternative. Also, my store quit carrying my beer so I'm gonna drink bleach.

 

[Fudbucker]

The only power that Warren would have to do much of anything as VP would be what Hillary allowed her. If Hillary is so beholden to Wall Street surely she would not allow her to do anything. Do you think that you know more about Hillary's intentions than Warren does?

Clinton would have to give her power, if she doesn't want to be a one-termer. I don't think you understand just how weak Sanders showed Clinton to be. If she picks Warren, and then dismisses her, there will be another primary challenger in 2020, and it won't be an old socialist nobody's ever heard of next time.

I guess you were lying when you said that Hillary is some super right wing Democrat. She is within the party norm after all.

No, the party norm are not neo-cons. They don't covet Henry Kissinger's praise. They don't give paid speeches to Wall Street firms.

And the Democrats, against unanimous opposition from the Republicans passed significant Wall Street reform. Maybe not ideal or what many would want, but still significant and something Wall Street absolutely did not want. They could have choose to do nothing but they did something.

They did something because the base wouldn't have tolerated no action while the Dems had the presidency and both houses of Congress. And Dodd-Frank is not "significant". Listen to Reich:

Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures.

Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies.

Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations.
http://robertreich.org/post/142549234005

Your purity tests remain stupid, ridiculous, and counterproductive. Focus on the real enemy, the Republicans, who want Wall Street to be as unregulated as possible.

If you say this 20 more times, it will be just as irrelevant.

 

[RobRoy]

Clinton would have to give her power, if she doesn't want to be a one-termer. I don't think you understand just how weak Sanders showed Clinton to be. If she picks Warren, and then dismisses her, there will be another primary challenger in 2020, and it won't be an old socialist nobody's ever heard of next time.

Interesting. I'm curious. When was the last time this actually happened? Also, when was the last time another presidential candidate actually challenged and won over the incumbent president?

 

[Tony Stark]

Clinton would have to give her power, if she doesn't want to be a one-termer. I don't think you understand just how weak Sanders showed Clinton to be. If she picks Warren, and then dismisses her, there will be another primary challenger in 2020, and it won't be an old socialist nobody's ever heard of next time.



No, the party norm are not neo-cons. They don't covet Henry Kissinger's praise. They don't give paid speeches to Wall Street firms.



They did something because the base wouldn't have tolerated no action while the Dems had the presidency and both houses of Congress. And Dodd-Frank is not "significant". Listen to Reich:

Recall that just eight years ago the biggest banks were up to their ears in fraudulent practices – lending money to mortgage originators to make risky home loans laced with false claims, buying back those loans and repackaging them for investors without revealing their risks, and then participating in a wave of fraudulent foreclosures.

Dodd-Frank addressed these sorts of abuses in broad strokes but left the most important decisions to regulatory agencies.

Since then, platoons of Wall Street lobbyists, lawyers and litigators have been watering down and delaying those regulations.
http://robertreich.org/post/142549234005



If you say this 20 more times, it will be just as irrelevant.

Hillary primary challenge in 2020? LOL

Hillary is a neocon? Based on what, Iraq. Does that mean that you think most D Senators were neocons given that most of them voter for it? Are lying again in a pathetic attempt to cover up your original lie that Hillary is some super right wing Democrat?

Democrats care more about Wall Street than they do the American people yet passed Wall Street reform to appease the American people?

Do you even believe the laughable BS you're spewing or do you hate Hillary so much that you're willing to say anything? I'm guessing the latter.

 

[Dog Town]

Also, when was the last time another presidential candidate actually challenged and won over the incumbent president?

G.H.W.Bush.

 

[Tony Stark]

G.H.W.Bush.

lolwut

 

[Dog Town]

lolwut

Oopsie, misread the question.

 

[The_Animus]

Also, my store quit carrying my beer so I'm gonna drink bleach.

Strawman facebook political bumper stickers. The pinnacle of quality arguments.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Yep, that's the problem. My candidate didn't get nominated so I must hate the alternative. Also, my store quit carrying my beer so I'm gonna drink bleach.

I can't tell the direction of your sarcasm but I'm only replying to Fuddy's insults of Clinton supporters.

 

[Travis]

Maybe you're fine with Hillary, but Bernie is obviously the more environmentally friendly candidate:
No fracking
Carbon tax
Never supported Keystone

I would think, if you're an environmentalist, Clinton's support of fracking would trouble you.

Fracking isn't the end all be all. It is one of many environmental problems. We also have to consider soil management, national forests, toxic waste disposal, garbage disposal, coal burning, car exhaust, acid rain, ocean acidity, over fishing, water use and sewage treatment. Now the GOP is perfectly fine with our rivers catching fire, selling off national parks, letting soil get stripped away, letting the fish die and billionaires hiding toxic waste in playgrounds because it is convenient and makes them money.

Sure, but don't you want universal health care like every other advanced country in the world? Why are we stuck with a GOP health care plan? Can't we dream a little bigger?

We might not even be able to keep the plan we have. Remember the GOP controlled House has voted to repeal Obamacare and replace it with "please just die" over sixty times. Dreaming of single payer universal healthcare seems a bit imprudent when there is the very real chance we'll lose what we already have if the GOP gets the white house.

What does "debt free" even mean? My kid has an education IRA worth about $40k. Is he going to have to pay $40k while another kid pays nothing? Bernie's tuition-free college proposal makes college free for everyone.

It's a new platform Hillary is just rolling out and I don't know the details yet. I just know it is something she is now talking about and I wouldn't be surprised if it just a slight reworking of Bernie's plan.

Since I said "work on Wall Street", your response doesn't make sense. Bernie's election would have huge consequences for people who work in too-big-to-fail institutions. Hillary, not so much.

So? The point is to avoid another crisis not punish huge firms. And we have no real way of knowing what she'll do since we cannot see into the future.

You're an environmentalist who doesn't care about fracking or carbon taxes, only that a candidate believe in climate change and not think the EPA is "evil". Could you set the bar any lower, Travis? I think you would support Clinton even if she gave speeches and took money from the NRA. You would just rationalize it somehow.

You can think what you want. Remember our two party system has one party that has zero problem with turning our nation into a Mad Max Christofascist dystopia. Slowly they have been losing but it is important to stay vigilant. Hillary will keep them at bay and help push the nation a bit more the other way, towards progress. And that is good enough for me.

 

[Maya22]

Sure it was.



Yep, that's the problem. My candidate didn't get nominated so I must hate the alternative. Also, my store quit carrying my beer so I'm gonna drink bleach.

I think I first saw that on Twitter or Facebook, I can't remember.

 

[Fudbucker]

Interesting. I'm curious. When was the last time this actually happened? Also, when was the last time another presidential candidate actually challenged and won over the incumbent president?

On the Democratic side? Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980 and damaged him severely.

https://www.campaignsandelections.c...ing-1980-kennedy-s-brutal-political-fistfight