Hillary Clinton Uses "Noise-Machine" to Block Out Media While She Talks to Financial Elite.
86 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50096184]Someone please just shoot her and put her out of action so someone more competent like Sanders has a better shot at winning.[/QUOTE]
hf with the FBI knocking on your door
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50096175]Lol, where do you go on the internet to find clinton supporters?[/QUOTE]
Right here.
[IMG]http://puu.sh/objCs/6d084cad02.jpg[/IMG]
Find anyone with that H logo in their twitter pictures, most of her fanbase are worse than Berniebro's
shit like "YAAAAAAS HILLARY" or "YAS GURL QUEEEEEN" bullshit white feminism words like that, aren't hard to find and aren't hard to make them annoyed either
anyone who says she's fighting for the people, just share them one of many infographics from either Bernie or the GOP, they'll most likely block you and use a static noise machine themselves
[editline]9th April 2016[/editline]
[IMG]http://cdn.phillymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Hillary-Header.png[/IMG]
I feel like I'm in a pantomime, this can't be real
Ill be honest. I don't really follow a lot of the political stuff going on (Im aware I should) but this just seems sketchy as hell to me.
Maybe trump isn't [I]that bad[/I]...
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;50096204]I can't help but feel my title is inadvertently a metaphor for her entire campaign.[/QUOTE]
Gold Member?
No surprise here. Hillary is madly corrupt and acts without regard for ethics or law. I don't support Sanders but I would gladly take him over her any day, he's committed to his ideals.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50095960]Genuinely excited to see the defenses of Clinton in response to this.[/QUOTE]
Well personally, I just don't care. I think her policies are better and more achievable than Sanders.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097236]Well personally, I just don't care. I think her policies are better and more achievable than Sanders.[/QUOTE]
she's still a career politician with a career politician's agenda.
[QUOTE=butre;50097357]she's still a career politician with a career politician's agenda.[/QUOTE]
Bernie Sanders, who has been in politics for over 30 years, is not a career politician?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097368]Bernie Sanders, who has been in politics for over 30 years, is not a career politician?[/QUOTE]
I like that Bernie's experience vs Hillary is only used when trying to be derogatory lol.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097236]Well personally, I just don't care. I think her policies are better and more achievable than Sanders.[/QUOTE]
So no amount of sketchy blatant back room dealings will ever bother you?
[QUOTE=GordonZombie;50096184]Someone please just shoot her and put her out of action so someone more competent like Sanders has a better shot at winning.[/QUOTE]
Remember Robby Kennedy? Yeah not a good idea at all.
[QUOTE=Aztec;50097383]I like that Bernie's experience vs Hillary is only used when trying to be derogatory lol.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that bernies experience is a negative, I just think that people look at Bernie like people looked at obama. Obama was a 1 term senator before becoming president. Sanders has been in the game for 30 years, he's not exactly a washington outsider.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097236]Well personally, I just don't care. I think her policies are better and more achievable than Sanders.[/QUOTE]
I agree that some of her policies are better and are generally more achievable than Sanders but you don't think it's concerning at all that she is telling donors things that she doesn't want you and I to know?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50097389]So no amount of sketchy blatant back room dealings will ever bother you?[/QUOTE]
I don't think of it as blatantly sketchy. The financial industry and stock markets are national assets to this country. If Hillary Clinton meets with the leaders of labor unions, the CEO of a defense contractor, or the CEO of Amtrak, I won't think it's a shady deal, I'll think it's her meeting with leaders of important sectors of the nation/economy.
Or do you think that the president shouldn't coordinate with leaders of industry so as not to harm industry? He or she should just hand down decrees along with congress, without any lobbying from the people their regulations affect?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097421]I don't think of it as blatantly sketchy. The financial industry and stock markets are national assets to this country. If Hillary Clinton meets with the leaders of labor unions, the CEO of a defense contractor, or the CEO of Amtrak, I won't think it's a shady deal, I'll think it's her meeting with leaders of important sectors of the nation/economy.
Or do you think that the president shouldn't coordinate with leaders of industry so as not to harm industry? He or she should just hand down decrees along with congress, without any lobbying from the people their regulations affect?[/QUOTE]
Look up how much time the average congressman or senator spends fund raising and then tell me those sectors aren't represented.
You know who isn't represented there? The average joe.
It's not shady to you that she made her statements in a totally concealed manner like she has done so here? It's not shady for a future US president elect to black ball the media from her comments here? I think it is.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50097470]Look up how much time the average congressman or senator spends fund raising and then tell me those sectors aren't represented.
You know who isn't represented there? The average joe.
It's not shady to you that she made her statements in a totally concealed manner like she has done so here? It's not shady for a future US president elect to black ball the media from her comments here? I think it is.[/QUOTE]
No, but we may have different definitions of shady. If she goes in there and agrees to cut the corporate tax rate in exchange for $100,000 to a super pac, I entirely expect that to be happening
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097497]No, but we may have different definitions of shady. If she goes in there and agrees to cut the corporate tax rate in exchange for $100,000 to a super pac, I entirely expect that to be happening[/QUOTE]
That's super shady to me. That's super not president material IMO.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50097520]That's super shady to me. That's super not president material IMO.[/QUOTE]
Not only do I expect every president ever has done this, but I think that coordination with captains of industry is what's keeps our country together.
I think I might be slowly turning into a republican
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097525]Not only do I expect every president ever has done this, but I think that coordination with captains of industry is what's keeps our country together.
I think I might be slowly turning into a republican[/QUOTE]
When all you're concerned with is status quo, and helping the rich get richer because somehow that's for the best and fuck the rest of the country, then yes, you're not much of a democrat, or a liberal, at all.
How unshady was it for Bill Clinton to take as much money, and give as many advantages as he did, to Wallstreet? How'd that work out in 2008? Why should we trust your methodology or her methodology here when it's very much the problem, and the cause.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097497]No, but we may have different definitions of shady. If she goes in there and agrees to cut the corporate tax rate in exchange for $100,000 to a super pac, I entirely expect that to be happening[/QUOTE]
Wtf is this? How would this be even remotely acceptable?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50097533]When all you're concerned with is status quo, and helping the rich get richer because somehow that's for the best and fuck the rest of the country, then yes, you're not much of a democrat, or a liberal, at all.
How unshady was it for Bill Clinton to take as much money, and give as many advantages as he did, to Wallstreet? How'd that work out in 2008? Why should we trust your methodology or her methodology here when it's very much the problem, and the cause.[/QUOTE]
Well I dunno if I'd say I'm not a democrat since the democrats have been at this game for a while.
But I genuinely believe that when industry does better, there are more jobs in this country. I think that government policy should help industry in general. Not specifically the rich, not specifically the labor. Giving incentives for people to invest in technology and industry (by ensuring a high profit margin) will create more high tech higher paying jobs. That's essentially what I believe.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50097554]Wtf is this? How would this be even remotely acceptable?[/QUOTE]
Because I don't believe that politics can work as Bernie Sanders or any of his supporters believe it does. I think this is how politics works and we should elect the candidate who will do politics to the ends that are closest to my views. It's purely strategic voting but I don't have an pretenses that it's not selfish and greedy. I just legitimately believe that it can work to the individuals advantage
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097556]Well I dunno if I'd say I'm not a democrat since the democrats have been at this game for a while.
But I genuinely believe that when industry does better, there are more jobs in this country. I think that government policy should help industry in general. Not specifically the rich, not specifically the labor. Giving incentives for people to invest in technology and industry (by ensuring a high profit margin) will create more high tech higher paying jobs. That's essentially what I believe.[/QUOTE]
Following this logic why don't we just repeal any employee protection laws or workplace regulations? Hell let's get rid of the minimum wage. The industry will do better for it and corporatations won't need to bother with those pesky time consuming laws.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097556]Well I dunno if I'd say I'm not a democrat since the democrats have been at this game for a while.
But I genuinely believe that when industry does better, there are more jobs in this country. I think that government policy should help industry in general. Not specifically the rich, not specifically the labor. Giving incentives for people to invest in technology and industry (by ensuring a high profit margin) will create more high tech higher paying jobs. That's essentially what I believe.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
Because I don't believe that politics can work as Bernie Sanders or any of his supporters believe it does. I think this is how politics works and we should elect the candidate who will do politics to the ends that are closest to my views. It's purely strategic voting but I don't have an pretenses that it's not selfish and greedy. I just legitimately believe that it can work to the individuals advantage[/QUOTE]
to your advantage
to rich peoples advantage
to not the majority of the USA's advantage
how does that sound okay
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
The 2008 recession worked to the riches advantage and not to the poors advantage. That recession was the result of Bill Clintons actions as president.
I mean fuck it I guess you're going for Recession 2: The Clinton Boogaloo.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50097575]Following this logic why don't we just repeal any employee protection laws or workplace regulations? Hell let's get rid of the minimum wage. The industry will do better for it and corporatations won't need to bother with those pesky time consuming laws.[/QUOTE]
Because I think that there of course needs to be a balance. That's why I said that they shouldn't help specifically the poor, or specifically the rich. The US has it's position in the world because of its status as the financial and investment capital of the world. I think everyone benefits from this. We can do more, of course. School should be much more affordable, we need to be able to refinance student loans, I think healthcare should be massively cheaper or free if we can do it.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50097581]to your advantage
to rich peoples advantage
to not the majority of the USA's advantage
how does that sound okay
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
The 2008 recession worked to the riches advantage and not to the poors advantage. That recession was the result of Bill Clintons actions as president.
I mean fuck it I guess you're going for Recession 2: The Clinton Boogaloo.[/QUOTE]
The recession was a result of 30 years of deregulation and mismanagement, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act which goaded mortgagers into giving subprime mortgages to people who they knew couldn't afford them and would eventually default on them. Alan Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, also artificially kept ARM interest rates low to encourage this predatory loan-giving to continue, allowing the bubble to grow more and more, until the banks naturally had to raise the interest rates to make a profit and the bubble burst when people who had been living in houses they shouldn't have mortgaged for 20 years were being evicted and could no longer make the payments.
But sure, blame the repealing of the glass-steagal act
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097597]Because I think that there of course needs to be a balance. That's why I said that they shouldn't help specifically the poor, or specifically the rich. The US has it's position in the world because of its status as the financial and investment capital of the world. I think everyone benefits from this. We can do more, of course. School should be much more affordable, we need to be able to refinance student loans, I think healthcare should be massively cheaper or free if we can do it.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
The recession was a result of 30 years of deregulation and mismanagement, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act which goaded mortgagers into giving subprime mortgages to people who they knew couldn't afford them and would eventually default on them. Alan Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, also artificially kept ARM interest rates low to encourage this predatory loan-giving to continue, allowing the bubble to grow more and more, until the banks naturally had to raise the interest rates to make a profit and the bubble burst when people who had been living in houses they shouldn't have mortgaged for 20 years were being evicted and could no longer make the payments.
But sure, blame the repealing of the glass-steagal act[/QUOTE]
Nah man the recession was amplified 2000x by speculating on mortgages. The recession would have happened for sure, but it wouldn't have been the worst recession in decades if not for super banks gambling ridiculous sums of money.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50097597]Because I think that there of course needs to be a balance. That's why I said that they shouldn't help specifically the poor, or specifically the rich. The US has it's position in the world because of its status as the financial and investment capital of the world. I think everyone benefits from this. We can do more, of course. School should be much more affordable, we need to be able to refinance student loans, I think healthcare should be massively cheaper or free if we can do it.
[editline]8th April 2016[/editline]
The recession was a result of 30 years of deregulation and mismanagement, starting with the Community Reinvestment Act which goaded mortgagers into giving subprime mortgages to people who they knew couldn't afford them and would eventually default on them. Alan Greenspan, a Reagan appointee, also artificially kept ARM interest rates low to encourage this predatory loan-giving to continue, allowing the bubble to grow more and more, until the banks naturally had to raise the interest rates to make a profit and the bubble burst when people who had been living in houses they shouldn't have mortgaged for 20 years were being evicted and could no longer make the payments.
But sure, blame the repealing of the glass-steagal act[/QUOTE]
And where in all of this do "The people" come into the equation because I see you're really only supporting the rich in this
US Government makes a good environment for industry. Industry invests in new technology. Businesses hire new people. People get jobs. People get money.
Circle of life
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.