Politics & Stuff

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

29 minutes ago, Kieran. said:

Lol Hillary Rodham Clinton is a disgraceful sack of shit and will do nothing progressive in her time as president. I will not vote for her in November, even if it's "just to keep Trump out." She will kiss the asses of Wall Street and laugh with her Republican buddies.

 

So you wouldnt vote against a guy who calls for violence at his rallies, and has labeled immigrants as racists just because Hillary she has republican friends(so does every politician) and because she has taken money for given wall street speeches? That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. They are all friends in Washington. Hillary is campaigning on keeping the country going in an Obama direction, which is hell of a lot better than the shitwshow we were all in when the 08 recession hit.

 

I know it sucks voting for someone you don't personally like, but we are trying to stop an actual fascist here.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

5 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Mate, I know that the words 'progressive' and 'left' have stopped having any actual meaning in the US, but Hilary a progressive? REALLY?! 

Donald F***ing Trump has come out WAY more progressive than her on foreign policies and trade agreements.

Genuine question: If (or at this stage rather 'when') Hilary is elected president do you genuinely believe that she will not approve ALL of the trade agreements, help the oil industry and increase fracking, expand the drone terror program, increase arms sales to the worst regimes in the world and start AT LEAST one war somewhere in the middle east?

 

 

She will go the way the public leads her.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Just now, Sir Mikel OBE said:

She will go the way the public leads her.

Why in the world would she? The public don't pay her money and make 'donations' to her foundation. Big businesses do and she WILL do as they ask. And that includes the oil industry, the pharmaceuticals, AIPAC, Wall Street, and the weapons industry and defensive contractors.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

28 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Why in the world would she? The public don't pay her money and make 'donations' to her foundation. Big businesses do and she WILL do as they ask. And that includes the oil industry, the pharmaceuticals, AIPAC, Wall Street, and the weapons industry and defensive contractors.

Because that is what Clintons(and most politicians) do. They grow, and evolve with what their constituents want. Hillary has, outside of a few glaring blunders, been a pretty decent democrat/liberal in her time in the spotlight. That won't change when she becomes president. When the people demand more transparency from her and other elected officials in terms of relationships with big corporations, then it will happen and she will be a part of it.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

I don't like Trump and his saying anything to win attitude but people thinking that Clinton is the saviour is laughable. Prepare to be disappointed. The amount of donors controlling her is out of this world. 

Obama broke a lot of constitutional laws through "executive order" just to pass any law he feels is good. I don't like that type of direction. Going behind the Congress to pass bills and laws goes against the constitution made America a great country in the first place. 

[CHOULO19 24,332]

2 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Because that is what Clintons(and most politicians) do. They grow, and evolve with what their constituents want. Hillary has, outside of a few glaring blunders, been a pretty decent democrat/liberal in her time in the spotlight. That won't change when she becomes president. When the people demand more transparency from he and other elected officials in terms of relationships with big corporations, then it will happen and she will be a part of it.

Let's assume that the above is true (even though it is demonstrably false with countless examples), the question you need to as yourself is:

Why do all those corporations and lobbying groups pay her all that money? After all, those are businesses and if they don't on fairly certain grounds believe that they are going to make profits on the investments they make in her campaign  (and political career in large) then they would be stupid to make them.

In the issues where the public's best interest is in opposition to the best interest of those corporations (like wars, free trade...etc. and all the ones I've mentioned in the post above) do you think, even for a second, that she will not stand with her donors against the public?! 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

6 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Let's assume that the above is true (even though it is demonstrably false with countless examples), the question you need to as yourself is:

Why do all those corporations and lobbying groups pay her all that money? After all, those are businesses and if they don't on fairly certain grounds believe that they are going to make profits on the investments they make in her campaign  (and political career in large) then they would be stupid to make them.

In the issues where the public's best interest is in opposition to the best interest of those corporations (like wars, free trade...etc. and all the ones I've mentioned in the post above) do you think, even for a second, that she will not stand with her donors against the public?! 

 

Its also true with countless examples. Just look at our current president, a constitutional law professor who also very recently "Grew" into supporting same sex marriage. It is the job of leaders not only to govern, but grow with those who elect them in a democracy. They paid her, and her husband, to give speeches we know nothing about until a transcript is released. It is not completely uncommon though. I even remember former President Ford being on the speech circuit in the 90's. Companies do it for the stockholders to show power.

 

If the public came out against the corporations she would most definitely follow. I truly believe that given what I know about her.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

20 minutes ago, kellzfresh said:

I don't like Trump and his saying anything to win attitude but people thinking that Clinton is the saviour is laughable. Prepare to be disappointed. The amount of donors controlling her is out of this world. 

Obama broke a lot of constitutional laws through "executive order" just to pass any law he feels is good. I don't like that type of direction. Going behind the Congress to pass bills and laws goes against the constitution made America a great country in the first place. 

Nobody votes for Clinton expecting a saviour. People vote for her because she has experience and is running on a campaign of "More of the same" from the Obama years, which has been a key time in getting the country back in shape following bush's disastrous terms in office.

[Stingray 9,441]

Let's assume that the above is true (even though it is demonstrably false with countless examples), the question you need to as yourself is:

Why do all those corporations and lobbying groups pay her all that money? After all, those are businesses and if they don't on fairly certain grounds believe that they are going to make profits on the investments they make in her campaign  (and political career in large) then they would be stupid to make them.

In the issues where the public's best interest is in opposition to the best interest of those corporations (like wars, free trade...etc. and all the ones I've mentioned in the post above) do you think, even for a second, that she will not stand with her donors against the public?! 

I feel the Bern!

[LDN Blue 7,903]

So is Bernie legit?

I'm yet to see one lie come out of that man's mouth. 

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

Democratic Party circling the wagons now

Obama Privately Tells Donors That Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary Clinton

 

Sanders would be doing everyone a disservice to carry this out till June. Concede now, and lets work together to begin tearing down Trump.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

20 minutes ago, Sir Mikel OBE said:

Its also true with countless examples. Just look at our current president, a constitutional law professor who also very recently "Grew" into supporting same sex marriage. It is the job of leaders not only to govern, but grow with those who elect them in a democracy. They paid her, and her husband, to give speeches we know nothing about until a transcript is released. It is not completely uncommon though. I even remember former President Ford being on the speech circuit in the 90's. Companies do it for the stockholders to show power.

If the public came out against the corporations she would most definitely follow. I truly believe that given what I know about her.

Haven't really answered my question there. And I don't just mean speeches, I mean 'donations' to her campaign and her foundation. They make those donations because they expect her to make decisions that will make/save them more money than they have invested in her. And those decisions will inevitable conflict with the best interest and the general consensus of the public. It's that simple.

If your point is that everyone else is corrupt, then you'll find no objections here. The system is broken and corrupt and allows legal bribing worth trillions each year and almost everyone in it is corrupt and represents only the interests of the bribers. And Hilary Clinton is one of the, if not THE, most corrupt and bribed politician.

 

 

Now let me dispel the notion that Hilary reflects the opinions of her voters:

- Fracking: She's said she won't ban it despite 75% of democrats opposing it.

- Super PACs: She's taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations despite 84% of democrats opposing it.

- Wall Street: 87% of democrats think that her Wall Street buddies should be in jail for their criminal roles in the 2008 melt down. She invites them to her parties and takes their money.

- NSA Spying: She's for it and defended her decision to vote for it. 64% of democrats oppose it.

- Assad: She wants to overthrow him. 68% of democrats don't.

- Netanyahu: She went out of her way and wrote and Op-ed on how she will do whatever it takes to please him, despite the fact that just 17% of democrats view him favorably (46% view him unforably).

Then there are the issues she flip-flops so much on, which probably means that she'll likely go with the interest of her donors than the public like Guantanamo Bay, ground troops against ISIS, TTP...etc.

So, NO, she does NOT represent her voters on A LOT of issues...

[Fulham Broadway 17,305]

Shes always lied, like her 'read my lips' husband.

I remember this when she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Total bullshit. If its between her and sack of shit Trump, we're going to hell in a handcart.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

31 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

Haven't really answered my question there. And I don't just mean speeches, I mean 'donations' to her campaign and her foundation. They make those donations because they expect her to make decisions that will make/save them more money than they have invested in her. And those decisions will inevitable conflict with the best interest and the general consensus of the public. It's that simple.

If your point is that everyone else is corrupt, then you'll find no objections here. The system is broken and corrupt and allows legal bribing worth trillions each year and almost everyone in it is corrupt and represents only the interests of the bribers. And Hilary Clinton is one of the, if not THE, most corrupt and bribed politician.

 

 

Now let me dispel the notion that Hilary reflects the opinions of her voters:

- Fracking: She's said she won't ban it despite 75% of democrats opposing it.

- Super PACs: She's taken in hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations despite 84% of democrats opposing it.

- Wall Street: 87% of democrats think that her Wall Street buddies should be in jail for their criminal roles in the 2008 melt down. She invites them to her parties and takes their money.

- NSA Spying: She's for it and defended her decision to vote for it. 64% of democrats oppose it.

- Assad: She wants to overthrow him. 68% of democrats don't.

- Netanyahu: She went out of her way and wrote and Op-ed on how she will do whatever it takes to please him, despite the fact that just 17% of democrats view him favorably (46% view him unforably).

Then there are the issues she flip-flops so much on, which probably means that she'll likely go with the interest of her donors than the public like Guantanamo Bay, ground troops against ISIS, TTP...etc.

So, NO, she does NOT represent her voters on A LOT of issues...

 

They can make donations for any number of reasons. The idea that Bernie is pushing, that corporations are outright buying her is simply hyperbolic in nature. He is damaging the party with that kind of speech. 

 

Not disagreeing with those numbers you posted, but apparently they agree with her a lot more than are Bernie since she has completely crushed him and O'malley in support from both in Washington, and outside of it. She is speaking enough to the party to where she is seen as the best option.  The question then becomes do Democrats simply not like what they see from the other candidates, or do when they become more educated on the issues they default to Hillary. The Wall Street one is a big issue. If anybody should be locked up its the government for that monstrous Reinvestment Act that tricked poor people into thinking they could take out loans they would never be able to pay back. Wall Street was just stupid enough to try to get rich off of stupid government planning.

[Sir Mikel OBE 4,920]

21 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Shes always lied, like her 'read my lips' husband.

I remember this when she said she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Total bullshit. If its between her and sack of shit Trump, we're going to hell in a handcart.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4

 

That is a pretty terrible lie to make, but I don't think that automatically makes her a bad president candidate. Hell Slick Willy was a big liar, and he gave us one of the best economies in recent history. I'd have those days back in a second.