• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wall Street Threatens Clinton Over Warren

Two words: gun control.

Can you actually provide backing that he compromised his values? Or are you going to just continue to make things up?
 
I would agree that she is not as "pliable", however you might mean. She is beyond pliable, she has demonstrated over the years that she is completely onboard with whatever Wall Street wants. She flies in their jets, she speaks for them and is rewarded nicely for her efforts. She advances their agenda and protects them from offensive rules and regulations.

Pliable to money? Absolutely.

Pliable in the same way Bush was? Not so much.

In short, she'll take a bribe, but I don't see her being readily manipulable beyond that.
 
It amazes me the inability for Clinton supporters to use any logic when it comes to well, much of anything. They act like Sanders, a life long Independent, should support Clinton no matter what just because she is the presumptive nominee. Why would a man who fought so much against exactly what Clinton is, support her, when she herself has made no real shift in her policy that he can support? I believe Sanders has more of a conscience than to just blindly throw his support behind Clinton. And I hope, that he remains true to his values. Which means there really should be no way that he would support her.

Sanders is a realist and he's very often cast votes in favor of legislation that is at best in his view a partial victory, the less bad option. It doesn't seem like a tough call that a POTUS Clinton will make choices more often in ways that Bernie supports than the alternative, and so I expect he'll eventually 'endorse' her for POTUS, although I can't imagine him going on the campaign trail on her behalf, nor would I expect that she'd ask him to.

So it's not that anyone expects him to endorse her "no matter what" it's just that we expect he'll make the same kind of decisions he made throughout his Senate career which is to caucus with Democrats instead of republicans, support the Democratic Speaker of the House (when he was in the House), etc. because despite his many serious differences with the Democratic party, the alternative isn't really an option for him. Bottom line is for ANY of his priorities to make it into law, there has to be 1) a democratic majority in the House and Senate, AND 2) a democrat sitting in the WH. So why wouldn't he 'endorse' Hillary and work like heck to elect democratic members of Congress?

As far as Wall Street goes, of course Hillary is in their pocket. However, what I'm fairly certain of is Hillary with a democratic Congress would be at least marginally tougher on Wall Street than Trump and a GOP congress. So Wall Street only gets 85% or 90% of what they want, not 98%. It's reality unfortunately. I don't have to like it but I am not going to pretend that there is an "anti" Wall Street option, and hasn't been for decades now.
 
As far as Wall Street goes, of course Hillary is in their pocket. However, what I'm fairly certain of is Hillary with a democratic Congress would be at least marginally tougher on Wall Street than Trump and a GOP congress. So Wall Street only gets 85% or 90% of what they want, not 98%. It's reality unfortunately. I don't have to like it but I am not going to pretend that there is an "anti" Wall Street option, and hasn't been for decades now.

Sanders certainly was, but the DNC did their damnedest to strangle it in the cradle.
 
Pliable to money? Absolutely.

Pliable in the same way Bush was? Not so much.

In short, she'll take a bribe, but I don't see her being readily manipulable beyond that.

You're either naïve or just not too perceptive. Both Hillary and Bush govern for their own special interests. They are both beholden to special interests.
 
Speaking of attitudes....

As far as this forum goes, over the last month, Shillary fanbois have shown themselves to be the ugliest of people. They've gotten so good at justifying, practicing pretty much non stop for the last 18 months with a sharp increase in intensity since Bernie gained steam, that they seem to be able to justify pretty much anything they want on the fly. But I guess that's what it takes to stick with such a shameless corporate tool through thick and thin. She chases money and power and ****s all over them, and they proceed to explain why they feel blessed for it.
:lamo

Wouldn't you like to know why she got more primary votes than any other candidate of any party?
 
A Clinton supporter calling the other candidate/candidate's supporters who ran against her arrogant and a pathological liar. Wow, this is an incredible time to be alive.

Truth hurts. :shrug:
 
Then you are OK with President Trump.

Ha! I ask that same thing to people on the right who won't vote for Trump.

According to them, you guys should all for for Trump...he's a Liberal. :2razz:
 
Ha! I ask that same thing to people on the right who won't vote for Trump.

According to them, you guys should all for for Trump...he's a Liberal. :2razz:

Ha! Actually, he's a...

 
You're either naïve or just not too perceptive. Both Hillary and Bush govern for their own special interests. They are both beholden to special interests.

...?

Of course Hillary shills for her special interests and I have not once argued otherwise; in her case it's primarily the accumulation of power and money that is relevant/important to her; if she is to be persuaded, that would be the point of leverage. Warren as VP could not meaningfully influence Hillary because Warren has nothing to offer in this regard.

Bush however was easily manipulated by Cheney as he was much more responsive to ideological sophistry. I don't think that Bush's actions were motivated by self-interest as in Clinton's case so much as he was straight up duped by his VP's arguments.

Bottomline: Clinton is a calculating psychopath who's out exclusively for herself. Bush has more of a crusader mentality that Cheney was able to readily exploit.
 
Last edited:
:lamo

Wouldn't you like to know why she got more primary votes than any other candidate of any party?

Good luck trying to win without the majority of Bernie supporters and independents. Your running your victory lap during half time.
 
I want nothing to do with Clinton.

My vote is going straight to Stein if I don't see some meaningful policy concessions from Hillary, and I suspect this will be true for many Sanders supporters.

Why not write in Sanders, then? Why leave it to the talking heads to spin by voting for someone other than Sanders?
 
Good luck trying to win without the majority of Bernie supporters and independents. Your running your victory lap during half time.

Don't be so smug. If Bernie were that necessary then he would have won the primary. But he didn't.

Besides, Trump excels at repelling people. More and more voters are going to say "I don't really like her, but if I want to stump the Trump, I have to vote for her."
 
...?

Of course Hillary shills for her special interests and I have not once argued otherwise; in her case it's primarily the accumulation of power and money that is relevant/important to her; if she is to be persuaded, that would be the point of leverage. Warren as VP could not meaningfully influence Hillary because Warren has nothing to offer in this regard.

Bush however was easily manipulated by Cheney as he was much more responsive to ideological sophistry. I don't think that Bush's actions were motivated by self-interest as in Clinton's case so much as he was straight up duped by his VP's arguments.

Bottomline: Clinton is a calculating psychopath who's out exclusively for herself. Bush has more of a crusader mentality that Cheney was able to readily exploit.

It's hard to disagree with you, but Bush is not as innocent as you might think he is.
 
Back
Top Bottom