patrick.net

PCGyver says

I am 1 of IDK how many that has been ignored by ironhead and I can still troll him!

How do you get rid of the smell?

PCGyver says

I am 1 of IDK how many that has been ignored by ironhead and I can still troll him!

Rather strange wording. I haven't ignored him, and I'm pretty sure he hasn't ignored anyone on here (would be rather counterproductive to what he likes to do).

Rashomon says

That's ridiculous. You want to elect an embarrassment of a human being in order to fuck up a political party. What about the country?

Our economic situation, for the bottom 50% especially, is why Trump must be President. And I'm not waiting 20 years for another non-Neoliberal to get a nomination. Hillary is the embarassment, she has a track record of failure and pandering, and is an empty pantsuit run by Powerful Interests. You can't say you're for women's rights then take millions and millions from a Country (as well as individuals and organizations of that country) that stones women to death, doesn't let them drive, forces them by law to only leave their home accompanied by a male relative, doesn't let them drive. A few months in basket weaving prison given to Anarcho-feminist troublemakers is peanuts in comparison. Trump talks often unfiltered, Hillary doesn't say a damn thing that isn't vetted and put before a focus group. I like genuine, even if it puts it's foot in it's mouth occasionally.

This country will be in dire straits if it continues to export manufacturing to China. Goldman Sachs and RE/MAX can't switch from producing financial paperwork to tanks. GM and Caterpillar can. You can't be the arsenal of Democracy if the only thing you can produce domestically is Donuts, MILF Porn, and Mortgage Insurance Paperwork. High Frequency Trading Algos can't sink submarines.

Rashomon says

And you think it would have continued to a head-to-head? I doubt it given the general knee jerk reaction of many Americans to anything with even the vaguest hint of SOCIALISM.

You may be right. But Bernie has several great advantages: He's perceived as an honest person, despite his socialism. Unlike Clinton he can speak off the cuff, which as we will see in the Debates, is a big plus. Remember Choke Artist Rubio who kept repeating the same memorized lines? Finally, Bernie isn't so closely tied to Wall Street and Big Money like his opponent is.

Rashomon says

And they did, but there always has been and always will be insiders who pull one way or another despite supposedly being neutral. Hillary won. The establishment got in line behind her. Big deal. They didn't put guns to the heads of those voting in the primaries. Yet here you are getting in all of a rage over this and yet not a squeak about the repulsive shit that Trump threw around and continues to throw in order to push his campaign.

If we're talking about the Establishment, Trump crushed his own Party's Establishment that wanted Jeb! (or failing that, Rubio or Kasich, or even Cruz as a last resort).

The Democrat Establishment and Low-Information voter must be punished by rejecting their ridiculous, horrible Neoliberal Stooge candidate. She has to be defeated, or they'll psych themselves out about "Gee, willikers. We CAN still run Wall Street drones for office. The Bernie thing was just a fart in the wind."

I want Democrats to think in 2018 and 2020, "We can't select another Thirdway Blairtard Clintonista Corporate Crony in the Primary, or we'll get creamed in the upcoming election like Hillary did."

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

Trump seems to always be talking immigration and trade protectionism, not that one can clearly find what his stance actually is. I'll be surprised if the campaign can move off of these points. I'll be extremely surprised if they articulate anything beyond: rigged election, emails, donations, with regards to a criticism of how influence works on the hill. I think the campaign thinks anything too nuanced wouldn't capture the 'red blooded American'. They are playing down down and working to appeal to the base-est of nature.

If the October surprise is that Trump abandons speaking to the lizards, that would be quite a surprise indeed.

#LizardsForTrump

Rew says

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Rashomon says

And that had what affect exactly? I haven't noticed Trump's poll numbers improving since then. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not sure Julian's goal is to get Trump voted in.

Wikileaks reports/leaks on covert action/information on...

- War, killings, torture and detention
- Government, trade and corporate transparency
- Suppression of free speech and a free press
- Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
- Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
- Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
- Censorship technology and internet filtering
- Cults and other religious organizations
- Abuse, violence, violation

mell says

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Zerohedge? Really? Ok, I'll play ...

Here is the argument: the establishment hates him so therefor he is in-line with my cause, which is anti-establishment. #FailedLogic The rest is just an I hate Hillary diatribe including this bolded gem ...

article says

a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

We are going there? Really?

thunderlips11 says

Our economic situation, for the bottom 50% especially, is why Trump must be President. And I'm not waiting 20 years for another non-Neoliberal to get a nomination.

Based on what? Tax breaks for those who already have more than enough? I'm curious what you actually think Trump will do/be able to do.

thunderlips11 says

You may be right. But Bernie has several great advantages: He's perceived as an honest person, despite his socialism. Unlike Clinton he can speak off the cuff, which as we will see in the Debates, is a big plus. Remember Choke Artist Rubio who kept repeating the same memorized lines? Finally, Bernie isn't so closely tied to Wall Street and Big Money like his opponent is.

I like Bernie and I like a number of his policies. It's a shame he didn't get nominated because a head-to-head with Trump gave him an outside possibility of getting elected. Not that it would have made any difference as it would have been impossible for him to pass anything - just one look at the problems Obama has faced tells you all you need to know about what would happen to Bernie.

thunderlips11 says

If we're talking about the Establishment, Trump crushed his own Party's Establishment that wanted Jeb! (or failing that, Rubio or Kasich, or even Cruz as a last resort).

The Democrat Establishment and Low-Information voter must be punished by rejecting their ridiculous, horrible Neoliberal Stooge candidate. She has to be defeated, or they'll psych themselves out about "Gee, willikers. We CAN still run Wall Street drones for office. The Bernie thing was just a fart in the wind."

I want Democrats to think in 2018 and 2020, "We can't select another Thirdway Blairtard Clintonista Corporate Crony in the Primary, or we'll get creamed in the upcoming election like Hillary did."

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal... at least in the Republican party. Hillary isn't a great choice, but Bernie was obviously a divisive candidate as well, though obviously for entirely different reasons. Hillary had the machinery to get the nomination. That didn't particularly require any Machiavellian maneuvers - just spend the absurd amount of money she has to call upon and get enough of the vote out.

Rashomon says

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal...

No, it's how people sustain themselves over centuries, listening to their instincts. There's nothing negative about that, humans are instinctive creatures as well and when ivory-towered pseudo-intellectual pretend do-gooders rob the general populace blind while smearing them, the people's instincts kick in as they should and say enough is enough. Again. politics and the presidency is not supposed to be an elite convention, it's supposed to be for the people. Trump didn't come out of a vacuum.

Rew says

mell says

This should help you: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/paul-craig-roberts-trump-vs-hillary-summarized

Zerohedge? Really? Ok, I'll play ...

Here is the argument: the establishment hates him so therefor he is in-line with my cause, which is anti-establishment. #FailedLogic The rest is just an I hate Hillary diatribe including this bolded gem ...

article says

a vote for Hillary is a vote for their own emasculation?

We are going there? Really?

It's actually amusing (in a sad sort of way) that anybody could think that article is in any way persuasive.

mell says

Rashomon says

Trump just did what a lot of potentially dangerous individuals do and appealed to the basest of instincts. It's a real shame that that has such a wide appeal...

No, it's how people sustain themselves over centuries, listening to their instincts. There's nothing negative about that, humans are instinctive creatures as well and when ivory-towered pseudo-intellectual pretend do-gooders rob the general populace blind while smearing them, the people's instincts kick in as they should and say enough is enough. Again. politics and the presidency is not supposed to be an elite convention, it's supposed to be for the people. Trump didn't come out of a vacuum.

He's playing you and you're falling for it. Good governance doesn't come from pandering to people's basest instincts. Do you agree with that or not?

Rashomon says

He's playing you and you're falling for it. Good governance doesn't come from pandering to people's basest instincts. Do you agree with that or not?

Trump was never my favorite candidate, but it's Hillary who is playing her voters who are essentially voting for a proven criminal. Instincts are as important to listen to as logic, and both came together to produce such a large support for Trump. I don't think he will win, but Hillary's presidency will be a failed one from the get-to and there is a real possibility she will be indicted and convicted. Bring on the downfall, dis gun b good.

Is it tomorrow yet? If I didn't know any better I'd swear Hillary was taunting thunderlips11 ...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fb2946b7e60d4bc2ba7a7127de5d5396/trump-rebukes-racism-claims-clinton-warns-radicalism

"Hillary Clinton vigorously defended her family's foundation against Donald Trump's sniping on Friday and declared she's confident there will be no new blockbuster accusations on the foundation, her emails or anything else that could undermine her chances of defeating him in November."

(/Trump)Better fire some shots soon, soon, soon ... like very soon. People are saying, I mean not me .... just some people ... that she is winning. (/endTrump)

thunderlips11 says

You can't say you're for women's rights then take millions and millions from a Country (as well as individuals and organizations of that country) that stones women to death,

Not to mention the fact that she character assassinated a young girl, not woman but girl, who was raped so brutally that the girl could not even have children afterwards and then Hillary laughed about it. That completely invalidates her worth as the first woman president.

Tenpoundbass says

When Trump wins, and he will

This reminds me of your predictions of a McCain victory, then a Romney victory. As Vice-president Palin would say, "You're batting a 1000! You betcha!"

PCGyver says

Anyway I feel accomplished because I out trolled the troll.

Pretty sure some of the ignores seen on some people are fake aliased accounts. Some users got a little sensitive when they were being called out by their dislike to post ratio, and ignore ratio. Believe there was a little campaign to inflate ignore numbers on some of their opposition. It is the same type of mentality of those, who when finally catching enough ire of the Pnet community as a whole, change their username.

Rashomon says

So you're saying that he's incapable of being presidential unless someone else gives him the words? Very reassuring.

Not at all. Most presidents have had speech writers. In Trump's case, his "shoot from the hip" style isn't working for him in the general. Surely you aren't going to sit there and tell me that this is the first time you ever heard that these candidates have speech writers, image consultants, style consultants, PR managers, etc...? Does that mean that no candidate in the history of televised politics was capable of being president because they didn't write their own words, pick their own clothes, and plant their own stories?

turtledove says

Not at all. Most presidents have had speech writers. In Trump's case, his "shoot from the hip" style isn't working for him in the general. Surely you aren't going to sit there and tell me that this is the first time you ever heard that these candidates have speech writers, image consultants, style consultants, PR managers, etc...?

It's the first time I've heard a presidential candidate talk about the size of his dick, etc. etc. etc. Of course they have speech writers, but they generally seem capable of behaving above the level of the average primary school kid taunting his mates in the playground when off script. The Donald though, well he's different.

PCGyver says

Rashomon says

pretty sure he hasn't ignored anyone on here

No really ironpussy is 1 of the 2 people who ignore me. Not sure who the other is but maybe it is cic. Anyway I feel accomplished because I out trolled the troll.

I'm amazed to be honest given what he does and how he's been pleading to Patrick to remove the ignore function.

Rashomon says

It's the first time I've heard a presidential candidate talk about the size of his dick, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, after somebody commented on small hands, and I'm sure the leftist tabloids "voluntarily" overlooked the joking nature of his remark. Again, we go apeshit about "insensitive" comments, yet welcome and house people who openly advocate sharia law. You can't make this stuff up.

Rashomon says

The Donald though, well he's different.

True dat.

mell says

Yeah, after somebody commented on small hands, and I'm sure the leftist tabloids "voluntarily" overlooked the joking nature of his remark. Again, we go apeshit about "insensitive" comments, yet welcome and house people who openly advocate sharia law. You can't make this stuff up.

You're an apologist for that? It doesn't make any difference if he was joking or not. What about all the other ridiculous/hateful/offensive... nonsense he's vomited out when off script? Yeah, I know, he was joking about all those as well, or you know, being sarcastic. Quite the pattern. He truly has the intellectual and social skills to be the leader of the free world. Or perhaps not.

mell says

Rashomon says

The Donald though, well he's different.

True dat.

Yep, but unfortunately not in the positive way you are probably imagining.

Rashomon says

What about all the other ridiculous/hateful/offensive... nonsense he's vomited out when off script. Yeah, I know he was joking about all those as well, or you know, being sarcastic.

I agree that if one values diplomacy and political correctness mostly that in their eyes it does not make him look presidential. There are things he could have worded a less edgy way. However voting for a criminal can't be the solution. I have no problems with people voting for Stein to Johnson for that reason. Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin, one of the most important world leaders we should work with together, while Hillary has been shamelessly fanning the flames of the cold war. Dangerous.

mell says

I agree that if one values diplomacy and political correctness mostly that in their eyes it does not make him look presidential. There are things he could have worded a less edgy way.

Diplomatic skills are somewhat important skills for the world's most powerful politician.

mell says

Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin, one of the most important world leaders we should work with together, while Hillary has been shamelessly fanning the flames of the cold war. Dangerous.

What is it with the love in that you right wingers have for Putin? You are aware of how corrupt and brutal a regime he runs, aren't you? Anyway, the Donald said he didn't know him, didn't he? If Putin is backing him, it's for very obvious reasons.

Rashomon says

I'm curious what you actually think Trump will do/be able to do.

Precisely: from an indeterminate disruption to a determinate outcome. Doesn't hold water.

mell says

Lastly, Trump is in good standing with Putin

Oh gawd, this tripe again. Underlying the pandering to being non-PC and bold and anti-establishment and effective is the presumption that Trump would be anything as productive as Putin in forcing people by threat and violence to "get shit done." Whether it's mell hiding under soft libertarianism or thunderlips11 hiding under the gauze of advocacy of the "bottom 50%" of earners, it really boils down to a slavish devotion to the strongman who will force an homogenization of culture and secure a national identity of both persons and capital. Remarkable. And the wingnuts called Obama our "messiah" when he was just a garden variety centrist. Jesus!

PCGyver says

Rashomon says

pretty sure he hasn't ignored anyone on here

No really ironpussy is 1 of the 2 people who ignore me. Not sure who the other is but maybe it is cic. Anyway I feel accomplished because I out trolled the troll.

I'll have to entirely walk back my comments about him as he has put me on ignore as well, ha-ha-ha. Pretty funny given all his complaining to Patrick about the ignore function. Apparently he likes to dish it but can't take it. Ironpussy indeed.

Rew says

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

Thanks for your response.

Trump will almost certainly have a Republican Congress, baring a miracle, and his victory will put the Country Club Republicans more on the back foot than they are already. All but the most secure Republicans - maybe a handful from Cruz Country, sparsely populated geriatric backwaters, will kiss his ass for off-year endorsements in 2018. Those who don't play along will face Trump backed Populist Primary Challengers.

Whereas Hillary wil face an implacable Congress and except for being happy to pass TPP together, it'll be "Back to the Culture Wars" with both sides dogwhistling and fiddling over abortion and guns 24-7 while Rome Burns. For Dems (not aimed at you) who are well off professionals or sheltered from globalization like Government workers and Public School Teachers, 4-8 years given over to meaningless BS and mostly gridlock (except for Bankster Bills, which will all pass), might be fine. The late night talk shows will be all abortion wars and gay cake baking.

Trump's trade stance has been solid for almost 30 years. I've watched videos going back to the 80s on this. They've been posted to this forum many times.

But most importantly, you can't find a candidate more in bed with monied interests than Hillary Clinton. At best, McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Mitch McConnel are even with her.

She's said during the debates with Bernie (before she started leaning to the left in fear of his polling and certain victories) she still believes that Glass-Steagal is obsolete, and that Single Payer is undoable. Any hints at reform from her are full of vague qualifiers; refuses to take a firm stance on anything except possibly Abortion, which I don't give much of a crap about (Ireland and Argentina don't have women wearing dog collars and leashes because of abortion bans). Finally, the Democratic Party needs to be punished for selecting such a horrible nominee. There were plenty of people who could have run; the Clinton Machine that runs the DNC discouraged it and created this situation. The only way to disempower them and give them a burned finger not to do it again is to defeat Hillary.

Hillary winning is the worst possible outcome: Monied elites know that money and 24-7 media smears can win an election; the Country Club Republicans and Neocons will be vindicated, as will the Blairite/Third Way Neoliberals and Liberal Warhawks. They're probably still on the way out, but they probably brought themselves at least 8 more years.

Even if you don't like Trump, voting for him is a push to enter some kind of new paradigm, to get away from the Culture Wars of the Boomer Era.

thunderlips11 says

Rew says

thunderlips11 - I'm with you on the premise of removing monied interest from politics and walking it back to serve the actual people. I hear ya. You are right, Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

Thanks for your response.

Trump will almost certainly have a Republican Congress, baring a miracle, and his victory will put the Country Club Republicans more on the back foot than they are already. All but the most secure Republicans - maybe a handful from Cruz Country, sparsely populated geriatric backwaters, will kiss his ass for off-year endorsements in 2018. Those who don't play along will face Trump backed Populist Primary Challengers.

Nothing about: "the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?" Nothing like "gettin' shit done" but not specifying the shit. Details, details, we don't need no steenkeen details.

thunderlips11 says

Hillary winning is the worst possible outcome: Monied elites know that money and 24-7 media smears can win an election; the Country Club Republicans and Neocons will be vindicated, as will the Blairite/Third Way Neoliberals and Liberal Warhawks. They're probably still on the way out, but they probably brought themselves at least 8 more years.

Really strong points on why to vote for Trump.

neplusultra57 says

Nothing about: "the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?" Nothing like "gettin' shit done" but not specifying the shit. Deatils, details, we don't need no steenkeen details.

Big Corporations and Wealthy Individuals donate to the Clinton Foundation simply because of their charity work. They don't expect anything in return.

Which is why Hillary, as SOS, met with Clinton Foundation donors in half of all her meetings with individuals outside the Department based on emails reviewed via FOIA given to the Right Wing radicals at the Associated Press.

Probably more, but many of her daily official schedules, public records that are supposed to be preserved for posterity, went into a burn bag. Huma Abedin admitted this is a deposition.

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”

–Hillary Clinton, in the fifth Democratic debate, Feb. 4, 2016

Moments after the former secretary of state (and N.Y. senator) made this statement, the Bernie Sanders campaign issued a news release titled “Elizabeth Warren on How Wall Street has influenced Hillary Clinton.” The news release recounted how Sen. Warren (D-Mass.), in a 2003 book, blamed campaign contributions from banking interests for why Clinton flipped from being opposed to an overhaul of bankruptcy laws as first lady – calling it “awful”– to voting to advance the bill as a freshman senator.

Warren noted that Clinton had received $140,000 in campaign contributions from banking industry executives as she sought a Senate seat. “Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency. She wanted their support, and they wanted hers—including a vote in favor of ‘that awful bill,’” Warren wrote.

In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Feb. 7, Clinton offered a lengthy explanation. She said that she had sought a provision to protect “vulnerable women and their children” receiving child support if their spouse went into bankruptcy. She explained that in exchange for receiving the provision, she agreed to support passage in the Senate.

Of course, she could have added that provision about bankruptcy to any other bill like all Senators do. Good excuse though, will fool the Teacher's Union Voters who think they are intelligent and cultured because they went to see Cats at the Wintergarden Theatre and Shakespeare in the Park once or twice.

Here's the video of Elizabeth Warren discussing the meeting she had with Hillary, where the Law Professor clearly detailed to Hillary why the Bill was a Cock Suck for Banks, and Hillary claimed she would see it defeated.
www.youtube.com/embed/12mJ-U76nfg

Yo, Lips:In case you actually didn't realize you missed it...for about the thirteenth time, here it is again:

neplusultra57 says

Nothing about: "the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?" Nothing like "gettin' shit done" but not specifying the shit. Details, details, we don't need no steenkeen details.

neplusultra57 says

the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars

I addressed this. Hillary is no alternative, her actions contradict her words diametrically. Trump doesn't have enough of a record. His receipts are piddling compared to hers, and he's barely spending much money at all. He's actually being criticized for spending so little.

Look at what people Do, not what they Say.

That sucks for Hillary, since people only have Trump's words to judge him on, but if you want to campaign on prior experience, expect people to examine that experience.

BTW, she tried to convince everybody she was all Campaign Finance-y before running against Obama in 2008. She criticized him for not agreeing to limits, while not limiting herself.
http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/clinton-hits-obama-on-funds-008560

PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) — It was a very busy, very lucrative weekend for Hillary Clinton in the summer playground of the East Coast's moneyed elite.

She brunched with wealthy backers at a seaside estate in Nantucket, snacking on shrimp dumplings and crab cakes. A few hours later, she and her husband dined with an intimate party of 30 at a secluded Martha's Vineyard estate (TL: with a Rothschild in attendance). And on Sunday afternoon, she joined the singer Cher at a "LGBT summer celebration" on the far reaches of Cape Cod.

By Sunday evening, Clinton had spoken to more than 2,200 campaign donors. But what she told the crowds remains a mystery.

Clinton has refused to open her fundraisers to journalists, reversing nearly a decade of greater transparency in presidential campaigns and leaving the public guessing at what she's saying to some of her most powerful supporters.

It's an approach that differs from the Democratic president she hopes to succeed. Since his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama has allowed reporters traveling with him into the backyards and homes of wealthy donors to witness some of his remarks.

While reporters are escorted out of Obama's events before the start of the juicier Q&A, the president's approach offers at least a limited measure of accountability that some fear may disappear when Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump moves into the White House.

"Unfortunately these things have a tendency to ratchet down," said Larry Noble, the general counsel of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. "As the bar gets lower, it's hard to raise it again."

Clinton's campaign does release limited details about her events, naming the hosts, how many people attended and how much they gave. That's more than Trump, whose far fewer fundraisers are held entirely away from the media, with no details provided.

Even some Democrats privately acknowledge that Clinton's penchant for secrecy is a liability, given voters' continued doubts about her honesty.

While Clinton will occasionally take questions from reporters at campaign stops, she has not held a full-fledged news conference in more than 260 days — nearly nine months. Trump has held several news conferences.

Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of dozens of closed-door speeches she delivered to companies and business associations after leaving the State Department in 2013, despite significant bipartisan criticism.

And since announcing her presidential bid in April 2015, Clinton has held around 300 fundraising events. Only around five have been open to any news coverage.

Is it tomorrow yet?

thunderlips11 says

neplusultra57 says

the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars

I addressed this.

Uh, no you didn't, you never do because the question was qua Trump. As a typical alt-right dodge you just return to Clinton. So in case the fourteenth time's a charm, here's what Rew asked of you, and, in case you're confused: Clinton referents will be a female pronoun while Trump referents will be a male pronoun. "His'' is a possessive form of that male pronoun, so, without further delay, for the fourteenth time:

Rew says

Hillary is no grand answer or fix here. Is Trump? Is that what his campaign is focused on? Restoring the health of governance: campaign finance reform, citizens united, lobbying dollars? You think he works to walk the influence out of politics? Banks? The NRA? Really?

neplusultra57 says

Uh, no you didn't, you never do because the question was qua Trump.

thunderlips11 says

Big Corporations and Wealthy Individuals donate to the Clinton Foundation simply because of their charity work. They don't expect anything in return.

thunderlips11 says

By Sunday evening, Clinton had spoken to more than 2,200 campaign donors. But what she told the crowds remains a mystery.

Clinton has refused to open her fundraisers to journalists, reversing nearly a decade of greater transparency in presidential campaigns and leaving the public guessing at what she's saying to some of her most powerful supporters.

thunderlips11 says

I addressed this. Hillary is no alternative, her actions contradict her words diametrically. Trump doesn't have enough of a record. His receipts are piddling compared to hers, and he's barely spending much money at all. He's actually being criticized for spending so little.

thunderlips11 says

BTW, she tried to convince everybody she was all Campaign Finance-y before running against Obama in 2008. She criticized him for not agreeing to limits, while not limiting herself.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/02/clinton-hits-obama-on-funds-008560

thunderlips11 says

Here's the video of Elizabeth Warren discussing the meeting she had with Hillary, where the Law Professor clearly detailed to Hillary why the Bill was a Cock Suck for Banks, and Hillary claimed she would see it defeated.

Anybody who believes the Queen of Fundraising - her and her husband are much coddled by her own party for the amount of money they bring in under current Campaign Laws - is serious about Campaign Reform is thunderously naive, as her actions are, I repeat, diametrically contradicted by her actions.

And it's moot on practical political grounds, as Hillary is so fond of using as an excuse not to push for single payer. Barring a miracle, she'll be facing a resurgent Country Club Republican House that will never support it. We can expect more political grandstanding, with Mother Fracker half-heartedly proposing Campaign Reform, with the de-Trumped Republicans opposing it, both sides accusing each other in the usual culture war bullshit fashion.

Never a thing you can say about your glorious leader, eh? Try for sixteen?

It's creepy af to watch Clinton voters, accuse Clinton detractors of not considering what Trump might do as President, when Hillarys campaign slogan is "we must work together to stop Trump".

But I understand that words are more important than actions, and we have to first elect Clinton to see whats in her; after our terrorist enemies (saudi arabia), and 0.1% oppressors support her and shower her with money, she will come out the other side as president, ready to do a 180 and begin working for the people, against the wishes of her money masters. Which is precisely why those Great Americans the Kochs, support her.

errc says

she will come out the other side as president

"I being told that by a lot a really smart, wonderful, beautiful people, the best people, really rich fans of mine."