Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

She's a proponent of the Dodd Frank financial reform, unlike the republicans who have obstructed its implementation and would like to repeal it.

Dude, Republicans are climate deniers

Maybe that's why fossil fuel $$ is thrown at them

You are looking at two near-identical ambiguities

But when Dems do it you give it the most charitable interpretation

When GOP does it you give it least charitable interpretation

And you don't even know you're doing it

  On 9/1/2016 at 7:43 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Ready For Hillary PAC received $133k from private prison lobbyists...how charitable of them!

I'm sure that despite that, Hillary will work to further de-privatize prisons to remove massive financial incentives for incarcerating people

Private prisons are already on their way out as of last month. Not saying they won't exist at all again, but they've essentially been killed for the near future.

Federal prisons, yes

The rest, no

  On 9/1/2016 at 11:39 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Dude, Republicans are climate deniers

Maybe that's why fossil fuel $$ is thrown at them

 

You are looking at two near-identical ambiguities

But when Dems do it you give it the most charitable interpretation

When GOP does it you give it least charitable interpretation

And you don't even know you're doing it

i want to understand. what is it that hillary is doing that you see as corresponding to her accepting financial industry money? is it that she doesn't want to break up the banks as much as bernie does?

  On 9/2/2016 at 1:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Federal prisons, yes

The rest, no

True, but the stocks of the private prisons plummeting since that announcement, as well as of course the investigative journalism/light being shed on their shittiness, I'm of the hope that they're going down the drain across the board over the next few years.

  On 9/1/2016 at 11:04 PM, Candiru said:

Fuck this shit. I'm voting for Bubbles from The Wire.

thin line 'tween heaven and here.

  On 9/2/2016 at 1:11 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 9/1/2016 at 11:39 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Dude, Republicans are climate deniers

Maybe that's why fossil fuel $$ is thrown at them

 

You are looking at two near-identical ambiguities

But when Dems do it you give it the most charitable interpretation

When GOP does it you give it least charitable interpretation

And you don't even know you're doing it

i want to understand. what is it that hillary is doing that you see as corresponding to her accepting financial industry money? is it that she doesn't want to break up the banks as much as bernie does?

Well...

The best case scenario is that they want give her money to improve her chances of winning because (they have the impression that) her winning would be profitable to them (on average, compared with the alternatives) by at least as much as they donated to her (in actual tangible profits or in other utility, like power or deregulation)

That is how essentially investing works

And this is an investment

So the most charitable interpretation is that she won't feel politically indebted to the banks, and that she is merely expected to benefit them incidentally with policy based on her inbuilt, unshakable values

Now, that is assuming that's she's the most virtuous and rational human being ever to walk the planet

If your uncle bought you a car for your birthday, would you treat him any differently afterwards? Would you do him a favor if you asked? Or even if he didn't ask, but you know he wanted/needed something?

When everyone in here is talking about people giving Clinton money, are they talking about giving her campaign donations, personal cash, donations to the Clinton foundation? Do you make any distinction between these? Do you know the difference, in terms of the effect of this, the purpose, the various amounts and how it breaks down?

We haven't even scratched the surface of the SuperPAC funds and reallocation of non-campaign funds and the primary fuckery and who knows what else hasn't seen the light of day...

Is there a distinction? Well campaign donations and PACs and foundations all work differently and are subject to different laws...but donating money to any of them essentially amounts to "she's got our back so we want her to win"

People act upon the world in order to improve their situation...from this you can safely deduce that Wall Street expects Hillary to improve their situation if she wins (or at least be a better situation than the alternatives by at least the amount donated, "on average")...

If Wall Street thought Hillary was gonna (e.g.) harshen regulation or break up banks or send bankers to prison, then (unless the alternatives were worse) they wouldn't make such donations (unless they thought it might influence her in their favor)

  On 9/2/2016 at 3:05 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/2/2016 at 1:11 AM, very honest said:

 

  On 9/1/2016 at 11:39 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Dude, Republicans are climate deniers

Maybe that's why fossil fuel $$ is thrown at them

 

You are looking at two near-identical ambiguities

But when Dems do it you give it the most charitable interpretation

When GOP does it you give it least charitable interpretation

And you don't even know you're doing it

i want to understand. what is it that hillary is doing that you see as corresponding to her accepting financial industry money? is it that she doesn't want to break up the banks as much as bernie does?

Well...

The best case scenario is that they want give her money to improve her chances of winning because (they have the impression that) her winning would be profitable to them (on average, compared with the alternatives) by at least as much as they donated to her (in actual tangible profits or in other utility, like power or deregulation)

 

That is how essentially investing works

And this is an investment

 

So the most charitable interpretation is that she won't feel politically indebted to the banks, and that she is merely expected to benefit them incidentally with policy based on her inbuilt, unshakable values

 

Now, that is assuming that's she's the most virtuous and rational human being ever to walk the planet

 

If your uncle bought you a car for your birthday, would you treat him any differently afterwards? Would you do him a favor if you asked? Or even if he didn't ask, but you know he wanted/needed something?

 

so that's the corruption you're so upset about in regards to hillary. pure speculation based on something she does which is no different from 99.9% of politicians

and you're trying to say it's equivalent to the actual concrete corruption of republicans sabatoging financial reform and climate agreements while coincidentally raking in dough from the financial and oil sectors

  On 9/2/2016 at 3:55 AM, LimpyLoo said:

We haven't even scratched the surface of the SuperPAC funds and reallocation of non-campaign funds and the primary fuckery and who knows what else hasn't seen the light of day...

 

Is there a distinction? Well campaign donations and PACs and foundations all work differently and are subject to different laws...but donating money to any of them essentially amounts to "she's got our back so we want her to win"

 

People act upon the world in order to improve their situation...from this you can safely deduce that Wall Street expects Hillary to improve their situation if she wins (or at least be a better situation than the alternatives by at least the amount donated, "on average")...

 

If Wall Street thought Hillary was gonna (e.g.) harshen regulation or break up banks or send bankers to prison, then (unless the alternatives were worse) they wouldn't make such donations (unless they thought it might influence her in their favor)

I'll take that as a no then.

Very honest, we're simply talking about the implications of Wall Street donations

(Because you asked specifically about that)

Hillary and her minions subverted the fucking democratic process...HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION DO YOU NEED??? The primaries were literally fucking rigged...and then after that...she hired Schultz

Is there anything more corrupt than taking that choice out of the people's hands? That is some Russia shit right there...if that doesn't bother you then....

  On 9/2/2016 at 3:15 AM, caze said:

When everyone in here is talking about people giving Clinton money, are they talking about giving her campaign donations, personal cash, donations to the Clinton foundation? Do you make any distinction between these? Do you know the difference, in terms of the effect of this, the purpose, the various amounts and how it breaks down?

As long as it fits the "Clinton is corrupt" narrative distinctions like these don't matter. The "Clinton is corrupt" campaign is equally as astounding as Trump being the Rep candidate. imo...

  On 9/2/2016 at 4:51 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Very honest, we're simply talking about the implications of Wall Street donations

(Because you asked specifically about that)

 

Hillary and her minions subverted the fucking democratic process...HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION DO YOU NEED??? The primaries were literally fucking rigged...and then after that...she hired Schultz

 

Is there anything more corrupt than taking that choice out of the people's hands? That is some Russia shit right there...if that doesn't bother you then....

Subverted the democratic process? The party primaries can only be vaguely considered a democratic process. They were not 'literally fucking rigged'...at least not as far as we know. There were some isolated incidents of which there seems to be evidence that some small groups acted in that way, but the evidence of any of it is vaguely suggestive at best, and even then is ridiculously sparse. More information may come to light later, but for now there's no fire.

I'm with you that Clinton has undoubtedly done shit she shouldn't have, hiring Wasserman-Schultz after she quit her position among many other things; however I'm simply arguing that she's done nothing that we can prove, and so your argument is pretty fucking moot. The Clintons' track record of shady-ass shit is decades long, no one can deny that. But anything actually fully outright illegal, besides the 'illegal' technicalities of the email silliness which they declined to prosecute over obviously and maybe some of their 80s-90s stuff, has either been fully covered up or was so expertly done that it can never come back to her/them. You, me, and plenty of others would love to see proof of anything her or husband have done outright wrong, but we all know millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been poured towards that goal by Republicans, Repub. elites, and who knows who else, with nothing sticking yet. The case isn't going to be proved by you Limpy or anyone else on WATMM. lol.

edit: I'm tired brain don't work

  On 9/2/2016 at 4:51 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Very honest, we're simply talking about the implications of Wall Street donations

(Because you asked specifically about that)

 

Hillary and her minions subverted the fucking democratic process...HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION DO YOU NEED??? The primaries were literally fucking rigged...and then after that...she hired Schultz

 

Is there anything more corrupt than taking that choice out of the people's hands? That is some Russia shit right there...if that doesn't bother you then....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-donald-trump-losing-garrison-keillor-20160831-story.html

i feel the manipulation so heavily these days. The media is blatant. The sheep just follow the next PC agenda. Just a mild example is the transgender thing. Why is that all of a sudden the most important thing? Im a live and let live person, but it just feels like another made up thing to distract the herd.  

  On 9/2/2016 at 4:22 PM, marf said:

i feel the manipulation so heavily these days. The media is blatant. The sheep just follow the next PC agenda. Just a mild example is the transgender thing. Why is that all of a sudden the most important thing? Im a live and let live person, but it just feels like another made up thing to distract the herd.  

the only people making any noise about transgenderism in american politics are idiots who think policing bathrooms isn't a complete waste of everyone's time. sex segregated bathrooms are actually a relatively recent phenomenon as well, the first public indoor bathrooms in the US (usually in government buildings, schools, factories, etc) were unisex.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37255418

  Quote

 

 

The founder of Latinos For Trump has been widely mocked for warning of a future with "taco trucks on every corner" in the US if Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election.

lol, Clinton should take this on as her new campaign slogan. wouldn't mind some taco trucks over here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/02/the-national-economic-implications-of-a-taco-truck-on-every-corner/

  Quote

 

 

If you assume that three people work in each truck, that's 9.6 million new jobs created. The labor force in August was 159.4 million, with 144.6 million employed. Adding 9.6 million taco truck workers would help America reach nearly full employment — and that's just the staffing in the trucks. Think about all of the ancillary job creation: mechanics, gas station workers, Mexican food truck management executives. We'd likely need to increase immigration levels just to meet the demand.

  On 9/2/2016 at 7:27 AM, auxien said:

 

  On 9/2/2016 at 4:51 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Very honest, we're simply talking about the implications of Wall Street donations

(Because you asked specifically about that)

 

Hillary and her minions subverted the fucking democratic process...HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION DO YOU NEED??? The primaries were literally fucking rigged...and then after that...she hired Schultz

 

Is there anything more corrupt than taking that choice out of the people's hands? That is some Russia shit right there...if that doesn't bother you then....

Subverted the democratic process? The party primaries can only be vaguely considered a democratic process. They were not 'literally fucking rigged'...at least not as far as we know. There were some isolated incidents of which there seems to be evidence that some small groups acted in that way, but the evidence of any of it is vaguely suggestive at best, and even then is ridiculously sparse. More information may come to light later, but for now there's no fire.

 

I'm with you that Clinton has undoubtedly done shit she shouldn't have, hiring Wasserman-Schultz after she quit her position among many other things; however I'm simply arguing that she's done nothing that we can prove, and so your argument is pretty fucking moot. The Clintons' track record of shady-ass shit is decades long, no one can deny that. But anything actually fully outright illegal, besides the 'illegal' technicalities of the email silliness which they declined to prosecute over obviously and maybe some of their 80s-90s stuff, has either been fully covered up or was so expertly done that it can never come back to her/them. You, me, and plenty of others would love to see proof of anything her or husband have done outright wrong, but we all know millions of dollars and thousands of hours have been poured towards that goal by Republicans, Repub. elites, and who knows who else, with nothing sticking yet. The case isn't going to be proved by you Limpy or anyone else on WATMM. lol.

 

edit: I'm tired brain don't work

I'm not speculating that the Clintons have some dark dark skeletons in the closet...like dead bodies...I'm not one of 'those people'

I'm saying what we know is bad enough

The hiring Schultz thing is very interesting to me...this person resigns in shame...and then is promptly hired by Clinton...now what we know is that for Clinton, hiring a corrupt and disgraced person was seen as better than the alternative (not hiring her)

Either Clinton is autistic, or Clinton wants to remain in Schultz's favor and keep her close by...it could very well the former, and she decided Schultz wasn't a liability on the payroll...or perhaps she's a liability if NOT on the payroll

Either way, Schultz is the smoke of some fire or other

  On 9/2/2016 at 1:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Federal prisons, yes

The rest, no

Remind me, Hillary is running to be governor of which state again?

lol

  On 9/2/2016 at 6:57 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 9/2/2016 at 1:00 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Federal prisons, yes
The rest, no

 

Remind me, Hillary is running to be governor of which state again?

 

lol

a) Ok then tell me Chen, what is the ostensible reason for prison lobbyists giving money to a politician?

b) federal laws aren't permanent

They're gonna make this counrty grate again! Dunno bout that other one.