Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US News)   If there is one thing that is worrying both the left and the right for the 2016 election, it's the Clinton money machine coming from Wall Street   ( usnews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1051 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jul 2014 at 6:55 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-03 12:41:43 AM  
She had a hell of a war chest to use against Obama. She didn't prevail.
 
2014-07-03 01:12:28 AM  
FTFA: "Hillary Clinton's claim of being "dead broke" offered up easy fodder to Republicans, who swiftly poked fun at a politician who appeared out of touch with regard to her own potential wealth."

Hilary Clinton never claimed to BE dead broke, she claimed she (and bill) WERE dead broke when he left office.  Obviously they aren't NOW nor are either of them claiming to be.

How can I take an article seriously after a fundamental factual flaw?  There is an argument ot be made that Clinton has too much industry money backing her, but any presidential nominee could say the same.  You can't win presidential politics without a shiat ton of money.  Period.
 
2014-07-03 06:11:34 AM  
Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.
 
2014-07-03 07:08:29 AM  
How much of that is political, and how much of that is donations to the Clinton Foundation?
 
2014-07-03 07:13:25 AM  
Hillary is a fighter for the working people and really cares about children and the environment and the artsimg.fark.net.
 
2014-07-03 07:14:20 AM  

DrPainMD: Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.


So vote Republican!
 
2014-07-03 07:21:06 AM  
I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).

Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left, but hey: her husband governed over one of the largest economic expansions in history, who cares if it was paired with him signing some of the most egregious bipartisan bills that liberals have spent so much energy trying to get repealed (from DOMA to Gramm-Leach-Bliley)?
 
2014-07-03 07:23:10 AM  

KeatingFive: DrPainMD: Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.

So vote Republican!


Vote Libertarian.  Or vote Green.  Or vote communist.  Or vote independent.  It will be throwing your vote away until that point in time when it is no longer throwing your vote away.
 
2014-07-03 07:24:52 AM  

dookdookdook: How much of that is political, and how much of that is donations to the Clinton Foundation?


The Clinton Foundation isn't probably as big of a factor as her being the former Senator from New York; Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are equally steeped in Wall Street money because they're the Senators who have the most reason to pass Wall Street friendly legislation.
 
2014-07-03 07:25:00 AM  
We have a party that is going to put corporate interests over the interests of the country, and another party that is going to put corporate interests over those of the country.

The difference is that one is going to try to fark anyone that is different from them as hard as they can while doing it and the other is going to try to make everyone comfortable while they hand the keys to the country over to corporate lobbyists.

Either way, we're screwed but we get to vote on what we're being screwed with, and I'll take the thing that doesn't have rusty nails sticking out of it being wielded by someone who at least doesn't act like it's a gleeful experience to use it.
 
2014-07-03 07:25:29 AM  

Grungehamster: I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).


I suspect astroturfing.

By whom, I have no idea.  Could be Republicans who think she'd be easy to beat, or Democrats who don't want to risk an actual liberal candidate.  Or The Family, for that matter.
 
2014-07-03 07:28:54 AM  

Grungehamster: Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left


"The left" in this country consists of me, Bernie Sanders, and a nice librarian lady from Gary, Indiana. We're not the most influential voting bloc.
 
2014-07-03 07:29:09 AM  

JasonOfOrillia: KeatingFive: DrPainMD: Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.

So vote Republican!

Vote Libertarian.  Or vote Green.  Or vote communist.  Or vote independent.  It will be throwing your vote away until that point in time when it is no longer throwing your vote away.


Exactly, I'll just ignore the fact thatlibertarians live in a complete fantasy world, and that 27% of the voting age citizens are lunatic teabaggers who vote with a 100% rate for other clinically crazy idiots, and let them run the country! What could go wrong?

Hillary is at least competent. Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.
 
2014-07-03 07:32:58 AM  

Grungehamster: I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).


Meh, I'm thinking there's actually zero chance she'll be the nomination.  It's 3 years out and she's already campaigning.  Even the people who like her will be dying for anyone else to listen to by voting time.

And all she has to do in that three years is have one memorable farkup and it's all over.
 
2014-07-03 07:35:15 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Hillary is a fighter for the working people and really cares about children and the environment and the arts.


Thank you for that early morning laugh
 
2014-07-03 07:37:30 AM  

Ambivalence: How can I take an article seriously after a fundamental factual flaw? There is an argument ot be made that Clinton has too much industry money backing her, but any presidential nominee could say the same. You can't win presidential politics without a shiat ton of money. Period.


It's a derper site/blog.  They're just CONCERNED.
 
2014-07-03 07:39:03 AM  

Alphax: Grungehamster: I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).

I suspect astroturfing.

By whom, I have no idea.  Could be Republicans who think she'd be easy to beat, or Democrats who don't want to risk an actual liberal candidate.  Or The Family, for that matter.


I'm totally willing to let everyone believe that as long as she's going to act as a giant lightning rod for stupid criticism.  That this feeling of "inevitability" is drawing out all the crazy misogyny in the GOP is a double edged sword though.  On the one hand, it makes the GOP less electable, and on the other, it increasingly sews up Clinton's nomination.

I'm still very much hoping that the Dems have their shiat together, but if they play it right, they are guaranteed to win in 2016, and if they are playing it *smart* they might be able to win with someone who's sort of maybe a liberal.

Maybe the world is taking a Clinton campaign for granted, but I'm still holding out that she isn't planning to run, and this appearance of running and refusal to admit she's running is an attempt to get the GOP and the press to back off the 2016 race for another 6 to 12 months.
 
2014-07-03 07:44:44 AM  
Yeah look, we all know what Clinton is. Nothing you can tell us about her blue dogness will surprise us. But you know what she isn't? A mother*cking Republican. And thee days, that's honestly enough.
 
2014-07-03 07:47:33 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Grungehamster: Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left

"The left" in this country consists of me, Bernie Sanders, and a nice librarian lady from Gary, Indiana. We're not the most influential voting bloc.


Count me in.
 
2014-07-03 07:50:46 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Yeah look, we all know what Clinton is. Nothing you can tell us about her blue dogness will surprise us. But you know what she isn't? A mother*cking Republican. And thee days, that's honestly enough.


i27.photobucket.com
 
2014-07-03 07:53:23 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Yeah look, we all know what Clinton is. Nothing you can tell us about her blue dogness will surprise us. But you know what she isn't? A mother*cking Republican. And thee days, that's honestly enough.


I'd love to be given the choice b/t a good Republican candidate, and a good Democratic candidate, but when I look at the field of potential candidates for the GOP HA HA HA OH WOW.
 
2014-07-03 07:57:09 AM  

AMonkey'sUncle: Wendy's Chili: Grungehamster: Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left

"The left" in this country consists of me, Bernie Sanders, and a nice librarian lady from Gary, Indiana. We're not the most influential voting bloc.

Count me in.


I called myself a pretty firm centrist at one point. But my stance on issues has barely changed in the last 20 years, so the shifting of the Overton window probably leaves me pretty close to you guys.

And I'll still sleep easier at night if Wall Street donates to Hillary than to anyone running with an R next to their name.

/damn but this country needs an actual liberal party
 
2014-07-03 07:57:22 AM  

Dr.Mxyzptlk.: Hillary is a fighter for the working people and really cares about children and the environment and the arts[img.fark.net image 259x194].

dev.solita.fi
 
2014-07-03 08:04:51 AM  

Ambivalence: FTFA: "Hillary Clinton's claim of being "dead broke" offered up easy fodder to Republicans, who swiftly poked fun at a politician who appeared out of touch with regard to her own potential wealth."

Hilary Clinton never claimed to BE dead broke, she claimed she (and bill) WERE dead broke when he left office.  Obviously they aren't NOW nor are either of them claiming to be.

How can I take an article seriously after a fundamental factual flaw?  There is an argument ot be made that Clinton has too much industry money backing her, but any presidential nominee could say the same.  You can't win presidential politics without a shiat ton of money.  Period.


You have to remember that Republicans only understand the concept of "now" and "then" if you're comparing the present to the 50s or earlier.
 
2014-07-03 08:06:01 AM  

KeatingFive: Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.


Well now that's the rub, isn't it?

Huntsman would be a sane GOP option, but the middle simply isn't strong enough anymore to carry an election.
 
2014-07-03 08:18:11 AM  

GoldSpider: KeatingFive: Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.

Well now that's the rub, isn't it?

Huntsman would be a sane GOP option, but the middle simply isn't strong enough anymore to carry an election.


The GOP is in a tough spot, and I don't envy them one bit.  There aren't enough "sane" ones to get a center-right candidate nominated, so they're stuck running an imbecile who loses the election.  I actually thought Romney was a good, center-right choice, relatively speaking, so it will be interesting to see what the Republican primaries spit out next election.
 
2014-07-03 08:21:59 AM  

KeatingFive: Exactly, I'll just ignore the fact thatlibertarians live in a complete fantasy world, and that 27% of the voting age citizens are lunatic teabaggers who vote with a 100% rate for other clinically crazy idiots, and let them run the country! What could go wrong?

Hillary is at least competent. Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.


So, you'll vote for the person you hate the least, and expect to get a government that you like (and blame "the other party" when you don't get a government you like).

And I'm the one who's wasting his vote?
 
2014-07-03 08:24:05 AM  

KeatingFive: Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.


In the Demublican party, there will never be someone better to vote for. Never.
 
2014-07-03 08:25:10 AM  

Tomahawk513: I actually thought Romney was a good, center-right choice, relatively speaking, so it will be interesting to see what the Republican primaries spit out next election.


Rmoney was less equipped to relate to "average Americans" than John Kerry, and that's saying a lot.  That the far right had the clout to force him to disavow some of his more reasonable positions (Rmoneycare) doesn't bode well for the next candidate, at least.
 
2014-07-03 08:26:29 AM  

"Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point," said Rick Hohlt


Rick seems a touch confused as to how punctuation works...
 
2014-07-03 08:26:59 AM  

Grungehamster: I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).

Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left, but hey: her husband governed over one of the largest economic expansions in history, who cares if it was paired with him signing some of the most egregious bipartisan bills that liberals have spent so much energy trying to get repealed (from DOMA to Gramm-Leach-Bliley)?


probably because name recognition is a primary factor, with policies only being a distant second. and there's nobody on either side of the aisle who has yet stepped up and said they're going to try to beat her.

there's no obama running a very smooth underdog campaign for years prior to the election, getting him the name recognition among democrats as well as playing off the democrats' mistrust of clinton's corporatism. but barring a Serious Surprise of some figure coming out of retirement and running again or whatever, there's nobody even making a challenge
 
2014-07-03 08:27:11 AM  

DrPainMD: And I'm the one who's wasting his vote?


Yes, you are.

I kinda want mandatory voting
 
2014-07-03 08:29:16 AM  

rubi_con_man: I kinda want mandatory voting


Don't we have enough uneducated voters participating in our democracy?
 
2014-07-03 08:30:38 AM  

Ambivalence: FTFA: "Hillary Clinton's claim of being "dead broke" offered up easy fodder to Republicans, who swiftly poked fun at a politician who appeared out of touch with regard to her own potential wealth."

Hilary Clinton never claimed to BE dead broke, she claimed she (and bill) WERE dead broke when he left office.  Obviously they aren't NOW nor are either of them claiming to be.

How can I take an article seriously after a fundamental factual flaw?  There is an argument ot be made that Clinton has too much industry money backing her, but any presidential nominee could say the same.  You can't win presidential politics without a shiat ton of money.  Period.


I think it's completely fair to claim that Hillary has tried to portray herself both recently and in the more distant past as blue collar and familiar with the struggles of low/middle income life in America. All presidential candidates do this to a degree, and she's nowhere near the worst about it (nobody can beat Mitt "I'm unemployed right now" Romney on that front). The book saying that she and her husband were flat broke and heavily in debt in 2001 was an attempt to pull at heart strings and say she knows the strains financial hardship can take on a person, but the fact that they were back in the black a handful of speeches later kind of betrays that.

It's still BS of course that it matters though. Empathy is not dependent on shared experience in fact empathy is important because it allows shared emotions without shared experience. Was FDR such a champion of the poor because of his own background telling him how much being poor sucked? No, he was because he recognized how stacked the system was and didn't accept it as just or moral.
 
2014-07-03 08:31:47 AM  

DrPainMD: Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.


Romney was a self-made millionaire and had very little to do with Wall Street favors. Unlike democrats.
 
2014-07-03 08:33:36 AM  

Grungehamster: I think it's completely fair to claim that Hillary has tried to portray herself both recently and in the more distant past as blue collar and familiar with the struggles of low/middle income life in America.


Clinton-broke isn't quite the same as jobless-single-mom-of-five-broke.
 
2014-07-03 08:35:26 AM  

rubi_con_man: DrPainMD: And I'm the one who's wasting his vote?

Yes, you are.

I kinda want mandatory voting


Make election days compulsory national holidays and I'd support it.
 
2014-07-03 08:40:03 AM  

Tomahawk513: Make election days compulsory national holidays and I'd support it.


And further marginalize unemployed voters?
 
2014-07-03 08:42:21 AM  
Whats so bad about wall street? They are the people reaponsible for turning this country from a second rate baclwater swamp into the most powerful country the world has ever known
 
2014-07-03 08:42:23 AM  

peachpicker: "Clinton Inc. is going to be the most formidable fundraising operation for the Democrats in the history of the country. Period. Exclamation point," said Rick Hohlt

Rick seems a touch confused as to how punctuation works...


And vowels.
 
2014-07-03 08:42:39 AM  

KeatingFive: DrPainMD: Wall Street owns both parties. Romney was proof of that.

So vote Republican!


DERRP BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!! LOLOLOL!!!


Grungehamster: Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left


Do you mean left-left or do you mean 'Murka-left?
 
2014-07-03 08:43:01 AM  
Yeah, we don't have to worry about things like the companies involved in ALEC, or Americans for Prosperity, or American Crossroads, or any of the many, many sources funneling money into the Republican Party. We also can totally ignore the pots and pots of Wall Street money for whoever gets the Republican nod. No, you just worry about this one thing we tell you to worry about.
 
2014-07-03 08:43:59 AM  
What left? Oh, you mean both typical Republicans and rabid Klansmen, because that's all the political spectrum that can be represented in D.C.
 
2014-07-03 08:44:41 AM  

GoldSpider: Tomahawk513: Make election days compulsory national holidays and I'd support it.

And further marginalize unemployed voters?


They can still vote... ohhhh, you mean they'll be pissed off because people who work are voting..
 
2014-07-03 08:49:30 AM  

Grungehamster: I really don't understand why there has been such a high degree of acceptance of Hillary Clinton as inevitable (and acceptable) among Democrats. Even ignoring anti-Wall Street populism she's one of the most intervention-friendly Democrats and she has strong ties to C Street (AKA The Family).

Nothing in her political history suggests she's been a strong ally of the left, but hey: her husband governed over one of the largest economic expansions in history, who cares if it was paired with him signing some of the most egregious bipartisan bills that liberals have spent so much energy trying to get repealed (from DOMA to Gramm-Leach-Bliley)?


Because Republicans hate her with the passion of a thousand suns. And it would be a big deal for a woman to get elected. Show me a better candidate actually running, and I'll consider it.
 
2014-07-03 08:54:39 AM  
I find it highly amusing that the GOP is concerned about the Democrats playing by the rules the GOP wanted and fought to put in place.
 
2014-07-03 08:54:46 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Show me a better candidate actually running, and I'll consider it.


Elizabeth Warren, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders...Hell, Howard Dean might be able to pull a win based on voter remorse, for no other reason ("Hey, America, remember when Captain Dullard lost the election to the war criminal who'd throw the economy in the shiatter, all because I yelled once?"). No, I don't know if any of them are running, but nobody is, technically speaking, actually running yet, so now's the time to come up with better candidates and, if possible, encourage said people through social media channels to consider running.
 
2014-07-03 08:56:08 AM  
NEWSFLASH: Republicans butthurt to discover that some rich people care more about society actually functioning than they do about more tax cuts.
Film at 11:00.
 
2014-07-03 08:56:19 AM  

GoldSpider: rubi_con_man: I kinda want mandatory voting

Don't we have enough uneducated voters participating in our democracy?


Sometimes I think they are the majority of the voters. Tea-party being exhibit #1
 
2014-07-03 08:58:12 AM  

GoldSpider: KeatingFive: Get me someone better to vote for, who has an actual chance, and I'll vote for them.

Well now that's the rub, isn't it?

Huntsman would be a sane GOP option, but the middle simply isn't strong enough anymore to carry an election.


But it is Santorum's turn... lol
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report