Bill and Hillary Really Are Thieves?
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Yes. They are both criminals.
It sickens me that liberals rally around the brand name, Clinton.
The fact that we are staring down a Clinton v. Bush/Trump election makes me want to leave the country forever.
It sickens me that liberals rally around the brand name, Clinton.
The fact that we are staring down a Clinton v. Bush/Trump election makes me want to leave the country forever.
Last edited:
ecouch,
If it ends up being Clinton vs. Bush then we will know the fix is in. Outside interests and forces will be shown to be at work, and these interests and forces care little about the well-being of the USA. In fact, they would seem to be working against the well-being of the USA.
Or maybe it's not a conspiracy theory at all, qazplm. In this day and age, what is the likelihood that a father and two of his sons would all be selected to run for President?
Even moreso, what's the likelihood that the wife of a former President AND the son AND brother of a former President would both run in the same year? The odds of this happening cannot be very high.
What are the odds that two sons of a President, both of whom were governors of very large states, might each eventually run for President?
Pretty darn high I'd say.
What are the odds that Hillary Clinton, an unusually accomplished First Lady, former Senator and Secretary of State might run for President? Pretty darn high.
If it were a conspiracy, Bush would be running a wee bit better than he is, and Hillary wouldn't be in a dogfight with an avowed Socialist.
Or maybe she really did kill Vince Foster to cover up her lesbian love affairs.
I mean who really knows these things?
Pretty darn high I'd say.
What are the odds that Hillary Clinton, an unusually accomplished First Lady, former Senator and Secretary of State might run for President? Pretty darn high.
If it were a conspiracy, Bush would be running a wee bit better than he is, and Hillary wouldn't be in a dogfight with an avowed Socialist.
Or maybe she really did kill Vince Foster to cover up her lesbian love affairs.
I mean who really knows these things?
Come on, the "powers that be" can position the people they want in the places they want them, and can "leak" information about their opponents to try and hurt their chances, but they can't directly control the polls and likely can't directly control how well or how poorly the candidates run their campaigns or mitigate poor decisions the candidates made in the past.
So you think "the powers that be" did what exactly to get Hillary and JEB! to run?
You think that, but for the powers that be, they wouldn't have run?
Did they position Hillary to marry Bill?
Did they literally position JEB! in Barbara Bush's womb?
You think that, but for the powers that be, they wouldn't have run?
Did they position Hillary to marry Bill?
Did they literally position JEB! in Barbara Bush's womb?
Elections have been monetized, so those PTB with the money decided whose campaigns get financed.
They could have tried but just like you or me if we tried they would have found it very dificult to secure the needed cash and then get media, owned by a few who also happen to be in the same group that finance, attention they would also need.
Not a conspiracy, it's the way it works today, do really think any viable candidate who challenges the status quo would ever be able to secure the funding needed and then even if they did get the money would they ever get the media coverage needed to be in front of voters every day selling their message?
They could have tried but just like you or me if we tried they would have found it very dificult to secure the needed cash and then get media, owned by a few who also happen to be in the same group that finance, attention they would also need.
Not a conspiracy, it's the way it works today, do really think any viable candidate who challenges the status quo would ever be able to secure the funding needed and then even if they did get the money would they ever get the media coverage needed to be in front of voters every day selling their message?
Everyone who is running is getting their campaigns financed by someone. Having a lot of money does not necessarily equate to "PTB."
Sanders seems to be doing just fine money-wise right now and he's not taking any Super PAC money and his funding is all small donations. Trump is self-financed at this point.
Sure, money talks, but that's the result of a Supreme Court that said money = speech and mostly unfettered what folks can give. If the Dems ruled the world, there would be greater restrictions. So this isn't a "there's no difference between the parties here" situation.
Sanders seems to be doing just fine money-wise right now and he's not taking any Super PAC money and his funding is all small donations. Trump is self-financed at this point.
Sure, money talks, but that's the result of a Supreme Court that said money = speech and mostly unfettered what folks can give. If the Dems ruled the world, there would be greater restrictions. So this isn't a "there's no difference between the parties here" situation.
It is also cute when folks blatantly carry the water.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You don't have a defense for the Clinton criminal machine.
Politicians have always needed to cater to those who fu
Never said having money alone made one a part of "TPTB." However under current laws those with more money have a greater voice, more power, than those without money.
People in general, rich, poor, dem., rep., conservative, liberal... do not vote against their self interest. No "Dems" or "Reps" are going to bite the hand that feeds them, funds their campaigns, unless an unforeseeable event/s transpire to force them to. That's why the SC decision is troubling to me.
Yes money talks and if you are running a +billion dollar campaign whose $ are you going to listen to? A member of the 1%/corp., and his/her/their 5/6/7 figure check or yours or my 3/4 figure check?
Good for Sanders but let's wait and see how far he gets, along with Trump. My guess is both will follow the well trod path of putting their support behind whichever candidate their party selects. Trump probably has the better chance but my guess is he's not going to get the nomination. They have a role to play, they appeal to the outer edges of their parties and give those people a false sense that they will be represented by whoever the party selects to run.
"The Man," I don't know it depends on what makes up "the Man." I think we are a decaying nation, it happens all throughout history, empires corrode, and it's our turn. It's not a conspiracy, just the evolution of ideologies, beliefs, myths... that define who we are. We believe in money above all else and have allowed money to become power and concentrate.
Power has become corrosive and protecting the current order overrides correcting structural issues because those who benefit and hold much of the power inside the current system aren't going to give up what they have, not because they are bad people but because their success leads to a belief in their being right.
Is it cynical, yeah I guess but outside of collapse, war, epidemic,... societies generally don't correct themselves when power has become as concentrated and one sided as it is today. Hopefully I'm wrong but yeah, I don't see much real difference between Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Bush... and that has little to do with any conspiracy or belief that they are one and all evil, simply my opinion that you can't get the point today of having a viable shot at the White House without having spent your entire adult life conforming to the status quo or showing yourself as none threatening, so I doubt any of them, unless forced, will change much of anything.
Clinton or Sanders won't change the tax code much in any way to put friction on the the current Ponzi scheme just like Trump or Bush or... won't change much of the ACA.
How are we "decaying?" Decaying from what?
I'll grant you the fact that we are ignoring our infrastructure because anti-government deficit hawks don't want to spend money on anything, but that's been a battle most of our existence.
Our economy is not at it's worst anymore, certainly never got to Great Depression levels, and it's still one of the best in the world.
Our military still leads.
Still a leader in tech, culture, etc.
It's not like individual rights are any worse of a place than in history, or that race, gender or LGBT issues are worse, in fact the last is at an apex.
I don't like plenty about the government, but I don't see an institution inherently more corrupt than the 70s, or the 60s or the 50s or the 40s...the focus of that corruption changes for sure. Where it was say anti-minority in one era, it becomes anti something else in this era.
We've ALWAYS been pro-corporation. Like from the very start.
I'm just wondering what golden age or even silver age America folks point to when decrying the current iteration as somehow corroding or falling apart.
I'll grant you the fact that we are ignoring our infrastructure because anti-government deficit hawks don't want to spend money on anything, but that's been a battle most of our existence.
Our economy is not at it's worst anymore, certainly never got to Great Depression levels, and it's still one of the best in the world.
Our military still leads.
Still a leader in tech, culture, etc.
It's not like individual rights are any worse of a place than in history, or that race, gender or LGBT issues are worse, in fact the last is at an apex.
I don't like plenty about the government, but I don't see an institution inherently more corrupt than the 70s, or the 60s or the 50s or the 40s...the focus of that corruption changes for sure. Where it was say anti-minority in one era, it becomes anti something else in this era.
We've ALWAYS been pro-corporation. Like from the very start.
I'm just wondering what golden age or even silver age America folks point to when decrying the current iteration as somehow corroding or falling apart.
I'll bite. The nation has become increasingly polarized and the politicians on both sides are bought and paid for by the special interests favored by their party. Politicians do things for their own self interests (and their well-paying benefactors, both in the USA and abroad) and there seems to be increasingly little regard for the well-being of the USA as a nation.
in the 1800s one senator beat the crap out of another with a cane...in the Senate.
Government corruption? Teapot Dome called, it would like to have a word with you. Rockefeller and all of the other huge magnates basically ran this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The concept of thinking about the US as a nation, rather than as an individual collection of loosely joined states is only about the last fourth of our existence as well.
You suffer from what a lot of folks suffer from...a belief that history only really matters going back about 20-30 years or so.
Sure, the country is more polarized than say when Tip and Reagan cut deals together...but not necessarily moreso than say when the President of the United States was effectively spying on the Democratic Party.
I'd prefer bipartisanship. I'm more than happy to take half a loaf. And certainly mostly we don't see that as possible, but on issue after issue, one side tries to do half a loaf, and the other side says nope. Now, I think there are folks on that other side that WOULD compromise (Boehner, even McConnell) but they are too afraid of their extreme edge and being primaried.
Government corruption? Teapot Dome called, it would like to have a word with you. Rockefeller and all of the other huge magnates basically ran this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
The concept of thinking about the US as a nation, rather than as an individual collection of loosely joined states is only about the last fourth of our existence as well.
You suffer from what a lot of folks suffer from...a belief that history only really matters going back about 20-30 years or so.
Sure, the country is more polarized than say when Tip and Reagan cut deals together...but not necessarily moreso than say when the President of the United States was effectively spying on the Democratic Party.
I'd prefer bipartisanship. I'm more than happy to take half a loaf. And certainly mostly we don't see that as possible, but on issue after issue, one side tries to do half a loaf, and the other side says nope. Now, I think there are folks on that other side that WOULD compromise (Boehner, even McConnell) but they are too afraid of their extreme edge and being primaried.
You have a real knack for oversimplifying things. The political world is very different today relative to the days of Teapot Dome and the Rockefellers. The political world is very different today than when Nixon was President.
Today, foreign interests hold greater sway in American politics than ever before. The Supreme Court (Citizens United) basically made it ok for foreign interests to participate in the American politic system and contribute huge sums of money for their pet causes. They are able to buy and sell Ds and Rs. Our enemies can have access and political patronage never conceived of in the past.
In the past, this kind of business would have been considered at best un-Patriotic, at worst treasonous and downright criminal.
But I guess this is all fine and dandy from your Progressive purview...
No, not really. What in the political world is "different?" How is 2010s "China owns us" any different from "1980s" Japan owns us? What about German influence in America running up to WWII? Campaign finance laws weren't always in existence...for most of our history, they didn't exist. did you not learn about the political patronage systems of the 1800s? Political machines? Grant got 25% of his entire money for his election from ONE donor. Think that donor might have had some influence?
So yes, that kind of access was absolutely dreamed of in the past, and it was actually done...that's why a series of tougher and tougher laws were passed up until the 70s and 80s. Citizen's United was a ridiculous decision, and no progressives were in favor of it, so now it's not all "fine and dandy" but it's also not unprecedented...it's regression in fact to an earlier time when corporations ran this country.
In fact, it's a lot more like Teapot Dome now.
Haha. Anti government deficit hawks? Hard to tell if one is being serious? What is the debt now? 20 trillion or getting close to it? The issue is not spending it is that spending is not spent on infrastructure.
One can argue with interest rates and basically more money should have been raised through debt. The issue was and is, all of these "shovel ready jobs' that the money was allegedly going to was going everywhere but there. And when money being spent is sold as one thing but spent on another it makes it tough to raise anymore money.
Running numbers, like it or not, our economy in the USA, is basically built upon financial engineering. Hate to break it to you, but it is anything but ok.
And while I think our military with a little bit more spending, stopping personnel cuts, and adding about 30,000 more troops(army only, other services not sure) can be strong, the politics in the USA prevent it from being so.[/QUOTE]
Wow, you can be really skewed by your political party when it comes to thinking critically. Ok, I can buy the statement that the Supreme Court said that money = speech and giving is unfettered.
But acting like the Dems are all against it is a complete joke. Obama dominated Wall Street funding in 08, and reports now are Clinton is doing well with them and in fact GS paid the Clinton's a ton of money for 'speeches' even as she was in SoS role.
Uh yes, the Dems are against it, but if you can find Dems who supported Citizens United, feel free, I'm sure you'll be able to find one or two since there are always one or two that support anything. And the things you cite have zero to do with Citizens United by the way....just FYI.
You have got to have blinders on at least two feet thick to not see that the Clintons are completely corrupt. Talk about blind faith.....
BTW, you don't have to hate them to recognize that they would do almost anything for money and power.
