I found out that Sanders was one of the Senators who voted in favor of Auditing the Federal Reserve and exposing the secrecy of the megabanks. Even though the rest of the senate democrats voted to protect the corporate criminals. That's a huge plus for him in my eyes.
While on the other hand, we have a Mrs. Hillary Clinton who agrees with her husband's move to repeal Glass-Steagall (the wall of separation between consumer and investment banks). And then there's her support by Goldman Sachs who "gave $169,850 to Clinton’s presidential campaign and super PAC, according to CRP’s analysis. The bank doled out $675,000 in speaking fees to Clinton after she left office." (Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/goldman-sachs-contributions-2016-election-217962#ixzz3yDRXe1yr) And it's no wonder Goldman Sachs wants to make sizable contributions on both sides of the aisle (not only do they support Hillary, but Bush and Rubio as well), seeing as how they now have 4 (FOUR!) former GD officials as presidents in the Federal Reserve! Seriously, what the fuck is THAT shit?!? (Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/at-the-fed-kashkari-appointment-makes-vampire-squid-moniker-apt-2015-11-10) With them being a top donor to the Hillary Clinton campaign (not to mention hundreds of thousands in speaker fees), it certainly doesn't bode well for popular perception for her. Seriously, at this point I can feel the Bern in any and every direction I look.
I read an article this evening titled something like "What's wrong with Hillary?" (I'm sure you guys can find it easily enough if you want) It listed off all of the elements and factions in her corner and asked why....since she seemingly has everything covered....isn't she a lock for the nomination and why is she losing ground very quickly. The article did a nice job of answering those questions but the comments were much better. I've found myself reading the comments an various articles and the common theme is more than obvious.
The DNC limited the number of debates in an effort to benefit HRC. That didn't work so right now....there is a "town hall meeting" going on as I type this. It was arranged for each candidate to go on stage by themselves (with no rebuttal). Sanders goes first, O'Malley second and HRC last......with no response or rebuttal from anyone. Let's see.....who could that possibly benefit? HRC gets to say whatever she wants with nobody questioning it between tonight and caucus day? Well....this is Iowa and we aren't uninformed people. The Clinton campaign may be well-advised to not insult the intelligence of the people they want to win over. I look forward to defeating her in a week.
But then again, there's earlier "tonight" (Wednesday 27th), when Hillary was at a campaign funding events thrown by some fucking multi-billion dollar machine of lies, corruption, dirty money and unfair practices. Not only is it sickening, but it's an incredibly horrible move for her when she's trying to refute charges of her being in cahoots with Wall Street. Constituents: :We think you're working with, not against, Wall Street." Hillary: "No way. I'm totally going to tell them to cut it out!" Constituents: "But you're campaigning for money from them, at their place, right now." Hillary: "Um... Bernie's plans will never work! That's the ticket!"
"They're ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they're going public." http://www.sott.net/article/311103-Former-House-Majority-leader-Tom-DeLay-claims-FBI-is-ready-to-indict-Hillary-Clinton
It is interesting to me that there's even a question that our monetary system isn't skewed so far out of balance that a radical BERN is needed. How can this country continue in any civilized fashion when so few have so much and so many have so little. And then when one hears the so-called ideas from the usual suspects on the right, we can see that to elect ANYONE that doesn't want a radical change NOW---to restore the working class to a position of strength--is conducting business as usual. Of course, I'll take Hillary if that's what we get --but I won't like it. Bad enough that the "supreme court" is stacked with Bushes 1% lackeys that are doing the bidding of their brethren IN the legislature and out. The problem would be, that if Bernie got close to being nominated--let alone appearing to win--well, the fact is that there are those that are very violent in backing their Hannity, Limbaugh, Larson, and Savage ideas, that I would fear the Kennedy solution might come into play. Those people are serious and anything is on the table when it comes threatening their money/power.
Looks like the email issue isn't going away. 22 classified emails that she denied having on that computer. Here are the two likely scenarios that I see.....either they really were classified and she has been lying the whole time or they weren't classified but they are more embarrassing than the email scandal. I have a hard time believing that the info was perfectly fine and legal to send at the time but somehow the subject matter warrants the gov'ts highest classified rating now. My guess is that they are more embarrassing so they are now classified and will never be released. The other issue for me is this.....on one hand, you don't want to have an issue in the primaries permanently damage someone who may go on to get the nomination. On the other hand, the Republicans aren't just going to not exploit this. They're going to play this card, regardless of whatever the outcome eventually is. Nothing is even saying the worst is over. It could get much worse.
From what I understand none of the "top secret" emails were top secret at the time they were sent....so what's the big deal? This post isn't top secret now, but what if it gets classified top secret ten years from now? So what? She broke no law: Another hatchet job directed at her by her and Bill's enemies.
It may be just another hatchet job directed by her enemies....but we'll never know. That's the problem and that's why this is going to take its toll with some voters. In order to believe what we are being told, we need to accept the word of people who used to work for her and people who may be interested in protecting her. I realize the situation would be the same for anyone in this exact situation and.....if the situation really is what we're being told.....there isn't much she can probably do about it now. But a different person may not have her credibility problems and negative ratings with some voters and...justified or not.....those issues are real and this problem isn't helping to rectify them. That's exactly why this will be a knife that just keeps digging in. We're talking about people who had how many hearings on Benghazi?
But....obviously the emails weren't classified at the time, it's not like they are reviewed by a classification specialist before they are sent. It is basically up to the sender to choose the classification level. This doesn't mean she didn't send sensitive information. Isn't there still data that is completely lost and hasn't been recovered yet? It seems so fishy to me. Maybe she technically obeyed the letter of the law, but I feel like she should have known better. Which, to me, means she is either incompetent and this playing dumb act really isn't an act, or she's just plain corrupt. Neither one is very appealing. No doubt there are others in Washington who are using this to their own advantage but I still don't trust Hillary's motives in it all. I don't have a high level government job, obviously, but even I know better than to send work related email from my hotmail address.
Also....how she's handled this at times hasn't really helped either. When asked about the hard drive being "wiped" she said something like "What do you mean? With....with a rag...or something?"
I thought that was a horrible response, too. It stunk of trying to avoid answering the question and brushing it off with a "humorous" comment. That being said, these 22 emails that aren't being released could have any number of reasons why they are being classified as secret now. It could be that nobody bothered to classify them when they should've been initially. It could be that there is embarrassing info, but I doubt that's it. The most likely reason is that the information in the emails wasn't sensitive when they were sent, but are now. For instance, something that has to take into account shifting international alliances/adversaries. I'm a huge fan of Bernie and think of Hillary as more electable than Republicans, but that doesn't mean I want to see her unduly brought down.
There were no words!! How cool is that? No judging other candidates, no punches or backstabs. Just people. And a smile. I agree wholeheartedly w one of Skips earlier posts. "They have the right ideas about what government should be (for the people, not just the corporations)."
So I was just hanging out with a friend this evening. His dad is a well known Republican state senator (for our state...Iowa). They do their own private internal polling to compare with the other polls. As of the moment, our state Republican leaders are privately expecting a very close race with Hillary edging out Sanders in Iowa by one point or less but Sanders blowing her out of the water in New Hampshire. It's close enough to go either way according to their polling.
Some percent of Bernie supporters are apolitical, extremist types, who are ignorant of how the religious right has subverted democracy and gained power over the last few decades. I think some Bernie supporters would rather lose than accept anything less than all they want. As for the most extreme folks, who probably won't even deign to support Bernie, I find anarchists and Marxists don't care very much about reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, equal opportunity, etc. Bernie is OK, but Hillary is electable. Although, if Dems insist on a reckless gamble, I will support Bernie. I love his ideas, but that's beside the fact as far as elections go.
