Topic: Is Hillary Clinton Trustworthy? - page 41. (Read 234761 times)
This pic is from a few years ago when Christina received the McGovern award for her work as an ambassador for some food program of the state department. Hillary was caught up in the moment it seems.....and got caught checking out Christina's.....
Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Sounds to me like these companies are trying to buy her. Why else would they donate their money to her cause. There is some interest there. A bought politician is a corrupt politician. Not what we need.
Lol! Like any president of the USA haven't been totally bought by industries?
They need the money to make the campaign. They were all corrupted even the black asshole Obama with his ideas of communism.
They're all the same shit! Keep your money in your btc wallet and stay ready for the burnout!
This is why i lean towards the side of trump. If he does what he says he is going to do then my votes is with him. Plus he is self funded. From what I hear anyways. As he is worth over 4 billion. Would be easy to pay for his own campaign. But who knows. Maybe a way for him to make eve more money. But so far he looks way better then any democrat.
I lived thru Blowjob Bill's presidency, though I can't say I followed his every move or anything like that. I never trusted Hillary. Any woman who would let her man stick his dong in a thing like Monica Lewinsky would not get my vote. That's a marriage of much convenience and it never sat well with me.
Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Sounds to me like these companies are trying to buy her. Why else would they donate their money to her cause. There is some interest there. A bought politician is a corrupt politician. Not what we need.
Lol! Like any president of the USA haven't been totally bought by industries?
They need the money to make the campaign. They were all corrupted even the black asshole Obama with his ideas of communism.
They're all the same shit! Keep your money in your btc wallet and stay ready for the burnout!
Sixpack Joe asks
What is the essential difference between Hil and Ed Snowden?
1. They both allegedly mishandled National Security data
A serious FELONY!
2. They both allegedly left top secrets open to the public
3. They allegedly have some relationship with Russia-
whether it is high priced speaking engagements via
state department aegis and hubby’s foundation, for
Russian audience, or just laying low there with no
passport.
4. One has the weight of the entire intel/USG against him
t’other has it behind her.
What’s wrong with this picture?
What is the essential difference between Hil and Ed Snowden?
1. They both allegedly mishandled National Security data
A serious FELONY!
2. They both allegedly left top secrets open to the public
3. They allegedly have some relationship with Russia-
whether it is high priced speaking engagements via
state department aegis and hubby’s foundation, for
Russian audience, or just laying low there with no
passport.
4. One has the weight of the entire intel/USG against him
t’other has it behind her.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger Problem
At last night’s Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton invoked an unexpected figure: Henry Kissinger. “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said, in an off-hand aside. It wasn’t an endorsement of Kissinger, or really much of anything. It was just a little brag that would have played well in a different room.
The sort of room it would have played well in, really, is the sort of room in which the worst people in the country congregate. The fact that Clinton lapsed into speaking as if she were in that room is more or less why she’s having trouble, once again, convincing the Democratic electorate to nominate her for the presidency.
Henry Kissinger, for the record, is a bad man, who waged a terrible and illegal war in Cambodia, supported a horrific right-wing strongman in Chile, and generally ran America’s foreign policy apparatus in the most amoral way possible, as a point of pride. However, in the bubble of elite American society, the bipartisan consensus, shared by politicians and members of the media alike, is that he’s simply a respected elder statesman.
The point I’m making here is not, [Glenn Greenwald voice] HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTS A WAR CRIMINAL. (Trust me, I know Kissinger isn’t moving many votes in New Hampshire.) It’s that Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders’ critique of Clinton is not that she’s cartoonishly corrupt in the Tammany Hall style, capable of being fully bought with a couple well-compensated speeches, but that she’s a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it’s true. It’s not that she’s been bought, it’s that she bought in.
This isn’t some damning revelation of the secret “true” Clinton beneath the surface. Hillary Clinton is a liberal. (One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism. This is also why the Sanders-started semantic argument over the term “progressive” was so deeply stupid.) But she’s also plainly a member of a Democratic Party establishment that a large—and, I think, growing—number of would-be Democratic voters reject as unrepresentative of the principles and interests of non-wealthy Americans.
These people may indeed be “unserious,” in the sense that Clinton’s theory of “progressive change” is more realistic—that it, it has a better chance of leading to policy changes that have tangible positive outcomes for large groups of people—than Sanders’ theory of bottom-up “revolution,” at least in our current political climate. But no one is satisfied with the current political climate, and lots of people are looking for leaders who seek to fundamentally reshape it, not work within it.
http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-has-a-henry-kissinger-problem-1757313187?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
At last night’s Democratic debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton invoked an unexpected figure: Henry Kissinger. “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time,” she said, in an off-hand aside. It wasn’t an endorsement of Kissinger, or really much of anything. It was just a little brag that would have played well in a different room.
The sort of room it would have played well in, really, is the sort of room in which the worst people in the country congregate. The fact that Clinton lapsed into speaking as if she were in that room is more or less why she’s having trouble, once again, convincing the Democratic electorate to nominate her for the presidency.
Henry Kissinger, for the record, is a bad man, who waged a terrible and illegal war in Cambodia, supported a horrific right-wing strongman in Chile, and generally ran America’s foreign policy apparatus in the most amoral way possible, as a point of pride. However, in the bubble of elite American society, the bipartisan consensus, shared by politicians and members of the media alike, is that he’s simply a respected elder statesman.
The point I’m making here is not, [Glenn Greenwald voice] HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTS A WAR CRIMINAL. (Trust me, I know Kissinger isn’t moving many votes in New Hampshire.) It’s that Hillary Clinton exists in a world where “Henry Kissinger is a war criminal” is a silly opinion held by unserious people. Her problem? Lots of those silly and unserious people want to wrest control of the Democratic Party away from its current leadership, which is exemplified by people like Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders’ critique of Clinton is not that she’s cartoonishly corrupt in the Tammany Hall style, capable of being fully bought with a couple well-compensated speeches, but that she’s a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it’s true. It’s not that she’s been bought, it’s that she bought in.
This isn’t some damning revelation of the secret “true” Clinton beneath the surface. Hillary Clinton is a liberal. (One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism. This is also why the Sanders-started semantic argument over the term “progressive” was so deeply stupid.) But she’s also plainly a member of a Democratic Party establishment that a large—and, I think, growing—number of would-be Democratic voters reject as unrepresentative of the principles and interests of non-wealthy Americans.
These people may indeed be “unserious,” in the sense that Clinton’s theory of “progressive change” is more realistic—that it, it has a better chance of leading to policy changes that have tangible positive outcomes for large groups of people—than Sanders’ theory of bottom-up “revolution,” at least in our current political climate. But no one is satisfied with the current political climate, and lots of people are looking for leaders who seek to fundamentally reshape it, not work within it.
http://gawker.com/hillary-clinton-has-a-henry-kissinger-problem-1757313187?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Sounds to me like these companies are trying to buy her. Why else would they donate their money to her cause. There is some interest there. A bought politician is a corrupt politician. Not what we need.
Short answer is no.
i dont think so...if you ask me trump is the better than hillery
Hillary Clinton Is Again Put on the Defensive Over Perceived Ties to Wall Street
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton appeared frustrated.
Dozens of prominent economists and academic experts have endorsed her plans to regulate the financial sector. Her policies would “try to prevent the problems of the future,” she explained in Thursday’s debate, in addition to reining in “the excesses of Wall Street.”
So why do so many voters not believe it?
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton tried again and again to explain that her plans for Wall Street would be tougher and go further than Mr. Sanders’s proposals by also regulating the shadow banking industry, the insurance companies and other wrongdoers.
“I have a broader view,” Mrs. Clinton said, contrasting her plan to that of Mr. Sanders, whose anti-Wall Street message has turned him from a long-shot candidate to a serious contender for the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/hillary-clinton-wall-street-ties.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Stefan Molyneux just came out with a video about this just yesterday I believe...
The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Email Controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0
I watched it and it really put the whole situation into perspective, now I really understand what is going on. I highly recommend it and his other videos BTW. He has been a BTC supporter and made videos about BTC since wayyy back in the crypto day, and I happen to agree with lot of the guy's political philosophy.
The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Email Controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0
I watched it and it really put the whole situation into perspective, now I really understand what is going on. I highly recommend it and his other videos BTW. He has been a BTC supporter and made videos about BTC since wayyy back in the crypto day, and I happen to agree with lot of the guy's political philosophy.
Cool video
Thank you.
Stefan Molyneux just came out with a video about this just yesterday I believe...
The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Email Controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0
I watched it and it really put the whole situation into perspective, now I really understand what is going on. I highly recommend it and his other videos BTW. He has been a BTC supporter and made videos about BTC since wayyy back in the crypto day, and I happen to agree with lot of the guy's political philosophy.
The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Email Controversy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4RQg4Qfg0
I watched it and it really put the whole situation into perspective, now I really understand what is going on. I highly recommend it and his other videos BTW. He has been a BTC supporter and made videos about BTC since wayyy back in the crypto day, and I happen to agree with lot of the guy's political philosophy.
looks like she will be the first female US president
I'm all for having a woman for POTUS. Just not that one.
looks like she will be the first female US president
I highly disagree. If she gets elected that proves to me that we have a seriously corrupt system. As they is no way she can win fairly. Not with what we know about her.
This question is really uninformed, it isnt a question anymore, it has been prooven multiple times that she lies and deceives, she is proven unthrusthworthy...
That's right.
There should have been a possibility that Obama could go for a third time. But impossible with the current rules.
He did his job real good i think.
Don't really know which one to choose of the new.
Obama is a liar too, now can you remind us what he first said about Guantanamo.
He does a job because he is a stooge, he done nothing good at all for American people.
Nobel peace prize prize was a big mistake, it was laughable in the first instance.
Also...........
- [/IRS targets Obama’s enemies
Benghazi
Spying on the AP
The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme
Sebelius demands payment
The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal
The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree.
Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets
Solyndra
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation
The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer
Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act
“I’ll Pass My Own Laws”
NSA Spying on American People
Foreign Policy
Lack of solidarity with Israel
Disaster with the Arab Spring
Crimea
Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over
Handling of Syrian Red Line
Calling ISIS “JV”
Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement
Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits
Lack of Confidence by NATO nations
Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Ira
Paid $5 Billion & Released 5 Taliban Prisoners For Deserter Bergdahl
Waging war by attacking Libya without Congressional approval
Domestic Policy
Failure to secure the Border
Illegals bringing guns, drug and diseases through the southern border
Bowe Bergdahl swap
Passing on the keystone pipeline
8 Trillion dollars more in debt
Vast expansion of government
Racial Division at all-time high
Inviting Bomb Boy Ahmed to White House
Disrespect for Cops
Failed economic stimulus plan
Constant disregard for the Constitution and tyrannical rule
China overtook America as world’s largest economy
Double Downgrade
Housing policies failed to stop foreclosures
Price of healthcare has drastically risen for those purchasing it
Education policies failed to curb college costs
Highest percentage of Americans on Food Stamps and Medicaid
Record 92,898,000 Americans over 16 years not working
Lowest Labor Force participation rate of 62.7%
Denying the notion of American Exceptionalism
Securing the Olympics for Chicago in 2016
Naming numerous Communists/Socialists/Progressives to Czar Positions
Mismanagement and cover up of Terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, California
Mismanagement of Gulf Oil Spill
Disastrous Vetting Process of “Immigrants” from Muslim Nationsli]
This question is really uninformed, it isnt a question anymore, it has been prooven multiple times that she lies and deceives, she is proven unthrusthworthy...
That's right.
There should have been a possibility that Obama could go for a third time. But impossible with the current rules.
He did his job real good i think.
Don't really know which one to choose of the new.
This question is really uninformed, it isnt a question anymore, it has been prooven multiple times that she lies and deceives, she is proven unthrusthworthy...
looks like she will be the first female US president
torture? im down. lol.
After what happened over in Benghzi or however you spell it. She knew about it but did nothing.
After what happened over in Benghzi or however you spell it. She knew about it but did nothing.
Jump to: