Intercept:Larry Fink & His BlackRock Team Poised to Take Over Hillary Clinton’s Treasury Department

[kgnu_fan]

https://theintercept.com/2016/03/02/larry-fink-and-his-blackrock-team-poised-to-take-over-hillary-clintons-treasury-department/

[peacebird]

1. We have to elect Bernie. Anything else is madness

[bjo59]

2. Why do so many Democrats not understand what is (and has been) going on??? I despair.

Sometimes I wonder if all those millions of Dems who won't vote for Bernie DO understand exactly Clinton's agenda and support it. What else is one to think at this point?

[senz]

9. I find it difficult to call them "Democrats" anymore.

[kath]

10. Same here.

Sooooo fucking sick of the DLC/ThirdWay/TrojanHorse assholes.

[amborin]

3. and mess with Soc Sec

[bigtree]

4. is intercept still fawning over Trump?

https://theintercept.com/search/?s=trump

[senz]

8. DISHONEST! The Intercept rips trump to pieces!

as your link shows.

You're trying to deflect with falsehoods because you don't want people to know THE TRUTH about your flawed and disastrous candidate.

[bigtree]

12. the article's dishonest on it's face

...anti-Hillary propaganda, like your post.

[Hortensis]

5. Take over? As in a putsch?

[senz]

11. Your sig should note that Hill's justices would be Wall Street friendly.

Corrupt as they come.

[bigtree]

15. like Ginsburg and Breyer?

...both nominated by Pres. Clinton.

That's some phony stuff you're selling.

[senz]

16. Before the Cllintons sold out 100% to Wall Street.

Now they are OWNED.

[bigtree]

17. weak

... that's why this phoney revolution is failing. Rank dishonesty.


Citizens United was a case about a PAC attack on Hillary...suggesting that she's against appointing justices to the Supreme Court opposed to the 'Citizens United' law is some novel horseshit.

Citizens United sued to air "Hillary: The Movie" right before the presidential election with the SC expanding their ruling to grant corporations, unions and politically active nonprofits the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for or against political candidates.

NYT:

Tad Devine, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, pointed to Mrs. Clinton’s support from a “super PAC” and her acceptance of donations from Wall Street executives.

“She cannot be trusted to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will take the issue of campaign finance seriously,” he said.

Interestingly, the person most impacted by PAC money in this primary is Hillary Clinton. In addition to the money spent by Bernie supporters in the nursing union, there's unlimited cash directed against Hillary in this primary from conservative groups like American Crossroads.


Karl Rove's American Crossroads Super PAC Assist to Bernie Sanders in Nevada


What's significant is how little of the money Hillary's raised has been spent in this Dem primary against her Democratic opponents. Also significant is the way the Sanders campaign has benefited from the republican expenditures against Hillary which, in some cases, match Bernie's own attack narrative.

NYT:

Mr. Sander’s unlikely rise to super PAC pre-eminence is, in part, the story of an unusual alignment of strategies by different outside groups, including Republican ones eager to bloody Mrs. Clinton and lift Mr. Sanders, whom conservatives believe will be easier to defeat in a general election. While the nurses’ super PAC is the biggest left-leaning outside spender in the Democratic primary, conservative organizations have also spent at least $4.3 million attacking Mrs. Clinton in recent months.

One recent online ad from the Republican super PAC American Crossroads has assailed Mrs. Clinton for her Wall Street speaking fees — echoing an argument Mr. Sanders often makes against her...

In fact, more super PAC money has been spent so far in express support of Mr. Sanders than for either of his Democratic rivals, including Hillary Clinton, according to Federal Election Commission records.

more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=3

The Sanders campaign needs to focus on promoting their candidate and directing their political attacks to the republican opposition.

[Hortensis]

18. Complete NONSENSE. (I can cap too. )

I feel sure you've spent cumulative weeks in complaining about all the money that accrues to people on the top tier of the speaker-fee gold mine. Well it does. Speaking fees for both of them, book royalties for both of them, investment returns have now brought in so much that they're permanently on the plus side of that institutionalized giant sucking sound, even if still downright poor by billionaire standards. No one owns either of them but themselves.

What Hillary brought to this race is herself and her demonstrated potential to rise to tremendous power. As insurance in case she does, what business bought is the right to have their calls returned and their pitches listened to. That's all, and they know it, which is why by far most of their money is invested in electing conservatives to state and national congresses -- remember, the Party of Business?

What many Hillary Haters have compartmentalized, into some dusty, never-to-be-opened back closets in their minds, is that our system being corrupt does not mean all Americans are. Many of Hillary's wealthy donors are investing in electing a competent liberal progressive who shares their progressive philosophy. Just like me, in fact. They are as corrupt or as high-minded as all the others doing the same thing with just $2 or $20 to Hillary and Bernie.

[senz]

19. Actually, Hortensis,

I do not object to wealth in candidates and office-holders, so you can toss that canard out the window with the other false assumptions y'all throw our way.

FDR and the Kennedys were incredibly wealthy, but their politics and their behavior upheld a commitment and loyalty to "the common man" and woman that is not the least bit visible in the Clintons when they're not running for office.

Nor do I consider "all Americans" corrupt; quite the contrary. I'm with the 99%.

However, since you seem reasonably intelligent, you must be aware that Reaganomics opened the door for the corporate/plutocratic takeover of our government. Right? You knew that?

And you must be aware that Bill Clinton -- with NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagall, GATT/WTO, and the 1996 Telecomm Act -- made a significant contribution to Reagan's corruption of our government. Surely you know this, how can you not?

Those, like you, who think that "Hillary's wealthy donors are investing in electing a competent liberal progressive who shares their progressive philosophy," have not been paying attention.

I think you have a nice little mental image of the Clintons based on what they try to project, not what they actually do, and this image is cozy and comfortable for you, so you want to believe it, and this is why you have disregarded all evidence to the contrary that has been posted steadily on this site since last spring.

Those who don't want to crawl out of their comfort zone simply shut their eyes and plug up their ears.

But you know something, Hortensis? The fate of this country and of millions of struggling Americans who deserve a fair chance, who should not have to work full time and still live in poverty -- and of the world (climate change, remember?) hangs in the balance. There really is something more important at stake than your comfort zone.

Now, to get back to the thread topic and the comment of mine that prompted your reply. Yes, the Clintons are owned by Wall Street. Here are a few short, easy-to-read articles to start your long road back to reality:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/inside-clintons-cozy-relationship-big-banks

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-17/hillary-clinton-grooming-former-goldman-banker-become-americas-next-treasury-secreta

[Hortensis]

20. Don't try deflection on me. Abandonment of an argument

because it is indefensible is only to be expected of someone who'd ridiculously claim Hillary Clinton would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. Unbelievable! Who do you hope you're talking to? Illiterates? Five-year-olds? Twelve-year-olds wouldn't swallow this nonsense, so why bother casting for fools here at an adult political website?

[senz]

23. Wow. I gave you solid gold

and you threw back bubble gum.

Thanks. For a few minutes I thought there could be a small pocket of intelligence and good faith in the Hill campaign.

Adios, baby!

[senz]

6. Fink would privatize Social Security, mocks the idea of retiring at 65.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would be a disaster for the American people.

Bernie is the only candidate running who holds traditional Democratic values.

[kgnu_fan]

7. Indeed....

[MaggieD]

13. LOL - more drama and baseless overwrought allegations?

Why of course. What else is new?

[Mufaddal]

14. #TheyreWithHer

[AzDar]

21. Wall St and Her Corporate Donors have made a HUGE investment...They're gonna want a HUGE return.

[kgnu_fan]

22. So predictable. I don't understand why people can not see this obvious fact.