Hillary picks her VP

[Elixir]

I was impressed. Also impressed with how quickly teh Donald piled on Kaine. Made me wonder.... is there a danger for Trump that as Tim develops as Hillary's attack dog, it might make Trump look like Mikey's attack dog?

Good observation...Kaine could win...But we'll see...

I have an expectation now, that due to Trump's proven inability to resist flame wars, the C/K campaign will keep baiting him with Kaine. Ironically, having selected Pence to provide contrast to his own boorishness, I doubt that Trump will be able to reciprocate in kind.

 

[Treedbear]

Tim Kaine, as qualified as he is (he really should be on the top of that ticket), is a big FU to the Sandernistas.
Tim Kaine Calls To Deregulate Banks As He Campaigns To Be Clinton’s VP

This is fucked up (did I say that?). I watched the two of them together and Kaine comes across as a complete lapdog for Hillary. If they think this is supposed to win white male voters I need to convert to some other race. Warren is a fighter who can stand up to Trump's BS. But Kaine seems like he stepped out of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory. And now this about Kaine actively moving to deregulate banks!? And when they show the flyover of the convention center it has "WELLS FARGO" blazen across it???!!! I give up! I'm voting for the Green Party candidates even if it means Trump becomes POTUS. Even if he selects the entire next SCOTUS and the House and Senate go Republican. Picking Warren would have guaranteed delivery of Sanders supporters. It would have demonstrated the Hillary was actually considering Sanders' concerns. A huge turnout could have possibly won both houses of Congress. But I think this choice just lost her the election. I can't see actually voting for Trump, but I insist on casting my vote, so I'll deliberately "waste" it on a third party. I'm 63 and a lifelong Democrat but I'm through being treated like a child who the party needs to protect from the big bad Republicans. It doesn't work anymore. The party needs to be taught a lesson. Maybe this country needs the shock of a Trump presidency to finally learn where its interests lay.

Oh yeah, and tell the media the Wasserman-Shultz resignation is too-little-too-late to be considered a concession to Bernie. I can only hope its not too late for a floor fight to get Warren onto the ticket.

 

[Tristan Scott]

I'm 63 and a lifelong Democrat but I'm through being treated like a child.

Then quit acting like one. You would think that by now you would have figured out that not everyone agrees with every single position that you have. Bernie Sanders understands this. He understands that while he disagrees with some things Hillary Clinton believes in, that they agree on most things. Many programs that Bernie wanted have been embraced. Now you are going to blow the whole thing over a VP pick? Seriously? A fucking VP pick?

Thats the stupidest post Ive seen in a long time.

 

[Treedbear]

I'm 63 and a lifelong Democrat but I'm through being treated like a child.

Then quit acting like one. You would think that by now you would have figured out that not everyone agrees with every single position that you have. Bernie Sanders understands this. He understands that while he disagrees with some things Hillary Clinton believes in, that they agree on most things. Many programs that Bernie wanted have been embraced. ...

Picking Kaine destroyed any hope I had that she's at all sincere about her recent "move to the left". I figured she'd move quickly to consolidate Wall Street power after she was elected anyway. But this preemptive action astounds me. I imagine Bernie understands this since he's still talking about Warren as the preferred choice. The issues in the platform that he agrees with don't amount to a hill of beans. It's only rhetoric. (IIRC it was you who pointed this out about the platform several weeks ago.)

But he says his major concern is now Trump. I agreed up till today. I begrudgingly accepted the way Kaine followed Clinton's lead in feigning reservations about the TPP. But accepting his ongoing efforts to deregulate banks is just too much to ask. These are supposed to be my people but I feel like I'm being betrayed and played for a fool.

... Now you are going to blow the whole thing over a VP pick? ...

I think you give me too much power. My influence is minimal. But if more people were willing to make an issue of the obvious facts the party wouldn't pull this shit. Until we decide to make a stand we'll continue to be disappointed.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Picking Kaine destroyed any hope I had that she's at all sincere about her recent "move to the left". I figured she'd move quickly to consolidate Wall Street power after she was elected anyway..

What the hell does that even mean?

 

[Treedbear]

Picking Kaine destroyed any hope I had that she's at all sincere about her recent "move to the left". I figured she'd move quickly to consolidate Wall Street power after she was elected anyway..

What the hell does that even mean?

What do you think? Install as many people from the financial industry as possible.

 

[Tristan Scott]

What the hell does that even mean?

What do you think? Install as many people from the financial industry as possible.

There is no evidence that she will do that, none whatsoever. If she picks some who have reformed their segment of the economy in a way that benefits our economy for all Americans she should pick them, but I see no evidence that she is going to stack her cabinet from the "financial industry".

 

[Treedbear]

What do you think? Install as many people from the financial industry as possible.

... If she picks some who have reformed their segment of the economy in a way that benefits our economy for all Americans she should pick them, ...

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

 

[laughing dog]

Picking Kaine destroyed any hope I had that she's at all sincere about her recent "move to the left".

Moving to the left cannot really help Clinton - the winning votes are in the center among the independents.

 

[bilby]

Picking Kaine destroyed any hope I had that she's at all sincere about her recent "move to the left".

Moving to the left cannot really help Clinton - the winning votes are in the center among the independents.

I think there should be a huge pool of non-voters who could be persuaded to start voting in America, if only the choice wasn't between right-wing and loony extreme right-wing.

Of course, I don't live in the USA, so I can't really be sure; maybe your nation has actually succeeded in eliminating the left wing completely. But the Bernie phenomenon suggests perhaps not - in a nation where a 35-40% turnout is considered 'good', there are plenty of places to hide a silent cohort of people who would be lefties if they had a centre-left option. The Greens are a touch too far left; I think a leftward move by the Democratic Party could yield a surprisingly large number of 'new' voters over time. It wouldn't happen overnight though - it could take a decade or two of leftward policy drift to see a noticeable impact. And that's FAR too long for most political strategists. It's certainly too long for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps if Chelsea makes a run in 2036?

 

[Tristan Scott]

... If she picks some who have reformed their segment of the economy in a way that benefits our economy for all Americans she should pick them, ...

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain. I don't believe that is the case.

FYI Clinton is a supporter, and has for quite some time been a supporter of Dodd Frank. Here's an interesting piece showing a contrast between Clinton and Sanders on this subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi_psyky4_OAhUBEWMKHccHAgAQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2016%2F04%2F12%2Fhillary_clinton_explains_wall_street_regulation_to_the_daily_news.html&usg=AFQjCNE47CLpERoLIEVOMRuVHpUe7h3mnA&sig2=7mC_rlXZxkdUaaw-p4Zuzg

 

[Treedbear]

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain.

I don't know where you got that.

I don't believe that is the case.

FYI Clinton is a supporter, and has for quite some time been a supporter of Dodd Frank. Here's an interesting piece showing a contrast between Clinton and Sanders on this subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi_psyky4_OAhUBEWMKHccHAgAQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2016%2F04%2F12%2Fhillary_clinton_explains_wall_street_regulation_to_the_daily_news.html&usg=AFQjCNE47CLpERoLIEVOMRuVHpUe7h3mnA&sig2=7mC_rlXZxkdUaaw-p4Zuzg

I do believe that Dodd-Frank was the product of financial industry lobbyists and little else. Good article there (my bolding):

In her Daily News interview, Clinton says she would pick regulators capable of making the "hard calls" on whether banks need to be broken up under Dodd-Frank's rules but doesn't make any hard promises. Sanders says he'll find a way to cut the big banks down to size within his first year as president (and yes, in that sense, he's actually vowing to be less dependent on the judgment of his political appointees). Clinton is promising thoughtfulness, Sanders is promising dramatic action. Whether or not he has a clear sense of how to deliver it, nobody doubts that he'll try.

I believe some banks are just too big under any regulations. Wall Street threatened to cut off their campaign contributions if Hillary chose Warren as VP! Said they wouldn't be able to trust her any longer. Elizabeth Warren is extremely well versed in financial industry excesses and I would have welcomed an HC/EW ticket enthusiastically. Mainly because there would be someone in the White House I trusted to speak the truth, but also as a sign that Clinton was willing to earn the support of Sanders' people. Instead she gives us Keane?? This isn't just something we have a little difference on.

 

[Tristan Scott]

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain.

I don't know where you got that.

Yeah, look-do what you want, but if you truly wanted the things Bernie wanted it makes no sense voting for Trump-Trump has stated he is against the minimum wage, he has also stated that he would not support free college.

If he gets elected its a good chance the republicans would remain in control of congress so you can kiss getting any kind of tariffs on trade, and you would also kiss goodbye any chance for campaign finance reform since thats a court issue and he has already said he would put conservative judges on the court. He has also stated he will cut taxes which will add to the deficit. IOW no infrastructure improvements.

But yeah knock yourself out-vote Trump.

 

[J842P]

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain. I don't believe that is the case.

FYI Clinton is a supporter, and has for quite some time been a supporter of Dodd Frank. Here's an interesting piece showing a contrast between Clinton and Sanders on this subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi_psyky4_OAhUBEWMKHccHAgAQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2016%2F04%2F12%2Fhillary_clinton_explains_wall_street_regulation_to_the_daily_news.html&usg=AFQjCNE47CLpERoLIEVOMRuVHpUe7h3mnA&sig2=7mC_rlXZxkdUaaw-p4Zuzg

It is exactly that contrast mentioned in the article that made me support Sanders over Clinton. Well, I would have never supported Clinton or any other DLC Democrat. Quite frankly, it is not the not the job of the President to know the details of how exactly these sorts of things would be accomplished. And no one has doubted Hillary's wonk-cred. What I doubt is her desire and intention to do anything other than serve as a Republican light in that regard - i.e. continue being a DLC Dem as has always (except when challenged by Sanders from the left) been her stance. Dodd Frank is not enough. A complete regulatory overhaul of the financial industry is necessary. Most of the securities that were being sold should never have been legal in the first place. They serve no other purpose other than to create insane bubbles. And the people in finance know this, and they will continue to sit back and make billions buying and selling these securities because they know when the house-of-cards comes crashing down the government will bail them out. On their terms.

 

[barbos]

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain. I don't believe that is the case.

FYI Clinton is a supporter, and has for quite some time been a supporter of Dodd Frank. Here's an interesting piece showing a contrast between Clinton and Sanders on this subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi_psyky4_OAhUBEWMKHccHAgAQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2016%2F04%2F12%2Fhillary_clinton_explains_wall_street_regulation_to_the_daily_news.html&usg=AFQjCNE47CLpERoLIEVOMRuVHpUe7h3mnA&sig2=7mC_rlXZxkdUaaw-p4Zuzg

It is exactly that contrast mentioned in the article that made me support Sanders over Clinton. Well, I would have never supported Clinton or any other DLC Democrat. Quite frankly, it is not the not the job of the President to know the details of how exactly these sorts of things would be accomplished. And no one has doubted Hillary's wonk-cred. What I doubt is her desire and intention to do anything other than serve as a Republican light in that regard - i.e. continue being a DLC Dem as has always (except when challenged by Sanders from the left) been her stance. Dodd Frank is not enough. A complete regulatory overhaul of the financial industry is necessary. Most of the securities that were being sold should never have been legal in the first place. They serve no other purpose other than to create insane bubbles. And the people in finance know this, and they will continue to sit back and make billions buying and selling these securities because they know when the house-of-cards comes crashing down the government will bail them out. On their terms.

J842P for President!

 

[Harry Bosch]

As you said:

What the hell does that even mean?

It means that you are evidently operating under the assumption that everyone in the financial industry is a villain. I don't believe that is the case.

FYI Clinton is a supporter, and has for quite some time been a supporter of Dodd Frank. Here's an interesting piece showing a contrast between Clinton and Sanders on this subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi_psyky4_OAhUBEWMKHccHAgAQFgg3MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fmoneybox%2F2016%2F04%2F12%2Fhillary_clinton_explains_wall_street_regulation_to_the_daily_news.html&usg=AFQjCNE47CLpERoLIEVOMRuVHpUe7h3mnA&sig2=7mC_rlXZxkdUaaw-p4Zuzg

It is exactly that contrast mentioned in the article that made me support Sanders over Clinton. Well, I would have never supported Clinton or any other DLC Democrat. Quite frankly, it is not the not the job of the President to know the details of how exactly these sorts of things would be accomplished. And no one has doubted Hillary's wonk-cred. What I doubt is her desire and intention to do anything other than serve as a Republican light in that regard - i.e. continue being a DLC Dem as has always (except when challenged by Sanders from the left) been her stance. Dodd Frank is not enough. A complete regulatory overhaul of the financial industry is necessary. Most of the securities that were being sold should never have been legal in the first place. They serve no other purpose other than to create insane bubbles. And the people in finance know this, and they will continue to sit back and make billions buying and selling these securities because they know when the house-of-cards comes crashing down the government will bail them out. On their terms.

Trump was to eliminate Dodd Frank and other such banking regulations.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Trump was to eliminate Dodd Frank and other such banking regulations.

Yes, and it's doubtful he would sign any reincarnation of Glass-Steagall.

 

[arkirk]

Trump was to eliminate Dodd Frank and other such banking regulations.

Yes, and it's doubtful he would sign any reincarnation of Glass-Steagall.

I'm not expecting President Trump to be any more dynamic at maintaining the status quo than Clinton. They both seem, not unlike Al Gore, given to compulsive lying. Bernie should realize that whatever you negotiate with a compulsive liar will in the end only amount to being betrayed. This is especially obvious in the light of the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. Clinton is slightly slicker than Trump and knows where the checks are written. Big fucking deal. None of her agenda is designed to help the common man. I was just informed that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform contained language to get the money out of politics. That is just another minor bobble of the Obama administration...another failure..along with his regression to mafia style assassinations around the globe by drones. So the Sanders contribution to the Platform means not a single thing as long as we have a couple of Neoliberals in the top two offices who can and HAVE conveniently forgotten platforms of the past.

 

[Tristan Scott]

Yes, and it's doubtful he would sign any reincarnation of Glass-Steagall.

I was just informed that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform contained language to get the money out of politics. That is just another minor bobble of the Obama administration...

Really, and how did you expect the democrats were going to do that without congress and with a court that had already ruled that doing so was un-contitutional? I mean it's obvious that you are completely clueless as to how our government works-but that's the beauty of it isn't it?

It's a great country, isn't it? You can sit back and piss and moan about how incredibly unfair everything is while others, like Bernie Sanders can struggle and bust their 74 year old ass to try to make changes.

 

[arkirk]

I was just informed that the 2012 Democratic Party Platform contained language to get the money out of politics. That is just another minor bobble of the Obama administration...

Really, and how did you expect the democrats were going to do that without congress and with a court that had already ruled that doing so was un-contitutional? I mean it's obvious that you are completely clueless as to how our government works-but that's the beauty of it isn't it?

It's a great country, isn't it? You can sit back and piss and moan about how incredibly unfair everything is while others, like Bernie Sanders can struggle and bust their 74 year old ass to try to make changes.

Tristan, you really like to make remarks that hurt peoples' feelings. Your avatar is some smart alekey guy with a cigarette holder...I am assuming that to be Roosevelt like. You really don't know what you are talking about or to whom you are speaking. I am within a year of age with Bernie Sanders and I know about seventy something asses and how they feel when they work on campaigns. The truth is, Sanders always was under the wing of the Democratic Party. I have watched these people squirm and cheat and do all sorts of harm to our country and our countrymen (and women). I will not be voting for the Goldwater girl. You seem very afraid of Trump yet you brag about how good America is. America's next president could be Trump. Then would it still be wonderful?