Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Did they succeed? I say yes, you seem to think no.
Besides I call anyone that received the most Wall Street money during a campaign as Wall Street's candidate. I've said the same things about Hillary and Mitt.
I'm mostly arguing in the macrosense. It's systemic corruption.
Anyways I put some evidence down here.
Because they want him to be President. When someone says "wall Street gives him money" what they really mean is "people who work in Wall Street donated to him." Big high level execs, receptionists and janitors get lumped under that. But why do they donate? They want him to be President, maybe? They thought he could fix things better than his opponent? They think he's a foregone conclusion and want to ingratiate themselves? There's a lot of reasons, but none of it changes Obama wasn't exactly their darling. They hated the regulations and chafed at the CFPB.
In addition, Wall Street tends to appreciate stable markets. This can be easier when Trump and Obama and not a short-tempered 'maverick' with Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the Presidency.
As far as I'm concerned, nothing reflects Obama 'selling out' to Wallstreet. What matters is what others do to justify the donations at the end. And Obama did pick people high up in the finance industry...because a lot of them understood how those issues work. Tim Geithner isn't the most likable guy, but he was a good Treasury Secretary and understood exactly how to run his department.
We were looking at a second Great Depression. What Taibbi leaves out is the TARP money came with conditions and a great deal of it was recovered. I like Taibbi, but he has severe biases.
> Wall Street's agenda for funding Obama
There you go with lumping it into a monolithic entity again.
Business does not have a single interest. It has a lot of different interests and a lot of them compete with each other's.
I'm not denying a lot of Wall Street-aligned interests donated but the rhetoric is terrible. Business interests come in as many partisan shades as people do.
People defending Obama: That's because your camp decided that the best way of rebounding from inadvertently declaring that women's reproductive rights are a non-issue is this. Refunds not accepted.
EDIT: And are corporate interests mutually exclusive with those of the Great White Man common man by their very nature?
edited 26th Apr '17 6:50:15 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotDoesn't seem like the Supreme Court is going to be a Trump asset either. Good.
![]()
If that is indeed the bone reinforcement he claims it is... what do you have to do in order to get those to become an infection risk years after they are inserted?
Ivanka Trump wants to start a foundation to benefit female entrepreneurs of the world
. While still in the White House.
In true Trump fashion, details are vague.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotI'm conflicted. I'd vote for him if he was in my district but Pelosi makes my state's voice more important. You're not going to see a Republican win Pelosi's seat so I'm fine with it. Not sure who I'd want to win. California has enough Berniecrats where one more won't make too much of a difference.
Because it's easier to say Wall Street than naming every individual bank and firm that donated to Obama like Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and the rest.
Business does have the same primary interest. Survive, thrive and make money.
edited 26th Apr '17 7:03:12 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
It is important to call out because "Wall Street" is a common and convenient rhetorical boogieman on par with "think of the children!" and could conceivably cover every publicly traded company that does business in the US. I would be satisfied with "multiple Wall Street investment banking companies" or a similar construct phrase.
And yes, profit motive, but how they go after it and how well they deal with "externialities" (the effect on non-shareholder stakeholders) varies from company to company.
edited 26th Apr '17 7:08:36 PM by Elle
Suspended Alabama Chief Justice, Roy Moore, announces his bid for the Senate.
Knowing this State, he has a good chance of winning...
Suspended for alleged defiance of the Supreme Court? Looks like he might just have an ace in the hole.
Wall Street ranting: I wonder what would happen if you subbed the name of some other group for "Wall Street". Should be fun for the whole family.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotTrump is not a conservative beyond what he will pay lip service to to gain support. It is folly to attach any named ideology to him beyond narcicisim. He says either a: whatever he thinks his current audience wants to hear or b: whatever the last person with influence over him told him.
And yeah, Kreiger, knock it off with the misplaced insinuation.
Maybe so but there are thumped posts from earlier this evening that suggest otherwise.
edited 26th Apr '17 7:22:34 PM by Elle
Good. I hope someone brings him to court over it.
![]()
![]()
I am aware that these are near verbatim quotes of what Sanders has actually said. And what I said is what has been said in other places about Sanders' speechwriting choices.
![]()
I was thinking Love Live fans. Don't want to go off the deep end too quickly.
The brief, filed last week, calls for the court to "prevent harms of the kind committed against the Mormon community in the past."

And a Sanders fanboy is trying to primary Pelosi
. Because that's what we need.