Hillary is Wall Street's Girl!

"She won't break up the big banks ... she won't create tariffs on imported goods" ... etc. etc. etc.

When Hillary says she's dedicated to helping the middle class ... she's lying.



http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-could-end-up-as-wall-street-s-favored-candidate-170126436.html#

Once again, bothersideserism rules.

Bob wrote:Once again,  bothersideserism rules.

Money rules.

The reason is she is intelligent and the one size fits all in Bernie world is entirely too naive to take seriously at times. I have listened to him for over five years on Fridays talking on lunch with Bernie and I like him, but too think that tariffs helps Americans is entirely naive as to how it impacts John Deere, Cat, Boeing, and other exporters who face the reprisals. The simple answrs of Bernie do not dwell in the detail of GATT negotiations, and as a general rule.....Hillary actually gets this better than Bernie......but as an element of change Bernie has powerful ideas, but to think that Hillary does not get some of the complexity of trade issues is simply wrong. There are winners and losers in trade negotiations within America.....it is not just the 1 percent vs us, but different industries with different needs and policies are not one size fits all. Honestly, I am amazed at how simple Trump and Bernie supporters really are as they simplify these issues to the point that they become totally naive about the realities of this world.

2seaoat wrote:The reason is she is intelligent and the one size fits all in Bernie world is entirely too naive to take seriously at times.  I have listened to him for over five years on Fridays talking on lunch with Bernie and I like him, but too think that tariffs helps Americans is entirely naive as to how it impacts John Deere, Cat, Boeing, and other exporters who face the reprisals.   The simple answrs of Bernie do not dwell in the detail of GATT negotiations, and as a general rule.....Hillary actually gets this better than Bernie......but as an element of change Bernie has powerful ideas, but to think that Hillary does not get some of the complexity of trade issues is simply wrong.  There are winners and losers in trade negotiations within America.....it is not just the 1 percent vs us, but different industries with different needs and policies are not one size fits all.  Honestly, I am amazed at how simple Trump and Bernie supporters really are as they simplify these issues to the point that they become totally naive about the realities of this world.

You do know that the basis for trade with other countries is supposed to rest on comparative advantage and benefit BOTH SIDES, do you not? The companies you mentioned do fine in time of war.

Do not call me "simple". I understand these complexities as well as, or better than, you do.

I call anybody who supports Bernie's one sided trade policy simple. It is sophomoric, not well thought out, and only partially correct. I agree that trade needs to be looked at, but some of those 50k factories which closed because of trade actually helped America as a whole. This idea that NAFTA hurt America long term is incorrect, and any fool can point to economic dislocation in the short term when understanding the parameters of comparative advantage and see pain and regional loss. America has become the economic giant because of our commerce clause where attempts at protectionism of a state industry against another state industry were quashed, yet using Bernie's simple analysis, all we need to do is put a tariff on a bushel of corn from Iowa being sold in Alabama because the cost of corn is so much lower in Iowa, and the farm in Alabama is being forced to pasture because they cannot compete. I listened to the man for five years before most on this forum even knew who he was and my criticism after listening to his naive simple answers remain the same......he is right on the macro level, but I have NEVER heard him transition reality to a workable policy.....simple people get excited about Bernie....serious people appreciate his focus on a problem, but have little confidence in his proposed policies or scope of the cure.

What seems simple to me is, a vote for Bernie is a vote for Trump.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/hillary-clinton-email-server

New revelations suggest Clintonworld should worry.

BY TINA NGUYEN

While Hillary Clinton is busy trying to put the Democratic primary race behind her and pivot to the general election against presumptive G.O.P. nominee Donald Trump, the past several days have served as a stark reminder that Clinton is not yet clear of a potential scandal that still threatens to derail her campaign: the F.B.I. is nearing the completion of its investigation into her use of a private server to send classified e-mails,with the results expected be released before November.

Negative headlines about Clinton’s e-mails have seemed to be reaching critical mass in recent days. On Monday,the State Department revealed that it couldn’t find any e-mails from Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s senior I.T. staffer when she was secretary of state. Pagliano had been responsible for setting up Clinton’s private server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua,making his testimony and communications central to the F.B.I. probe into any potential wrongdoing,yet four years’worth of his e-mails had mysteriously disappeared. (A spokesperson later clarified that some number of his e-mails had been recovered from other accounts.) On Tuesday,The New York Times published an article detailing how Clinton’s State Department regularly used unclassified government networks to communicate and send classified e-mail to each other,and noted that Clinton’s private e-mail server was weakly protected compared even to these already insecure networks. The same day,The Washington Post reported that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and her lawyer had walked out of an interview with an F.B.I. investigator when she was asked questions “that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits.” And on Wednesday,F.B.I. Director James Comey forcefully pushed back against the euphemistic characterization of the probe by Clinton and her allies as a “security inquiry,” telling reporters that it is indeed an F.B.I. investigation. He declined to say whether the federal probe was “criminal.”

The sudden re-emergence of Clinton’s e-mail scandal comes at a precarious time for the presumptive Democratic nominee,who has been trying to capitalize on the recent chaos in the G.O.P. to solidify her position vis-à-vis Bernie Sanders and sway potential anti-Trump defectors to her side. The F.B.I. investigation,into whether she improperly used a private server to prevent her communications from being entered into State Department records,has legitimized her opponents’criticisms that she is untrustworthy,amplifying the impact of other,past scandals—including her husband’s—that Trump has sought to resuscitate on the campaign trail. (It certainly doesn’t help that she deleted nearly 30,000 of her e-mails before turning over paper copies of 52,000 pages of e-mails to the State Department.)

There’s also a growing fear about the timing of the F.B.I. investigation, with speculation in some corners that the results—and a possible indictment—could drop during or after the Democratic convention, causing untold damage to Clinton’s campaign. (Comey has said, however,that the investigation is not “tethered to any external deadline”.) Clinton’s on-again,off-again confidante Sid Blumenthal has suggested there’s no need to worry,telling CNN’s New Day on Wednesday that his “understanding” is that there will be no indictment,but he has been known to have faulty intelligence before.

serially desperate.