~ The Clinton Victory Thread ~

[Monk Of Reason]

Who are the "owners"?
How do they force the prez to do their bidding?
Given that voters love presidents who continue wars, why reject the
simple explanation that presidents do this to gain power for themselves?

The hodgepodge of the financial elites in the world that make it go round. Mainly their campaign donners in terms of presidents. She has a lot of friends that helped her get there and they expect something in return. She will deliver.

 

[averageJOE]

Staying home and voting third party are all in the category:
"Whoever wins".

By "staying home " I wasn't referring to voting day only.
Are you going to invest in changing the political landscape between now and the election in 2018?
Or are you going to stay home and hope that someone else does it for you?
Tom

I really have no idea what your talking about.

I know you have know idea who I am. I'm just an anonymous poster to you, and you have no reason to believe me. But I've done as much politically as the Army and my federal job will allow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bush II's dad, Cheney, Kenneth Lay, the list is pretty long.
Tom

How do you know they control presidents?

 

[Revoltingest]

The hodgepodge of the financial elites in the world that make it go round. Mainly their campaign donners in terms of presidents. She has a lot of friends that helped her get there and they expect something in return. She will deliver.

This is influence, but not ownership.
Certainly, the Wall St types don't benefit from the massive overall economic damper caused by the wars.
Why reject the evidenced fact that presidents who start & continue wars get re-elected, even if they
campaign on ending them, eg, Obama?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is influence, but not ownership.
Certainly, the Wall St types don't benefit from the massive overall economic damper caused by the wars.
Why reject the evidenced fact that presidents who start & continue wars get re-elected, even if they
campaign on ending them, eg, Obama?

Influence and ownership is a blurred line. They didn't become president to push their own agenda through. At least their own agenda isn't what they fought for. I see evidence of Obama attempting to get stuff done between the cracks. Congress is as good as owned. They say jump and they say how high. Everything to do with our election process is about fundraising. Fundraising is the number 1 thing any of our elected officials in congress do.

 

[Sapiens]

Hillary is not entitled to my vote, or anybodies. The burden is on her to earn it. If Trump wins the White House the fault will be her's.

Seconded. I am not anyone's default vote.

As Edmund Burke said, " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Got it. The "Vote for Hillary because shes winning and because shes not Trump" reason.

No, vote for Hillary because she so superior to Trump and Trump would be a disaster. Don't forget how Ralph Nader gave us George the Second by carving off just a sliver of the Florida vote.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As Edmund Burke said, " All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

I say that to Hillary supporters who only vote for her because of Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

Influence and ownership is a blurred line. They didn't become president to push their own agenda through. At least their own agenda isn't what they fought for. I see evidence of Obama attempting to get stuff done between the cracks. Congress is as good as owned. They say jump and they say how high. Everything to do with our election process is about fundraising. Fundraising is the number 1 thing any of our elected officials in congress do.

If a prez is owned because of the money needed to win elections,
then this power would disappear in the 2nd term. But we see no
change in policy for Bush Or Obama.
Considering how many companies make donations but aren't in
the much reviled military industrial complex, vs those who are in
it, where is the impetus for perpetual war?

 

[columbus]

How do you know they control presidents?

Because they got what they wanted.
High gas prices and USA armies on both Iran's eastern and western borders.

Oh, and a much more intrusive and controlling federal government.
Tom

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If a prez is owned because of the money needed to win elections,
then this power would disappear in the 2nd term. But we see no
change in policy for Bush Or Obama.
Considering how many companies make donations but aren't in
the much reviled military industrial complex, vs those who are in
it, where is the impetus for perpetual war?

Because their profits after office are tied to what they do in office. In some cases this isn't true but for the case of Hillary it is extra true. Though I will grant that the ownership quality affects the congress more than the presidency.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because they got what they wanted.
High gas prices and USA armies on both Iran's eastern and western borders.

Gas prices are at historic lows.
This defeats your proof.
But even so, correlation between the result you claim & the unverifiable motive is still not necessarily causation.
Having our military at Iran's borders would most likely be either the desire of Hillary, who has threatened them
repeatedly, & the powerful Israeli lobby & their handmaiden, the fundie Xian lobby.

Oh, and a much more intrusive and controlling federal government.
Tom

This is something people vote for, both Democrats & Republicans.
Only 3rd parties oppose this, & they never get many votes.

The simplest explanation for what politicians do is that it's what voters like.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because their profits after office are tied to what they do in office. In some cases this isn't true but for the case of Hillary it is extra true.

Evidence?
I'm looking for major agendas, eg, starting & continuing wars...not little corruptions like Bill's selling of pardons.

Though I will grant that the ownership quality affects the congress more than the presidency.

This must be the most thorough & competently run conspiracy of the age,
even besting the fake moon landing. So many Congressmen to be
in the pockets of companies, & yet the FBI has no hard evidence.
I certainly expect corruption like favorable legislation here & there,
but you're talking of control rising to the level of ownership, ie, the
company gives the order, & the president starts a war.
This is tin foil hat territory.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What about Trump's statements about using carpet bombing and nukes against ISIS, including other "secret plans" to destroy them?

BTW, Trump supported an invasion of Iraq in 2002 but changed his mind in 2003 because he felt it would be too costly.

I have honestly given him consideration, but I just can't believe that he is sane. All indications are that he is very eccentric. If he's willing to say crazy things, then he is probably willing to do them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have honestly given him consideration, but I just can't believe that he is sane. All indications are that he is very eccentric. If he's willing to say crazy things, then he is probably willing to do them.

A difference is that while one can say Trump probably will do crazy things,
we have an official record of Hillary actually doing the crazy things she advocates.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Evidence?
I'm looking for major agendas, eg, starting & continuing wars...not little corruptions like Bill's selling of pardons.

This must be the most thorough & competently run conspiracy of the age,
even besting the fake moon landing. So many Congressmen to be
in the pockets of companies, & yet the FBI has no hard evidence.
I certainly expect corruption like favorable legislation here & there,
but you're talking of control rising to the level of ownership, ie, the
company gives the order, & the president starts a war.
This is tin foil hat territory.

Come on rev. I tend to have more respect for your intelegence than this. You are telling me right now the reason we are in the middle east propagating an endless war on terror while american companies of weapons, oil and countless other industries are raking in massive amounts of cash that they then in turn put into lobbying doesn't at all affect the politicians?

What about the fact that pharmaceutical companies companies spent more than 230 million dollars on lobbying last year (and it was an average year) while we continue to pay the highest costs for drugs than any other country by far doesn't strike you as strange? what about the fact that we passed a bill saying that Medicare cannot haggle drug companies on prices?

What about private prisons that spend about 45 million on lobbying and yet receive about 5.1 billion dollars a year in for profit prisons. Do you think that our tough on crime bills, extended sentences for minor offenses and minimal sentences aren't affected? The fact that we house more prisoners than any other nation in the world? That our system is one of the most corrupt and least effective in the world as if it was made to cut costs and maximize profits?

what about 88 million spent in lobbying by Comcast and other internet/television providers to set up low tax and non-competitive zones?

You can't sit there and tell me that hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown at a few hundred people every year by the most powerful economic leaders in the world and say they aren't affected.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A difference is that while one can say Trump probably will do crazy things,
we have an official record of Hillary actually doing the crazy things she advocates.

Has she ever asked why we shouldn't go ahead and use our nukes on Isis? Get back to me.

 

[columbus]

Gas prices are at historic lows.
This defeats your proof.

I am not talking about now.
Check out gas prices a week before the election in 2004 and the first of the following year.

I won a bet with a local rich Republican conservative Bush supporter (yes, I actually talk to people like that) .
In October, I bet him $5 that gas would hit $3/gal by the first of the year. That was around a 50% increase in a couple of months. I said "Bush's oil buddies are throwing the election" He insisted that it was free market forces.
I won the bet. After seeing him every couple of days or so, I didn't see him for around 2 weeks in January. Then, when I started doing my gloating dance, and holding out my hand, he pointed out that gas had dropped a couple of pennies. He bought some gas for his 1967 Jaguar Etype for $2.98 just a day or so ago.
I told him I didn't want his money, I preferred to gloat insufferably and I have.

Looking forward to this November. ..
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Come on rev. I tend to have more respect for your intelegence than this.

There's your first mistake.

But is this question of intelligence masking your argument from obviousness,
ie, that anyone as smart as you would see THE TRUTH? This doesn't work
for me when providing only a highly subjective speculative argument.

You are telling me right now the reason we are in the middle east propagating an endless war on terror while american companies of weapons, oil and countless other industries are raking in massive amounts of cash that they then in turn put into lobbying doesn't at all affect the politicians?

Having worked for military contractors, we made weapons at a similar pace in peacetime.
Preparing for a war not happening is quite lucrative.
But you're offering no evidence, such as....
- Comparing companies' profit before & during wars
- Comparing contributions from these alleged "owners" (the beneficiaries of war) of politicians with other companies to examine relative power.

Bush was re-elected for the wars he started.
Obama was re-elected for the wars he continued, despite his promise to end them.
Why reject the voter willingness to wage war as a presidential motivation?

What about the fact that pharmaceutical companies companies spent more than 230 million dollars on lobbying last year (and it was an average year) while we continue to pay the highest costs for drugs than any other country by far doesn't strike you as strange? what about the fact that we passed a bill saying that Medicare cannot haggle drug companies on prices?

This is a good question.
But I'd like to focus first on your claim that companies are behind the wars.

What about private prisons that spend about 45 million on lobbying and yet receive about 5.1 billion dollars a year in for profit prisons. Do you think that our tough on crime bills, extended sentences for minor offenses and minimal sentences aren't affected? The fact that we house more prisoners than any other nation in the world? That our system is one of the most corrupt and least effective in the world as if it was made to cut costs and maximize profits?

Getting tough on crime is something the voters pushed, & the politicians listened.
Bill Clinton is the biggest offender here.
How did he benefit from for profit prisons?
If the Clintons are behind this, why vote for them?

what about 88 million spent in lobbying by Comcast and other internet/television providers to set up low tax and non-competitive zones?
You can't sit there and tell me that hundreds of billions of dollars are thrown at a few hundred people every year by the most powerful economic leaders in the world and say they aren't affected.

As I said, there is influence.
I don't dispute this.
What I take issue with is the claim of ownership.
This case has not been made.
By & large, the voters see what's going on, & they vote for candidates who do what they're already doing.
It's no coincidence that parties like the Libertarians, who want victimless 'crimes' legalized fare poorly.
The Big Two give us war term after term, & the voters affirm this.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not talking about now.
Check out gas prices a week before the election in 2004 and the first of the following year.

I won a bet with a local rich Republican conservative Bush supporter (yes, I actually talk to people like that) .
In October, I bet him $5 that gas would hit $3/gal by the first of the year. That was around a 50% increase in a couple of months. I said "Bush's oil buddies are throwing the election" He insisted that it was free market forces.
I won the bet. After seeing him every couple of days or so, I didn't see him for around 2 weeks in January. Then, when I started doing my gloating dance, and holding out my hand, he pointed out that gas had dropped a couple of pennies. He bought some gas for his 1967 Jaguar Etype for $2.98 just a day or so ago.
I told him I didn't want his money, I preferred to gloat insufferably and I have.

Looking forward to this November. ..
Tom

Gas prices fluctuate.
If the conspiracy you claim exists had such control, we wouldn't be looking at extraordinarily cheap fuel prices lasting years.
I pay around $2/gallon, & have paid even less than that.
Revolt's mama dint raise her laddy to do something as dumb as buy a jalopy what needs premium.

Anyway, you're making a strong argument to vote for Trump.
He's already rich, & he gets free campaign spots just for being entertaining.
He's the most financially independent candidate in this race.
Hillary is very dependent upon Wall St.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has she ever asked why we shouldn't go ahead and use our nukes on Isis? Get back to me.

I'd think she wouldn't ask because the question is ludicrous.
Nuclear weapons are best avoided, even at great cost.