With the Trump sexual scandal fiasco stealing all of the media attention (naturally) and the Republicans abandoning him now, even though numerous other scandals were readily accepted by them, Wall Street is popping the champagne corks now that Hilary seems set to obtain a large win. No need to wonder whether Trump takes the US on some wild adventure, even if he was going to reward Wall Street and the entire elite, when cautious Hilary's Wall Street speeches show she is willing to deliver big time.
The fact that Hilary has not denied any of the excerpts from her speeches speaks volumes.
New emails released by the whistle-blowing journalism organization WikiLeaks provide insight into the cozy relationship Hillary Clinton has had with Wall Street.
One message in particular, from the Clinton campaign’s research director Tony Carrk, contains excerpts from paid speeches Clinton gave to large banks and other financial institutions.
The speeches, for which Clinton was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars each, reflect her neoliberal, pro-corporate ideology. In them, Clinton stresses the importance of free markets and the financial sector for the economy. ...
In a February 2014 speech to the bank Goldman Sachs and financial management company BlackRock, Clinton admitted, “I’m kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class, “because the life I’ve lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy.”
Clinton also said, “I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged,” but she stressed, “I am not taking a position on any policy.” ...
In an Oct. 29 2013 speech at a Goldman Sachs summit, Clinton claimed “there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.” She lamented that rich politicians are forced to divest their assets, sell stocks and be stripped of other positions. “It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary,” she maintained. ...
Clinton argued it is “an oversimplification” to say the U.S. banking system caused the 2008 economic collapse, and that blaming banks is “politicizing” the issue. “I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened,” she insisted. In the same speech, Clinton also said, “There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad.” ...,
Clinton told Wall Street, “I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it,” she added. She blamed the “devastating” crash of 2008 on “bad decisions.” ...
When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance.” Clinton noted that she “did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper” ...
Clinton stressed the importance of “a free market economy” and complimented the audience, telling them, “It’s important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to.” She added, “We all rely on the market’s transparency and integrity.” ...
Clinton maintained that politicians “need both a public and a private position.” ... “Politics is like sausage being made,” Clinton added. “It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be.” ...
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she said.
In the same speech, Clinton emphasized, “we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade,” and clarified that “it’s not for governments to do. We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.” ... “I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” ...
Clinton noted, “Running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it.” She described New York, the U.S.’s “economic center,” as “the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle.” ...
The Clinton campaign did not confirm the authenticity of the emails, but also did not deny it.
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/08/in-paid-speeches-hillary-clinton-said-sh...
Too bad these speeches weren't released when Bernie was running.
Needed Now: A Peace Movement Against the Clinton Wars to Come
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/07/needed-now-a-peace-movement-again...
"What a vote for Clinton really is is a vote for war."
"A Peace Movement" .................. just recently read a piece by Max Blumenthal/Alternet on the PR firm 'Syria Campaign'...promoting No fly zones and inevitable nuclear confrontation.........
It's modus operendi speaks volumes on the capitulation of peace type organizations to big money...as soon as an organization is centralized with management and bureaucracy...guaranteed that the need for money will come before the pursuit of its initial objectives.....
the conclusion here is that such a movement to be born must be holistic......vs. centralization and bureucracy, corporate support, that sees in the desperate need for Peace, a movement that encompasses the social, the cultural, the economic, the financials
Big Money must be very relieved that they won't have to bankroll Trump's plans for true wealth redistribution.
Heh heh. Yeah, remember way back in the primaries, Trump was asked about the status of Jerusalem, and replied that he had to remain neutral on that, because as POTUS it's something he'd need to negotiate? Then, a few weeks(and likely many panicked meetings) later, he shows up at some pro-Israel conference and says that he wants to move the US embassy to Jerusalem?
Or when he was originally blustering about how he was gonna pull out of NATO if the other countries didn't pony up more cash, and then reversed himself by saying that, oh, I hear they started a committee on terrorism(or something), that's good, very good, so maybe we won't need to withdraw.
You can pretty much expect the same thing on economics if Trump wins the presidency. My guess would be, he slaps a tariff on something or other, and brags about how this constitutes "tearing up NAFTA", or "really showing the Chinese who's boss", and his fan base swallows it hook, line etc because they really weren't paying much attention to begin with
And I think the more signifcant thing with HRC's Wall Street speeaches is who IS paying attention. That would be Sanders supporters and other left-wingers. I think those leaks were aimed not at pulling votes toward Trump, but at pulling votes away from Clinton and toward the Greens, or maybe just the stay-at-home option.
A Government is Seizing Control of Our Election Process, And It is Not the Russians
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/39595-focus-a-government-...
"There is an attempt underway for a government to take control of our election process and throw the election to Hillary Clinton. It is not the Russian government.
Mark this day. It is when we came to understand that the American government decided to elect a president."
Clearly Trump is going to lose. It's now a question of whether the Democrats win both houses as well. If that occurs, they'd have no excuse for not moving forward on reforms like gun control.
While Trump landed some verbal punches during last night's debate, the visuals of him hovering behind Hilary with a scowling look disturbed many watchers, especially women who already were upset with his lewd videotaped comments. The video of Trump walking up right behind her at the site below is creepy.
http://www.thefader.com/2016/10/09/twitter-donald-trump-lurking-hillary-...
The Republicans now face a dilemma with the Frankenstein monster, which they have created over the decades with their racist and misogynist dog whistles, chasing them across the ice flows.
This is clear from the "furious Trump supporters" disruption of Paul Ryan's speech on Saturday after he disinvited Trump to the Wisconsin rally.
The fact that Trump did better at last night's debate has made the problem worse for the Republicans. Trump's loyal supporters will stick by him after he failed to melt down and attack 'mainstream Republicans' if they don't support him, but will lose many independents and moderate Republicans, especially women repulsed by his misogyny and racism. No matter which side they come down on, they lose.
All of this has occurred in a year when Hilary has made herself so beatable.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3828811/Trump-supporters-PROTEST...
Trump's dissing of running mate Mike Pence at the debate further highlights the growing problems between the neocons and the Russnik Trump.
http://people.com/politics/payback-donald-trump-disses-running-mate-mike...
The special interests and Wall Street must be happy with their expected return on the $120 million dollars they have invested in Hilary and with the media's obsessive focus on Trump's sexual proclivities. No doubt they feel Hilary will be much better at managing the plebs than an always in-your-face, overtly misogynistic, racist and narcissistic Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-speeches-w...
An October 8-9 NBC/WSJ poll conducted after Trump's sex tape was released but before the debate found Clinton with 46% support to Trump's 35% - a 11% gap and increase of 5% from the last poll by NBC/WSJ. The sex scandal is hitting Trump hard. The die looks more and more cast.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-support-falls-in-wake-of-lewd-...
In an effort to save the House for Republicans and his Speakership, Paul Ryan has told House Republicans on a conference call that he will not defend or campaign with Trump. In other words he is giving up on winning the Presidency. However, CNN is reporting that during the conference call he got lots of pushback from Trump House candidates who see this as making the situation worse. The Republicans look increasingly split in two or even more parts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/10/10/paul-ryan-wo...
Former Ted Cruz Communications Director Rick Tyler said on MSNBC today that Trump's real agenda is even more clear now - not to win the election but to use it start a Trump-controlled Breitbart Media after the election (something already suggested before) with Steve Bannnon, as they must know that the Trump attacks, especially the put-Hilary-in-jail comments, during the debate won't increase voter support but will fuel Breitbart Media attacks during the four years of a Clinton presidency.
Unable to resist any perceived slight, Trump is now attacking Paul Ryan in his usual manner - a Tweet - thereby opening the Republican wounds wider.
http://therightscoop.com/trump-tweets-attack-response-paul-ryan-refusing...
To whatever degree Big Business is rooting for Clinton, I suspect it has less to do with her actual economic policies, or tax initiatives, and more to do with her representing some degree of stability. Trump's policies would probably have been good for them too, but he represents chaos and uncertainty and business understandably doesn't care much for that.
Earlier today MSNBC reported that with the Dow up more than 100 points and that Wall Street liked that Clinton did well in the debate.
Progressives are organizing in the US to put pressure on Hilary to fulfil her promises and meet progressive demands. Yesterday, Heather McGhee, the Black female President of Demos, "a United States based ... multi-issue national organization, Demos combines research, policy development and advocacy to influence public debate and catalyze progressive change" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demos_(U.S._think_tank) said on NBC's Meet the Press:
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-october-9-2016-n662746
Don't get me wrong. Stopping the Fascist Trump is important. Even most dictators don't talk about putting their opponent in prison until after their so-called election to power. However, I want to see more than that from Clinton and hopefuly a Democratic Congress, although winning the House is still a long shot.
Here's the thing with American elections:
1. Functionally, it's a two party system. Certainly, third and fourth and fifth parties are included too, but currently it's not reasonable to expect that any will win. A big part of that is the very system itself, but another big part is that third and fourth and fifth parties seem to want to parachute in on election years, and basically act like first-time job seekers applying for the position of CEO, or University President.
2. Voting has a genetic component. If your pappy voted Republican then you're genetically predisposed to voting Republican. Just like any other religion! How often do two Catholic parents gave birth to a Buddhist? Literally the day after any Presidential election, there will be voters whose preference in the NEXT election may as well just be counted right now... nothing will change their minds.
3. Americans seem to actually like it this way. No American will ever suggest that football would be a better game with three teams on the field. There should be a winner, and a loser. And the winner should enjoy four years of getting their wishes granted, and the loser should enjoy four years of sucking it. Which is why the stakes are so high.
I couldn't agree more with this point.
Jordan Chariton discusses in detail the failure of the media to discuss in any meaningful way the Clinton-Wall Street WikiLeaks below.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/why-hillary-clintons-wet-kiss-to-wall-str...
Trump's not necessarily done for, jerrym. Keep your fingers crossed.