on Wall Street getting nasty and Hillary

[DonCoquixote]

this is in response to the follwing thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6424432
and the various ones that also posted on this topic.

Look, if I have to repeat the loyalty oath that I will support whoever the Democrats pick to make sure that whoever the GOP picks does not win, I will. I honestly believe that the nations jails, asylums, and skid rows are full of people that would, at the very least, avoiding doing as much damage to the nation as would a Scott Walker or Jeb Bush. That statement should be a joke, but it is NOT, it is a truth as lieral as two plus two makes four. For the past 30 years, there have been people working to eradicate the reforms of FDR. The fact common sense sems to have shown these programs work is means nothing; look at how many tra party types complain about how they do nto get enough on medicare, yet work to slit everyone else's throat.

As far as the "I vote third party/I do not vote for lesser of two evils,etc, the sad fact is, the person who will win in 2016 will be one party or the GOP. Would I love to see a left wing third party rise and take congress seats and governorships, yes, because that will actually provide a foudnation for taking the executive branch. However, in the meantime, we need to keep the GOP out of the Oval office, period. Nader will be no help, because he is backing Ron Paul this time, the man that would destory every regulatory agency and benefit program there is. Books can and will be written about why Nader chooses to bet on Paul, but that is not my point.

My point is,in the thread I mentioned, and the others that speak obn that topic, the refrain from some Hillary supporters is "She needs the money to win" usually with a remark about "Obama took wall street money too!" However, the point is this, Wall Street, as it is, is planning to do it's buisness the way it always did, which is why we have a crash every so many years. Then, when they do the same things that cause the trouble, they will be there to drink all the water from the trough, and then use it to go right back to making bonuses and bad decisions. Not everyone who thinks that Wall Street needs to stop being rewarded for bad behaviour is your enemy, especially being being a true firend to Hillary will be to say "look, you know that gift they offer is a trojan horse so that a crash will happen, and then they can blame you." We are not asking Hillary to put on a Che Guevara Beret and have Lloyd Blankenfeld stood against the wall, even though the way Lloyd stole money from people ruined many lives, if not ending them by sheer lack of food and medicine.

What we do say is that Wall Street needs to be told that it's current course of behavior is not going to work. We tried lowering regulations like Glass Steagall, and like a bunch of teenagers, you stole the credit card, got drunk, and crashed the car into someone's house. When we hear Hillary be, for whatever reasons,silent, and hear the ultra rich start making Mafiosi level threats against the same Liz Warren that many hillary supporters will tell you is not that powerful, then we have a problem. The fact is, we have to scale back some of the dergulations that, admittedly, Bill Clinton did. Bill is a big boy, he can take it, and frankly he owes Hillary for not running to a divorce lawyer back in the 90's and riding that fame right to Pennsylvania avenue, long before Obama ever left Hawaii. The folks in Wall Street cannot be allowed to issue Fatwas like this. Yes, I use that term, because it is the same sort of edict against an established order that frankly, has become a sort of theocracy in and of itself. It is not about just money, Wall Street has become a de facto religion, making itself the end, the beggining, the means and the end of everything. The finance indistry does not even have to conern itself with the actual making oF goods, it has turned "dervatives" and "credit ratings" into the sort of ill defined, subjective dogma that the fine folks in the Athiest forum would debunk as being based on bad arguments and "woo" or as jeb's dad said "Voodoo economics."

So no, all those angry at wall street do not hate Hillary, not are we all wearing berets. However, I will end this by quoting someone who was a centirst democrat, possibly one of the greatest examples of one, JFK. "those who make peaceful revolt impossible make violent revoultion inevitable." Eventually, if Wall Street does not even tolerate the slightest dissent, people will entertain the sort of people that ARE the real revolutionaries, the ones that want to bomb houses. I sincerely hope that day never comes, because for all the glory of revolution, every revolution turns to 360 degress, meaning sooner or later, the revolution turns it's anger towards the poor and weak. Half the people who speak of revolution here are the sort that would not surivvie the first or second purge; they would join Robespierre and Leon Trotsky in the shallow graves, along with innocent people who did not want to kill or be killed.

[merrily]

1. Joe McCarthy demanded loyalty oaths. Don't know what any DUer who opposes Hillary's nomination

hopes to gain from taking them. Even during the Cold War, the SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional. I realize the Constitution does not apply to message board posts. However, I don't think any DUer should request any loyalty oath or give one.

Ted Sorensen was a great speechwriter and so was JFK. RIP, both of them.

[DonCoquixote]

4. they should not

but the webs of thought are so sticky that people are dismessed as one thing or another before the first few words. I have gotten that from both centrists and Thurd pary types as they try to figure out how to shut up any that arenot marching in their direction.

[merrily]

5. I'd much rather be dismissed at DU than assure anyone that anointing Hillary

will have no potential downside to both Hillary and the Party.

As for a certain segment of DU, as soon as you assure them that you will vote for Hillary, they will dismiss everything else you have to say, anyway.

Bottom line: I doubt anyone cares how hard you hold your nose while voting, as long as you vote the way they want you vote. JMO.

[DonCoquixote]

6. frankly DU is not my issue

My issue is the fact that, for whatever reason, we tried the "I won't vote for Gore" bit in 2000, and it worked out to be a diaster, because even though the GOP won with a margin thinner than half a hair, they had the organzation outside the beltway to make it work, the very 50 state infrastructure of people and money that sadly, the left as a whole has ngelected.

Yes, they may count my nose holding as a win, but if a President Hillary wants to get anythign DONE, they will still need the very people who she and her followers were eager to dismess, as Obama learned whe, after trying to be bipartisan for so long, he needed to court the left.

[merrily]

8. Not mine, either, but my post #1 was about loyalty oaths and they don't seem to be

Last edited Sun Mar 29, 2015, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

much of an issue outside of DU.

Well, not since McCarthy died, anyway.

[rgbecker]

2. I think "Hating Wall Street" is a cheapshot, virtually meaningless.

What is there not to like except the potholes?

Is it simply a way to say one hates rich people? Why say that?

Is it simply a way to banks make too much money? Why not say that?

Is it a way of telling people with money to invest to fuck off and keep it in a mattress or better yet, give it all away?

If you don't like banks and investors, why not just tax them.

I think promoting the transaction tax is the only way we will move from claiming hate for Wall St. and instead get some good out of them.

[DonCoquixote]

3. wall street

represents a dominant, though not the only, method of capitalism. It is dangeropus because it wraps itself into the anti tax hate of the right, so that the very idea, the hint, the thought thereof, be it of a tranaction tax or a Liz warren campaign, is crushed in the egg.

[merrily]

7. Most of us know what it means and it's about much more than money.

Taxing the Koch brothers never made me like them or want to vote for anyone who panders to them.'

And when I say that, most of us know I don't mean only the Koch brothers.