2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans
The Money RaceHedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans
Hillary Clinton received donations from some of the biggest names in the hedge fund industry, including Paul Tudor Jones, even as the presidential candidate wants to boost their tax rate.
Jones, the billionaire founder of Tudor Investment Corp., Jamie Dinan, who started York Capital, and Neil Chriss, who runs Hutchin Hill Capital, each contributed the maximum $2,700 to Clinton’s bid for the White House, according to Federal Election Commission filings for the second quarter.
Clinton, who’s made closing the wealth gap the centerpiece of her campaign, lured more donations from boldface industry names than Republican candidates 16 months before the election. Hedge fund managers, their employees and family members donated at least $54,000 to Clinton, a Democrat, according to the FEC. Republicans Jeb Bush got at least $27,000, Marco Rubio took in at least $10,800 while Carly Fiorina received at least $4,200.
“Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” Clinton said in May.
The candidate’s populist rhetoric didn’t dissuade many managers from supporting her. They include Frank Brosens, co-founder of Taconic Capital Advisors, Mitchell Julis, co-founder Canyon Partners, David Shaw, the billionaire founder of D.E. Shaw & Co., BlueMountain Capital Management Managing Partner James Staley, Jake Gottlieb, who runs Visum Asset Management, and Richard Perry, who heads Perry Capital.
Bush, Rubio and Fiorina drew a smaller cohort of top hedge fund managers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-07-17/clinton-donations-from-hedge-fund-titans-top-republicans
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Auggie
(31,999 posts)especially with a Republican Congress in control.
They know who she is going to work for, if she becomes the next Prez.
still_one
(97,074 posts)
Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)Auggie
(31,999 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The Serpico Principle 
onehandle
(51,122 posts)
daleanime
(17,796 posts)a good investment?
zentrum
(9,866 posts)….money can buy.
Can't see how that's even a Democracy any more.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Then half of the so called dems will go along with the corporate/wall street coup, and any actual dems who complain will be called sexist mras who don't understand civics and didn't get their ponies (ponies like banking regulations and a living wage). I don't think the ruling class or the owning class want any part of another Bush presidency.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Tends to neutralize opposition from the left.
"Your leader says our bailout is a good thing so shut up and deal with it."
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)ibewlu606
(160 posts)Wall St. knows that when they buy a whore, said whore usually stays bought.
Response to ibewlu606 (Reply #5)
Post removed
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
The wrong one got hidden.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
boston bean
(36,582 posts)I'm sorry, but a reaction to a misogynist post can't be expected to be all daisies and roses.
I happen to agree with that poster who got hidden and if I had seen it first would have probably said much worse.
Why should people be expected to treat someone with respect who has shown they are a misogynist creep?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Jul 18, 2015, 01:40 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I wouldn't have voted to hide the post that told the misogynist to fuck off.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455826
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
No comments added by alerter
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 01:48 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No comments from the alerter - figures. Your bias is showing.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What am I supposed to hide?
Stupid alert.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)Sheeesh.
SCantiGOP
(14,338 posts)I think some jurors look at the profile to see if the person is a Bernie or Hillary poster and then decide whether to hide the post.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)People refuse to be impartial and objective and leave their feelings/biases at the door.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Both were offensive and over the top. Neither post has any place on DU.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)The one not hidden has absolutely no place here. None. Any community member who thinks that post is OK, probably shouldn't be here either.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)I wasn't on either jury, or I would have voted not only to hide but would have and recommended banning. I have no control over the matter, but am as appalled as you. No need to take issue with me for agreeing that the posts are beyond offensive.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
JustAnotherGen
(34,099 posts)On Sat Jul 18, 2015, 10:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
+1,but expect a hide for that. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455373
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Plus one-ing" a f-ck you deserves a hide too.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 11:38 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post addressed was very bad, this is a terrible alert, poster did not say fu, the post replied to did.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And there will be yet another alert for someone agreeing with the 1...it requires extra effort to be offended, so I'd let this slide
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No alerter, it does not
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: In fact, the entire thread should be hidden.
No fan of HRC but so unnecessary and darn right nasty.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
mercuryblues
(15,377 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)One poster said this, no one else. It's offensive and should be hidden, as well as the response to it.
BeyondGeography
(40,130 posts)is just the start of "you guys."
Sanders is running a very classy campaign. Unfortunately, many of his supporters here are using him as nothing more than an anger proxy.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,737 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)State your objections plainly in the block where you can express your reasons.
Yes--the post has already been alerted on, and it survived three to four (unbelievable, that--the people who voted to keep it should be ASHAMED of themselves). That doesn't mean one can't alert on it again, anyway and get one of those lame messages in your inbox in reply.
The ADMINS do see every alert, even duplicates. If enough people refuse to put up with nastiness, they'll have to address our concerns.
That kind of dogwhistle shit is uncalled for.
I sent one as well.
George II
(67,782 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)I'm sick to death of this kind of dogwhistling. This kind of crap makes DU suck shit!!!! We have the power--we need to let the admins know this kind of foolishness is UNACCEPTABLE.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)The list of words that cant be used is getting ridiculously long.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It wasn't "I miss Media Whores online" or "Golly, that Trump is such a publicity whore" or "I'm so tired of the media focusing on personality-based attention whore stories rather than hard news."
The word was directed at a female politician, not once, but twice, in a nudge-wink way.
Like Judge Judy says "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining."
There's a reason why supporters of all candidates running for the Democratic nomination chimed in on this--it's ugly. It's wrong.
It doesn't take an awful lot of sensitivity to figure this out--just a little.
If you want to use words that denigrate, ridicule, insult, debase, mock or objectify people, maybe this isn't the best place for you to do that kind of thing.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I don't subscribe to the idea that because someone is a woman she can't be called certain things especially things that no one would blink at if it were a man.
I don't believe women are weak flowers that can't handle being offended. Maybe it is because strong women don't scare me a bit in fact I prefer them. One of the things I find most attractive in my wife is her self confidence and strength in the face of adversity. She is not afraid to give her opinion and I love her for it.
One of the things I find most attractive in Hillary is her proven track record of being such a strong woman in the face of controversies that would crush most normal human beings. It is exactly her fortitude in such difficult situations that make me believe that should she get the nomination she will have no trouble standing up to the stress of the job.
I doubt had Hillary read that comment she would do anything more than laugh and shrug it off.
Spare me the sanctimonious you should be posting somewhere else schtick. That is exactly what makes this place suck.
We all have different levels of tolerance for words just because a word makes you shrivel up in fear does not mean I should feel the same. Words have the power you give them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)far more than men.
Now you're playing the "Ooooh, we're all EQUAL in this world!! I see no difference, ergo, that means no difference exists--because it's all about how I feel!! Silly you, pretending that there is such a thing as white or male privilege!!!"
And then you haul out the priceless cargo: The strong woman canard! The "weak flowers" snark!
It's not a question as to whether or not HRC is a "strong woman" who can "take it." It's that NO ONE--male or female--should have to put up with listening to supposed liberals/progressives, on a liberal/progressive website, making gender based insults who then have the nerve to INSIST that their "rights" are being abrogated because people are objecting and they can't freely insult women without getting pushback. It's not just about "words" -- it's about INTENT. And words DO have power, and it's beyond the power that "individuals" give them. It's why no one with a brain in their head says the N word anymore, and why the C word will get you a deserved tombstone here.
That's not sanctimony--that's just the way the world is. There are lots of people out there--and they don't deserve to have to put up with shitty gender-based, race-based, religion-based, ethnicity-based, or you-name-it-based insults just because you think it is YOUR PRIVILEGE to be allowed free rein to toss them.
SMH.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I expected no less.
My involvement in this thread came because of your insistence that "This kind of crap makes DU suck shit!!!!". Implying it is the words that could be taken as offensive that makes this place "suck shit"
My response is no it's the lame ass pontification from people pretending they are standing up for the virtue of the oppressed!
Some folks are offended by the word shit. I suppose you are contributing of the suckage of DU because you used that word. My opinion is we all have different tolerances for words. In my opinion words have the power you give them. Obviously people shouldn't go out of there way to be offensive but society is pretty good at finding those limits.
As was pointed out by many you can find countless examples of people being called whores here for a wide variety of reasons but this time it has special gender meaning because it was in reference to Hillary.
Spare me.
I took a look at some DU history and this exchange between you and another poster . In that exchange it looks like you are so bothered by it you don't even want it discussed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5371738#5371767
What really makes that exchange interesting is in that thread you tell the poster you are responding to they cant bring meta into that thread and then here you are in the reverse situation where you do it and defend it. (Both relating to the W word)
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10026986431#post130
The only reason I post those examples is because I think it points to precisely what I am saying and that is it isn't the words that are making du "suck shit" it's the constant hypocrisy and eagerness to point fingers at other posters and ascribe them to being sexist/misogynistic/racially/etc.. motivated based on differences of opinions on the offensiveness of a particular thing. I find it to be a lazy short cut to attempting to win a discussion.
Day after day its some other outrage here and it's starting to become farcical. X is so so mean followed by 20 kicks Yea!
This seems to be a hot button word for you so I will let you define your own outrage and will just have to disagree that the comment made about Hillary was an intentional dog whistle instead of a description of her practices when dealing with corporate overlords. I dont think it was an apt description as there is a lot of nuance in her positions and I find it very difficult to pin her down on just about anything forget the tangled web of politics and money.
Que more, it doesn't belong here unless it's the bad guy I approve of using the word for outrage.
MADem
(135,425 posts)There will come a day when you're able to acknowledge and understand the concept of privilege.
As for your screed--sorry. TL/DR. You're just trying way too hard.
You keep using insulting, sexist language? You are going to be called on it. That's the bottom line, here.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)You won't be called on it. Unless the object of the smear is someone people here agree with.
MADem
(135,425 posts)See how that works?
If someone says that a term that goes to their PERSONHOOD offends, then just take the FROZEN route. You should try it--you'll have less trouble, I suspect.
Does not represent my views and I strongly object.
eridani
(51,907 posts)
PatrickforO
(15,143 posts)Still, the fact remains that the Wall St. people must be supporting her for a reason, and that reason is likely that she is beholden to them.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Gimme an effin' break.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The offender should be banned.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Our congress is pretty much of a brothel for that matter.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Disgusting.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And it was rec'd by 4 people including you.
Nice job, HC group hosts.
So glad the hosts of the Sanders group don't allow that kind of behaviour.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)The post you are referring to has been hidden.
The post we are discussing here is still there for all to read.
This isn't a freaking game. Save your outrage for where it belongs.
This crap should not be defended.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I would have alerted and voted to hide that post, it was unacceptable.
I can assure you it's not a game.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)This post that was hidden was directly pointing to the post up thread that was allowed to stand and you well know it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Good to know.
At least Sanders supporters called out their own.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)Because so far all I see is you running through the thread, using the word over and over, acting all upset about a thread that has been hidden.
This poster, in thread, has not been hidden?
Don't pretend that you can't see the difference.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Really, I am. People like that make DU suck.
I think anyone who uses that word on HC or any other person should be banned.
And I already posted the link.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And if you want to conspiracy theory engineer a story that the jury was Bernie supporters that agreed, I get to CT engineer a story that the four jurors are Hillary supporters that wanted the post to stand and remain visible, and survive an alert even.
Very useful post for some parties.
End of the day, we don't know why those four jurors kept it, and you're just guessing with Max Bias that it was Bernie supporters.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)Very interesting.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I would have alerted on the post by a Sanders supporter.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)still_one
(97,074 posts)about you
George II
(67,782 posts).....only 160 posts, 3/4 of those (115) in the last 90 days.
ancianita
(39,206 posts)BooScout
(10,407 posts)That deserves a lot more as far as I am concerned. Absolutely totally unacceptable! I also see it edited and thru a bit of childish petulance in as well.
George II
(67,782 posts)BooScout
(10,407 posts)This just can't stand. If a jury wont hide totally unacceptable posts like that, then the system is broken. I want him banned.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Which shows some juries do not read.
Please alert on the whore post even though it has already been alerted, and let the admins know how you feel about it. That poster needs some major correction and the jury system failed us in this instance in a BIG way.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)This is totally unacceptable that the post wasn't hidden. When trolls are allowed to get away with this, something is wrong.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Thankfully that one got hidden but it's great to see the double standard.
I see lots of Bernie supporters condemning that post, why didn't you do the same thing when your side did it?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Tick tock....
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Stop with the confabulation, now--you need to stop making spurious accusations, and either put up or shut up.
"Attention whores" and "Fame whores" and other uses of the term are VERY VERY different from using the term SPECIFICALLY directed AT a single, solitary, particular WOMAN.
And you KNOW it.
Yet, you, too, are playing the same little "too clever by half" game with me.
I see you. I see that you've had a couple of opportunities to produce a link, and yet, you don't.
Come on--if it's such a cut and dried outrage, why aren't you delivering the goods? Hmmm?
Yeah. I see you.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)211. You applauded an op in the HC group who called Sanders supporters whores.
Thankfully that one got hidden but it's great to see the double standard.
I see lots of Bernie supporters condemning that post, why didn't you do the same thing when your side did it?
Calling ANY person a whore is unacceptable to me, MADem, I won't even use it in the corporate sense because I find it offensive.
You seem to only have a problem with it some of the time.
Why didn't you alert on that op instead of laughing about it?
And I hope everyone who reads this thread clicks the link and checks out the HC group, because that post is not the only one calling Sanders and his supporters names.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Either that, or you are DELIBERATELY trying to confabulate--which is worse and speaks very ill of you.
And you still haven't coughed up that link--unless THIS is the link where you're trying to say I excused the use of the "w" word? It is quite obvious to a third grade reader that I am doing the exact opposite in this post--so shame on you for that false accusation.
In my post, I explain where a REFERENCE to a post is originating, and am clearly DISAPPROVING of the use of the "w" word. Reading IS fundamental. You clearly didn't read contextually in your eagerness to play gotcha. Let's all LOOK at the post, shall we?
I've 'emphasized' the parts you seemed to gloss over:
somehow OK if it's ascribed to someone they dislike....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455232
As I've said elsewhere, I urge everyone to click on that link and hit ALERT on that thread. It has already been alerted and survived, but the admins will read your objections. Maybe they'll do something about it, like check the IP address on that poster...or something.
But hey, I see that someone managed to get that OP, objecting to the "w" word by using a bit of snark, hidden. I'd love to see the jury results on that.
You plainly mis-read and/or misunderstood--or you hoped no one would follow up on your false accusation that I was somehow cheerleading the "w" word when it is plain as day that I was doing the exact opposite. So, yeah-- nice try, my left foot--you just delivered unto YOURSELF a MAJOR FAIL.
SMH. You need to just quit while you're behind.
shenmue
(38,538 posts)I can't believe the first jury let it stand.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Someone's got some stuff in the dryer....
still_one
(97,074 posts)they came from, and watch the "flame bait", that the poster hopes to create
It is quite gratifying to see dissing of that post from folks that don't support Hillary, but realize the vileness of the post
ancianita
(39,206 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....but the four who voted to leave it had none.
I guess in today's DU environment calling the woman DEMOCRATIC candidate a whore is acceptable. Truly sad.
On Sat Jul 18, 2015, 10:17 AM you sent an alert on the following post:
Rec'd
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455232
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
YOUR COMMENTS
Referring to Hillary Clinton as a "whore" (twice) is offensive and inapproprriate!
JURY RESULTS
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 10:26 AM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Are you kidding me!? Poster should be BANNED.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Too iffy, even if it sounds okay to use the word in the male "economic sellout" sense. It's just that there's no trusting that same contextual use of it when sexist labels are too oppressive in other contexts for over half the population. Arguably using divisively sexist, pejorative language within the party just excuses opponents to use it, too, and they are the guyz who really do mean it.
Use of historically sexist words in other contexts just starts another version of all the "arguable," "excusable" contexts for using the word "nigger." Those who argue for using racist/sexist labels can then deny their own motives in word choice before the public.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Could have gotten the idea across without such charged language.
Thank you.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)The guy that wrote it and those that chose to voted to leave it.
I doubt those cowards will admit to voting that way.
George II
(67,782 posts).....of some of his followers on this site.
It detracts from his message (and contradicts his morals/ethics)
Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)Now they have an example.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Using misogynistic attacks like that is a right-wing tactic, it is possible the person posting it claims to be on the left but most leftists would want nothing to do with this misogynistic trash.
Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)Unless of course the entire thing is a fraud.
My point is that people think most of us are far left, but there is a lot further to go.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The fact is that misogyny is not a value of the left, that is not to say that misogyny does not exist on the left but those who embrace misogyny are not doing so out of any sort of progressive principles.
Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)Many of the police unions are RW.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,827 posts)And I know some of these people in construction unions who justify THEIR hypocrisy because they "work hard" and "deserve it"
greatauntoftriplets
(177,150 posts)
msrizzo
(796 posts)still_one
(97,074 posts)
historylovr
(1,557 posts)
KMOD
(7,906 posts)that was not hidden.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)But just in case it gets lost in this subthread, I told that one he shouldn't use such language and that he should delete his post.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)historylovr
(1,557 posts)boston bean
(36,582 posts)So, in this case it was a Bernie supporter, sorry to say.. no need to try and deflect that provable fact.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)The sad truth is that not every bad thing said about Hillary Clinton comes from a Sanders supporter. It just bugged me that that was the automatic assumption. Maybe he is. Maybe he supports a Republican and came to stir up trouble. I don't know. And if he is a Sanders supporter, we don't need people like him. You will note, I hope, that we're attacking this poster for his nasty words, too.
Response to George II (Reply #49)
Post removed
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There are rude assholes in every group. Really sick of hearing this talking point directed at Sanders supporters over and over and over again here on DU.
The Sanders group doesn't allow the shit that goes on in the HRC group. So while Bernie would be quite proud of his DU group, one could never say the same about Hillary and her DU group.
For the record I condemned that post above. Sadly there was a post in the HRC group calling Sanders a flaming turd that didn't get any negative response from HRC supporters.
So let's cut the bs admonishing of Sanders supporters.
George II
(67,782 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)a warning. And that most certainly would - and has - happen in the BSG. That sort of thing is not tolerated in there. Nor is a lot of the crap that goes on in the HRC group.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
calimary
(85,008 posts)Don't worry. They won't come clean. Gee, what does THAT tell you?
George II
(67,782 posts)Of course that was 47 years ago.
still_one
(97,074 posts)participate that rule based on their own personal bias, and not on an objective analysis.
A similar post could be ruled as a hide next time, which implies personal bias is getting injected into obvious sexist insults, and the TOS is not even considered a factor for some on jury duty
MADem
(135,425 posts)jurors who voted to LEAVE IT, on that jury, that post would have been hidden.
Jurors are the bulwark between CIVILITY and ASSHOLISHNESS.
I urge you to reconsider your stance on jury duty. I vote for the civility of the post, IN CONTEXT. I would have hidden that WHORE post, and I would have--considering the context--left the FUCK YOU one.
still_one
(97,074 posts)of the TOS.
What would be interesting to know is if the jury that hid the "FU" post, would have also hidden the sexist slur made toward Hillary?
There is so much inconsistency built into the system.
In this case it would be nice if the Administrators could override a jury decision, but I do not see that happening.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're held to "your best judgment." I absolutely consider the TOS and the SOP when I do jury duty, but when context overrides the "offense," I do not hesitate to nullify. Sometimes, things that are obvious are just obvious. Telling a sexist "What for" (or in this case "fuck you" is, to my 'personal review' of the post and its context, an act of grace, not an act for which the poster should be excoriated. Calling a woman who plainly does not work in the sex industry and is not being afforded the title as a job description a "whore" is a sexist comment, blatant, and an attempt to be "too clever by half" by hiding behind the "cutesy" use of the word (e.g. 'fame whore,' or 'attention whore').
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=modsystem
I'd like to see the admins do some tombstoning when that kind of stuff pops up and survives a jury--sexist speech is hate speech, AFAIAC. Hope springs eternal.
still_one
(97,074 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)their advantage.
The disingenuous "What? Who? Me?" game gets tedious, particularly when one sees it repeated by the same person, over and over and over again.
I know that some of these disruptors have to be paid--playing a cat-n-mouse game here is just not sufficiently 'troll-icious' I should think. Some jerk who wants to goad and bait has to play a long, slow con here--I personally think it should be a longer trial period, but I don't rule the world--so they don't get immediate gratification unless they are willing to "burn" the account they created. They have to run around writing "Kick!" and "Rec!" many dozens of times in order to get out from under MIRT. I'd love it if MIRT had a longer charge, based on TIME as well as post count--say, a hundred posts and six months...whichever comes LAST? That would slow them down enormously.
840high
(17,196 posts)have been hidden.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,737 posts)BooScout
(10,407 posts)Are you seeing this?
still_one
(97,074 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)If they're low-post count trolls, it will put them on the admins' radar, at the very least.
Can't hurt; might help.
I know a dogwhistle when I read one--and that was a classic dogwhistle.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)It makes me alternately sad and sick that members of DU would find essentially calling Hillary (or anyone else) a W***E, is in any way acceptable
boston bean
(36,582 posts)remember there is no specific rule against this in TOS. and community standards rule the roost... So, we got to live with the fact that we have misogynistic creeps that walk amongst us, on a place we pay to be a member, and clicks drive the money to it.
I ask myself each time I see something like this, which is pretty frickin often enough, as to why I bother.
Just freaking wow.
Renew Deal
(83,370 posts)We don't need you here.
You need to leave.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)whoever the hell this is they sure aren't doing their candidate any favors with this kind of shit.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)ancianita
(39,206 posts)If you think you're being funny, you're clever by half.
Your use of "whore" here is too iffy. Even if it sounds okay to describe the male "economic sellout" -- as in "the suited whores of Congress" -- sense kicked around in the male dominated economic world, there is no trusting yours or anyone else's use of it in this campaign's contexts. Sexist labels are too oppressive in other contexts for over half the population.
The slippery slope argument holds in DU: "Arguably" using divisive, pejorative, sexist language within the party just opens opponents' claims to using it, too, yet they are the guyz who really do mean it.
How that happens: As the old racial hatred is released with the very presence of Obama, so is the hatred of women released with the very presence of Clinton. Use of historically sexist words in other contexts just starts another version of our opponents' claiming to have "arguable," "excusable" contexts for using the word "nigger." Those who argue for using racist/sexist labels can then deny their own motives in the sexist words they use in public.
I'm as liberal with language as they come, but this sexist shit isn't going to even get started.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)It's rude and sexist. Disagree with her on policy all you want, but don't use such vile terms. It looks like you survived an alert, but please have the decency to delete.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I don't know who you are supporting in the campaign, judging by the misogynistic nature of your post I would probably guess you are a Donald Trump fan. I am a supporter of Bernie however and while I may have some big problems with Hillary I am not a misogynistic shitstain that would describe her using that word.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Buh-bye.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)You don't belong here.
Every juror who voted to leave this should be excused from ever participating in a jury again.
Autumn
(46,976 posts)and there is no reason for any of that.
boston bean
(36,582 posts)So, I don't think the two can be equated.
although, if I served on a jury where a posted called Bernie a flying turd, I probably would have voted to hide, cause it's just rude.
Autumn
(46,976 posts)boston bean
(36,582 posts)Two different things.
Autumn
(46,976 posts)My comment was to someone who said something nasty and unacceptable to me YMMD 
boston bean
(36,582 posts)I was commenting on the equation you made, which I find to be some what of an odd comparison.
Autumn
(46,976 posts)boston bean
(36,582 posts)Autumn
(46,976 posts)boston bean
(36,582 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)
Puglover
(16,380 posts)It was hidden. Rightly so. As the one above should have been.
People think. No matter your loyalty, bad is bad. When you sit on a jury try to be impartial.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)The fact remains that the "flaming turd" poster was neither admonished nor the post hidden. It was in the HRC group so that person could have been replied to by the hosts or banned but they were not.
Here you have many posters condemning it and asking for the post to be self-deleted. Many of them are Sanders supporters.
boston bean
(36,582 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)boston bean
(36,582 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)post when that reply is clearly OTT, rude, crass and against the rules. So you have lost your objectivity when you don't apply the rules evenhandedly.
boston bean
(36,582 posts)when it is in response to such sexist bullshit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Including the op in the HC group.
Too bad their hosts didn't have a problem with it.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)This person needs to be tombstoned! This is DISGUSTING.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)I wish I'd been on that jury. And I wish the admins would stop their laissez-faire approach to this site.
TDale313
(7,822 posts)It's sexist and beyond the pale. And I say this as a Bernie supporter. There are better ways to make the point.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)"You guys" meaning low post trolls or Bernie Supporters?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Good.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)...and claim to support Bernie.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)or are you just going to toss cowardly shitbombs around? Also, what do these phantoms have to do with what the newb said?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Nice try, buddy.
Slowly but surely they will expose themselves eventually.
All of 'em.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I just think you should be forced to back up your sleaze.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Who is "you folks"?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)That would make more sense.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)and if you look at what I referred to him as, you can see I expected him to be shown the door.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)so-called "call outs" are not a violation of any rule here. If you have evidence to back up your huge smear upthread you should provide it. If you don't you should apologize.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Link to a post and if it's real, and supports your assertion, you've got nothing to hide.
I'm sick and tired of people smearing others with these phantom straw men and then refusing to link and hiding behind a DU2 rule.
calimary
(85,008 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)calimary
(85,008 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 12:38 PM - Edit history (1)
Especially those of you who couldn't see fit to vote to hide that horrendous post. That's just FUCKED.
Seriously. NO Hillary supporter would allow that post to stand. So it has to be Bernie people who saw it as somehow fit to let stand. If THIS is what "Bernie World" is all about, then count me OUT. I want NO part of it OR in it.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I have not seen a single Bernie supporter defend the person who posted this. We don't know which jurors allowed it to stand, but there is no basis for automatically assuming they are Bernie supporters. There are a number of people on this site who have stated they never vote to hide posts, it is one of the major problems that has been allowing nasty posts to stand and it has been a problem with the jury system long before Sanders entered the race.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Take a look in the HRC group where Bernie has been called a "flaming turd" and the hosts not only ignore that sort of thing they applaud it.
There are HR supporters who are just as bad as that poster we are talking about. You know there are. And the HRC group hosts allow that sort of shit in their group, where as you will not find that negativity towards HRC in the Sanders group because the hosts and the posters ask that it be deleted.
I'm so fucking sick of hearing this bullshit about Sanders supporters as if it's everyone. It's a few vocal ones and same as HRC supporters, there are a few lousy ones. At least Sanders group hosts act like mature adults and keep it clean in there.
Plus there are the VILE OPs that have been posted that are pure swiftboat material against Sanders. The infamous "Not Enough, Bernie" OP that went down in flames and at least two others by that poster that were complete lies and posted just to smear him. And HRC supporters have now taken to posting these sorts of OPs in protected groups so they can't be properly debunked.
So yeah... sure... Bernie's supporters are so fucking mean. Spare me.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I am firmly convinced the person who did that is a disruptor who is attempting to divide the community here.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)members selected for this jury didn't abide by the same principle. Absolutely disgusting and absolutely unsurprising, unfortunately.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)The utter lack of class in a post like this makes me want to puke. This poster sure as fuck isn't doing anything to actually promote their candidate by this.
MerryBlooms
(11,903 posts)I alerted anyway. I hope the admins have hundreds of alerts on your post.
The decent members who voted to hide, should alert on the results.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Cha
(306,463 posts)
riversedge
(73,936 posts)whore. Shame on you.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)are way off base. You do not belong here with that type of derogatory OP. YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE. Don't respond if this is the level of ignorance and stupidity you will exhibit. 160 posts....???????????
SCantiGOP
(14,338 posts)Glad to have the Ignore button. I'm sure Bernie Sanders would be really proud of some of his supporters here. They talk like poor versions of Donald Trump
heaven05
(18,124 posts)I am not a HRC supporter and I found these remarks by that individual disgusting and offensive. Not all are this way, either in the other candidate camps or HRC's camp. Always trolls out there of different types, just like trump, trying to get a rise, stir the pot, raise a controversy. Ostracize, Ignore and marginalize and they soon crawl back under their rocks.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)There are plenty of posts above yours that show that Bernier supporters are condemning that post.
And there are plenty of posts and OPs by HRC supporters that are just as bad if not worse that the post in question. So get over it and try to be objective.
NikolaC
(1,276 posts)your post to be despicable. There is no justification for what you wrote. I don't believe that Senator Sanders would condone such heinous name calling towards Ms. Clinton.
ut oh
(1,054 posts)the one and only post by this person in this thread. No response to any of the responses to his post.
Aaaaand 160 post count...
Methinks this is a Republican hit man (troll) trying to stir up more shit in DU land.
*Disclaimer: Yes, I don't have many posts either, but I've been on DU a long time. This is my second ID admittedly, cause I lost all the info on my first one and the email attached to it (my original ID was Hmmmm - thought I can't remember how many 'm's it had). After a small break from DU early on, I could not recover it.... I also don't troll
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)I hope the site owners see fit to give you the boot as well.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground, it is populated by a great many Progressives. You've just called a Democratic hopeful running for public office a sexist slur. Many if not most of us at DU are well aware of Mrs. Clinton's ties to Wall Street, in this regards you speak to the choir. Hopefully you have the good judgment to read what the choir has to say to you in their responses to your post.
If you truly believe in equality learn this: SEXISM is a form of RACISM. We are all human and subject to being controlled by our culture. Both sexism and racism are products of our culture, both have a tremendous negative impact on each and every member of that culture. If one learns to recognize those cultural influences within oneself, especially when it comes to how we interact with each other, we can be well on our way to becoming better humans-(Isn't that what life's about?). Furthermore we can well be on our way to influencing our culture on a positive path with the grand prize being equality for all of us.
Bashing a candidate for his or her policies, voting records, things they've said and etc is one thing. Name calling OTOH just lowers you and sadly, reflects poorly on those who may be your fellow supporters and those they support. If it became customary for Sanders supporters to call Mrs. Clinton a "whore" too, then folks reading DU would think DU was made up of sexist asses with little worth listening too. Your usage of that slur not only demeans those of us who are not currently in support of Mrs. Clinton's bid for the nomination, it damages all of your fellow DUers.
If you've read this far, then hopefully you understand why I ask that you please consider deleting your post.
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)
... would be SO proud of you.
aikoaiko
(34,206 posts)FWIW, ibewlu606, I would substitute the word 'politician' for 'whore' and not use this word again on DU.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)and he damn well should be, I will blame it on his comment, not on admins "protecting their candidate" as you say.
Your defense of this makes me sick.
aikoaiko
(34,206 posts)But the admins have been very consistent about not overruling jury decisions, too.
The last time someone even alluded to a sexist slur with regard to HRC it was hidden first before being banned.
Here's my issue: If you say someone should be banned for using a sexist slur I'm fine with that. But if you say that someone should be banned because they used it against HRC or the one and only female Democratic candidate in the nomination race, then motives are questionable.
In the NYCSKP banning, it was the latter.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sat Jul 18, 2015, 10:59 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
+1,but expect a hide for that. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=455373
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
"Plus one-ing" a f-ck you deserves a hide too.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 18, 2015, 11:38 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post addressed was very bad, this is a terrible alert, poster did not say fu, the post replied to did.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And there will be yet another alert for someone agreeing with the 1...it requires extra effort to be offended, so I'd let this slide
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No alerter, it does not
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: In fact, the entire thread should be hidden.
No fan of HRC but so unnecessary and darn right nasty.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)
tblue37
(66,100 posts)even if you would have used the same word for a male candidate you feel has sold out to the big banks. It is like using "thug" to describe a black man you consider violent or criminal. Even if you would use the same word for a white person, your use of it would be racially insensitive and entirely inappropriate.
Good rule of thumb: don't call Hillary Clinton a whore. It is an ugly and misogynistic word to sling at a woman.
zazen
(2,978 posts)Ibewlu606, I understand your rage about her supporting her close friends on Wall Street, but you are undermining years of hard work of people fighting income inequality, who are shifting the tide in our favor, by sexist comments like this.
The term "whore" is inappropriate for evil people like Sarah Palin or Anne Coulter. It's even more jarring to be used against Hilary Clinton, a woman who has worked diligently, in the midst of the most hateful character assassination, for decades on behalf of gender and racial inequality (though IMO she's been misguided on how her neoliberal, hawkish policies have actually harmed gender and race relations more than helped them).
The woman deserves our respect as a worthy opponent of Sanders and as our possible Democratic nominee, not sexist name-calling.
Please apologize for this post and delete it.
Thank you.
BooScout
(10,407 posts)You misogynist dirt bag.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)It's sexist. Please stop.
IHateTheGOP
(1,059 posts)En Garde
(94 posts)No wonder Hillary is not in favor of raising the minimum wage to $15 and restoring Glass-Steagall.
She, like Romney and GWB before her, is the favored candidate of Wall Street.
DURHAM D
(32,865 posts)about closing the gap.
ybbor
(1,608 posts)Right.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)>>>>“Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” Clinton said in May. >>>>
Or they assume she's full of shit.
ybbor
(1,608 posts)The look at her and see their reflection.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
LWolf
(46,179 posts)campaign talk and the walk once in office of those they've bought.
En Garde
(94 posts)...of profits.
Did I mention Chelsea worked for one right out of university?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)For Clintons, a Hedge Fund in the Family
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,737 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Chelsea has landed jobs and corporate board positions with companies run by her parents’ rich supporters, some of whom also have been tapped as investors by a hedge fund started by her husband Marc Mezvinsky. At the (Clinton) foundation, sources say, an investment firm got the inside track for a coveted contract to manage a $250 million endowment because the firm was run partly by one of Chelsea’s best friends, Nicole Davison Fox, the matron of honor at her lavish 2010 wedding, who happens to be married to one of Mezvinsky’s hedge fund partners. Fox personally discussed investment strategies with all three Clintons months before the foundation sent out a request for proposals to manage the endowment to select firms, according to sources familiar with the process, though foundation officials stress that Chelsea recused herself from the final selection.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-chelsea-116910.html#ixzz3gFfR3s1i
En Garde
(94 posts)And let's not forget how Bill and Dubya claim they are brothers.
But hey, let's get on with the Clintonian coronation!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,737 posts)yellowwoodII
(616 posts)Ironic
artislife
(9,497 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)The Banksters would rejoice if she's elected.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Historically, the economy performs significantly better during Democratic administrations than under republican administrations?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)What jobs do they create for our nation?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)not a single thing, that I can think of ... beyond their individual philanthropic activities.
But what does that have to do with why people whose livelihood is dependent on a positive investment environment, supporting a candidate that, history shows, will likely create/continue that positive environment, over those candidates that, history shows, will likely destroy that positive environment?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Your economic gobble gook answer
Enjoy your hedge on betting for a corrupt system that fucks over the 99 %
Your neo liberal economics life must be good to expose such philosophies
.How's that trinkle down shit going for you?
Pretty well I imagine
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)You know that shit answer doesn't work anymore when you have no answers for your economic philosophies.
Tell DU about them............ I'm sure we are all ears.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You posted about hedge fund managers preferring HRC over republican candidates ... that is easily explainable, as historically, the economy does better under Democratic administrations, as opposed to republican administrations ... and hedge fund manager's livelihoods depend on positive investment environments.
I have said nothing about my "economic philosophies" or any of the other straw man you might wish to build.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Well said..............I have said nothing about my "economic philosophies"
We are waiting................since nothing is what you offer.
individual philanthropic activities............ that's your solution?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You asked what hedge fund managers contribute to POC and humanity ...
Was my ANSWER, not my solution!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)You throw so called 'logic rules out but have no understanding of the rules of logic are
I'm not avoiding the question you are.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)What is my economic philosophy?
Simply put ... I am a proponent of capitalism with strong governmental regulation.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)How do you regulate that on the world stage that finds lower labor costs and fucks the poor?
''I am a proponent of capitalism '' ............... OK lets go with this quote and statement
That is the most revealing shit about you
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there is nothing that will satisfy you. I live in the world as it is ... you rile against the world as it is. One promotes negotiating through life, the other fantasy.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)One promotes ''negotiating through life,'' the other fantasy.
You know I had family that helped and risked their life's fortune to give people their freedom during the civil war ............without negotiating. Slavery was economic.
I have a grandfather from from children's family die in a NAZI concentration camp not negotiating with the NAZIs
you sir............want to'' live a world as is'' Not as it can be............... your lack of vision of the future and ego doesn't equate with progress or change.
Mr. Status quo............ but a little to the left.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I can only live in the world as it is ... living as it CAN be is NOT living in reality.
You know nothing of my vision for the future ... But my vision of the future is a vision that cannot be lived until it comes about.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)What a bunch of Philosophic google gook
Do you really believe that ?
People............ look at that statement and tell me what it stands for.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Everything questionable or troubling about Hillary means nothing. No matter what. Always.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts) RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)What other possible explanation could there be?
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)measure of political good.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)they must know Hillary better that her supporters do.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)We need a true populist presidential candidate and it's not Hillary.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)They're figuring a Clinton presidency would be better because the economy would pick up and run at a nice pace. Sure, President Scott Walker would give them deregulation straight out of Atlas Shrugged, but it might mean another economic free-fall similar to the one GW Bush gave us. They feel they're better off with lax-to-moderate regulation, a Democrat who will prosecute only a token number of financial crimes, and the assurance of some stability. They look forward to steady growth, rather than the roller coaster ride we had a few years ago. This is the same reason they're pretty happy with Obama. It means Democrats such as Obama and Clinton serve their interests better than most Republicans. It does not mean they are in bed with each other, although that is true in specific instances, but it's not accurate to say Clinton and the hedge funds are in love.
PATRICK
(12,246 posts)have given them no marketable or even sane choices. They will buy the Democratic Party winner in this fiasco and keep looking for their ideal(marketable even if incompetent or insane). If Bernie looks to win and the GOPer is loser loon all the money and media attention should flow downticket- where Sanders is already looking and where there are many more loons to frustrate the discriminating Wall Street overlord..
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Want to know who they are really loyal to? See who's footing their bills.
No brainer.
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)“Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” Clinton said in May.
So, what are the specific policy changes and tax code adjustments that are the "centerpiece" of the campaign? This is the most detailed summary I could find.
To that end, Mrs. Clinton called for closing corporate loopholes, eliminating the “carried interest” loophole that allows some financiers to avoid paying millions in income taxes, and expanding the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. And while she did not present details of her tax policy, she said she would delve more deeply into policies that would “rein in excessive risks on Wall Street” in the coming weeks.
Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-offers-her-vision-of-a-fairness-economy-to-close-the-income-gap.html?_r=0
I was expecting something a bit more detailed. The most obvious area of needed change is tax policy and all we get is the closing a couple loop holes. What about the income tax rate? Capital gains? Estate?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Isn't pretty much every "group" in this country outside of registered republicans choosing Hillary?
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)likely contribute to the likely GOP nominee when apparent.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)use that word to describe her. Please delete it, since unbelievably it was allowed to stand. We don't need that crap here.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I didn't write the OP.............it came from major news sources.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)What the hell do they call the ones on the right?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Or is that one word you don't talk about?
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)I'm a Bernie supporter 100%. This isn't doing any good. Do I think HRC is owned by corporations, yes, I do. There is still no place for that terminology when referring to the candidates.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)that one?
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)I stand by my posts in this thread not assholes that disrupt it. be it left or right.
some do that on purpose to disrupt what was said ......... AND ACT THEY ARE ON SANDERS SIDE OR HILLARY.
wake up........
boston bean
(36,582 posts)The responses about it, only take up about 2/3 of the responses of the thread.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Really?.............you want to go there on a personal attack?
riversedge
(73,936 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The OP contains only what was written in a Bloomberg article. I'm guessing that you're actually referring to the post that the jury didn't hide. I hope I'm not assuming too much.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Imagine that.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Multiple reasons, really.
Last year, in NYS, Cuomo raised 45 M to 4M for his Republican-Conservative opponent.
At the risk of sounding trite..... *follow the money*.
Political labels are increasingly beside the point.
K and R n/t
hedda_foil
(16,584 posts)I wonder if his fund gets some of its investments from the Clinton Foundation. Hmmm
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)And are now concentrating on one asshole statement not worth my times Vs hedgefunds titans and billions of dollars they make and contribute nothing to this nation or this world...? And know can't defend that point?
Gee............I did.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)I am a Bernie supporter. I still don't support people calling those kinds of names. It's beyond the pale.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)You attacked me twice in this thread
for no reason.......
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)marmar
(78,176 posts)And isn't her SIL in charge of a hedge fund?