Hedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans

[Ichingcarpenter]

The Money Race
Hedge 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

[Auggie]

1. ... which implies they don't take her tax hike message seriously,

especially with a Republican Congress in control.

[Helen Borg]

4. Yup...

They know who she is going to work for, if she becomes the next Prez.

[still_one]

26. Perhaps, but it could also be a reflection of the craziness of what the Republican Party has become

[Renew Deal]

36. Or they think Democrats are better for the economy.

[Auggie]

57. Probably all three n/t

[Babel_17]

201. Any elected official who hasn't collected from you is a threat

The Serpico Principle

[onehandle]

2. ...because she's going to be our next President. nt

[daleanime]

20. Which would make it....

a good investment?

[zentrum]

40. Best president

….money can buy.

Can't see how that's even a Democracy any more.

[Doctor_J]

3. having her as president together with a far right congress is ideal for them

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]

65. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[azmom]

125. +1

[moondust]

143. Yup.

Tends to neutralize opposition from the left.

"Your leader says our bailout is a good thing so shut up and deal with it."

[kath]

147. +100

[TheNutcracker]

180. *10000000

[ibewlu606]

5. Rec'd

Wall St. knows that when they buy a whore, said whore usually stays bought.

[sufrommich]

25. +1,but expect a hide for that. nt

[sufrommich]

66. Annnnd there's the hide. Unbelievable.

[KMOD]

76. Yup.

The wrong one got hidden.

[MissDeeds]

112. Both should have been hidden

[boston bean]

131. I wouldn't have voted to hide the post that told the misogynist to fuck off.

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]

159. FYI.

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]

176. any further proof needed that the jury system is being abused?

Sheeesh.

[SCantiGOP]

206. I noticed the same thing BooScout

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]

241. Sorry, but then you would be wrong. And that's why this jury system is so badly broken.

People refuse to be impartial and objective and leave their feelings/biases at the door.

[Little Star]

155. Absolutely not.

[MissDeeds]

189. Apparently we disagree

Both were offensive and over the top. Neither post has any place on DU.

[KMOD]

192. Yeah, but which one isn't hidden?

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]

195. Both should have been hidden

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]

231. Bingo!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

94. You weren't though

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]

110. Thanks for the heads up.lol. nt

[mercuryblues]

127. I didn't

[sufrommich]

24. Calling Hillary Clinton a whore. You guys stay classy. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

34. You guys?

[MissDeeds]

35. Who are "you guys"?

One poster said this, no one else. It's offensive and should be hidden, as well as the response to it.

[BeyondGeography]

107. The poster plus four anonymous jurors who didn't explain their vote

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]

64. Ha, nice try

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

67. Agree, totally uncalled for. There's so much to criticize Hillary for without resorting to crude name calling.

[MADem]

77. I recommend that everyone who objects to the "WHORE" post alert on it.

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.

[KMOD]

79. I agree.

I sent one as well.

[George II]

83. That was my alert, and was stunned that four people voted to keep it (with NO rationale)

[MADem]

84. Ask all your friends who feel as we do to ALERT ON THAT WHORE POST!!

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]

268. I would argue the witch hunts over words are what make DU suck

The list of words that cant be used is getting ridiculously long.

[MADem]

269. The INTENT of that post was clear--it was a "dog whistle."

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]

270. So if Hillary was a male it would be fine

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]

271. It would still be rude, but less obviously so. Historically, that word has been directed at women

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]

272. Right, more sanctimonious lecturing

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]

273. You are very defensive. It's obvious I have touched a very raw nerve.

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]

274. That's the point

You won't be called on it. Unless the object of the smear is someone people here agree with.

[MADem]

275. I am not planning on using any sexist, racist or other -ist insults, so I suspect I'll be fine.

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.

[tazkcmo]

103. I did.

Does not represent my views and I strongly object.

[eridani]

276. I did too. First post I've alerted on in well over a year n/t

[Agschmid]

223. Done.

[PatrickforO]

129. I didn't call her that and it was an unfortunate choice of words on the part of the poster.

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]

132. unfortunate choice of words.

Gimme an effin' break.

[okasha]

141. He "misspoke."

The offender should be banned.

[Doctor_J]

182. Also politicians of various genders get called whores routinely

Our congress is pretty much of a brothel for that matter.

[KMOD]

185. I can't believe you are defending the posters use of the comment.

Disgusting.

[beam me up scottie]

205. Someone in YOUR group got an op hidden for calling us whores:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110713039

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]

213. Knock it off!!!

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]

215. I did condemn it, why are you defending your side?

I would have alerted and voted to hide that post, it was unacceptable.

I can assure you it's not a game.

[BooScout]

217. Spare us....

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]

219. So that post was okay with you?

Good to know.

At least Sanders supporters called out their own.

[KMOD]

220. Can you give me a link to that?

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]

222. BOTH should have been hidden and I'm sorry the one upthread wasn't.

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]

259. A hidden post the 'stay classy' hypocrite above, rec'd.

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]

214. so your the one who warned on that....

Very interesting.

[beam me up scottie]

216. Nice accusation but I was at work. Why didn't you alert on it?

I would have alerted on the post by a Sanders supporter.

[cui bono]

235. Who is "you guys"?

[still_one]

29. You should hide that post. If that is the only way you can express disagreement it speaks volumes

about you

[George II]

41. A member for four and a half years....

.....only 160 posts, 3/4 of those (115) in the last 90 days.

[ancianita]

42. My next post was going to say the same thing!

[BooScout]

78. A hide is all it gets?

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]

88. Worse - it DIDN'T get hidden!

[BooScout]

91. I saw that after...

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]

89. There was no HIDE--the person who OBJECTED to the WHORE characterization got the HIDE.

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]

93. already done....

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]

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?

[MADem]

212. Let's have a link for context, so I can see me applauding a post calling a woman a whore.

Tick tock....

[beam me up scottie]

218. Do you really need a link to the post calling Sanders supporters whores?

[MADem]

225. I want you to show me a post where I call a WOMAN a whore. You can't, can you?

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]

228. Nice try but I never accused you of that. Here is my post again:

beam me up scottie (29,812 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]

267. I wasn't laughing about the "w" word at all. You have difficulty with context, I see.

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:

Heh heh....the CONTEXT, for anyone living in a bubble .... or who thinks the use of the "W" word is

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]

265. I alerted.

I can't believe the first jury let it stand.

[MADem]

87. Golly---ain't that something!!!

Someone's got some stuff in the dryer....

[still_one]

90. and it looks like a "hit and run". Make an outrageous post, and then crawl back in the hole where

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]

31. DU jury people just let you get away with that "whore" bullshit. Maybe you're just too fucking new.

[sufrommich]

32. Wow...just...wow. nt

[George II]

37. Curiuously the three who voted to hide had coherent comments to explain their votes....

....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]

43. Thanks for sharing the results. I'm gobsmacked. nt

[Renew Deal]

46. Ban them all

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]

49. I'm sure Senator Sanders would be VERY disappointed with the behavior.....

.....of some of his followers on this site.

It detracts from his message (and contradicts his morals/ethics)

[Renew Deal]

52. People want to know what the (true) far left is

Now they have an example.

[Bjorn Against]

58. There is nothing left about that post at all, it is a right-wing post

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]

63. The username is their union

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]

69. Being a union member does not automatically make a person a lefty

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]

86. You're right

Many of the police unions are RW.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

96. I've seen plenty of IBEW and pipe fitter Union stickers next to Romney stickers on pick-up trucks

And I know some of these people in construction unions who justify THEIR hypocrisy because they "work hard" and "deserve it"

[greatauntoftriplets]

200. My teabagger nephew is a member of the IAFF.

[msrizzo]

99. Agree. nt

[still_one]

54. No question about it.

[historylovr]

105. Because only a Sanders supporter would throw out a misogynistic slur like that, right?

[KMOD]

111. Your concern should be with the offensive post

that was not hidden.

[historylovr]

115. See post #48.

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]

116. Thank you!

[historylovr]

119. You're welcome.

[boston bean]

123. I can't see a hillary supporter calling her a whore, can you?

So, in this case it was a Bernie supporter, sorry to say.. no need to try and deflect that provable fact.

[historylovr]

138. I wasn't trying to deflect.

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.

[cui bono]

239. As would HRC be of the behavior of many of her followers. What's your point?

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]

246. I didn't see that 'flaming turd' comment but I believe it was hidden?

[cui bono]

248. I believe it was not. And hosts replied in the subthread and never asked for a self-delete or gave

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]

253. Did you see the one calling us whores?

[calimary]

139. They won't. You still can't find anybody who admits they voted for richard nixon.

Don't worry. They won't come clean. Gee, what does THAT tell you?

[George II]

251. Okay, I admit it....in 1968 (the FIRST election in which I voted) I voted for Nixon.

Of course that was 47 years ago.

[still_one]

53. That is why I avoid jury duty, because there are just enough who

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]

108. That is why you are NEEDED on jury duty--if it had been you, instead of one of those no-comment

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]

157. Considering the context "FU" response to the poster was appropriate, but also a clear violation

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]

163. You aren't held to the TOS when you adjudicate. You can and should use context.

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&quot 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

Whenever a post is alerted for a potential violation of our Community Standards, our software forms a Jury of six randomly-selected members. Each Juror then individually reviews the alerted post and casts a vote to either hide it (if they believe it is inappropriate) or leave it alone (if they believe it is within the bounds of acceptable discourse). There is no long list of rules to cross-reference -- Jurors must use their own best judgment and common sense to decide whether or not alerted posts violate the Community Standards.

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]

193. Appreciate the insight, thanks

[MADem]

197. I have found that the cleverest disruptors try to use a misunderstanding of the jury process to

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]

55. Not a Hillary fan but this should

have been hidden.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

71. Hafta agree with you there.

[BooScout]

81. Skinner???

Are you seeing this?

[still_one]

158. or Earl G, but that is an excellent point

[MADem]

92. You can alert on the jury results and ask the admins to look at the posters who voted to leave it.

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]

100. This is totally unbelievable

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]

104. just another one to the list... harumph..

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.

[MissDeeds]

39. Wow

Just freaking wow.

[Renew Deal]

45. I hope you get tombstoned for that

We don't need you here.

[KMOD]

51. +1

[okasha]

146. +2

[irisblue]

151. +3

You need to leave.

[sharp_stick]

154. I can only hope

whoever the hell this is they sure aren't doing their candidate any favors with this kind of shit.

[Agschmid]

226. Yup.

[ancianita]

47. I don't do this. But I'm going to have to elaborate on my Jury comment:

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]

48. What a disgusting thing to say.

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]

50. As a Bernie supporter I really think you should self delete

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]

59. Calling a woman a whore on Democratic Underground?

Buh-bye.

[KMOD]

72. Disgusting comment.

You don't belong here.

Every juror who voted to leave this should be excused from ever participating in a jury again.

[Autumn]

82. You comment needs to be removed. That's as disgusting as someone who called Bernie a flying turd

and there is no reason for any of that.

[boston bean]

106. I don't think that calling bernie a flying turd was a bigoted slur, was it?

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]

118. Both are nasty, so yeah I equate both as unacceptable. n/t

[boston bean]

121. Both are. But calling Bernie a flying turd, is nothing like using a misogynistic/sexist slur.

Two different things.

[Autumn]

126. Whatever but I'm not interested in the discussion you want to have. So find someone else.

My comment was to someone who said something nasty and unacceptable to me YMMD

[boston bean]

130. And I was just pointing out the two are not even in the same league.

I was commenting on the equation you made, which I find to be some what of an odd comparison.

[Autumn]

134. As far as I'm concerned nasty is nasty, I'm not into the parsing of it n/t

[boston bean]

135. It's not parsing, it is making a false comparison. nt.

[Autumn]

136. Whatever.

[boston bean]

137. ok.

[beam me up scottie]

207. HC supporter calling us that same slur:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110713039

[Puglover]

261. In their group no less.

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]

242. What does it matter which category it falls under? They are both offensive and wrong.

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]

244. Because it does matter. nt

[cui bono]

247. No, it doesn't. Unless you are biased in some way or are letting something cloud your objectivity.

[boston bean]

249. The bias was included in the first comment that spawned this thread. My objectivity is crystal clear

[cui bono]

250. No, it really isn't. You posted above that you would not have hidden the reply to the despicable

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]

252. right because I don't put an general insult in the same category as a misogynistic slur. YMMV.

when it is in response to such sexist bullshit.

[beam me up scottie]

209. Agreed, any post calling someone a whore should be hidden.

Including the op in the HC group.

Too bad their hosts didn't have a problem with it.

[BooScout]

85. its absolutely ridiculous that a jury didn't hide this!

This person needs to be tombstoned! This is DISGUSTING.

[historylovr]

113. Agreed.

I wish I'd been on that jury. And I wish the admins would stop their laissez-faire approach to this site.

[TDale313]

95. Please delete this.

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]

102. You guys are really exposing yourselves. Congrats. nt

[whatchamacallit]

166. Care to clarify?

"You guys" meaning low post trolls or Bernie Supporters?

[Cali_Democrat]

167. Meaning right wingers posing as liberals. nt

[whatchamacallit]

168. So the one low-post troll then

Good.

[Cali_Democrat]

169. There are others...others who have been here for years and have lots of posts.

...and claim to support Bernie.

[whatchamacallit]

171. Care to point them out

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]

172. Link to them so you can alert and hide my post for call out?

Nice try, buddy.

Slowly but surely they will expose themselves eventually.

All of 'em.

[whatchamacallit]

173. I wouldn't alert

I just think you should be forced to back up your sleaze.

[Cali_Democrat]

174. Ya right....I know how you folks operate. nt

[whatchamacallit]

175. 2nd clarification

Who is "you folks"?

[KMOD]

187. Why don't you share some of your outrage here at the offending poster?

That would make more sense.

[whatchamacallit]

190. It was outrageous

and if you look at what I referred to him as, you can see I expected him to be shown the door.

[AtheistCrusader]

263. Apparently not, since you think call outs are against the rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

260. there is no rule against backing up an accusation with evidence

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]

262. Call-outs aren't against the rules on DU3.

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]

114. How Fucking DARE YOU!!!!!!

[Recursion]

120. Stay classy (nt)

[calimary]

122. Just so you know, Bernie fans, SHIT LIKE THIS is making the rest of you look HORRIBLE.

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 01:38 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]

128. I am not the only Bernie fan who condemned this post

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]

238. Don't go blaming ALL Bernie supporters. A lot of us have condemned that post.

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]

264. I sincerely do not believe that person is really a Bernie fan.

I am firmly convinced the person who did that is a disruptor who is attempting to divide the community here.

[Metric System]

145. When I serve on a DU jury I try to be impartial, no matter my candidate of choice. It's too bad the

members selected for this jury didn't abide by the same principle. Absolutely disgusting and absolutely unsurprising, unfortunately.

[sharp_stick]

153. You've got to be fucking kidding me

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]

160. The jury system failed on your filthy post, but

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]

199. the members who voted to NOT HIDE are complicit.

[Cha]

255. Yes they are.. And, Bernie would be so proud. Not.

[riversedge]

162. NO Democrat should be called a

whore. Shame on you.

[heaven05]

181. YOU!!!!

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]

188. Some of you are really disgusting

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]

221. Might not even be one of us

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]

245. Stop with that bs talking point already. Enough is enough.

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.

[Cha]

256. +1

[NikolaC]

191. I'm A Sanders Supporter and I found

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]

194. Notice this post is

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]

198. A member was banned for calling Clinton something similar

I hope the site owners see fit to give you the boot as well.

[chknltl]

210. Utterly unapropriate post for DU.

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]

227. I'm sure the rest of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 606...

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 09:18 PM - Edit history (1)

... would be SO proud of you.

[aikoaiko]

229. Replying to more easily track whether admins protect their candidate by deleting and banning

FWIW, ibewlu606, I would substitute the word 'politician' for 'whore' and not use this word again on DU.

[KMOD]

230. Oh, please, if this poster is banned,

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]

232. I didn't defend the post. I advised him to change it and not use do this again.

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]

233. Jury results from earlier alert.

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]

234. That's uncalled for and just plain wrong. Since it survived, you should self-delete. n/t

[tblue37]

254. Using the term "whore" to refer to a female candidate is offensive,

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]

257. another Bernie supporter here who tried to alert on this post

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]

278. Glad to see they banned you....

You misogynist dirt bag.

[ZombieHorde]

279. I'm not a huge fan of HRC, but calling her a "whore" isn't cool.

It's sexist. Please stop.

[IHateTheGOP]

6. Nobody with a brain wants to see a repuglican in the WH.

[En Garde]

15. Oh? Hedge fund titans preferred Mitt Romney to President Obama in 2011-2012 fundraising.

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]

7. Looks like they are in agreement with her

about closing the gap.

[ybbor]

11. Yeah, that's the ticket

Right.

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Either her golden eloquence has stirred their social conscience:

>>>>“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]

12. I'm going with the latter

The look at her and see their reflection.

[Scuba]

68. Substitute "spouting" for "full of" and you'll be on the mark.

[LWolf]

73. They simply know the difference between

campaign talk and the walk once in office of those they've bought.

[En Garde]

9. It's all in the family. Her son-in-law runs his own hedge fund. They trust Hillary to take care...

...of profits.

Did I mention Chelsea worked for one right out of university?

[Divernan]

13. Hedge funds have been very, very good to Marc & Chelsea

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family.html?_r=0
For Clintons, a Hedge Fund in the Family

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

75. These people have no shame.

[Divernan]

14. One hand washes the other.

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]

38. So Democrats have their very own .00001% candidate this year... we are so lucky.

And let's not forget how Bill and Dubya claim they are brothers.

But hey, let's get on with the Clintonian coronation!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

80. yayyyyyy! wooohooo! all bow...not! They feelin' the Bern!

[yellowwoodII]

10. That Tells You a Lot

Ironic

[artislife]

16. Oh come on, they are just friends of Chelsea's..... nt

[SoapBox]

17. A DINO's Delight!

The Banksters would rejoice if she's elected.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Might that be, because ...

Historically, the economy performs significantly better during Democratic administrations than under republican administrations?

[Ichingcarpenter]

21. What do hedge fund managers titans contribute to POC or humanity?

What jobs do they create for our nation?

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Nothing ...

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]

70. individual philanthropic activities. .........LOL

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]

97. Yeah? ... Okay? n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

124. Yeah? ... Okay? n/t....LoL

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]

142. What are you talking about? ...

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]

144. I have said nothing about my "economic philosophies"

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]

150. That is exactly what I am talking about ... Straw - F'ing - Man ...

You asked what hedge fund managers contribute to POC and humanity ...

individual philanthropic activities

Was my ANSWER, not my solution!

[Ichingcarpenter]

152. So what do you support......?

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]

156. Just stop ... There was no question that wasn't answered ...

What is my economic philosophy?

Simply put ... I am a proponent of capitalism with strong governmental regulation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

161. capitalism with strong governmental regulation.

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]

165. Through trade agreements; but, let's be honest ...

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]

170. ""I live in the world as it is ..'

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]

179. No, I do not know any of that ...

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.

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]

183. ''But my vision of the future is a vision that cannot be lived until it comes about. ''

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]

19. Surprise - Surprise - Wonder What Those 1% Want In Return - Guaranteed Their Wants Won't Help The 99%

eom

[whatchamacallit]

23. This means nothing

Everything questionable or troubling about Hillary means nothing. No matter what. Always.

[Vincardog]

44. Only Hill Haters believe she has any issues.

[RufusTFirefly]

56. A clear cut case of misogyny

What other possible explanation could there be?

[Vincardog]

60. She has to be the BEST how else could she have raised all that MONEY? Caus MOLNEY is the ultimate

measure of political good.

[PoliticAverse]

27. It's in the family, Chelsea's husband runs a hedge fund...

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/business/dealbook/for-clintons-a-hedge-fund-in-the-family.html?_r=0

[virtualobserver]

28. unregulated hedge funds like Hillary

they must know Hillary better that her supporters do.

[4dsc]

33. No friend of the working class for sure

We need a true populist presidential candidate and it's not Hillary.

[HassleCat]

61. They know the odds

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]

62. The weirdo members of the richest club

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]

74. Yup. Follow the money.

Want to know who they are really loyal to? See who's footing their bills.

No brainer.

[tazkcmo]

98. Centerpice of her campaign.

“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]

101. Isn't pretty much every "group" in this country.....

Isn't pretty much every "group" in this country outside of registered republicans choosing Hillary?

[snagglepuss]

109. K and R

[Hoyt]

133. Groups like that usually contribute to both sides. Even Unions and environmental groups will

likely contribute to the likely GOP nominee when apparent.

[onecaliberal]

140. Not a Hillary supporter but would NEVER EVER

use that word to describe her. Please delete it, since unbelievably it was allowed to stand. We don't need that crap here.

[Ichingcarpenter]

148. We should censor words now?

I didn't write the OP.............it came from major news sources.

[onecaliberal]

149. What news source called a presidential candidate that word?

What the hell do they call the ones on the right?

[Ichingcarpenter]

177. What is '' that word?

Or is that one word you don't talk about?

[onecaliberal]

178. You know what I'm talking about.

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]

184. Hedge Fund Titans Choosing Hillary Clinton Over Top Republicans

that one?

[onecaliberal]

236. Buh bye...

[Ichingcarpenter]

243. You know what

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]

196. I knew what you meant. Don't worry about the OP who can't put it together.

The responses about it, only take up about 2/3 of the responses of the thread.

[Ichingcarpenter]

204. ''the OP who can't put it together.............'''..

Really?.............you want to go there on a personal attack?

[riversedge]

164. Well said.

[Babel_17]

208. Did you reply to the OP by mistake?

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]

186. "The candidate’s populist rhetoric didn’t dissuade many managers from supporting her."

Imagine that.

[Smarmie Doofus]

202. Yeah. Well. There's a reason for that.

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]

203. Well of course they are. One of them is her son in law.x

I wonder if his fund gets some of its investments from the Clinton Foundation. Hmmm

[Ichingcarpenter]

224. Anyone notice how most are not talking about the hedge fund op?

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]

237. Did you read the thread. I also said I know she is owned by corps.

I am a Bernie supporter. I still don't support people calling those kinds of names. It's beyond the pale.

[Ichingcarpenter]

240. So its my fault for reporting a true story"

You attacked me twice in this thread
for no reason.......

[raouldukelives]

258. Shocking.

[L0oniX]

266. So I'm guessing Hillary won't be pushing to reinstate Glass Steagall anytime soon either.

[marmar]

277. Down payment.

And isn't her SIL in charge of a hedge fund?