Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, she even knew about breaking the big banks:

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

See the amazing contrast in the Hillary supporter responses?

Bernie Sanders: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "THAT'S WROOONG! BERNIE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! YOU CAN'T DO THAT! DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! OMG! OMG!"

Hillary Clinton: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "SEE! HILLARY KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT COMES TO THE BANKS!"

LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

It wasn't based on the interviews. They had their minds made up long before the interview. Their clear bias showed in the interviews.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, she even knew about breaking the big banks:

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

See the amazing contrast in the Hillary supporter responses?

Bernie Sanders: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "THAT'S WROOONG! BERNIE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT! YOU CAN'T DO THAT! DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! OMG! OMG!"

Hillary Clinton: "Regulators can use Dodd Frank to break up banks"
Hillary Supporters: "SEE! HILLARY KNOWS WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT COMES TO THE BANKS!"

LOL!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

They certainly didn't mince words. And I would say it was fair based on those interviews.

Anonymous wrote:Look, she even knew about breaking the big banks:

Clinton: Well, I have been a strong supporter of Dodd-Frank because it is the most consequential financial reforms since the Great Depression. And I have said many times in debates and in other settings, there is authority in Dodd-Frank to break up banks that pose a grave threat to financial stability.

There are two approaches. There's Section 121, Section 165, and both of them can be used by regulators to either require a bank to sell off businesses, lines of businesses or assets, because of the finding that is made by two-thirds of the financial regulators that the institution poses a grave threat, or if the Fed and the FDIC conclude that the institutions' living will resolution is inadequate and is not going to get any better, there can also be requirements that they do so.

So we've got that structure. Now a lot of people have argued that there need to be some tweaks to it that I would be certainly open to. But my point from the very beginning of this campaign, and it's something that I've said repeatedly: big banks did not cause the Great Recession primarily. They were complicit, but hedge funds; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank; a big insurance company, AIG; mortgage companies like Countrywide, Fannie and Freddie — there were lots of culprits who were contributing to the circumstances that led to the very dangerous financial crisis.

Anonymous wrote:This endorsement!

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/vote-hillary-clinton-article-1.2598171?utm_content=buffer42c01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not rhetoric. If you don't read the transcript, you can't have an informed opinion on it.

I was referring to the tired rhetoric that HRC doesn't know where she stands on anything. It's not based in reality, it's based on rhetoric by the GOP and Sanders supporters. And then there's the problem that Bernies interview went horribly, and it looks like Hillary's was much better.

A.) to suggest Bernie's went "horribly" is pure spin
B,) it's not that Hillary doesn't know where she stands on anything, it's that where she stands changes depending on who she's tailored that particular speech for.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it was quite a contrast, wasn't it? Read them back to back.