HuffPo: HRC Administration Serious About Thumping Corporate Power

[Dr. Arch]

"“I share those concerns and questions,” Kaine replied. “We’ve got to get to the bottom of them. [We are] generally pro-competition. And less concentration I think is generally helpful, especially in the media. But this has just been announced, and I haven’t had a chance to dig into the details. But those are the kinds of questions that we need to be asking.”

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-att-time-warner_us_580cc751e4b02444efa3e399

[Virginiá]

If Hillary really wants to leave a good legacy and repair her image among voters, younger voters in particular, then seriously cracking down on corporations and banks and even dabbling in some trust-busting would do wonders. Next time a bank or corporation engages in criminally negligent behavior, send in the FBI and go buck wild. People want accountability, and it's something they really don't feel they have gotten from any of the past 3 presidents. Getting it from her would be a huge deal.

What does she have to lose? She is an old woman now and this is basically the last position she is ever going to hold. Build a positive legacy and go out with a bang.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

If Hillary really wants to leave a good legacy and repair her image among voters, younger voters in particular, then seriously cracking down on corporations and banks and even dabbling in some trust-busting would do wonders. Next time a bank or corporation engages in criminally negligent behavior, send in the FBI and go buck wild. People want accountability, and it's something they really don't feel they have gotten from any of the past 3 presidents. Getting it from her would be a huge deal.

What does she have to lose? She is an old woman now and this is basically the last position she is ever going to hold. Build a positive legacy and go out with a bang.

Do you believe she will do it?

[Dr. Arch]

If Hillary really wants to leave a good legacy and repair her image among voters, younger voters in particular, then seriously cracking down on corporations and banks and even dabbling in some trust-busting would do wonders. Next time a bank or corporation engages in criminally negligent behavior, send in the FBI and go buck wild. People want accountability, and it's something they really don't feel they have gotten from any of the past 3 presidents. Getting it from her would be a huge deal.

What does she have to lose? She is an old woman now and this is basically the last position she is ever going to hold. Build a positive legacy and go out with a bang.

Do you believe she will do it?

More than I believe Trump would.

[Speed of Sound]

If Hillary really wants to leave a good legacy and repair her image among voters, younger voters in particular, then seriously cracking down on corporations and banks and even dabbling in some trust-busting would do wonders. Next time a bank or corporation engages in criminally negligent behavior, send in the FBI and go buck wild. People want accountability, and it's something they really don't feel they have gotten from any of the past 3 presidents. Getting it from her would be a huge deal.

What does she have to lose? She is an old woman now and this is basically the last position she is ever going to hold. Build a positive legacy and go out with a bang.

Do you believe she will do it?

More than I believe Trump would.

She's jumpin' a bar that's buried in the ground, there.

[Virginiá]

Do you believe she will do it?

I hope she does. If we were talking about this in 2009 with a President Clinton, I'd not think so, but like I said, she is at the end of her career and she's an old lady now. She has nothing left to lose. If she was ever open to any of what I said above, this is the time where someone like her would do it - when they have no reasons left to worry about the political consequences (as in for future fundraising/etc)

Part of me really believes Hillary wants to have a positive legacy and leave this earth with a better image in the minds of the people than what she has now.

[Suburbia]

She probably should, but don't ban or abolish corporations for God's sake. We don't want to end up like RT or some propaganda-like nation.

[NOVA Green]

Regardless of Clinton's age if she takes aggressive action against the Big Banks and large financial institutions that the overwhelming majority of Americans of all political backgrounds blame for the Great Recession, it will no doubt we extremely well received on Main Street.

Even without challenging the fundamental concepts of a Free Market based economy, undertaking major financial sector reforms to prevent a future scenario where "Too big to Fail" allowed a major collapse of the net worth of most Americans, that are still upset that the big banks got bailed out, while the rest of us got screwed, will definitely go a long way towards showing that she is not just a puppet of Wall Street and the Financial Sector, which is a major stereotype and critique of Clinton from voters of all political persuasions.

What's the plan, how will it be done, and it is smart policy as opposed to political rhetoric with all style and no substance? Who knows, but it appears obvious that Sarbannes-Oxley was not enough, and we need smarter financial reform that protects average Americans from the greed and bonus based structure that currently exists....

Looking forward to hearing the details of the plan, but one thing that few would disagree with about Clinton, is that she is a total policy wonk and extremely detail oriented that can help build a really good piece of legislation to implement further reforms that both protect average Americans, while also not destroying the economic engine that is the American Stock Market.

[JA]

Calling out and actually punishing Wall Street criminality without what's often mischaracterized as "class warfare" rhetoric and a strong embrace of the capitalist aspect of our mixed market economy in her speeches would satisfy all but the far-right and would provide her with an opportunity to be uniquely populist. Democrats today seem to have forgotten that our favorite liberal President was actually a member of the New York elite whose VP choice decried the Hoover administration as Socialist in their first campaign.

[Maxwell]

I'm skeptical - but optimistic.

[Hermit For Peace]

Hillary as a Senator has worked to reign in the wall street banks. She will do as she says. Read this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/15/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Panda Express]

Ask Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who Hillary Clinton, who is running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of, if she is "serious" about curbing corporate power.

Unlike Clinton, Donald Trump's POLICIES represent a significant departure from the status quo on trade, foreign policy, and immigration in ways that the established interests oppose, sometimes for conflicting reasons.  Donald Trump's "America First" agenda has a real following, and it's something that goes beyond party; it touches areas where the left and right converge.  And that place is the opposition to globalism, and its role in destroying the middle class in America and the progressive flow of money to the top 1%.  A clear, uninhibited conversation on these issues is the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, because it would cause lots of folks who intend to vote for her (including a number of folks who are moderate, and even liberal) to recognize that they are supporting Nixon 2.0 in this race.

Trump's agenda has real popular appeal.  The collective noise machine that is the mass media repeats a story over and over that everyone is aware of and can make up their mind on, while the actual policy proposals get no time in discourse now.  That's deliberate.  Perhaps if Trump had lives one of "The Lives of the Saints" we wouldn't be here.  But the dialogue is all about something everyone knows about and can figure out, and none of it is on policy.  The Globalists, working independently and in conjunction, have finally succeeded in totally hijacking the campaign, and the status quo is likely secure.

Trump was, undoubtedly, a flawed candidate, given our information age.  But he was the only one that challenged the Globalist policies that are responsible for the diminishment of the Middle Class.  At this point, I hope a less vulnerable leader will take up the legitimate causes Trump's candidacy has taken up.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Trump's agenda has real popular appeal.  The collective noise machine that is the mass media repeats a story over and over that everyone is aware of and can make up their mind on, while the actual policy proposals get no time in discourse now.  That's deliberate.  Perhaps if Trump had lives one of "The Lives of the Saints" we wouldn't be here.  But the dialogue is all about something everyone knows about and can figure out, and none of it is on policy.  The Globalists, working independently and in conjunction, have finally succeeded in totally hijacking the campaign, and the status quo is likely secure.

Trump was, undoubtedly, a flawed candidate, given our information age.  But he was the only one that challenged the Globalist policies that are responsible for the diminishment of the Middle Class.  At this point, I hope a less vulnerable leader will take up the legitimate causes Trump's candidacy has taken up.

Agreed. Nigel Farage is right, the time is coming but it just won't be this cycle.  It took 20 years for Nigel and UKIP to win the Brexit vote.  To defeat Globalism, it will take a leader that is more intelligent and morally sound like Farage here.

[Joe Republic]

I do enjoy a good substantive discussion about the issues during the dying days of this electio-

Ask Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who Hillary Clinton, who is running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of etc etc

- never mind.  A deplorable got here before me.

[136or142]

Ask Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who Hillary Clinton, who is running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of, if she is "serious" about curbing corporate power.

Unlike Clinton, Donald Trump's POLICIES represent a significant departure from the status quo on trade, foreign policy, and immigration in ways that the established interests oppose, sometimes for conflicting reasons.  Donald Trump's "America First" agenda has a real following, and it's something that goes beyond party; it touches areas where the left and right converge.  And that place is the opposition to globalism, and its role in destroying the middle class in America and the progressive flow of money to the top 1%.  A clear, uninhibited conversation on these issues is the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, because it would cause lots of folks who intend to vote for her (including a number of folks who are moderate, and even liberal) to recognize that they are supporting Nixon 2.0 in this race.

Trump's agenda has real popular appeal.  The collective noise machine that is the mass media repeats a story over and over that everyone is aware of and can make up their mind on, while the actual policy proposals get no time in discourse now.  That's deliberate.  Perhaps if Trump had lives one of "The Lives of the Saints" we wouldn't be here.  But the dialogue is all about something everyone knows about and can figure out, and none of it is on policy.  The Globalists, working independently and in conjunction, have finally succeeded in totally hijacking the campaign, and the status quo is likely secure.

Trump was, undoubtedly, a flawed candidate, given our information age.  But he was the only one that challenged the Globalist policies that are responsible for the diminishment of the Middle Class.  At this point, I hope a less vulnerable leader will take up the legitimate causes Trump's candidacy has taken up.

You're a moron.  You're reading a whole bunch of things into The Trump Thing that it never said.

[ursulahx]

Guys, 68 isn't old any more.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Ask Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who Hillary Clinton, who is running for President, actively worked to discredit the allegations of, if she is "serious" about curbing corporate power.

Unlike Clinton, Donald Trump's POLICIES represent a significant departure from the status quo on trade, foreign policy, and immigration in ways that the established interests oppose, sometimes for conflicting reasons.  Donald Trump's "America First" agenda has a real following, and it's something that goes beyond party; it touches areas where the left and right converge.  And that place is the opposition to globalism, and its role in destroying the middle class in America and the progressive flow of money to the top 1%.  A clear, uninhibited conversation on these issues is the last thing Hillary Clinton wants, because it would cause lots of folks who intend to vote for her (including a number of folks who are moderate, and even liberal) to recognize that they are supporting Nixon 2.0 in this race.

Trump's agenda has real popular appeal.  The collective noise machine that is the mass media repeats a story over and over that everyone is aware of and can make up their mind on, while the actual policy proposals get no time in discourse now.  That's deliberate.  Perhaps if Trump had lives one of "The Lives of the Saints" we wouldn't be here.  But the dialogue is all about something everyone knows about and can figure out, and none of it is on policy.  The Globalists, working independently and in conjunction, have finally succeeded in totally hijacking the campaign, and the status quo is likely secure.

Trump was, undoubtedly, a flawed candidate, given our information age.  But he was the only one that challenged the Globalist policies that are responsible for the diminishment of the Middle Class.  At this point, I hope a less vulnerable leader will take up the legitimate causes Trump's candidacy has taken up.

Please explain to me in detail Trump's policies. Particularly elaborate on how he will halt the "progressive flow of money to the top 1%".