Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be president of the USA
Ok, so there is this idea going around that Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified and experienced people to have ever run for president.
I strongly object.
The question turns on what it is that qualifies one to be president and what experience is relevant.
By the measure of what got us to where we are now, no one has ever been more qualified and experienced than Hillary Clinton. I will definitely grant you that.
Hillary Clinton has been corrupted by Wall Street
Fascinatingly, Hillary Clinton doesn’t even understand that she has been compromised by taking $650,000 from Goldman Sachs. It boggles the mind that a candidate for the Democratic nomination can be in this position and still be considered a legitimate contender.
I remember the financial crash of 2008. I was living in New York City at the time and I worked for a propietary trading desk at Deutsche Bank. We were doing something called statistical arbitrage and I was writing software to allow us to execute trades. My boss was writing the software to figure out what trades to execute. One of the parties we wanted to execute trades with was Goldman Sachs and I remember the very few phone calls that I had with them.
First of all, Goldman Sachs is all business and they’re the best. The underlings who worked there were and who interacted with me were very good and they didn’t make mistakes. To me that basically meant that they followed up on their emails in an appropriate time frame and they were to the point and contained pertinent information and the tone was such that they were never in danger of burning a bridge.
I also ran across a few Goldman Sachs characters in my social life. All of them were conservative and religious — met through Redeemer Church. They were also products of Stanford, Oxford, Harvard, etc. Not one of them did I ever hold in real respect, but I’m certain they’d say the same of me — what I’ve decided is that they’re just wired differently. Think of them as sharks, not humans. These guys will eat you alive and then rationalize it to themselves completely.
In spiritual and psychological terms, those at Goldman Sachs are the highest functioning criminals — who are ironically aided by their blindness and lack of empathy. The shark benefits from being cold-blooded.
Strangely, we are forced to confess that those who work for Goldman Sachs are also children of God — it is one of the deepest mysteries of existence. They are the high priests of Mammon, and yet somehow grace must also be available to them. I suppose we dare not question our Creator.
Hillary Clinton is in bed with Goldman Sachs
Hillary Clinton is the mother of Chelsea Clinton, who married Marc Mezvinsky. Mezvinsky is a hedge fund manager who is a former Goldman Sachs employee.
Here is the first paragraph of what Wikipedia has to say about Mark Mezvinsky:
Marc Mezvinsky (born December 15, 1977) is an investment banker, co-founder of hedge fund Eaglevale Partners, and the husband of Chelsea Clinton. Mezvinsky was formerly an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. He is the son of Ed Mezvinsky, a disgraced former politician convicted of 31 counts of fraud, and Marjorie Margolies.
Ok, so there’s that connection to Goldman Sachs. But it is only the beginning. She has also taken $650,000 in speaking fees from Goldman, which is essentially amounts to taking $650,000 for doing nothing but showing up to collect it.
But there’s more. Watch this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
If there is one thing I base my distaste for Hillary Clinton on, it is this clip. In it, Elizabeth Warren describes how Hillary Clinton knowingly turned her back on single mothers when push came to shove. She was forced to take a vote that would either benefit Wall Street or else benefit single mothers and she chose Wall Street.
And if you want to know even more about the connection between Clinton’s “speaking fees” from Wall Street and how the Clinton’s return the favor to Wall Street, then read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill is more disqualifying than her vote for the Iraq War
I do think the vote for the Iraq War demonstrates bad judgment, but somehow I find it excusable due to the fact that we were all being lied to by Bush administration regarding WMDs, and by the echoes of 9/11, which basically distort everything.
The bankruptcy bill, however, was just a straight up decision on whether or not to squeeze the middle class for the benefit of multi-national financial institutions. If a liberal gets the Iraq War wrong and also can’t get this one straight, then you really have to ask yourself what the point of it all is.
Lets return to this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
First, listen up until the 3:20 mark and ask yourself if that is the kind of person you would vote for. My answer is yes, I would. I would vote for that Hillary Clinton to be president.
But then, listen to what Elizabeth Warren says after the 3:20 mark. That’s when Hillary was no longer an idealist, but a realist who had to finally show her own hand and not her husband’s.
Hillary Clinton finally had to take a politically risky vote herself, and the choice fundamentally came down to defending the less privileged vs. profits for Wall Street. Guess which one she chose.
It was a vote on a bankruptcy bill. The banks wanted to make it easier to lure people into bad credit deals and squeeze them, so they wanted a law passed that “would make it easier for them to drain money out of the pockets of middle class families”, as Warren puts it.
The bill was likely to have a disproportionately negative effect on single-parent households headed by women, and Warren, who was a professor of bankruptcy law at Harvard understood it very well. She wrote an op-ed that Hillary responded to and they met and discussed it in person back when Hillary was first lady.
In the end, when Hillary Clinton was a senator, she voted to make life harder for the middle class easier for big banks. This, in a nutshell, is why I oppose Hillary Clinton.
In contrast: