The Clintons could get hit with the Panama Papers... can she really absorb another scandal?

4/6/2016 1:28:56 AM

I'm not familiar with how it works, but if Clinton was involved, wouldn't we have known right away? Didn't they go through and pick out the names of notable leaders first?

4/6/2016 1:30:54 AM

They seemed to have been taking their time cross-checking sources, they got this info a year ago. I could see them making extra sure their data is correct before accusing a Clinton.

However, that seems really unlikely, they'd have to be pretty dumb to get wrapped up in this. This SHOULD be game-ending for any politician wrapped up in this.

4/6/2016 1:43:27 AM

There are reports that her campaign chairman Podesta and his lobbying firm are tied to one of the implicated Russian Banks but so far I have yet to see that reported by a mainstream source.

4/6/2016 7:17:16 AM

it really doesn't even matter, its bad for Clinton because its another thing that proves that Sanders had a better policy position than Clinton and its not too abstract for voters to understand.

the average voter will be shown ads/images showing that Clinton supported an agreement that helped make this easier and Sanders opposed it. Her/the admins only defense against that criticism is pointing out that tax fraud also happens without the agreement (weak defense, and ignores the claim that it made it easier) or that no americans are implicated (very dangerous, still way too early to know that). There is no much she can do except counter-attack on a different issue and hope this one loses traction, its bad optics for her regardless if anyone connected to her is involved in some way.

[Edited on April 6, 2016 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

4/6/2016 8:47:23 AM

Quote :

"She needs to make the case that Sanders is all talk and no follow through or it could be over. "

Sanders is making that case quite well for himself. How can you possibly campaign on the primary tenet of breaking up the big banks and then have absolutely no answer when asked how you would do that. He's a farce.

4/6/2016 9:08:24 AM

except he's had a detailed answer since jaunary. if only you ventured outside the realm of conservative tabloids, you would know that.

4/6/2016 11:06:35 AM

lol conservative tabloid - do you even know who the fuck the NYDN is? you get a lot of conservative tabloids advocating for gun control and pro-choice these days?



i know you're a troll, but at least try to be a smart troll. don't make it this easy

[Edited on April 6, 2016 at 2:15 PM. Reason : i mean ffs]

4/6/2016 2:03:37 PM

one more, just to rub your troll nose in it

4/6/2016 2:17:03 PM

Sorry I shoulnd't have said conservative because that confuses people who are caught up in establishment mind games. Everyone knows that newspaper leans "moderate". I call moderate conservative because the republican party has shifted off the deep end even though neither group is truly "conservative".

If you want assault weapons and bans on muslims you aren't conservative, you're just crazy. This tabloid needs attention and headlines. Its not real journalism and the notion that Bernie "had a bad interview" has been put to bed over and over.

Its just another rallying cry for Hillary supporters to confirm what they already had their minds made up about.

4/6/2016 2:34:03 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

i'll give you credit man. your bernie-splaining game is tight

[Edited on April 6, 2016 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2016 2:54:24 PM

CNN gets owned in response to questions regarding the Daily News and its hitjob on Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3AdBnDZjO4

4/6/2016 4:24:47 PM

The Daily News was essentially finding a way to turn it into an intentional hit on Sanders:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-daily-news_us_5704779ce4b0a506064d8df5?utm_hp_ref=tw

Take the exchange getting the most attention: Sanders’ supposed inability to describe exactly how he would break up the biggest banks. Sanders said that if the Treasury Department deemed it necessary to do so, the bank would go about unwinding itself as it best saw fit to get to a size that the administration considered no longer a systemic risk to the economy. Sanders said this could be done with new legislation, or through administrative authority under Dodd-Frank.

This is true, as economist Dean Baker, Peter Eavis at The New York Times, and HuffPost’s Zach Carter in a Twitter rant have all pointed out. It’s also the position of Clinton herself. “We now have power under the Dodd-Frank legislation to break up banks. And I’ve said I will use that power if they pose a systemic risk,” Clinton saidat a February debate. No media outcry followed her assertion, because it was true.

As the interview went on, though, it began to appear that the Daily News editors didn’t understand the difference between the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Follow in the transcript how Sanders kept referring to the authority of the administration and the Treasury Department through Dodd-Frank, known as Wall Street reform, while the Daily News editors shifted to the Fed.

This is simply a factual dispute between the Daily News and Sanders, not a matter of opinion. The Daily News was wrong.

4/6/2016 6:38:59 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/contributor/2016/04/i-bet-it-is-pretty-fun-working-at-a-tabloid

LOL

4/6/2016 7:00:17 PM

Bernie fires back on Sandy Hook:
https://youtu.be/xkVypWV2QZ4

4/7/2016 8:44:07 AM

typical. he'll never apologize for anything gun related. can't stand in the way of his constituents being able to buy guns whenever they want. fuck all the people getting murdered in the inner city. MY PEOPLE MUST HUNT AND SHOOT CLAYS.

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 12:50:06 PM

That pesky second amendment

4/7/2016 2:04:22 PM

Why should manufacturers be sued for gun deaths?

4/7/2016 2:19:20 PM

Quote :

"typical. he'll never apologize for anything gun related. can't stand in the way of his constituents being able to buy guns whenever they want. fuck all the people getting murdered in the inner city. MY PEOPLE MUST HUNT AND SHOOT CLAYS."

lol nice edit bruh

You first version was "he'll never apologize for the rampant gun love culture he's responsible for"

4/7/2016 2:46:20 PM

Gun manufacturer's are not responsible for gun related deaths. It's gun sellers who must step up and go through the proper process of background checks and waiting periods. I suppose manufacturers could refuse to stock stores who don't follow stricter policies, but I don't know how they could regulate it.

4/7/2016 3:02:49 PM

So in other words, Bernie gets a pass because "Revolution"

4/7/2016 4:13:59 PM

Cool strawman bro

4/7/2016 4:14:58 PM

And if we're going to start suing gun manufacturers for misuse of their products then who's next? Pharmaceutical companies? Companies who make baseball bats? Fertilizer? Fireworks? Dildos? Baby blankets?

4/7/2016 4:20:22 PM

I just think it's convenient for Sanders supporters to blindly follow whatever he supports, even if it doesn't seem logically consistent. Gun violence is a huge problem in America, yet Sanders doesn't seem to get it.

4/7/2016 4:49:29 PM

Quote :

"Gun violence is a huge problem in America, yet Sanders doesn't seem to get it."

Because he doesn't think gun manufacturers should be sued for people misusing their products?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/20/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-nra-report-card-d-minus-most-recent/

4/7/2016 4:53:47 PM

Don't you see the problem with advocating for a more socialist society and then turning a blind eye to the gun industry because his NE constituents love their guns? I certainly do...

4/7/2016 4:55:31 PM

Quote :

"turning a blind eye to the gun industry because his NE constituents love their guns?"

Quote :

"if we're going to start suing gun manufacturers for misuse of their products then who's next? Pharmaceutical companies? Companies who make baseball bats? Fertilizer? Fireworks? Dildos? Baby blankets?"

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 5:09 PM. Reason : What exactly are you suggesting here?]

4/7/2016 5:07:04 PM

I'm going to ignore your slippery slope fallacy and ask you to answer my legitimate question, thanks.

4/7/2016 5:11:20 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to ignore your slippery slope fallacy and ask you to answer my legitimate question, thanks. "

I'll answer your question.

Quote :

"Don't you see the problem with advocating for a more socialist society and then turning a blind eye to the gun industry because his NE constituents love their guns? I certainly do..."

To preface this, Sanders is my candidate of choice for this election, however I disagree with many of his stances (push towards UBI, free college for everyone, GMOs, Nuclear Power etc).

So the argument is if you're for democratic socialism, shouldn't you be for punishing gun manufacturers? I understand the question, however, I don't understand the logic. I'm 100% in support of tighter gun control laws just as I am in favor of DUI laws. However, just like DUIs, the car maker isn't responsible, the gun maker shouldn't be responsible for shootings. Obviously there are exceptions if the manufacturer is not following gun control regulation/proper selling laws, but again, I fail to see why they should be punished.

4/7/2016 6:02:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm going to ignore your slippery slope fallacy"

It was a question, not an assertion that A,B,C would happen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Here, I'll spell it out for you.

A - You support suing gun manufacturers for misuse of their products.
B - What other manufacturers do you support suing for misuse of their products? I provided some examples, but feel free to supply your own.

4/7/2016 6:18:49 PM

Why even bother saying anything in the first place if you're Sanders? Oh wait, a bunch of his constituents enjoy hunting. Better not piss them off!!

4/7/2016 7:43:47 PM

Can you please justify why you support the suing of gun manufacturers who are following the law? Stop avoiding the question.

4/7/2016 7:49:32 PM

Do we really need to discuss why people felt compelled to sue in the first place? You realize we are talking about the massacre of innocent children, right? Obviously, it's up for the courts to decide, but for him to go out of his way to defend the gun industry shows how out of touch his is.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gun manufacturers have to pony up the legal fees, especially when the products you've sold have, you know, led to the deaths of innocent children... It's not like they're hurting for money these days. Fuck em.

4/7/2016 7:55:21 PM

i think the guns should be banned but if they are legal its pretty crazy to try to sue people for legally selling them

4/7/2016 8:12:57 PM

it's not at all crazy for them to try

winning is a completely different matter, and luckily for gun nuts, the law is squarely on their side. good thing ole Bern is there to point this out though.

4/7/2016 8:15:14 PM

Quote :

"I just think it's convenient for Sanders supporters to blindly follow whatever he supports, even if it doesn't seem logically consistent."

Just as convenient for Clinton supporters to blindly follow her, even if she isn't factually consistent.

4/7/2016 8:32:07 PM

c'mon man

earlier in this page you were spouting some garbage about Clinton being involved in the Panama Papers with zero proof. let's stick to the topic of Bernie and his dumb remarks since those are things that actually exist.

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 8:33:54 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing gun manufacturers have to pony up the legal fees, especially when the products you've sold have, you know, led to the deaths of innocent children... It's not like they're hurting for money these days. Fuck em."

lol you aren't even thinking about what you're saying. i know you're a blind HRC supporter, but you're definitely not this stupid.

btw in case people weren't aware, the liability protection isn't a blanket protection. there are reasonable exceptions.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-industry-immunity-policy-summary/

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 8:45:35 PM

^ nah, I'm truly about as anti-gun as you can get- has nothing to do with being a blind follower of HRC (I'm not). Unfortunately, we live in a fucked up society where the 2nd amendment is revered and people have just accepted daily mass shootings as a sacrifice to uphold it. It's not going anywhere, but that doesn't mean I have to support it or like it.



[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 8:50:49 PM

i want us to go the way of the UK and severely restrict guns, but punishing manufacturers for legally selling them is ridiculous

4/7/2016 8:54:23 PM

is it really? they've got blood on their hands in my eyes, but i guess it all depends on how you look at it. i would never say a single thing to defend gun manufacturers, but then again I'm not Bernie Sanders.

4/7/2016 8:57:17 PM

Are you for punishing alcohol beverage companies for all the death and damage they cause?

4/7/2016 9:01:59 PM

you are comparing rocks and oranges right now. you realize that, right?

4/7/2016 9:02:28 PM

so, again, by your logic, distilleries also have blood on their hands? and we should be able to sue them for drunken drivers?

what is the difference? they are both products being used outside of the manufacturer's intended purpose.

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 9:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 9:02:48 PM

^^so you are against the 2nd ammendment?

4/7/2016 9:02:56 PM

pretty sure the only real purpose of a gun is to kill something or practice killing something. i could be wrong though.

Quote :

"Are you for punishing alcohol beverage companies for all the death and damage they cause?"

In a sense, we already do punish them by heavily taxing and regulating them to make up for said death/destruction they cause. Are guns taxed and regulated in the same manner? I forget.

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 9:07 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 9:04:30 PM

gun manufacturers don't make guns for people to shoot children

they make guns for defense, hunting, and sport

4/7/2016 9:06:55 PM

Quote :

"In a sense, we already do punish them by heavily taxing and regulating them to make up for said death/destruction they cause. Are guns taxed and regulated in the same manner? I forget. "

and you're trying to say we're comparing apples and oranges? christ

4/7/2016 9:08:56 PM

wat? he was the one that brought up the comparison in the first place. just trying to follow along and address the one he brought up.

[Edited on April 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2016 9:09:40 PM

you're comparing taxing them, to allowing people to sue them because another person illegally used their product

4/7/2016 9:10:40 PM