Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The bankers have it all figured out of where their big bribes {I mean campaign contributions} are going to go in the race for the White House. If the {R}s nominate Christie or Bush the bankers are open to support both of them. But if it is any other {R} like Cruz or Paul the bankers will take their money and support Hillary. The bankers work under the Wendall Wilkie theory that " there is not a dimes difference between either party". And when it comes to Wall street and banker money either establishment side will do.
Why is this important? who ever gains the lions share of Wall street and banker money ends up in the White House. I will go out on a limb here and say the bankers have it right and the winner will be Christie, Bush, or Hillary. The only thing missing is the dupes casting their votes on Nov 2nd 2016.
The bankers have it all figured out of where their big bribes {I mean campaign contributions} are going to go in the race for the White House. If the {R}s nominate Christie or Bush the bankers are open to support both of them. But if it is any other {R} like Cruz or Paul the bankers will take their money and support Hillary. The bankers work under the Wendall Wilkie theory that " there is not a dimes difference between either party". And when it comes to Wall street and banker money either establishment side will do.
Why is this important? who ever gains the lions share of Wall street and banker money ends up in the White House. I will go out on a limb here and say the bankers have it right and the winner will be Christie, Bush, or Hillary. The only thing missing is the dupes casting their votes on Nov 2nd 2016.
Look at the big money given to the Obama campaign from mega law firms. Now Obama is appointing them to circuit judges. Like Kagan & Sotomayor , and their law firms donations in 2008.
Look at the big money given to the Obama campaign from mega law firms. Now Obama is appointing them to circuit judges. Like Kagan & Sotomayor , and their law firms donations in 2008.
The article pointed out that Hillary's challengers will be hard pressed for campaign money after she gets the lions share from Wall street, lawyers, and corporations. Hillary will leave them with a very small pie to fight over.
The bankers have it all figured out of where their big bribes {I mean campaign contributions} are going to go in the race for the White House. If the {R}s nominate Christie or Bush the bankers are open to support both of them. But if it is any other {R} like Cruz or Paul the bankers will take their money and support Hillary.
wait, what?
What makes you think Ted Cruz isn't going to be 'in' with the bankers? Or Rand Paul , for that matter?
We can let the bankers decide who wins the election. Or we can listen to every candidate and support the one who best reflects our values and concerns, regardless of how well (or how badly) they're financed.
What makes you think Ted Cruz isn't going to be 'in' with the bankers? Or Rand Paul , for that matter?
Did you read the story? Cruz and Paul according to the bankers are not part of the establishment and thus makes them unpredictable. Do you think the bankers would risk their money on someone who might end QE? or would push for real banking reform? Do you think the bankers would take a risk of having Yellen not be re appointed?
We can let the bankers decide who wins the election. Or we can listen to every candidate and support the one who best reflects our values and concerns, regardless of how well (or how badly) they're financed.
It's our choice. It really IS our choice.
If they are badly financed then the media will label them " they can not win" and the majority of the voters will fall right in line and the bankers choice is voted in.
Did you read the story? Cruz and Paul according to the bankers are not part of the establishment and thus makes them unpredictable. Do you think the bankers would risk their money on someone who might end QE? or would push for real banking reform? Do you think the bankers would take a risk of having Yellen not be re appointed?
Do you think bankers would support Andrew Jackson today?
Like all big money, they are going to pour money into there investments. The President and Congress are their investments, not the people that have no money to represent them in that magnitude. Then you have the media corps that are fueled by money.
Political ads are millions, while John's sub-shop pays thousands, unless he is running for office.
We can let the bankers decide who wins the election. Or we can listen to every candidate and support the one who best reflects our values and concerns, regardless of how well (or how badly) they're financed.
It's our choice. It really IS our choice.
I believe you, and I want to believe that what you say would be embraced by voters nationwide.
But as we saw in the last two elections, low-information types are easy prey for a manipulative media.
An educated, informed populace is a politician's worst nightmare. Unfortunately, we're a long way away from having an educated, informed populace.
Cruz and Paul according to the bankers are not part of the establishment
i think whomever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swingblade
Do you think the bankers would risk their money on someone who might end QE?
i don't think QE is the dominant factor in their decision
Quote:
or would push for real banking reform?
i don't think Paul or Cruz would push for real banking reform.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.