Wikileaks — Hillary Clinton Admits:

Politcal System Designed to Protect Party Establishments; Suggests New Rules to Benefit Democrats

Godlman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein must not like the way our political system works. His first question in one of Hillary's paid speeches.

“But just a general question to start you off on the domestic situation. Is the American political system just hopeless? Should we just throw it away, start over?” Goldman Sachs CEO Llyod Blankfein asked on October 29, 2013, during the “Builders and Innovators Summit.”

He went on to say...

You know, go home. Get a parliamentary system. Is it—because I will tell you—I’m kidding. We—talking here, and I didn’t do this in a formal survey, but when we ask entrepreneurs, whether they were social entrepreneurs, the people who were talking represented the work they’re doing in the cities and the businesses represented here, every conversation referred to either what the government was doing or what the government wasn’t doing that it was obvious that they should be doing.

Are you saying you and your fat cat friends are wanting a Marxist type government Lloyd?

So tell us what you think about that Hillary.

Well, look, I—I think that everyone agrees that we’re in a bad patch in our political system and in Washington. It’s—you know, there’s a lot of good things happening elsewhere in the country. There are a lot of mayors, you had Mitch Landrieu here, I was with Rahm Emanuel yesterday. There’s a lot of innovative, interesting, new ideas being put into practice by mayors, by some governors. So I think when we talk about our political system, we’re really focusing more on what’s happening in Washington. And it is dysfunctional right now. And it is for a variety of reasons, some of them systemic, as you suggested.

You know, I really have come to believe that we need to change the rules in the Senate, having served there for eight years. It’s only gotten more difficult to do anything. And I think nominees deserve a vote up or down. Policies deserve a vote up or down. And I don’t think that a small handful of senators should stand in the way of that, because, you know, a lot of those senators are really obstructionist. They should get out. They should make their case. They should go ahead and debate. But they shouldn’t be able to stop the action of the United States Senate. So I think there does have to be some reworking of the rules, particularly in the Senate.

But... but... but Hillary I thought that everything was going smoothly in America and everything was sunshine with tulips blooming everywhere.

a reply to: ReAdY2AsCeNd

That pretty much sums it up.

She wants to cherry pick senators

Sounds like she wants to limit the power, the autonomy of the Senate. Since she couldn't very well just say that on an open audience, that's probably about how she'd say it. This lady has onion layers of truths & deceptions. A big, BIG onion.

originally posted by: ssenerawa
She wants to cherry pick senators

I think she wants to rule the rule the world.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Agree. She just might get away with all of it too if you look at how the WH, DOJ, FBI, CIA, NSA, MSM have worked to save her from all these crimes.

Guess I know why I have hated onions all my life. lol...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Why not that's what Julius Ceasar did...

When did a republic not turn into a Democracy?

When did a Democracy not turn into an Oligarchy?

When did an oligarchy not turn into an ...ist or an ...ism?

a reply to: ssenerawa

She wants to cherry pick senators/

Yes.

And she wants to undermine the democratic procedure our legislative branch was founded upon.

Instead of just figuring out a way to get the partisan lines in the senate to find common ground, she would rather rig the system so that even if they don't find common ground, the dems still get to run the show how they please.

And these slick GS banksters all know what what she means when she says "So I think there does have to be some reworking of the rules, particularly in the Senate."

Well I have an idea Hillary:

Why don't you repeat to the Senate what you said to the Banksters and then they can all put it to a vote?

Hillary's spiel in the OP is drafted right out of this clip:


P: "well they don't always agree"
A: "then they should be made to"

a reply to: ColdWisdom

She won't do that because Abe Lincoln wouldn't do that.

Can't lose those two faces. They work miracles.

Policies deserve a vote up or down. And I don’t think that a small handful of senators should stand in the way of that, because, you know, a lot of those senators are really obstructionist. They should get out. They should make their case. They should go ahead and debate. But they shouldn’t be able to stop the action of the United States Senate. So I think there does have to be some reworking of the rules, particularly in the Senate.

She's talking about filibusters obviously and I'd assume changing the rules on cloture?

a reply to: theantediluvian

No, she's in a paid speech saying to her donors she could get their policies passed if it were not for those meddling senators.

Actually.... I despise her, so her saying this totally surprises me.... because, your system really does need an overhaul. The way its designed leaves way too much headroom to be #ed around with by lobbyists and filibusters.

Look at European governments.... I willing to volunteer that my own parliament in Denmark is way ahead of the US in terms of democracy. Much more simple.

Alas politicians can still be lying scumbags but atleast there is civil debate with decissions actually being made and we dont have that insane electorial system.

Having 9 diverse parties actually cater to a larger part of the public. And while we do have situations where one party sells out to another for influence, when it works it works well.

I for one feel so much more that my vote counts for something than if I had to vote in that two party system.

And why the hell do you have both a senate and a congress????? Sounds like wasting a lot of time and money...