Robert Ariail nails it on Clinton's social platform...

[MrMickeysMom]

[quickesst]

1. you know...

...him and his cartoon are full of shit. The surprised look on the guys face tries to put a across a look of surprise. If Hillary was speaking, anyone with a lick of common sense would know that the fee was set before the speech, and that the organization that asked her to speak would be aware of any fees, and willing to pay happily to have her there. Just more deceptive bullshit. Try harder!

[tularetom]

3. You're kidding, right?

IT'S A F%^&*#G CARTOON!!

[Autumn]

6. That was funnier than the cartoon

[sabrina 1]

9. It was. Maybe it was intended to be funny though ...

[quickesst]

12. I'm right

I simply replied to the OP in the same spirit as is as it was offered. Sanders supporters could not restrain themselves from going ballistic over a few comments about Bernie's hair. Pot meet kettle. As for the OP comment about nailing it, I'm pretty sure the cartoonist has a sore thumb. One should not attempt to use a hammer unless one knows how to use it. The cartoon was lame at best.

[magical thyme]

24. I must have missed it when Sanders supporters "went ballistic" over comments about

Bernies' hair. Last time I looked, we've embraced his "look."

[quickesst]

29. okay, ballistic maybe a little harsh

...but, on the other hand I offer a sample reply to a poll about Bernie and his hair posted in fun.


"The other candidates look like they're doing a cosmetics commercial.
One is functional and noncommercial, while the others are money monkeys and corporate whores." Back at ya!

[tularetom]

28. I don't believe the cartoonist meant that Clinton was literally taking bags of money after speaking

See, political cartoons are usually meant to be satirical and that means they use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

I'm sorry you seem unable to see the humor, irony, exaggeration and ridicule in that cartoon.

[daleanime]

5. Thanks....

you're a great postscript to the cartoon.

[George II]

14. shhhhh....don't speak out or else.....SWARM SWARM!!!!

When was the last time the situation portrayed in the cartoon happened, anyway?

Back before she was a candidate for President, she was sought out as a very interesting speaker.

[MrMickeysMom]

16. I didn't have to try any harder...

You just confirmed the message, apparently unknowingly.

[TexasProgresive]

2. That's funny

[cantbeserious]

4. No Citizen Need Settle For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[sabrina 1]

8. Not this time. NOW we have a choice.

I don't think they understand yet what the most important issue in this campaign is, the Money in Politics.

I think for the first time we are going to start seeing all the other Candidates either trying to EXPLAIN their huge corporate donations, or trying to hide them, as Bernie shows how corrupting an influence it is on our politics. As Biden stated just last week.

[Agony]

10. Go Bernie Go!

heck yeah!

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. Hillary Clinton aides' Wall Street links raise economic policy doubts

The Wall Street ties of two top aides of Hillary Clinton at the State Department are raising concerns among progressives about the composition of a future Clinton White House

The former aides, Tom Nides and Robert Hormats, have shuttled between government and Wall Street for years. Nides, who is frequently described as a Clinton confidant, is a longtime Morgan Stanley executive who served as deputy secretary of state for management and resources from 2011 to 2013 before returning to Morgan Stanley. Nides is also the former chairman of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (Sifma), the main lobbying group for Wall Street in Washington DC.

Hormats, a former vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served as under secretary of state for economic growth, energy and the environment from 2009 to 2013. He is currently vice-chairman of Kissinger Associates, the consulting firm founded by the former secretary of state Henry Kissinger.

Neil Sroka, a spokesman for the progressive advocacy group Democracy for America expressed his angst about the influence of the two in Clinton world. “It’s hard to imagine how a presidential candidate is going to seriously confront the powerful, greed-driven interests on Wall Street when they’re taking advice and staffing cabinet posts with people who just clocked out of the same big banks and investment firms that made bundles from wrecking our economy,” Sroka said.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/wall-street-links-hillary-clinton-aides-economic-policy-doubts

[George II]

15. And what does this have to do with the OP cartoon?

[MrMickeysMom]

17. You mean you MISSED that point?

A) Corporate Money/Wall Street = Every day high YEILD outcomes for the 1%

B) We the people of the United States = Every day rhetoric and DWINDLING outcome for the 99%

The way the number$ run, to fulfill a social contract for the working poor and middle class, you might seek a better outcome by not being funded by choice "A"

[George II]

19. In other words, not related to the cartoon.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. Very MUCH related...

One needs to take one's blinders off and take a look at the whole scenario.

The idea of electing someone to lead us is not going to be moved forward by catering to BIG MONEY.

You may need more thought on this, or you may dismiss it entirely. This makes it an either or -

Either you see where big money is in this run for the 2016 presidency or you don't. All you have to do is pay attention to who is being funded and has long term affiliation with the largest board rooms of corporations in this country and who has unrealistically cozy relationships with Wall Street.

It's all there.

[magical thyme]

25. there are none so blind

as those who will not see.

[Katashi_itto]

11. K&R!

[Popcorn 51]

13. Incomplete and stupid.

Needs a 3rd panel showing that the organization who paid her to speak used her as a fundraising draw and got their money back plus two or three times the amount.

[MrMickeysMom]

18. Your point with that was ...

what exactly?

[George II]

20. Indeed....the first panel says she's a "CANDIDATE", so the second panel....

....is way off base. She couldn't receive a penny from a corporation.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. You're getting closer, George...

Keep following the money…

I'm unsure where you get the idea that she hasn't or couldn't receive a penny from a corporation. By law, the SCOTUS ensures that we have a fine filter for corporate personhood, and she has over and above gotten it, and still gets it.

All those corporations who are people? Haven't you been following where her money has come from?

[George II]

23. You obviously don't understand Federal campaign finance laws.

[magical thyme]

26. you obviously don't understand cartoons.

[MrMickeysMom]

30. Nor the actual statistics of who's financing her!

Go figure…

[Thinkingabout]

27. Bookmarking