-
Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
On a monumentally historic evening. An evening that despite who wins the Presidency will be something that our grandchildren learn about in history books. A night when the first African American has been elected by either of the two major political parties as their representative to compete for the highest position in the world. This was Barrack Obama's night. This was also a night for Hillary Clinton to plant the seeds of healing with her supporters. It was a time for her to get behind Barrack and urge her supporters to do the same. Instead she chose to do the exact opposite. She has decided to make an attempt at high jacking the VP spot. This is a woman that has completely lost her mind and my view of both Hillary as well as Bill Clinton has been dramatically changed after their behavior during this entire process.
-
Why does everything have to be about race?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ15
Why does everything have to be about race?
When did I make it about race? I simply pointed out the historical importance of the night.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Who will be paying Hillary?
As the former secretary begins a speaking career, we'll learn a lot from her corporate client roster:
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/who_...aying_hillary/
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Activist Put on Police Harassment List for Turning Back on Hillary Clinton:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQHwn...id=P9dFuV_SLCg
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Obama kind of floated down into the Oval Office, Hillary has had to elbow, kick, and push her way through the crowdiest Crowd in American Politics.
I'd say it's possible she uses nuclear weapons, but don't worry, if she does it will only be used against bad people.
You can bet she's got a book on everybody who has ever crossed her.
I'm going to vote her, I hope she kicks ass bigtime, here and abroad.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
I was struck by this remark which Odelay made in the thread on Cuomo/Rubio and as it relates more to Democrats and Mrs Clinton than Republicans I post some of it here:
Despite Republican struggles over the last 2 years, from Bridgegate to Cantor's surprise defeat, and despite an inexorable demographics trend working against the Republican Party, I've never been one to believe the hype from some in the Left that Democrats have some kind of lock on the White House. All it takes is for the GOP to nominate a decent candidate and many people in the middle and even some on the left will migrate back to the GOP ticket......
Hillary looks like a 95% probability of running and I don't believe there will be any serious challengers for the Dem nomination. But as Hillary triangulates away from the Left, as the Clintons always do, it opens up a possibility for someone like Paul to peel away a significant layer of Obama's and the Democrat's natural constituency. That would turn the election into a true horse race.
It will be said by many, but this election will be Hillary's to lose, and I do believe she is capable of fucking it up, Clinton-style.
Living in the UK means we don't get the nuances of day-to-day reporting in the media here -the only report I can think of in recent times on the Republicans was in the press a week or so ago and concerned the view some in the US have that Mitt Romney might stand again, whereas with Mrs Clinton the 'will she, won't she' question is aired a fair amount, as recently too there has been some publicity surrounding her book Hard Choices.
As I am not an American I am in the happy position of saying that I would never vote for such a political weasel, and in the (unlikely) event of meeting her face to face would urge her not to run for the Presidency, but I do believe that there are Democrats who think the Republicans are still too divided and that they will not be able to find a candidate who has both charisma and credibility for those moderate voters in the 'centre ground'. And I think they have decided it is time for a woman to be sent to the White House, which is why Mrs Clinton is such a hot favourite for the nomination. Judged by her book, she wants the USA to return to its former position of military intervention here, there and everywhere -'when necessary' of course. I don't know if Americans want a return to what is in essence the foreign policy of George W Bush.
What puzzles me is that in a country in which a President is supposed to demonstrate a belief in God and Family, Mrs Clinton, who I assume believes in God, does not appear to have a 'normal' family. What precisely is her relationship with Mr Clinton? If she were to be elected, would he be in any way involved in policy making -will he even live in the White House with her? If it is going to be a dirty election, I think she may have a hard time answering personal rather than policy questions and most of them related to her 'husband'. Or maybe America is ready for a Presidential Madam who is all but in reality divorced?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
I'm mentally retarded, but I can assure everyone that Hillary knows a thousand times more about Politics than anyone on this forum.
She is a Cold Fish, and she's stuck with her past. But you can bet your bottom dollar she knows what she's doing and she'll be the next President.
I'm probably one of a handful of Americans on this forum that remember Kennedy and Camelot, and reporters gathering around the President laughing.
I heard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech on the car radio, I had one of those moments of clarity that the hot line between God and the White House was severed forever, if you're under 40 and American all you've ever heard from the White House is pure Political Propaganda Bullshit, because before you become the leader of the free world you have to WIN. The 2000 election was when I officially became pissed.
My brother heard a Republican Congressman on the PBS Lehrer Report late in the Bush Administration say the Republican Party didn't even bother to hide all the stealing they were doing! They're not above the law, they are the law, elected by the People. Any flaws in the system will be exploited.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Jeb Bush v. Hillary Clinton: the Perfectly Illustrative Election:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...tive-election/
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Hillary Clinton stinks! She better not be the next president!
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Better than another Bush.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Not thrilled about another Bush either. But Hillary is the worst. What do they call those….Fucking Repulsive Liberal Bitch or wahtever.
How about Rand Paul!
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
They call them women who are smarter than you.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Better than another Bush.
I have to disagree with you on this one. So far...I'd much rather see Jeb than Hillary...even though I don't think he'd get the nomination anyway so...
Maybe neither one will get it...the landscape is changing for the Democrats also.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Interestingly enough - from what I read quite recently - Jeb Bush's stance on education, and more important - immigration, would probably kill his chances at the nomination from the hardcore right wing.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yuengling
Not thrilled about another Bush either. But Hillary is the worst. What do they call those….Fucking Repulsive Liberal Bitch or wahtever.
How about Rand Paul!
The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben
The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.
Yes and No, Ben.
How much power does a president have when after six years in office he still can't get half of his appointments approved? How long have we been without a Surgeon General? It was only after the Ebola scare (that the Republicans trumped up for the midterm elections) that Dr. Murthy was finally approved (despite the vociferous protests of the powerful gun lobby). Speaking of the gun lobby, how come Obama has taken away our guns yet...or at least signed legislation curtailing the civilian use and ownership of assault weapons, high capacity magazines etc.?
On the other hand, Congress has abdicated it power to declare war on a regular basis since the Korean War. Apparently it's better, for the purpose of getting re-elected, to appear to be a war monger than to actually be responsible for a declaration of war ('cause all wars become a shit-slide sooner or later). In every administration the executive accumulates more power because of the unwillingness of the legislative branch to live up to its Constitutional responsibilities.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben
The president has too much power. That's the problem. All concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.
So, Rand Paul or Clinton or Bush. The problem isn't necessarily the person. It's the office; it's the extreme power of that office, of that position.
Moreover, I take some exception to the assumption that “all concentrated power leads to abuse of that power.” This is true over time. As the power is transferred from person to person it becomes more and more likely that it will eventually be held by one of corruptible character. This is why we need checks and balances.
In spite of all the trumped up charges, I really see no evidence that Hillary, nor Paul, nor Jeb are particularly corruptible or prone to the abuse of power (say as compared to Chris Christie). George W Bush wasn’t particularly corrupted either by the power he wielded. He was just not particularly smart and he put his trust in the wrong advisors. On the other hand Cheney, who had W’s trust, was bent from the get go. Thanks to the Supreme Court the amount money now flowing into campaigns from private and from anonymous sources will only enhance the influence of the candidates ‘friends and advisors.’
I don’t see myself voting for Jeb, but not because of any character issues, rather it would be because he and his friends are too conservative for my taste regarding most issues. Hell, for my tastes, Obama has been too centrist and too willing to compromise with the conservatives on most issues, especially Health Care (which should’ve been single payer, Medicaid for All).
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
I far as the thread topic goes, I first respected Hillary for her personal involvement with the attempt to establish a national healthcare system during her husband’s presidency, although I was in my teens then and not paying a whole lot of attention. It seemed to me at the time that the country was wildly polarized over the Clinton presidency: there were accusations of murder, endless investigations and finally a silly impeachment over a blow-job. (Whitewater turned out to be nonsense and a huge waste of money by the vindictive prosecutor Ken Star who couldn't bare to see a Democrat in the White House and a First Lady with real intelligence and spunk. Impeaching the leader of the Free World over a blow-job astounded the whole world and had them laughing at our American prudishness. Of course it wasn’t really about the blow-job, nor about lying about a blow-job. It was an attempted coup d’etat).
I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary in part because I remembered how polarizing Hillary was eight years prior (through no fault of her own). I thought it that would make it difficult for her to get anything done. Boy was I wrong. I should’ve known a Black man in the White House was a hell of a lot more polarizing than any Clinton could be.
My current respect for Hillary mostly derives from the way she handled herself as Secretary of State. (Yeah, yeah...I know... Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. Please give nonsense a rest) She held the office during particularly difficult times, as we all know from watch the world seethe in turmoil on the nightly news. She reformed the State Department, established the The Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative, increased the number women ambassadors, played integral roles in designing, implementing or smoothing the way for a plethora of treaties and agreements between nations (e.g. The Turkish-Armenian Accord) and was quick to offer aid and comfort to nations hit by tragic events (e.g. The Peshawar Bombing of 2009).
Because of her service as Secretary of State, her credentials for the Office of the Presidency are impeccable. Better than anybody else’s. I think she is far less polarizing than she once was...largely because she has demonstrated her competence and authority and because the old fogies who are still mad that Bill took the White House two times in a row last century (indeed stole it from one term president G.H. Bush) are slowly fading away.
Will I vote for Hillary in the primary? Depends, on whether she's running and who she’s running against. Did I mention I really like Elizabeth Warren?
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Big Backers of Clinton Foundation Found in Leaked Swiss Bank Files: Report:
http://www.commondreams.org/news/201...k-files-report
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
The unelected dictatorship of money...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5h63F7Mcvg
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
8 Things You Need to Know About Hillary Clinton and Climate Change:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/20...climate-change
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
I am surprised there has not been much of a reaction here to the official announcement that Mrs Clinton is running for the White House. Perhaps people are busy. Although I think it is time for a woman to become President, I don't think Mrs Clinton is the one, to my mind she is more aggressive than Obama, particularly on foreign policy, and from what I have read has a short temper which may make her management of the Oval Office a torrid affair for those she chooses. Apart from the problem of being American royalty, a problem for Jeb Bush if he also runs, is that the vitriolic abuse Mrs Clinton is likely to suffer from the Republicans may swing voters her way for non-political reasons, and may also be generated by poor competitors resorting to grubby tactics. I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. I wonder if there is a sound Democrat -male- who will surprise the Clinton campaign? It is early stages, but I think the next six months will be interesting for an outsider to watch. For what its worth I read an article a month or so ago about the collapsing infrastructure in the US, bridges that can barely stand up, highways in poor condition, etc -perhaps re-building America should take precedence over military engagements overseas....?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Hillary Clinton Officially Begins Her $2.5 Billion Presidential Campaign:
http://gothamist.com/2015/04/12/hills_hills_hills.php
Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Less(er) Evil Than Anyone:
http://warisacrime.org/hillary
Attachment 833228
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I am surprised there has not been much of a reaction here to the official announcement that Mrs Clinton is running for the White House. Perhaps people are busy. Although I think it is time for a woman to become President, I don't think Mrs Clinton is the one, to my mind she is more aggressive than Obama, particularly on foreign policy, and from what I have read has a short temper which may make her management of the Oval Office a torrid affair for those she chooses. Apart from the problem of being American royalty, a problem for Jeb Bush if he also runs, is that the vitriolic abuse Mrs Clinton is likely to suffer from the Republicans may swing voters her way for non-political reasons, and may also be generated by poor competitors resorting to grubby tactics. I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. I wonder if there is a sound Democrat -male- who will surprise the Clinton campaign? It is early stages, but I think the next six months will be interesting for an outsider to watch. For what its worth I read an article a month or so ago about the collapsing infrastructure in the US, bridges that can barely stand up, highways in poor condition, etc -perhaps re-building America should take precedence over military engagements overseas....?
There are always going to be 'firsts' in an election just as there are 'firsts' in the Oscars. There will be a first hispanic, asian, Jew, gay,etc...plus all the opposite gender 'firsts' to go along with it...perhaps a transsexual, hindu, buddhist...whatever. we have a tendency to celebrate 'firsts' forever... fuck all that, i don't believe firsts are that big a deal anymore; I think anyone can now get elected in the USA given the right circumstance...within reason.
So I don't think it's "time" for any particular gender or ethnic persuasion. A woman will get elected either now or at some point. I don't believe that's a barrier anymore. But right now we don't even know what other Democrat will run until they announce. The republican party is still pretty fractured at this point so that even if no other democrat ran, Mrs.Clinton would still have a very decent shot at beating them...but maybe not the best chance.
I believe she lost to President Obama in the primary because he was a fresh face who at least seemed to stand for certain ideals...and he was young and cool; not a bad thing when young people came out in droves to vote for change. She seemed like the typical machine politician, and she proved it when she used that "phone call' commercial against him.
I usually vote republican in most elections. I didn't vote for Obama...but I can honestly say I'm not dissappointed he won. Both times. I actually think when you remove all the nuance...he pretty much stood by his real (non political) convictions in the long run. I think what hurts him most is that he doesn't understand the importance of perception when it comes to foreign policy. I think he's tone deaf on that issue, but hey, most presidents stumble after trhis long a time in office...but Hillary....i honestly don't think she stands for anything. She could be good or bad...it all depends on which way the wind blows.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I don't know much about the Republicans other than their names and that Rand Paul is seen as more moderate than Marc Rubio. .
I just looked at Rand Paul's positions on wikipedia. He is a modified libertarian. He is a libertarian when it comes to protecting private property rights and opposing regulations that he believes infringe on them, but somewhat of a traditionalist when it comes to same sex marriage and abortion rights.
He is pro-life, he opposes the right of the epa to enforce environmental standards, he believes in a balanced budget (regardless of the programs that need to be funded), and a flat tax. Achieving a balanced budget with a flat tax would require an enormous reduction in all sorts of programs. I would need to see exactly how he plans to implement it but I can't imagine a flat tax doing anything but significantly reducing our tax base.
He opposes anti-discrimination legislation, including proposed and existing laws intended to protect against invidious discrimination in the workplace, in housing, and in places of public accommodation. He opposes all forms of gun control, claiming that they infringe on second amendment rights. That's a position that the Supreme Court does not take, but like his father he apparently does not view the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality but rather the Paul family. He wants to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act (Obamacare). He wants seniors who receive medicare to be more accountable for the entitlements they receive….I think that means that their benefits are slashed.
He thinks gay couples should enter into marriage contracts while maintaining the traditional definition of marriage for straight couples. This basically means that gay couples would be able to control by private agreement the financial consequences of their intimate relationship but would not have their partnership recognized by the state. One part homophobia, one part libertarian quackery. A marriage contract? Perhaps instead of a wedding they should have a signing.
He does not think the Federal Reserve should have the right to control money supply or set interest rates.
I think his foreign policy is probably more moderate than that of any of his opponents as he opposes the more invasive tactics of the NSA and CIA. He also takes more liberal stances with regard to enforcing drug laws.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
I think his foreign policy is probably more moderate than that of any of his opponents as he opposes the more invasive tactics of the NSA and CIA. He also takes more liberal stances with regard to enforcing drug laws.
I only disagree with this last sentence. I don't consider Isolationists 'moderate'. They seem that way because they're usually against foreign wars...but so what? That's only because Isolationists generally want nothing to do with the rest of the world. No matter what happens, it's always going to be - "Not our problem."
I noticed though , that he's starting to take a step back from that stance, but I think that's just because of the upcoming primary.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fred41
I only disagree with this last sentence. I don't consider Isolationists 'moderate'.
I agree with you there. I sort of lost sight of whether I was talking about being moderate (more progressive) or just different from the other Republican candidates. Rand Paul's father was an absolutist I think when it came to his isolationism. I've always thought that's a patently unreasonable stance.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fred41
There are always going to be 'firsts' in an election just as there are 'firsts' in the Oscars. There will be a first hispanic, asian, Jew, gay,etc...plus all the opposite gender 'firsts' to go along with it...perhaps a transsexual, hindu, buddhist...whatever. we have a tendency to celebrate 'firsts' forever... fuck all that, i don't believe firsts are that big a deal anymore; I think anyone can now get elected in the USA given the right circumstance...within reason.
So I don't think it's "time" for any particular gender or ethnic persuasion. A woman will get elected either now or at some point. I don't believe that's a barrier anymore. But right now we don't even know what other Democrat will run until they announce. The republican party is still pretty fractured at this point so that even if no other democrat ran, Mrs.Clinton would still have a very decent shot at beating them...but maybe not the best chance.
I believe she lost to President Obama in the primary because he was a fresh face who at least seemed to stand for certain ideals...and he was young and cool; not a bad thing when young people came out in droves to vote for change. She seemed like the typical machine politician, and she proved it when she used that "phone call' commercial against him.
I usually vote republican in most elections. I didn't vote for Obama...but I can honestly say I'm not dissappointed he won. Both times. I actually think when you remove all the nuance...he pretty much stood by his real (non political) convictions in the long run. I think what hurts him most is that he doesn't understand the importance of perception when it comes to foreign policy. I think he's tone deaf on that issue, but hey, most presidents stumble after trhis long a time in office...but Hillary....i honestly don't think she stands for anything. She could be good or bad...it all depends on which way the wind blows.
Thanks for your thoughts, I agree with you about the 'firsts', compared to the UK it is actually something you do well, though for some it is little more than window dressing. In the end, politics ought to be about substance, but I do also wonder if the 'vision' thing is important. Obama in this respect was rather like Reagan in that both had a 'vision' of an America different from the one they claimed was not working at the time, and both have patchy records on delivery. I suspect that the reality of US politics is messy because a President is not responsible for a lot that happens, even at the Federal level, and your states system devolves power away from Washington DC. Nevertheless, a key factor in the US is the relationship that a President has with Congress. I think this has been a weakness for Obama (as it was for Jimmy Carter), and does suggest that the 'liberalization' of the US that put Onama into the White House (if that is what it was), has yet to make a difference in Congress -because if there was such a shift to the 'left' then where are the Democrats in the Senate and the House? On this basis I do wonder if Mrs Clinton could build a better relationship with Congress, not least because of the hostility that both she and her husband had to deal with last time. But until another Democrat puts themselves forward, we are just speculating, fun as it is...
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Broncofan, re your post on Rubio -
Thanks for the information, I am just glad he isn't running for office in the UK!
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Hillary Clinton: "Start Thinking Of Iraq As A Business Opportunity"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LkJfuN6ruE
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
Obviously I did not watch all 10+ hours of the hearings on Benghazi that were held in Washington a few days ago, but I must concede that Mrs Clinton was impressive throughout, even if the core issue on Libya is not just the attack in Benghazi but whether or not it was right for the USA to engage in regime change in Libya that led to the overthrow of Qadhafi -as Mrs Clinton has been quoted as saying 'We came, we saw, he died'. It has been argued in the link below that it was Mrs Clinton along with Samantha Power and Susan Rice who persuaded an otherwise reluctant President Obama to 'lead from behind', just as it has been claimed by Seymour Hersh that the US was involved in the transfer of weapons seized from Qadhafi's arsenals to rebels in Syria, something in a classified memo that 17 months and $4.5m worth of Republican Party muck-raking has failed to expose (bearing Hersh's reputation in mind) --
Under the terms of a secret agreement between the US and Turkey, partly funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals were procured in Libya by retired US soldiers through Libyan front companies, with the operation overseen by the CIA and MI6. Normally, the CIA should have reported what it was doing to Congress, but an exception is made for liaison missions and “the involvement of MI6 enabled the CIA to evade the law by classifying the mission as a liaison mission”. Hersh cites a former intelligence officer as saying that the only purpose for the US to keep open a consulate in Benghazi “was to provide cover for the movement of arms”. After the murder of Mr Stevens, the CIA abruptly ended the operation which then came under Turkish control.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6707711.html
The odd thing about the hearings is that the Committee sits high off the ground and makes it look like the members are hiding from the person they are questioning. It didn't help that the chairman -Trey Gowry (sounds like a species of duck native to Alaska) - looks like a shell-shocked marine cadet and that hour after hour nothing the Committee could come up with had any impact, other than the question someone asked of Mrs Clinton abut being alone at home when she burst into laughter, as did most of the rest of the world.
$4.5m -cheaper than the film, but not as entertaining.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0PPWJk_MLs
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
There was talk in the media a week before the hearings that the Republicans were using this to "POLITICAL" ends. In the end, it was Hillary who used the hearings for political ends. The Republicans on the panel were mostly former prosecutors, Hillary is a TV Star.
Most of the Republicans running for President have decided that being on TV, and in the public eye is great for their careers, even if they lose. Politics has become more about Madison Ave instead of Pennsylvania Ave.
My Sister met Bill and Hillary when they came to a bluegrass club she moonlighted at in the nineties. Bill worked the room with a beer in one hand, shaking hands with the other, talking to EVERYBODY. Hillary sat at the table with her drink, my sister said she had a COLD FISH aura goin' on. All her smiles and laughs are choreographed and phony, for the camera, but that's what it takes to be President, in her case. Nobody gets to be President by accident.
For all her negatives, I think she very well could be a kick-ass President, maybe even great. Especially now that the tide of the economy has turned around. I sense that all those unforeseen invisible uncontrollable factors that occur during a Presidency might work in her favor, unlike a Bernie Sanders or even a Jimmy Carter. Enemies of the United States might think twice while a vindictive bitch like Hillary sits her ass in the oval office. Sean Hannity might have a stroke. While Putin has that tough stare, Hillary has that insane laugh. I hope that's for the cameras, I am not sure.
-
Re: Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her
If Mrs Clinton does get the nomination, and right now it looks that way because of her solid appearances in public debates and in Congress -in contrast to her opponents-, how will she present a different economic programme from that presented by Sanders?
On the one hand there seems to be a shorthand shared by Democrats that elevates 'the Middle Class' above everyone else while taking pot shots at the 1% of super rich billionaires and hedge funds. On the other hand, Mrs Clinton does appear to have developed policy ideas which cover the wide range of issues and which have been laid out in the link in what I think is a fair assessment of her economic policy where it identifies three steps to increasing Middle Class income:
The first step is to boost the economy. How? Give tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses, establish an infrastructure bank, and fund more scientific research. Also, help women enter the workforce by requiring businesses to pay for family leave and give sick days to all.
The second step is to create fair growth. Clinton would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, increase workers' benefits, expand overtime, and encourage businesses to share profits with employees. She also wanted to invest in students and teachers, support unions and collective bargaining, strengthen the Affordable Care Act, expand job training, lower college and healthcare costs, and fight wage theft.(Source: "It's Time to Raise Incomes for Hard-Working Americans," Hillary Clinton 2016 LinkedIn page, July 13, 2015)
The third step is to support long-term economic growth. Hillary would combat "quarterly capitalism" by raising short-term capital gains taxes for those earning $400,000 or more a year, the top 0.5% of taxpayers. Investments held between one and two years would be taxed at the maximum income-tax rate of 39.6%. Assets held for longer would be taxed on a sliding scale, such as 36% for those held 2-3 years, 32% for those held three to four years, and 20% (the current rate) for those held for six years or more.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fiscal...ry_Economy.htm
In the web page linked above are policies she advocated when running against Obama in 2008 which in addition to presenting a plan for a balanced budget (something Obama did not) included-
- Double the size of the enforcement unit in U.S. Trade Representative's Office to increase compliance with trade
- Expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance agency to help workers displaced by outsourcing.
Two measures that would be red flag to Republicans as both measures require an increase in Federal spending on an expanding bureaucracy.
Some problems that arise from this-
1) What is Mrs Clinton's position on 'free trade' given that she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership but now opposes it; I don't know what her position is on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership [TTIP] and it seems her own team are not comfortable with these issues, but she will have to deal with them at some point.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ress-democrats
The belief is that like her husband, Mrs Clinton is more congenial to 'corporate capitalism' than Mr Sanders, but is this a real problem once you get over the corporate interests and their powerful lobbying in Congress, their financial clout in super-PACS and the reluctance to pay taxes all of which can be dealt with by new laws? I would suggest millions of Americans who worked in the auto industry, the chemicals and communications industries and many more who live on their pension are relying on funds generated by pension funds on Wall St, and many pensioners support their younger families. Wall St is easy to knock, because it isn't going anywhere, but America is a capitalist country and Wall St fuels the machine. Be careful what you wish for?
2. The Middle Class Matters. Of course it does, and nobody thinks otherwise because wages have stagnated and many traditional middle class jobs have disappeared. But what about the Working Class? Or the Unemployed? Has the Working Class simply disappeared in the way middle aged white men have been dying off at a faster rate than anyone else?
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...americans-aids
Does anyone speak for the unemployed? I think there is a danger that this relentless appeal to Middle Class voters could make the Democrats a less broad-based party than it could be, so maybe it should try to be more inclusive. In the end the attacks in Paris will not make any difference to the Presidential campaign, where, as usual, the economy will be the dominant issue.