Hillary Clinton: I Used to Love Her

[Stavros]

Another smear against the reputation of Hillary Clinton is being peddled in the press and social media:

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."

Zeifman has his own issues with the Clinton Presidency and the Clinton's in particular and appears to have changed his story several times over the years. Whatever, this smear has been thoroughly demolished in this link-
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

[zerrrr]

Something to consider regarding the Democratic Party. I find it ironic that the LGBT community is rallying around someone who is pro-DOMA and anti-gay marriage (8 years ago). Then again she knows that come election time she will need to shore up the LIberal bases in New York and California (pro-LGBT) while dumping the Red South where they are anti-LGBT.

I don't think her positions evolved so much as she realizes who to pander to for votes. Let's be honest, she lied about DOMA at the beginning of the campaign.

Here is some food for thought about how the parties are evolving.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/...-the-1-percent

Honestly, she is so far right-wing that I have a hard time discerning between Hillary and Trump.

Then again, as a Libertarian, we see the world as follows.

[hippifried]

That quote in the pic describes a lot of folks who don't identify with libertarians too.

[trish]

Back in the 90’s the choice was between passing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or an act of Congress leaving the question of gay marriage to the states. One of these things seemed inevitable at the time. The choice was between not allowing gays in the military or “Don’t ask don’t tell.” It may not seem like it now, but the latter policy was seen by the LBGT community as a half a step in the proper direction. We’ve come a long way since then. Both “DOMA and Don’t Ask Don’t Tell were signed into law by Bill Clinton. Bernie opposed DOMA but only because it didn’t leave enough to the States, his concern for gays and lesbians was nil.

Pander schmander, think what you want but at least Hillary and Bernie are for LGBT rights today. Trump is against marriage equality to this day, as are Cruz and Kasich (Kasich says he’s against the gay lifestyle but promises he considers the issue of gay marriage a settled law). The Advocate is warning that Libertarian Paul Ryan is a Trojan Horse for LGBT issues because he recently changed his mind about gays being allowed to adopt children! Libertarian Rand Paul says he doesn’t “buy into the concept of gay rights.”

Rights, other than corporate rights, are exactly what modern day Republicans and Libertarians are out to suppress and eliminate. Libertarians just don’t seem to believe that people have the right to make laws to protect themselves against exploitation by more powerful private interests. If you’re a private concern you can do what you want, regardless of the interests of others who share the commons. Competition, not cooperation is their model. Modern day republicans are hung up on religion, racism, nationalism as well as the bogus economic theories (trickle down) that they’ve borrowed from nineteenth century Austrian quacks.

Obviously we still have a long way to go. But to me, most notable Libertarians and Republicans these days look like ignorant selfish assholes: on close inspection it’s difficult to tell one from another.

[zerrrr]

You think Hillary is pro-LGBT but she is really pro whoever donated the most to her campaign and fake charities. Just keep telling yourself she is a supporter but do not be surprised when she turns her back on you.

As for the Libertarian Party you could not be more wrong. You wrote Libertarian when you should have written Democrat.

I am not sure how you support a candidate with the big business ties Hillary has as being a supporter of the poor and middle class.

I would like you to know that in 1972 the Libertarian Party nominated a gay male, John Hospers, for President so we have been pro-LGBT a long time before the two major parties found it popular.

An introduction - http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-...ertarian-party

http://lpalabama.org/wp-content/uplo...-issues-AL.png

[broncofan]

I would like you to know that in 1972 the Libertarian Party nominated a gay male, John Hospers, for President so we have been pro-LGBT a long time before the two major parties found it popular.

An introduction - http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-...ertarian-party

http://lpalabama.org/wp-content/uplo...-issues-AL.png

And what kind of government programs do you guys recommend for the poor and the sick and the disabled? How do you guys feel about civil rights legislation including laws that would protect lgbt from active discrimination by private employers?

[broncofan]

How about work safety regulations, minimum wage laws, regulators of food and drug safety, environmental protections? Someone help me out with what else is missing. I also read that pamphlet. It says that the left agrees with special rights for minorities...I don't think that's the position of any democrat.

[zerrrr]

You can read up and see where we stand. This was the press release after the Supreme Court ruling last year.

https://www.lp.org/news/press-releas...ys-off-with-us

Here is the wonderful contrast of Hillary.

Pro gun control - http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-challenges-the-gun-lobby-1457655128


except if you gave to her Foundation - http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Even stuff like minimum wage laws are becoming a BS card. The McDonald's people screaming for $15/hour will soon be replaced by ordering kiosks.

I live in PA and there is no way the Democratic governor raises the minimum wage. Why? He is a businessman and knows the low minimum wage is the only way to attract jobs to this state.

Do you actually think work safety regulations, food and drug regulations, and environmental protections are not bought and sold by both parties? Just look around. Take a red pill and look around.

Bernie has it right. He is hitting the same button Bill did in 1992 when he said 'Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" He is nailing the undercurrent of people who feel left behind but that is the fault of the politicians in DC. Look at the statistics. They tell you things are better but you know they are not.

[zerrrr]

Remember when Bill passed welfare reform? Hillary wants to take a hard look at it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...elfare-reform/

Like I said, just watch out. She is far right and not supportive of the poor and middle class. It only matters to her who gave how much money.

[broncofan]

If the statistics tell me things are better and they have not been incompetently compiled or interpreted, I believe them over my own gut.

What you are describing is a race to the bottom, which is the best justification for federal government regulation rather than local regulation. Perhaps states should not compete with one another to attract businesses by allowing workers to be exploited. If people cannot afford to systematically withhold their labour, they will not be paid enough to enjoy a reasonable living standard. As a result they end up skimping on preventative health care and education which is a front-loaded cost and we are a poorer, less inclusive society as a result.

Look, I have read about Libertarianism and it is well thought-out and rigorous in theory, but not practical. People do not look after one another. Exploitation is rife in a free market system and charity rare.

Further, there is no doubt that corporations undermine many of these regulations, but they are not able to avoid their strictures altogether. Isn't it better to have an imperfect system of compliance than none at all? We can talk about the consequences of not having any regulation of prescription drugs or work safety laws, but that might be avoided.