Printable View
To all the Left. Move further to the Left when you vote, Vote Greens or Socialists or whatever is left of the Dems if Hillary is nominated. That's all . The Repblcans are an anachronism, the Dems have replaced them, every thing has shifted to the right in your country. Therefore switch to a further left position .
Elections have consequences. People who voted Ralph Nader in 2000 are the reason for things moving further right because George W Bush appointed conservative judges that came to the conclusion corporations are people and it's a bosses business what goes on btwn a woman and her doctor. Hilary is not an ideal candidate but she is the best candidate to prevent us from having a Conservative supreme court for the next 50 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by nitron
Emails expose close ties between Hillary Clinton and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger:
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/emai...nry_kissinger/
In a week which has seen Radovan Karadzic convicted of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, this may be an opportune moment to warn anyone who is interested about a pamphlet written by Diana Johnstone called Queen of Chaos: the Misadventures of Hillary Clinton (linked below).
Diana Johnstone has form as a peddler of lies about Bosnia, most notoriously in her 2002 study Fool's Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Monthly Review Press). In Fool's Crusade the Clinton's come in for a major bashing, Hillary included, as if the Reagan Presidency in the 1980s had ignored the Balkans. Whatever, there is also a link here to a sustained demolition of Johnstone's 2002 book. I expect to see some journalists and commentators in the press citing Johnstone's book on Mrs Clinton as a reason to oppose her candidacy for the Presidency, assuming she defeats Bernie Sanders and no other candidate emerges.
Johnstone has been described as a 'left revisionist' which suggests that her articles are premised on the iniquity of American imperialism so that everything that happens is seen through this prism, enabling some truly nasty people to get a free lunch on the basis that they are actively anti-American/globalization etc. It is like those people who should know better defending Vladimir Putin's military engagement in Syria as well as claims that while Saddam Hussein, Bashar as-Asad and Muammar Qadhafi were/are all dictators, the quality of life in Iraq, Libya and Syria was better than it is now, Islamic fanatics had no platform, and the countries were stable. In the case of Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's National Front, Johnstone has decided that because Le Pen is a vocal critic of the 'bankers and bureaucrats' austerity and so on that she is 'basically on the left' which is as absurd politically as it is geographically.
Readers must make up their own mind, but as has been pointed out elsewhere Diana Johnstone plays fast and loose with the truth and neglects to inform readers in her work on Yugoslavia that in the 1960s she met and befriended Mirjana Markovic who went on to marry Slobodan Milosovic, and that she often stayed with the couple when visiting Belgrade.
If she gets the nomination Hillary Clinton is going to be the target of some vicious journalism of the kind produced by Diana Johnstone.
Johnstone's book on Clinton is here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...0chaos&f=false
A devastating critique of Johnstone's book Fool's Crusade can be found here:
http://genocideinbosnia.blogspot.co....in-bosnia.html
A Bosnian based in Canada has also written an extensive critique of Johnstone's work here:
http://www.newleftproject.org/index....iane_johnstone
Seems to be par for the course. Thanks for the post.Quote:
If she gets the nomination Hillary Clinton is going to be the target of some vicious journalism of the kind produced by Diana Johnstone.
I know this is a Hillary Clinton thread but apropos of the Democratic race I'll include this link. I must give myself credit when I said that Bernie was short on details (especially about financial matters; others have talked about his lack of foreign policy acumen) and promises more than he has plans to deliver. Is he as clueless as Trump? No. Is he a bit more genuine than Hillary? Yes. But he does speak in slogans and make unsupportable promises. Was never a Sanders supporter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ews-interview/
http://fortune.com/2016/04/06/retire...iduciary-rule/
This article describes what would have to happen for the treasury to have authority under Dodd Frank to break up big banks. Bernie was also asked about the prosecution of financial criminals and what laws they broke and did not have specifics but has been talking about them for months and months in very general terms in speeches. Again, not saying some people should not have been prosecuted who were not...but you need a current violation of the law...meaning legislation that exists and which provides criminal penalties that apply to specific conduct. Just talking about an entire criminal class in the financial sector is cheap demagoguery.
It's funny that Bernie thinking we still use tokens to get on the New York subway is the gaff getting all the attention in the media.
Yeah. After the dozens and dozens of times he's talked about breaking up banks and prosecuting crooks, one would think he'd know everything there is to know about how to achieve it. Would love to hear him talk about the advisability of breaking up banks instead of subjecting them to more exacting regulation (whatever that is, capital requirements, greater limitations on types of investments, more personal accountability for executives). Would this require the passage of more legislation or better enforcement of existing laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by flabbybody
I had no idea whether he would have unilateral authority as president to break up a bank...but at least I anticipated it could require some doing to dismantle enormous financial institutions. Their liabilities are guaranteed by the federal gov. and so their existence naturally should come with more strings attached...but does that mean they can be dissolved at the whim of the president? What about their investors? What would that do to access to credit and to credit markets when you start hacking away at the banks? Again I don't know the answers...somebody more schooled maybe does but he never even asked the questions:)
Allow me to refer you to the book Fragile by Design: the Political Origins of Banking Crises and Scare Credit, by Charles W. Calomiris and Stephen H. Haber (Princeton University Press, 2014).
In particular, Chapter 3: Crippled by Populism: US Banking from Colonial Times to 1990 offers a very readable account of the early phase (and indeed the whole period under review) designed by Alexander Hamilton which nurtured the early years of your Republic through a 'coalition of elites' that 'limited the number of banks that received charters, it tended not to provide credit to small farmers and artisans' (p153). This system broke down under the demand enabled by a federal political system for credit and banking by a multitude of farmers, artisans and small businesses that dominated the US from around 1810 to 1980 when this cornucopia of small banks and loan societies collapsed. A system the authors describe as 'inherently unstable, non-competitive and inefficient in its allocation of credit' led to this: 'The banking system was composed of thousands of small banks that operated local monopolies, which meant that they were able to charge more for loans and pay less for deposits than they would have had they been obliged to compete with one another. The absence of branches meant that these banks could neither spread risk across regions nor easily move funds in order to head off other bank runs' (p154).
Something tells me from the evidence that the US has had an unhappy experience with thousands of small banks, characterised as one crisis after another. Breaking up the banks, like Trump's proposal to prevent the transfer of money through Western Union to countries outside the USA is another mad idea whose economic costs would be greater than its benefits. You can forgive Sanders as he is a business illiterate, but Trump is CEO of a large corporation and has no excuses, unless it turns out he always got someone else to do the sums and was only interested in his percentage and how much he could spend.
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
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.
Attachment 930392
That quote in the pic describes a lot of folks who don't identify with libertarians too.
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.
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
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by zerrrr
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you read the last three paragraphs when she says we need to take a look at it, I believe she means to re-examine it because certain parts of it are harmful (and have been). I could be wrong, it's awfully late here. But her husband signed it into law, although she offered support for it at the time, but the "we have to take a look at it" quote is an acknowledgement of its failings rather than an expression of desire to compound them.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerrrr
This is an argument where, as other posts have indicated, context helps explain Hillary Clinton's positions which have indeed changed over the years. In 1999 for example, prior to announcing her intention to run for the Senate in New York, Clinton declared "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel" which was not the official position of the US government or indeed her own view prior to the decision to enter politics as an individual. It is still controversial because the official view of the US Govt is that those parts of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1967 remain illegally occupied, which is why Jerusalem is not officially recognised as the capital of Israel and why the US has not moved its embassy there. The link with the quote is here-Quote:
Originally Posted by zerrrr
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...israel-problem
The issues here are complex, of course, but at the level of policy, should a politician always stick to one policy position and never change it? Pragmatism in politics suggests that change may be necessary as well as desirable and a clear difference between 'then and now' for the Clintons on the issues of same-sex marriage is the way in which attitudes in the US have changed since the 1990s when it was considered national news that Ellen DeGeneres was going to 'come out' on her tv show, with Bill Clinton offering the hallowed imprimatur of Presidential endorsement or support. These days, most people don't care if a person is 'gay' or 'straight' assuming those two words are still valid, not even in sport though I might be wrong on that as I don't follow it in the US -we do not have openly gay footballers in the UK. To outsiders, the timidity of the US in public over issues which are common knowledge in private is one of the curiosities of American life. The relentless need to elevate marriage and the family to the status of holiness sits uneasily with the reality that so many marriages fail and so many partners ignore their holy or legal vows to lead lives of relentless infidelity.
Another way to view the Clinton Presidency in its context is to compare it with the UK Labour Party which lost four elections between 1979 and 1997 just as the Democrats lost every Presidential election between 1980 and 1992, and only won under Tony Blair when it ditched its socialist constitution (Clause 4 of it to be precise), and to old Labour hands sold its soul to the devil of global capitalism for one reason only: to win an election. I think we can see that as in the US the 'New Deal' consensus that lasted from the 1930s to 1980 is similar to the Keynesian Consensus which in the UK lasted from 1945 to 1979, the point being that Thatcher and Reagan tore up the old way of using (Federal) Government to solve economic problems by emphasising the importance of markets (even if the reality today is that the largest employer in the US is either Federal or State govt and millions more rely on welfare).
If you wanted to win elections, you had to accept the new framework, which is what Clinton and Blair did, and in doing so also registered the fact that the erosion of heavy industry in the US and the UK depleted the Working Class/Blue Collar vote that had formed the basis of electoral support, and that the Middle Class had become the central plank of their electoral support -and many of them were working for Federal or State government and agencies. On this basis, the Clintons played the politics of the time in accordance with what they thought would work -and if that looks like a timid support for 'digital queers' and identity politics that is as far as they could go at the time without alienating their new base of support. To slate Mrs Clinton for being a fair weather politician also assumes she has a degree of integrity most politicians either do not have, or which in having relegates them to the margins, just as Sanders has been just as marginal a politician for most of his career as some Confederate flag-waving Southern politician still trying to deal with the abolition of slavery.
From where I am, if the choice is between Clinton and Trump or indeed, any other Republican, I would at least vote for Clinton however grudgingly, because I think the next President is in for one term during which not a lot on the economy will change, and that given the fact that neither Party -and certainly none of the candidates- has any long-term policy platform to create jobs and grow the economy, the USA has four years in which to think deeply about the next 50 years and to find someone with the vision to articulate the concerns of the generations they want to vote for them.
This is separate from a discussion of the Libertarian alternative, which is not what this thread is about.
I don't really see how there's any alternative to Hillary Clinton, which is not a great endorsement but I have no reluctance to vote for her given the alternatives. It is not a bad thing to be pragmatic. The sea shift on gay marriage in this country happened quickly and in the 90's the Republicans were determined to pass through a welfare reform act that would have been much more damaging to people who needed assistance. Should she not consider the political alternatives? Why not move to the center rather than lose elections and deal with a much worse outcome? You cannot allow your party to become irrelevant by holding fast to unpopular views.
Bernie Sanders' commitment to policies he cannot implement does not just make him an idealist, it makes him irresponsible. It's very easy to list problems and very tough to craft solutions. And Trump cannot be a serious alternative either. He is not literate when it comes to policies (he thinks all of our health care problems can be solved by repealing the McCarran Act), he is prone to reckless pronouncements, and wants to do things that would damage this country for a generation. Building a wall? Legalizing torture? Carpet bombing countries that harbor terrorists? Excluding all Muslims from our country? There is nothing about a Hillary presidency that is nearly as apocalyptic. So what if she's an opportunist....whatever policies she comes up with will at least be within the realm of reasonable. If the next president does not have great vision, at least let them be cautious.
True. But in fairness the purpose of the thread was that Hillary had not been gracious to Barack when he won the primaries in 2008. It now is an all purpose thread about Hillary in 2016 I guess, which broadens it a little though maybe not to, what is the best system of gov for the U.S. (hint: not libertarianism:)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Probably not exactly the appropriate thread for this, but this is where the conversation of the moment is taking place, so who really gives a fuck? Especially when there's only a handful of people participating, with someone new occasionally walking in and providing some new blood. Kind of like a big living room in the suburbs with the front door open...or a neighborhood dive bar with a friendly home crowd that's inviting enough to accommodate a wayward wanderer, who may opt to become a regular.
Usual disclaimer: Just latched on to a new brand of coffee: "Kicking Horse" ...roasted in Canada, our wonderful neighbor to the North ( which I'll have the extreme pleasure of visiting again in August for the Heavy Montreal Festival ) and I just drank a half caraf.
This is an interesting and seemingly unconventional time in American Politics. It's fucking weird. Why?
I think an enormous part of it has been mentioned by Stavros...the economy...specifically jobs.
Especially blue collar type jobs, because that is what seems to be fueling the Trump machine. None of the nominees are saying what I believe the reality to be: There aren't going to be any jobs for an enormous section of you. Yeah, sure...Trump promises to bring all that back, but I think he really knows that would be almost impossible...and I think so do many of his supporters, it's just that they simply don't care anymore.They know the asteroid is slowly coming for them so they're gonna party like its 1999. They're saying - "Let's call in a Berserker!!!"
They're not really voting Republican or Democrat...because those parties (or the cartoon versions of them)can't really help them. Democrats' raising of the minimum wage or enhancing social programs doesn't ever really help them. It's just another way of saying "Welcome to Mickey Dees! It ain't much, but we got you more money...or you can try to live on gov't life support until the asteroid hits. Just go to whatever version of a drugstore you use can help make the wait bearable. Sure, there are occasionally some jobs we can get you, but our party's environmental wing will never make that possible...and it really doesn't matter because unless you belong to a union, we don't need your vote anyway. "
...and Republican promises of less tax and trickle down and religion never really helps them either because they are simply empty promises without an actual industry that can be created. Much of wealth nowadays seems to be a shifting around of papers...and the only industries that can trickle down, only trickle down to technicians.The blue collar end happens in another country...but hey, we'll blind you with religion, so you can hate everyone and meet your angry god at the great reckoning..
...and the extreme wings of the parties are both filled with hate...and continue to add propellant.
So a true Moderate will either pick and choose which candidate is less repulsive...or sit it out.
Because I think Stavros might be right in another way: This is only going to be for one term
...and I think many voters have become tired of the over the top pandering for votes. It's always existed, but seems more extreme as time goes on. Hillary (looking up I realize this is supposed to be a Hillary thread) has to consistently shift depending on which crowd she's facing, which has always been the case for a politician - especially during a primary.
But even when she (or her husband) gives a perfectly common sense answer, she'll ruin it by reversing herself simply because of the perception that it may insult a thin skinned base of extreme voters.
Or she'll co-opt a platform she's never really fully endorsed.
Trump is wildly, and often ridiculously, pandering to everyone who will support him...changing tunes at the drop of a hat....often in the same night...But I think at this point, all his supporters are pretty much in on the same joke anyway. It doesn't really matter what he says, because as i've stated previously - they don't give a damn....they want to blow the whole thing up. Bring on the berserker...the reality star...the guy everyone in the world's genteel society everyone hates (which makes him even more attractive to his base).
again...strange election. It would be okay if it helped improve things in the future...but I have strong doubts on that happening.
Near the end of the Revolutionary War, right before the King called it quits, Washington's Generals were really pissed that their men hadn't been paid and that the USA was BROKE. And they all met up in New York and were going to discuss calling it quits themselves. Washington had to get them to wait a couple days and when he showed up, many of the Generals didn't want him there. He said he wanted to say a few things, and took a paper from his pocket.
"Gentlemen," said Washington, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."
Many of the Generals didn't even know he had glasses, and at that moment, everyone broke down, and the rest is History.
Lincoln read two books over and over as a child: The Bible and The Compleate Works of William Shakespeare.
FDR was a bit of a paradox, the job of President literally killed him and is the reason we only have two term Presidents now.
Saddam Hussein laughed that it took him eight years to figure out which way was up, when dealing with absolutely everything at once.
It takes WISDOM.
You don't want the smartest guy in the room to be in charge, he will leave the room with everyone's cash in his wallet (Trump)
The only reason Hillary voted for the Iraq War was because everyone knew it was going to happen no matter what she did, and any fool figured that even Bush couldn't fuck up a sure thing. So if she voted against it she would never be President. Bernie voted against the Iraq War. And he will never be President. It was WISE to vote for the War at that time under those circumstances, because when youre in charge you have to pick your victories as well as pick your defeats.
Hillary is a cold fish bitch, I won't be voting for Hillary in the Fall, I'll be voting for [Hillary-Bill-Wassermann-Democratic Machine] Clinton.
I'm looking forward to her destroying those Republican pricks AND filling the pockets of Republican voters with CASH.
Nothing is more important and crucial to the future of the United States than to have another Clinton Presidency that takes the National Debt Number from twenty zeroes to zero. (massive applause)
http://s32.postimg.org/xk6hvam51/fdr.jpg
image sharing
I hope you're being sarcastic, because if you're not, then you're a fool for believing that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
My being a fool has nothing to do with it. And I'm absolutely dead serious. Obama has been setting it up for 8 years. I'm guaranteeing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
Small anecdote: A friend of mine has been on disability for about ten years. His physical condition finally improved so that he can work. He lives in California where the minimum wage passed. He has a high school degree and very little work experience. We started calculating what he can buy on $15 an hour.....he was initially very excited until he started calculation all of his expenses and realized he just wasn't under water anymore. These are not great times and a living wage is not elevating people to the middle class but it's a small mercy.Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
But I guess my point is that you're right. It's hard for something like that to excite people enough on election day. You calculate the difference between the current minimum wage and the living wage and you can take care of things a little better but I can understand why people would look at these programs and say "fuck it, I'll go all in with orange snowcone head. Maybe he can make America great".Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The storyline is that the current split in U.S. politics is not Right vs Left, but uneducated, labor whose economic status as been declining vs educated, technicians and professionals who economic status is climbing. Trump supporters are drawing from the first group regardless of prior political affiliation.
I doubt the latter class is being accurately characterized. Silicon Valley has few, if any unions. They’ve adopted the practice of hiring visiting technicians (typically from India) with work visas and them ‘letting them go’ instead of promoting them, and hiring another batch of technicians on work visas. The earlier batch then has to go home because they lost jobs and with them their visas. Teacher’s unions are under attack in every state of the union, especially in states with business aligned governors (e.g. Walker in Wisconsin and Rauner in Illinois) who believe the key to balancing the budget is to cutback state revenues, cutback state funding for schools, for universities, for the elderly and those who are dependent on social services, for infrastructure and to give every break imaginable to the Walmarts of the world. (Btw, Rauner hasn’t gotten a budget passed in nearly a year!) The breaking of unions started with Ronald Reagan and their sad demise has been steady ever since, bringing in the wake of their collapse the economic decline of the blue collar worker who once made up more than half of our middle class. With nearly all of the private labor unions gone, attention has turned to destroying those of government workers. When those unions are gone I not sure who will be left who can even afford to shop at Walmart or eat at MacDonald’s.
Meanwhile multibillionaire and New Jersey resident David Tepper is so wealthy the State of New Jersey is in a tizzy because he’s moving to Florida. Because one man is moving to Florida the State will loose hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue (even though - not counting loopholes - Tepper is paying at most 8.97%. ( http://nyti.ms/1O3FxkN ).
I’m not an adopter of the new storyline, myself. Nor have I adopted Bernie’s view of our current political divide. I still tend to see it as a theoretical split. The Right believes in supply side economics and the Left is still somewhat Keynesian. Since Reagan, government policy leaned heavily supply-side. The success of the supply-siders has (inadvertently - I trust) decimated the blue-collar half of the middle class. They’re feeling disenfranchised and Trump is promising something shiny and new: an old con: bait and switch. ( http://nyti.ms/1R5at59 )
Besides the presidency and economics being up for grabs, there’s so much more. The Supreme Court has been making some very serious mistakes on social and political issues. They’re eating away at women’s rights and with Citizen’s United they gave away the entire legislative branch of government to anyone with the highest bid. Then there’s the Middle East. Does anyone really think the solution to ISIS is carpet bombing? - I mean besides Cruz...and Carly...and Trump (who wavers between the nuclear option and isolationism!) ...and the whole clown car of Republican losers?. Etc. etc.
To be fair though...$15 dollars would probably go a lot further in a state that isn't California or NY. ..and you're right - Mrs. Clinton seems like a safe choice. Of all the candidates left in the octagon, she's the middle of the road, establishment candidate. The Right will call her too liberal, but there's nothing I can see too actually support that...and she certainly now has enough of a track record that you can look up. If anything, she seems more to the right than the President...and probably is as far as foreign policy goes.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
As I've mentioned before, I usually vote Republican...but I can't vote for Trump. He's just too silly to me....and I can't stand Ted Cruz (and apparently neither can ANY of his co-workers http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz/?_r=0) Hell, even satanists don't like him...lol http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/satan...ry?id=38785064. John Katich might've been tolerable...but it ain't happening and Trump being in the mix knocked out any true establishment candidate out of the republican ranks a long time ago.
Of Trump and Cruz, Kasich is the more sane and likable. But he's way to far right for my tastes. This year he work to defund Planned Parenthood in Ohio and succeeded.
The media war continues with a video called Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight...
It then appears that most of the video does not show Mrs Clinton lying, but changing her opinion over the years on policy issues such as same-sex marriage and the North America Free Trade Agreement. Surely there has to be some sort of warning attached to this material if in fact the video does not show Mrs Clinton telling outright lies, even if one expects a politician to play fast and loose with the truth. I also wonder why, after 11 hours of testimony before the House Committee on Benghazi which had print-outs of those famous emails, nothing has been found that proves Mrs Clinton broke the law. It may be the case that the FBI is still investigating but the record on indictments for the Clintons over the last 25 years is not good and I don't think it is because the Bilderberg Group or the Illuminati or the Rothschilds are pulling strings in the background. And anyway, an indictment is not a guilty verdict.
In 1982 I might have said 'Vote Labour!' and in 2010 'Don't Vote Labour!' I was not lying, I just changed my mind.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7040551.html
In attack politics never using "changed her mind," instead use "flip-flopped". Never use "intransigent," instead use "pigheaded." When you have to dispute the truth call it a "conspiracy of lies". When your opponent changes her mind say you "caught her in a lie." Dems the rules. If everyone followed them, then everything will actually be a conspiracy of lies.
haven't heard this old favorite used yet.
Attachment 935852
Trivial, but factual -I have never eaten a waffle. Not even sure what they are.
So the FBI is not going to indict Mrs Clinton and that comes as no real surprise. Although the FBI says that
of the 30,000 emails returned to the state department, 110 emails in 52 chains were determined to contain classified information at the time they were sent. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time, 36 chains contained secret information at the time, and eight contained confidential information, the lowest level of classification...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation
For those who are interested, Wikileaks has published thousands of the Clinton emails -not, as far as I am aware, any of the classified emails- and I spent around 2 hours today sifting through them using search terms mostly related to UK politics, such as 'Tony Blair', 'Peter Mandelson', 'Liam Fox' and I also put in 'Paul Ryan'. The Wikileaks exposure merely reveals what a curse email might be for anyone in a large organisation. Most consist of chains of emails containing the same information and most of them are print outs of news reports from Reuters, the Washington Post and so on, all material that is in the public domain. Most of the emails I saw were from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton and of little interest other than gossip about Mandelson ('a sectarian in a sect of one, himself'), Gordon Brown (both loathed) and Tony Blair (clearly a friend) and it is Mrs Clinton who is most notable by her absence as I could only find two direct comments in an email from her, one regarding a minor dispute over a statue of Ronald Reagan erected in the grounds of the US Embassy in London, the other an email to Cherie Blair saying how sorry she was to have missed her when the latter was in DC. or New York or wherever it was. There might be something juicy somewhere, but my guess is we would know about it by now.
The emails re Paul Ryan were of little importance other than that he was not invited to breakfast with Mrs Clinton as was also the case with John Boehner, presumably because wet croissants are not what people want for breakfast.
I think the problem is one of 'entitlement'. Mrs Clinton has been the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, 'First Lady' of the USA, Secretary of State -I doubt she has ironed Bill's shirts for 40 years, I doubt she needs to get the A train to travel up town or wait for the Bus in Chappaqua (if they have buses) to get her to the train station. The idea she is going to take an intense interest in an email server is I thnk a weak idea as I suspect she regards these things being done for her by others who know what they are doing, just as a man as rich as Donald Trump has probably forgotten what it is really like to queue for a coffee in Starbucks or work for 12 hours in a bakery for less than he spends on a pair of shoes, or socks for that matter.
Anyway if you want to sift through them the 50, 547 emails are here-
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/
Hey Stavros:
You left out her stint in the Senate.
At least with Hillary, nobody can whine later that they didn't know what they were getting. You know... The way all the so called "progressives" (still don't know what that means) did when President Obama wouldn't jump through their hoops and carry out their agenda. With everybody else, especially Donald Trump, predicting what they might do in the White House is a crapshoot at best.
Anyway... You need to get some waffles before the Flems shut down the Chunnel & won't let you into Belgium.