Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

Hey, Hawk...sounds like you guys have no problem at all then. I'm surprised you are not all donating to the "Hillary for President" campaign!

I suspect it is because although you are all talking big...you realize she is probably going to blow the doors off the Republican car!

I'm loving the rhetoric...and the dread I hear as an undercurrent from you guys. Keep it up for as long as possible. Laughs are invaluable!

define "you guys".

jsyk (and I have said this often), I am not a D or an R, in fact I call for both parties to be rubbed out and replaced.

I am getting the notion that you do not want to see Hillary as president...and considering what you are suggesting (the stuff I quoted) you are going to get your wish.

My impression of your political preferences indicate to me that you think the direction the R's will take us is preferable to the position the D's will take us.

By "you guys"...I mean you and others like you, Hawk.

My position on Hillary is that she cant win, and that the D's are idiots for thinking that she can.

I am increasingly favorable to R's, if I have only R and D as a choice, but I despise both parties. As for direction my opinion is that life as we know it is ending, and that it is to late to avoid collapse of the economy and in fact this civilization that all either party can do is rearrange the deck chairs of the Titanic as we go down. So I am not particularly interested. My focus is on what comes after. You have I am sure seen this opinion mocked, this is where my Chicken Little nickname comes from.

The one thing I don't doubt is that Hillary can win. Even after all this nonsense with her emails, she still leads. She has the best chance unless someone else comes out really strong of winning the WH for the democrats.

Clinton leads GOP field nationally, although down from February

The email stuff ain't going to work as well as you and others think it will. The story is already old and we are barely into campaign mode.

Her polling numbers have deteriorated significantly over the last few months, and her handling of the E-mails is said to be the primary reason.

The trends actually favor the R's, The D's having driven away white voters at a much higher rate than they have added minority voters. Did you not notice all of the consternation on the R side about having trouble appealing to minorities vanished? The reason is for this next cycle it is not a problem, they have decided to stand pat because they are doing so well with whites that they should win. And they are very happy to be expecting to go against Hillary, because they are convinced that she is easy to beat, America already largely does not like or trust her. And she is a crappy politician.

Early numbers are hugely distorted by name recognition, which she has and the R's mostly do not. Even with Bush, people know that family but very little about him. One must know how to use polling numbers, which you clearly do not. Only an idiot would say over 18 months out "they lead in the polls, so they should win".

I should add that the D's are miscalculating because they have bought their own bullshit. The D's think that Whites are bolting because a D president is black, and whites hate blacks and that the election failure problem goes away when The Professor does. The truth is that very few whites care what race others are so long as others are not using their race to claim non existant victim stories as an excuse for not pulling their weight. Whites are not leaving because of their racism, they are leaving because the D's constantly support and encourage the victim story excuse making from the willfully lazy and willfully ignorant. Whites are turning against the D's because the D's no longer represent the American values of meritocracy and hard work to get ahead, and this will not be fixed until the D's stop selling victim culture, which they are no where near ready to do. It will take a extension of their string of election losses before they wake up and smell the coffee. Almost always only pain remedies willful ignorance, the choice to reside in FantasyLand, and election pain will be the remedy here.

It's stuff like this that seriously makes me question your sanity. How can you, with a straight face, saythat government is the solution? They could **** up a free lunch...AND THEY HAVE!

Learn to read...then post.

I never said the government is the solution.

But the notion that government is not part of the solution...but is the problem...is an abomination...and is causing our country to go further and further into chaos and being ungovernable.

A society NEEDS to have government...and to suggest that we not have government is to advocate anarchy.

Yes, we need to make our government more efficient. But the kind of thing that Ronald Reagan did to the idea of governance is an absolute low for any president.

Sorry you cannot see that, John...and sorry so many others cannot either. Reagan was effective in screwing our country...I will give him that.

Robert Reich -- Hillary "cannot run on being the first woman to be president..."
"A presidential candidate cannot run on being the first woman to be president, because that is not a platform. It does not tell the nation what she will do to respond to the nation’s needs. It also contradicts the underlying premise that a woman can do the job quite as well as a man and therefore gender should not matter. If gender should not matter, then, logically, a campaign cannot be based on gender. Hillary Clinton must make the case for why she should be president based on where she wants to lead the nation, and why, just as any man running for president must do. And that case must be made starting from the moment she declares her candidacy.

Encyclopedia > Social Sciences and the Law > Economics, Business, and Labor > Labor
closed shop and open shop

closed shop and open shop. The term "closed shop" is used to signify an establishment employing only members of a labor union. The union shop, a closely allied term, indicates a company where employees do not have to belong to a labor union when hired but are required to join within a specified period of time in order to keep their jobs. An open shop, strictly speaking, is one that does not restrict its employees to union members. Among European workers the issue of the closed shop has not been so sharply contested as in the United States, where since c.1840 the closed-shop policy had been adopted by most labor unions. Judicial decisions from 1850 to 1898 usually decided that strikes held to achieve a closed shop were illegal. For a period of time after the passage of the Wagner Act (see National Labor Relations Board) in 1935, decisions of the federal courts tended to uphold the legality of the closed shop. Many states, however, either by legislation or by court decision, have banned the closed shop. In 1947 the Taft-Hartley Labor Act declared the closed shop illegal and union shops were also prohibited unless authorized in a secret poll by a majority of the workers; it was amended (1951) to allow union shops without a vote of the majority of the workers. Thereafter, a campaign was begun by business leaders in certain industries to have so-called right-to-work laws enacted at the state level. More than one third of the states passed such laws, the effect being to declare the union shop illegal. It is argued in favor of the closed shop that unions can win a fair return for their labor only through solidarity, since there is always—except in wartime—an oversupply of labor; and that, since all employees of a plant share in the advantages won through collective bargaining, all workers should contribute to union funds. Arguments in favor of the open shop are that forcing unwilling workers to pay union dues is an infringement of their rights; that union membership is sometimes closed to certain workers or the initiation fee so high as to be an effective bar to membership; and that employers are deprived of the privilege of hiring competent workers or firing incompetent ones.

See J. E. Johnsen, comp., The Closed Shop (1942), a summary of the arguments on both sides; J. R. Dempsey, The Operation of the Right to Work Laws (1958, repr. 1961); W. E. J. McCarthy, The Closed Shop in Britain (1964).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Rick Perry: I’m a Card-Carrying Member of the AFL-CIO

The Associated Press

by Sarah Rumpf9 Jan 20150

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Governor Rick Perry told a conservative conference on Friday that he is a dues-paying, card-carrying member of the AFL-CIO labor union, as part of a larger discussion about successful Republican messaging strategies.

Perry made the comments as one of the keynote speakers at the closing lunch at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s (TPPF) annual Policy Orientation for the Texas Legislature conference, where he was joined by former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore.

Widely assumed to be preparing for a second Presidential campaign, Perry spoke about reaching out to groups that historically have not voted for Republicans. Perry said that, like Ronald Reagan, he had been able to win votes and endorsements from the Teamsters, because of his efforts to reach out on economic issues that connected with their members.

Perry then mentioned that he still has an AFL-CIO membership. Reminding the audience that he used to be a Democrat, Perry said that he had joined the AFL-CIO and had maintained his membership, joking that the union may not like it when they receive his dues payment.

Perry continued, saying that he kept his union membership because he felt that the economic and job creation issues were critical to political success for conservatives, and he was not willing to cede those votes. “When you reach out the Teamsters and you talk about job creation, when you talk to a young Hispanic family…about why their future looks so bright…about where their children are going to go to college, because of policies that you as Republicans put in place in this state,” then that is a winning message.

Republicans should not focus on the social issues that can divide people, but instead hit the issues that “touch people’s hearts…regardless of where you’re from or what your political affiliation may have used to have been.” Perry advocated emphasizing Republican policies that make Americans think about “a future where my family has a better future,” communicated in a passionate, compassionate way. “That ought to be our goal, to talk to people reasonably” about these issues, said Perry.

Perry later mentioned the union issue again later during the discussion, when talking about what he thinks the priorities should be for the new Republican-controlled Congress. Among the top issues on his list was opening the Keystone XL pipeline. “Let [Obama] explain to his Teamsters supporters,” why he would kill those jobs by killing the pipeline, said Perry. “Let the President explain that.”

[Disclosure: Sarah Rumpf was previously employed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation.]

Follow Sarah Rumpf on Twitter @rumpfshaker.

Hillary Clinton To Nation: ‘Do Not **** This Up For Me’
WASHINGTON—After several seconds spent sitting motionless and glaring directly into the camera, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly began Sunday’s video announcing her 2016 presidential bid by warning the nation not to **** this up for her. “Listen up, assholes, ’cause I’m only saying this once: I’ve worked way too goddamn hard to let you morons blow this thing for me,” said Clinton, repeatedly jabbing her index finger toward the viewers at home while adding that if they thought she was going to simply sit back and watch them dick her over like they did in 2008, they were out of their ******* minds. “Seriously, don’t you dare even think about it. If you shitheads can just get in line, we can breeze through this whole campaign in 19 months and be done with it. Or, if you really want, we can do this the hard way. Because make no mistake, I’m not ******* around. Got it?” Clinton then ended her announcement by vowing to fight for a better future for all working-class families like the one she grew up in.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-****-this-up-for,38416/

Former Republican Says No One Who Voted for the Iraq War Should Be President—Including Hillary Clinton

By John Nichols April 10
http://www.thenation.com/blog/203945/ready-hillary-pointed-objection-her-iraq-war-record

Lincoln Chafee just went there, as only Lincoln Chafee could.

The former Republican senator and independent governor of Rhode Island, who is very seriously exploring the prospect of challenging Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, said Iraq should be an issue.
Then Chafee got specific. He brought up the votes that he and Clinton cast in 2002, as members of the US Senate, on whether to authorize President Bush and Vice President Cheney to steer the United States toward war with Iraq.
Chafee, then sitting as a Republican, voted with Senators Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, and twenty others to block the rush to war.
Clinton, sitting as a Democrat, voted with Senator John McCain and 75 others to give Bush and Cheney their blank check.
Chafee calls that Clinton’s vote “the biggest mistake of many” on issues of foreign policy by the presumed frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic nomination.


But even those who support Clinton should recognize the lesson of 2008: “Inevitability” does not always translate into reality. And Democrats who believe Clinton will be their nominee should recognize something else: She will face questions about her record. Those questions will either come in a spirited primary process, or they will come in a fall race with a Republican. Lincoln Chafee is raising the toughest questions now. That is not merely appropriate, that is practical and necessary—for Clinton and for the Democratic Party.


I see this as very important from a couple of different aspects. One as John Nichols mentions above, H. Clinton will sooner or later, have to come to terms with her decision in 2002 to join Sen McCain and other war hawks to give George Bush and Richard Cheney a blank check to destroy the country and people of Iraq for some reason yet to be explained. Those that capitulated to the Republicons and shrugged their duties to balance power and hold the Republicons back from waging a very costly war, must share the responsibility.
I think some are in denial about just how terrible this decision was and how horrible the consequences were.

The second reason I think this article is important is that it points out how the Democratic Party is shifting to the Right. With people like Arlen Specter and Lincoln Chafee, switching parties, it shows that they think their ideologies fit with the New Democrats, the Third Way Wing of the Party. It's a win-win for our corporate masters.
We need a strong two party system to have checks and balances. Now we are looking at a Third Way Conservative Democratic Party, with a disenfranchised Progressive Wing vs. the Clown Party.

Hillary??? WOW. You are like the king of denial...and I dont mean the river in Egypt.

The only ones that got screwed were the air traffic controlers and the commies...and both deserved it.

And all the rest of America!

You forgot about that group.

Thanks for proving my points.

http://nyti.ms/1FWwT7Q



my result

As an outsider I'm only really concerned with international issues, so that's the guy I want. Anyone who voted not to go to war, especially when he's in the same party as the warmongering president, gets my vote over someone who did the opposite.

There's probably lots of domestic reasons why Clinton would be a better choice, but I'm not interested in any of those.