22
   

Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 10:24 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
And she's conservative enough to be a Republican.


You know, at this point getting someone who is smart and willing to speak truth would be a win. And I want someone who puts America above party, and I think Warren would do that. I think Walker would too, but I am less confident about him. I would take Warren over Walker right now.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 10:30 am
@hawkeye10,
Sorry Hawk, Walker is part of the problem.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 10:36 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Sorry Hawk, Walker is part of the problem.
Why, because he has shrunk union political power? That is a win, any group that has power far exceeding their numbers is due for a shrinking. And America no longer supports unions, and for some very good reasons. What Walker did was the right thing to do according to the values that America claims to stand on. Now to be fair he needs to go after the power of the wealthy too, like Warren is willing to do. I dont know that he wont if given the chance, that is not something that can be done at the state level.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 01:38 pm
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 01:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Sorry Hawk, there's nothing to blame on the unions. The next state over, Minnesota, is the opposite of Wisconsin, especially when it comes to a healthy middle class. Lets don't forget, a lot union members are middle class and vote conservatively. Nixon and Reagan needed working class voters/middle class voters to get elected. Remember "Hard Hats for Nixon"?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 02:50 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Sorry Hawk, there's nothing to blame on the unions.

I reiterate...Anytime a group consistently has more power than their numbers would normally grant in a society of equals there is a problem, and they need to have their power pruned. Agreeing with a particular over powered groups agenda is neither here nor there. I was a union man for many years, I believe fully in the stated goals of unions, I think that we need more ability for labor to be compensated for their contributions, I decry the fact that something like 95% of the wealth generated by productivity gains of the last decade have flowed to the top 5% (dont remember exact numbers).....but still Walker was right to take a hatchet to union political power.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
I have a lot of problems in closed shop states, I was forced to join unions that were against my interests. The Teamsters and the Steel Workers(USW) and the Auto Workers(UAW). And a very good one, the AFL of CIO. It was a very good thing my grandfather had been a member of UMW when he was dying of black lung.

Even when I knew Fitzgibbons was making two salaries for filling two jobs I was never being screwed by unions as I was from wealthy owners. That's when I learned how to contract my services. I made myself a one member union in an industry with only 10 or so experts.

We need unions and Walker and Wisconsin needs to honor legal contracts openly negotiated with their employees' unions. My employers have always honored theirs with mine.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:16 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
We need unions and Walker and Wisconsin needs to honor legal contracts openly negotiated with their employees' unions. My employers have always honored theirs with mine.

That is pretty much not possible in any state, as states have promised back end pay and benefits that they will not have the funds to cover, and for which citizens will not allow to be attempted to be paid because there would be little money for currently needed services. Many states are currently working to tear up contracts to their workers, and the rest will follow. Blaming Walker for a wrong doing is naive, he did what any responsible Governor would do. Dont blame him for cleaning up the mess the irresponsible people who sat in the chair before him left behind.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
You raise EFFECTIVE taxes back to what they were in Clintons years and its all hunky dory for everyone, including the wealthy.

Walker's problems, like Scott's, Peaces, Brownback, Johnson, Pennsylvania didn't start until he started cutting taxes. Shortfalls brought on austerity which brought on a failing economy.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:28 pm
Back to the title of the thread .... I take it Nancy Reagan isn't a progressive
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:30 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

You raise EFFECTIVE taxes back to what they were in Clintons years and its all hunky dory for everyone, including the wealthy.


Wrong, the Clinton years were built upon a bubble, the tech bubble, as well as the start of financial deregulation that lead eventually to disaster, and that has a 99% chance of being a direct contributor to the next depression....the GDP was irresponsibly juiced, and much more dangerously than what Reagan did.

Tax rates need to be much higher than they were during the Clinton years. And remember that 43% of americans pay no federal income tax, it is down a bit but needs to go much lower.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:37 pm
@ehBeth,
I don't know. She was into a certain amount of wooooo.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 03:38 pm
@hawkeye10,
I saw that Beth....Hillary Clinton can be counted on to call for two chicken for every pot,having a plan for responsible procurement not so much.

She will say anything and she can not be counted on to keep her word or to have sensible sustainable plans for getting the candy she wants to hand out, which the R's will be only too happy to point out.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 04:15 pm
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 04:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Uh ohhh...Hawk is going to charge Hillary, an American Politician, with lying and failing to keep promises.

Oh what shall we do that the nation has fallen to this.

This is the only politician in Washington doing this, right, Hawk?

Or at least...almost all of the other ones are not doing it, right, Hawk?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 04:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
In Game of Thrones Littlefinger tells a whore that all the men know why they are in the brothel, they know that they are engaged in fee for service, that what goes on is not real. He tells her that her job is to be so convincing at faking passion that he forgets this, to make sure that he walks away thinking that his dick produced all of that passion from her. This talent is what marks a top shelf whore.

Same thing with politicians. But Hillary cant do this for most people, she is not that good at this game, all many/most of us see is a lying scheming politician. And she is going to be president the D bosses think? No way no how, unless the R's are even more stupid, which is possible. The fact that she has never accomplished much of anything, that her last run at the chair imploded and that she got beat convincingly by a nobody who can talk good and had a more popular color of skin should have been a clue. Apparently not.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 04:40 pm

Andy Borowitz
BROOKLYN – Hillary Clinton will announce her candidacy for President on Sunday with a five-minute video consisting entirely of a freeze frame of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Clinton neither appears nor speaks in the five-minute video, allowing the brooding image of Cruz to burn itself into the viewer’s consciousness before the screen fades to black. A Clinton aide said that the video had been tested extensively with focus groups of voters, who found the commercial “terrifying, but effective.” Following her announcement on Sunday, Clinton will visit the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, where she will appear at campaign events with life-size holograms of Scott Walker and Rand Paul.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 04:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
It will do wonders to brand her as a bitch. Hard core D's might like it, the independents that she would need to get elected however will not.

As per usual Hillary proves to be tone deaf.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 05:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Game of Thrones, eh?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2015 05:35 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Some pretty good insights on a lot of the darker sides of the human ego and condition, which we usually either refuse to talk about or lie to ourselves about. The candor is refreshing.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 05:03:28