25
   

Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 10:14 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Remember, there was a time when your country thought that the Labor Party would never have considerable standing.


It was called the 19th Century? Is that where you're saying you are?


Whatever it was called...it was.

Are you constipated today?

You sound like you might be.
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 12:48 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
That's the thing about Nixon. If he had not expanded the war in Vietnam and made war on the peace movement, I could have almost voted for him myself.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 12:55 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I would like to check the source behind this table. Freebeacon.com isn't citing any. Do you happen to know it?
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 01:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Whenever you start to look stupid, you start accusing people of suffering from all sorts of ailments/emotional outbursts.

There's a definite pattern.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 01:34 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Whenever you start to look stupid, you start accusing people of suffering from all sorts of ailments/emotional outbursts.

There's a definite pattern.


So...is that a "yes?"

You sure sound as though you really need to take a serious dump, Izzy.

Go do it.


http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/166/1208471093_1.jpg
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 01:38 pm
@Thomas,
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000019


(google is your friend)
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Feb, 2015 07:42 pm
@ehBeth,
Thanks!
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 09:09 am
@edgarblythe,
Its taken time for me to look at Nixon fairly. I loathed him. But the fact is he was a progressive bipartisan President in spite of his personal foibles.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 09:11 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Its taken time for me to look at Nixon fairly. I loathed him. But the fact is he was a progressive bipartisan President in spite of his personal foibles.


Amen.

0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 09:21 am
@Thomas,
Harris Polls. This information could be found by searching "Hillary Clinton campaign contributors".
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2015 11:04 pm
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10999897_942108589147753_7157276088772437809_n.jpg?oh=de921dda302e6852b83f85947893e715&oe=558597D0
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2015 07:00 am
@Lustig Andrei,
The only thing that could explain the 2014 elections!
0 Replies
 
Nark Mobble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 10:41 pm

Glenn Greenwald blasts Hillary Clinton: “The ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption”
Salon
2/23/15

Calling Hillary Clinton “the ultimate guardian” of a broken political system, The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald on Monday lamented that her likely nomination as the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential candidate will prevent a real debate on issues like National Security Agency spying.

...“When the leadership of both parties join together – as they so often do, despite the myths to the contrary – those issues disappear from mainstream public debate,” Greenwald wrote, noting that President Obama, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Speaker John Boehner joined forces to block legislation killing the NSA’s metadata program after whistleblower Edward Snowden laid bare the scale of the agency’s surveillance operations.

That legislation, Greenwald pointed out, was introduced by Tea Party conservative Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and liberal stalwart Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), underscoring that the debate boils down more to “insider v. outsider” than Democrats versus Republicans.....

...“That’s why the Dem efforts to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination without contest are so depressing,” Greenwald continued. “She’s the ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption, and no debate will happen if she’s the nominee against some standard Romney/Bush-type GOP candidate. Some genuine dissenting force is crucial.”...

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/23/glenn_greenwald_blasts_hillary_clinton_the_ultimate_guardian_of_bipartisan_status_quo_corruption/
0 Replies
 
Nark Mobble
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2015 11:20 pm
Salt of the Earth Hillary Clinton wants $300,000 from you PLUS your vote

The savior of the middle class wants your vote. And she'll only charge you $300,000 to hear why (oh why) you should vote for her.


The Washington Post used a Freedom of Information Act request to get an inside look at just what it takes to get Hillary Clinton to come speak at your university. First of all, there’s the matter of cash: a cool $300,000, which is apparently the “special university rate.” That is the answer UCLA received when it asked whether the public university could get some sort of discount. Undeterred by the price tag, the university moved forward with booking the former secretary of state. Yet the cash was hardly all the university had to put forward as booking the presidential hopeful involved a string of requests that kept organizers busy until she delivered he Luskin Lecture for Thought Leadership speech on March 5, 2014.

The university had decided to award the former secretary of state the UCLA medal. But in a clear example of how carefully Clinton’s people stage-manage her appearances, they asked that the medal be presented in a box rather than draped around her neck. Other demands included:

On the stage: lemon wedges, room temperature water, a carafe of warm/hot water, coffee cup and saucer
A computer, mouse, printer and scanner
Spread of hummus
Chairs with two long, rectangular pillows and two cushions to be kept backstage in case the former secretary of state “needed additional back support”

A teleprompter and “2-3 downstage scrolling monitors”
A special podium (her team rejected the podium that had been set up for her use)
Coffee
Tea
Room-temperature sparkling and still water
Diet ginger ale
Crudité
Sliced fruit
Approval for any promotional materials
Recording is permitted “for archival purposes” and only a two-minute highlight video can be uploaded to YouTube
“Prestaged” group photos so that Clinton doesn’t have to wait “for these folks to get their act together.” The former secretary of state “doesn’t like to stand around waiting for people.”

A Clinton spokesman refused to comment on the demands.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/27/hillary_clinton_speaking_demands.html



Now admittedly, he's hardly as accomplished and important of a figure as Hillary, but just for reference:

Jimmy Carter
Fee: $50,000
Topics: Healthcare, Government & Politics, Retirement/Aging
Travels from: GA
http://www.inspiringspeakers.com/superstar-carter-jimmy.shtml
0 Replies
 
Nark Mobble
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 07:43 am
Elizabeth Warren Is Waiting To See Just How Progressive Hillary Clinton Is
Elizabeth Warren Is Waiting To See Just How Progressive Hillary Clinton Is
2/24/2015

Liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that she's waiting to see how progressive a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would be.

Asked by the Rev. Al Sharpton on MSNBC's "Politics Nation" whether Clinton would be a "progressive warrior," Warren didn't exactly give a ringing endorsement.

"You know, I think that's what we gotta see," Warren said. "I want to hear what she wants to run on and what she says she wants to do. That's what campaigns are supposed to be about."

Warren's comments follow her private meeting with Clinton in December, when Clinton asked Warren for policy recommendations, The New York Times reported....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/elizabeth-warren-hillary-clinton_n_6748588.html


Well, this is one of the few times I disagree with Elizabeth, because we all know now that people can talk & run as progressives during campaigns while actually being Third Way Centrist corporate tools.

But at least she didn't endorse HRC just yet. And I hope down the road, Elizabeth doesn't say, "Oh look, Hillary actually IS progressive, look at all she's said that sounds so progressive..."

Time will tell!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 08:03 am
@Nark Mobble,
Sounds like you are hoping the Democrats will put forth their "Barry Goldwater" candidate, Nark.

I guess you think that the SCOTUS is not skewed enough to the right yet.

The question your posts raise for me is: Are you an extremist conservative plant...hoping to get the Democrats to jump off a cliff?
Nark Mobble
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 08:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Not at all. If Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her. But she needs to stand in the light and show us who she is.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 09:30 am
@Nark Mobble,
Nark Mobble wrote:

Not at all. If Hillary gets the nod, I'll vote for her. But she needs to stand in the light and show us who she is.


Glad to hear that, Nark.

I suggest she is standing in the light...and what she is saying she is...is exactly what she is.

She is not going to change the world...nor the United States. She is not going to be a firebrand...because a firebrand is going nowhere these days. She is going to work within the system...and she is going to do the same kinds of things presidents have done throughout the history of the country..namely, to make decisions that some of the people will applaud...and some will consider to be coming from the depths of Hell.

She will be on the left of the American political center...aiming to protect and expand, where humanly possible, the safety net programs that are so vital.

She will not change the dynamic of the rich getting richer and the rest of us not keeping pace. That, Nark, is now beyond the ability of any president...and, in my opinion, beyond the ability of any congress that can now be voted in.

We are in a bad space right now. We have to make the best of it. In my opinion, aiming for perfection is not the road we should be on. Better to be on the road to the best that can be obtained considering the vile, toxic environment in which politicians must work right now.


revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 10:03 am
@Frank Apisa,
I agree with you to some extent, I just wish someone else would show up I had confidence in, more than that, I wish we would take the house and senate as well. I could even take a truly moderate republican president capable of compromise if we had congress. I can not see Warren getting elected by most middle of the road voters unless she shows she is not too leftist. Clinton is a moderate democrat but for one thing there is too much baggage for republicans to ever like her. I can't believe we may be having a Clinton/Bush election cycle again.

I changed my mind on Bush, read some articles, he seems a little too connected to the oil industry.

Jeb Bush facing questions over claims he urged businesses to invest in fracking – while he stood to personally profit via private equity group

Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2015 10:47 am
@Nark Mobble,
Not so fast. Technically, we don't even know if she even wants to run yet.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/21/2020 at 04:18:10